1 Wednesday, 16 January 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.18 p.m.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Registrar, would you
6 please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is case number
8 IT-04-74-T, the Prosecutor versus Jadranko Prlic et al.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Madam Registrar.
10 It is Wednesday, 16th of January, 2008. I'd like to greet the
11 Prosecution, Defence counsel, as well as all the accused present today. I
12 would also like to greet everybody else in and around the courtroom.
13 I believe Ms. Alaburic still has eight minutes. Let's have the
14 witness brought in, please.
15 The Chamber had a problem with the time left for Pusic and Coric.
16 I believe that we understood that Mr. Pusic had ceded all his time, but we
17 didn't know about the other accused. So I'm turning towards the Defence
18 counsel. What can be said about it?
19 MR. PLAVEC: [Interpretation]: Your Honour, the Defence of
20 Mr. Coric cedes its time to the Petkovic defence and to the Praljak
21 defence as well, all its time.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Ibrisimovic.
23 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. If I
24 might explain in order to avoid any misunderstanding. We ceded our time
25 to the Defence of Mr. Petkovic, all our time. We didn't deal with the
1 Coric Defence.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Very well.
3 Mr. Coric had 40 minutes. This time is ceded to the other Defence
4 counsel. However, we have Mrs. Alaburic left only if I understood
6 Mrs. Alaburic, how much time are you going to need?
7 [The witness entered court]
8 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, good afternoon to
9 you. I think that I will complete my cross-examination within the next 10
10 minutes or so, and I have cut short my cross-examination due to the
11 circumstances so that the rest of the time can be used by the Praljak
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Please continue
15 WITNESS: CEDRIC THORNBERRY [Resumed]
16 Cross-examination by Ms. Alaburic: [Continued]
17 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Thornberry. Unfortunately,
18 we just have a little more time to carry on our discussion. We looked at
19 the transcript yesterday from the meeting of the Bosnia-Herzegovinian
20 Presidency and I'm going to summarise the part that I wanted to read out.
21 "In continuation, Mr. Alija Izetbegovic, when taking the floor, summarised
22 and said that the army of Republika Srpska was too strong both with
23 respect to the number of men it had and with regard to the technical
24 equipment it had at its disposal and that the BH army, that it could rout
25 the army, and that is why the Muslim side was forced to accept some sort
1 of peaceful solution which otherwise it would not be willing to do, a
2 peaceful solution which would not lead to a united unitary
3 Bosnia-Herzegovina which was the political goal of Alija Izetbegovic and
4 the Muslim side in the conflict."
5 Now, my question to you is this: Did you know -- were you aware
6 that the Muslim side in the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina considered the
7 Serb army too strong to stand up to, but that it also considered that it
8 was superior in relation to the HVO and that if it entered into a conflict
9 with the HVO it could achieve its territorial goals in Bosnia-Herzegovina?
10 A. I'm sorry, what are -- what is the question, please?
11 Q. The question was probably too long. Let me repeat it again. My
12 question is this: Were you aware that the Muslim side in the conflict in
13 Bosnia-Herzegovina considered the Serbs to be too strong to stand up to,
14 but that on the other hand, it thought that it could realise its
15 territorial ambitions, or some of them, in confronting the Croatian
16 Defence Council?
17 A. I think I would answer in the affirmative to both questions.
18 MR. STRINGER: Excuse me. Could I just ask counsel for a
19 reference to the page number of the transcript that -- that was just being
20 referred to.
21 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] They are contained on page 20 of
22 the transcript, where an extensive explanation is given about the Serb
23 army, how many thousand soldiers, how many artillery pieces, how many
24 tanks and so on. And in other parts of the transcript, particularly at
25 the beginning, we can see the relationship towards the Croats.
1 Q. But, Mr. Thornberry, let us now take a look at another document.
2 It's an UNPROFOR document which will help us clarify what it was exactly
3 that the BH army wanted, at least when it came to territory.
4 Now, look at my set of documents, please, and the number of the
5 document I'd like you to look at is P 5033.
6 A. 5033. I have it.
7 Q. Fine. Tell me, please, Mr. Thornberry, do you recognise the
8 document? And from the heading we can see that it is a document sent to
9 you, and it was sent by Mr. Ed Joseph. Do you remember the document
11 A. I'm sorry, I've lost the document itself. I thought I had it in
12 my hand, but -- yes, if I could have the assistance.
13 Q. Let's first of all see whether you remember the document since it
14 was addressed to you as it says in the document itself on the title page.
15 A. It would take me 40 minutes to read through the whole of this
16 document from Ed Joseph. I'm sorry. Would you like me to do that?
17 Q. No, no, Witness, that won't be necessary. All I wanted was for
18 you to confirm that the document was indeed sent to you.
19 Now, the document is a note about meetings, as it says in the
20 introductory part, with the military commanders in Mostar, meetings with
21 Mostar military commanders, Miljenko Lasic from the HVO, and Mr. Pasalic
22 from the BH army.
23 Now, I'm interested in Mr. Pasalic. So would you please take a
24 look at paragraph 11 of this document now, please. Paragraph 11 of the
25 document says what Pasalic stated, who said access to the sea under
1 Bosnian control is considered vital. Pasalic does not pay too much
2 attention to the guaranteed corridors by the international community even
3 if there were American troops on the ground.
4 Now, tell us, Mr. Thornberry, please, did you have other
5 information to the effect that the BH army considered the break through of
6 the corridor to the Adriatic Sea, which would be under its control as its
7 priority in September of 1993?
8 A. Well, I don't know what its priority might be. That was for them
9 to determine. Broadly speaking, however, in paragraph 11 this seems --
10 I'm not sure that I would use the same language perhaps, but I think that
11 it is an accurate statement, broadly speaking, of the longer-term strategy
12 of those involved.
13 Q. In what we've just read out, mention is made of American troops on
14 the ground. Now, based on your knowledge, the arrival of American troops
15 in the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina, was that indeed an option for
16 resolving the crisis in BH?
17 A. Not that I heard. There were, of course, as you certainly knew --
18 there is now a detachment of United States troops, but that is elsewhere
19 within the region, but it came as a result of overall planning on the part
20 of several leaders.
21 Q. Very well. Thank you. Now take a look at the last point in this
22 document, or paragraph. It's number 17 where it says after mentioning
23 that the Serbs have a vested interest in the outcome in southern
24 Bosnia-Herzegovina, Pasalic admitted that the Chetniks could help the
1 Tell us, please, Witness, did you know -- or, rather, let's start
2 off by asking you, do you know who the Chetniks are as it -- as they are
3 mentioned in this paragraph, paragraph 17?
4 A. I have an idea, yes. But unfortunately, I don't know whether it's
5 me or whether it's the documents -- I can't find a -- with a paragraph of
6 that -- with that number. I have 16. Is it -- is it a paragraph 16?
7 Q. I apologise. I was reading from the Croatian text, and the
8 numbers are different. I've just taken a look at the English text and
9 that's true. It is paragraph 16.
10 Now, you say you do have some idea of who the Chetniks were. Tell
11 me, did Mr. Pasalic mean the Serbs when he said "Chetniks"?
12 A. I don't know. You'd have to ask him had.
13 Q. Have you ever heard of the term or concept "Chetniks"?
14 A. Yes, a few times.
15 Q. Can you tell us how you understood this term?
16 A. I understood the term to refer to probably Serb irregular troops.
17 Q. Very well. Let's assume that Mr. Pasalic, when he said"Chetniks,"
18 meant to say the Armija of Republika Srpska or, rather, the Serbs. Now,
19 I'd like you to help us out and help us establish the following: Did you
20 know that the army of Republika Srpska, or Pasalic -- as Pasalic calls
21 them, the Chetniks, helped the BH army in certain combat operations in
22 Herzegovina in -- in September 1993?
23 A. I had heard that story. I didn't know whether it was true or not
24 but again I suggest you ask them. I wouldn't want to commit myself on
25 this subject without hearing what their intent was.
1 Q. Unfortunately, even if we wanted to hear Mr. Pasalic, we couldn't.
2 Mr. Thornberry, thank you for your answers, and I'd like to inform the
3 Trial Chamber that that completes my cross-examination. Thank you.
4 A. Thank you.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Praljak's
6 Defence counsel will have 40 minutes plus 40 minutes ceded as it seems by
7 Coric's Defence counsel.
8 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
9 Cross-examination by Mr. Kovacic:
10 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Witness. Good afternoon to
11 everybody in the courtroom.
12 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I will start the
13 cross-examination off, and in a while I'll table a request to allow
14 General Praljak to carry on the cross-examination and why you should allow
15 him to do so in line with or contrary to your ruling of May last year.
16 Q. Now, Mr. Thornberry, during your testimony here over the past two
17 days, several times you made some assessments which I'd like to summarise
18 by stating some of the characteristic words. I think you said that the
19 situation was one of confusion several times, that the situation was
20 bizarre. That was on page 18 of yesterday's transcript, for example, that
21 not everything was as it seemed. For the record that's on page 24 of
22 yesterday's transcript. And similar assessments. I think that you
23 describe that in very clear terms.
24 Now, with respect to the confusion that existed, I would like to
25 ask you a question. Was that only your opinion? Did you -- was it only
1 you that felt this confusion and that nothing was as it seemed at first
2 glance, or do you believe, or perhaps do you know that other foreign
3 observers, monitors, and I'm thinking of your colleagues from UNPROFOR
4 first and foremost, as well as those from the ECMM, that those people from
5 that circle of the international community shared your opinion? Did they?
6 Were others conscious of the fact that this was a state of confusion and
7 that it was difficult to make any clear-cut conclusions?
8 Could you explain that a little to us, please?
9 A. Well, let me try. I think that my colleagues in UNPROFOR probably
10 thought along similar lines to those indicated here. I certainly wouldn't
11 imagine that they agreed absolutely with them either when they were made
12 or later, because on the whole, United Nations personnel are rather
13 single-minded. So I don't -- I'm not sure that there would be that degree
14 of consensus. Not to begin with in any event. Later, when we'd had a
15 chance to talk things out, then there might have been a little bit more
17 I'm not sure. Was there, sir, another question within that?
18 Q. No. Thank you. I think that you answered my question in very
19 precise terms.
20 I'd like now to touch upon your statement for a moment, the one
21 you gave to the Prosecutor. It is P 10041, and it will be tendered into
23 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'd just like to
24 explain in view of the limitations you set on us. I'd like to explain
25 that the -- that the Prosecution, as far as I understand their letter,
1 wishes to admit this under the subtitle of "the warring factions'
2 intentions towards Bosnia," beginning on page 11. However, as far as I
3 understand their letter, their previous letter, it is not their intention
4 to tender into evidence the introductory paragraph which begins on page 10
5 and goes on to page 11. And looking at the text, I think that that is an
6 integral part of the text, because first of all we have "the UN mission in
7 Bosnia-Herzegovina," a broader heading, and then going down to specifics
8 "The warring factions' intentions towards Bosnia."
9 Q. On page 11 of your statement, Mr. Thornberry -- have you got that
10 to hand? I'd like to draw your attention to paragraphs 39 and 40. First
11 of all, in paragraph 39, as far as I understand your statement, you in
12 fact state expressly that you did not pay any special attention to the
13 events in Bosnia and Herzegovina until the beginning of 1993, and from the
14 rest of your statement we come to understand that that is because you were
15 more focused on UNPA zones in Croatia. Do you stand by that statement?
16 A. I think I used the phrase "significant attention." It might be
17 slightly overstated because I'm referring here to Bosnia and Herzegovina
18 and that there had been significant -- not significant attention to them.
19 It's not -- I wouldn't -- I wouldn't use this phrase, actually, if
20 I were beginning again. It's too strong, it's too blunt, and I would
21 rather see it having been expressed in a more nuanced way.
22 Q. Very well. Would the following formulation correspond to that,
23 and that's how -- how I understand it: Until early 1993, the events in
24 Bosnia-Herzegovina, within the frameworks of the job you had to do there,
25 were not in the focus of your attention. They weren't primary to you, if
1 I can put it that way. Would you agree with that definition of mine? On
2 the basis of what you've just told me.
3 A. Very nearly, sir, very nearly.
4 Q. Very well. Thank you. From this statement further on, and from
5 what you've been telling us over the past two days here, you travelled for
6 the first time to Bosnia personally in August 1993, as you've told us;
8 A. Well, if I've told you that, then I'm sorry, it's not correct,
9 because the leadership of the UNPROFOR, first of all, went to -- to
10 Bosnia, and also I remember, I think -- well, we certainly went to Bosnia,
11 and -- and for a while there was a lot of movement to and fro across the
12 lines to a -- to a substantial degree, because you -- we were, you see,
13 setting up a mission, and it -- it requires different kind of work than if
14 one is taking over a mission and running it then. This -- this
15 formulation, again I -- I find it a little bit too blunt, and because of
16 that bluntness it loses some of its meaning, I think.
17 Q. Thank you. Perhaps I wasn't precise enough. From these exhibits,
18 the ones we've seen so far without a doubt UNPROFOR as an institution was
19 present, but I would like -- I wanted to ask about you personally. Did
20 you personally go before August?
21 A. Yes. I went there about the 14th or 15th of March.
22 Q. Very well. So you were there in March. I seem to think that you
23 were there in June as well. And then in August.
24 A. It's very likely that I was there in June and certain that I was
25 there in August, but --
1 Q. Very well. Thank you. Now, in the next paragraph, I'd like to
2 draw attention to your is second sentence -- or, rather, the last sentence
3 in that paragraph where you say that it was your impression that "we," and
4 I think you mean UNPROFOR, "did not understand very much of the
5 situation..." and you go on to say, "... My experience told me not to
6 believe what was being reported fully, rather, I needed to see things for
8 Now, would that be correct? Have I interpreted what you say in
9 your report correctly?
10 A. I think so, yes. I think that probably is fairly accurate.
11 Q. Thank you very much. Witness, maybe just a couple of points for
12 clarification purposes. On the first day of your examination, at page 32
13 of the transcript, at one point when you describe the circumstances of the
14 visit to the hospital, I believe, you said that the children had been
15 frequent targets of unidentified snipers. Could you please explain this?
16 Was this your personal assessment? What was this based on? Was it based
17 on the information that you received from the people you talked to, or
18 perhaps did you yourself witness any such incidents in which children were
19 deliberately targeted by anyone, any side?
20 A. Well, it's very difficult to say deliberately. There would have
21 to be a big gap for -- to fill in there, but the information that I had
22 was not based upon what I saw or heard or whatever, but, rather, upon what
23 very senior people, very experienced people, who had been in the area for
24 some time, what they told me when I sought briefings from them, because
25 UNPROFOR, as you know, was a very big organisation even in its first six
1 months, and it was doing a great deal of information gathering, and I
2 think I was seeking to make the best value out of the information that
3 my -- my colleagues had. I was senior political advisor, and the
4 obligation was upon me.
5 Q. Thank you. So can I conclude then that you received this
6 information indirectly? This was second-hand information that you
7 received from your people on the ground, to simplify matters. And just
8 one more question to get a really clear picture.
9 Do you perhaps remember any piece of information, any report that
10 you received from your people on the ground where they spoke about a
11 specific incident, today at 12.00 at such-and-such location, or did those
12 reports also contain merely assessments or opinions to the fact that
13 children someplace -- I mean, it is well -- a well-known fact that
14 children were casualties of war, but that they were actually targeted?
15 A. According to surgeons at the hospital in Mostar, there was a very
16 cruel practice of targeting young people, children, but not only, not
17 only. It was a much more widespread problem. And as you say, it was
18 largely based on hearsay that I arrived at those conclusions, but I was
19 confident in my mind that they were true given the sources that they came
21 Q. Fine. To clarify things, then, since you visited two hospitals in
22 Mostar, first the one in West Mostar, and I think that we also saw some
23 children on the footage there, and then you went on to visit the hospital
24 in East Mostar, did you hear that on both sides or in just one of those
25 hospitals? Well, it's a very simple answer. I know, I don't know, I
1 can't remember. I know that it's difficult to perhaps recall some things.
2 If you can't recall it, then so be it.
3 A. After X number of years I'm afraid I have to concede that I don't
4 remember whether I was told this on one side or the other side of the
5 Neretva River.
6 Q. Thank you. Your Honours, I don't want to go into any more details
7 because of the limited topic that we're exploring, but I would like to
8 move that my client, the accused Mr. Praljak, be allowed to ask some
9 questions bearing in mind your decision of the 10th of May last year. Let
10 me remind you that Mr. Praljak was in the field at that time. We saw a
11 video clip proving that Mr. Praljak was there. He was a participant of
12 some of the events that this witness was talking about, quite specifically
13 the passage of the humanitarian convoy.
14 Questions will be based on the documents that the OTP planned to
15 tender through this witness, so they -- the questions are linked to the
16 topics. And this will be within the framework of the decision of the
17 Chamber restricting the cross-examination by the accused in this -- in
18 this trial. And I believe that Mr. Praljak is definitely qualified. He
19 has specific expert knowledge of the events and of the topics that we're
20 discussing here. So both of the conditions have been met to allow him to
21 cross-examine this witness.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The Trial Chamber
24 has deliberated and holds that Mr. Praljak may put questions to the
25 witness on issues relating to the convoys, because we have seen videos
1 where he intervened personally. So General Praljak can address the issue
2 of the convoys and meetings with the witness in the event that he did meet
3 the witness.
4 Cross-examination by the Accused Praljak:
5 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Thornberry.
6 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your
7 Honours. Of course I will not be using up all of the time because there
8 are not so many questions that remain to be asked. Some technical matters
9 are left to be examined regarding the convoy and the documents about the
10 convoy. I will not be going any further from that topic. I will start
11 with the convoy, but I will move on from that too.
12 Q. Mr. Thornberry, there is a document with the number -- a document
13 about a meeting in Makarska. It was a big meeting. This is document
14 P 04027. There's no need for you to go looking for this document. It's
15 there just for the record. It's P 04027. It's the meeting in Makarska
16 where an agreement was reached. Let me just check the date. The date is
17 the 8th of August, 1993.
18 Were you aware of that meeting, and were you aware of the fact
19 that that unimpeded passage of convoys through all the areas under HVO
20 control at that time was agreed at that meeting?
21 A. I don't -- sir, I don't think I remember that particular meeting.
22 I don't want to be categorical because a number of things do come back
23 into my memory as we proceed.
24 Q. Fine. It doesn't the matter. According to document P 04027 a
25 meeting was held on the 8th of August in Makarska, and an agreement was
1 reached to let the convoys through. You arrived in Mostar later than
2 that. So my question to you is the following: Were you aware or are you
3 aware that after that meeting the convoys that were set up either in Split
4 or in Ploce or in Metkovic headed both towards Mostar and Central Bosnia,
5 but they had to go back because on the 13th of August the BH army launched
6 a strong offensive at Buna-Blagaj area to the south of Mostar? So there
7 was this big problem of the convoys always having to wait for such a long
8 time, but did your people who reported to you actually tell you that the
9 convoys that had headed out on the 11th, the 12th, had to turn back
10 because the BH army on the 13th of August cut off the road at Blagaj,
11 that's the famous Mostar -- the road leading to the sea from Mostar, and
12 that there was fierce fighting in that area in that time because the BH
13 army was trying to break through towards Stolac and Capljina?
14 I don't know. If you know that, please say so. If you don't know
15 that, I'll move on. Thank you.
16 A. Sir, I'm sorry to say I don't remember knowing that. I don't know
17 it about it -- I don't know about it now.
18 Q. Thank you very much for your answer. Regarding the convoys, could
19 we now look at document P 03858. Those are the press releases. We have
20 three such press releases. One is dated on the 21st of August, one the
21 20th of August, and the third one is dated the 19th of August. These are
22 all UNPROFOR press releases.
23 In those documents, as we will see in the 21st of August, 1993,
24 release, in the first passage it says the area that has for almost three
25 months been a no-go area for the United Nations and other humanitarian
1 agencies. So where we hear that for three months this area had been a
2 no-go area for any convoys. No convoys could go in.
3 Do you know that the first paragraph of this UNPROFOR press
4 release dated the 21st of August -- are you familiar with it?
5 A. Sir, will you forgive me just a moment, please, while we locate
6 those documents.
7 I have -- I have document 0079696.
8 Q. P 038 -- yeah, that's the one. It says in the first paragraph the
9 area, that's Mostar, "...an area that has been closed to the United
10 Nations and humanitarian agencies for almost three months." And in the
11 document under the same number, that is dated the 19th of August, in the
12 second paragraph we have the sentence: "This convoy of seven vehicles is
13 the first UNPROFOR convoy to get into the town over the past -- in the
14 past two months."
15 So from the same source we hear that this -- this same area was
16 not closed to UNPROFOR convoys for three months but for two months. But
17 at any rate, my question to you is the following: Were you told there
18 that the convoys -- Mr. Thornberry, please.
19 My question is as follows: Did those people who asked themselves
20 how long the convoys were unable to go there, did they tell you that until
21 the 30th of June, 1993, and we heard about that a lot here in courtroom,
22 this was when the BH army attacked Bijelo Polje and so on, that up until
23 that time convoys passed through Mostar on route to Central Bosnia and
24 that they were able to enter East Mostar? Did anyone tell you that tell
25 you that up until the 30th of June, up until the attack of the BH army on
1 the HVO, that the convoys were able to pass through Mostar and actually
2 enter into East Mostar?
3 A. I was not told that, speaking for myself. I don't think any of my
4 colleagues were informed of that. No, I can't -- I'm afraid I can't
5 recall that.
6 Q. Fine. It is my assumption that if it is indeed so that up until
7 the 30th of June, the convoys were able to pass through and enter into
8 Mostar, and then after the 13th [as interpreted] they were unable to do so
9 because of the fighting, that this would mean that the convoy that
10 entered -- entered into Mostar on the 20th and the 21st actually was the
11 first convoy after a month and some 20 days. But if you don't know about
12 that, then I'll move on.
13 A. I don't remember, certainly.
14 Q. Yes. Yes. Okay.
15 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Just a question with regard to the transcript.
16 On page 17, line 9, you speak of the 30th of June, and then line 10, after
17 the 13th. Was that what you said, or were you both times referring to the
19 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. I'm having some difficulty --
20 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Its --
21 THE WITNESS: -- documents.
22 JUDGE TRECHSEL: -- A question to Mr. Praljak actually.
23 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Your Honour my question was
24 whether Mr. Thornberry was aware that up until the 30th of August the
25 convoys passed through and entered Mostar, and then on the 11th of August,
1 August, after the meeting in Makarska, they headed out again and then they
2 were turned back because of the fighting. So the break lasted about a
3 month and ten days. And then after a month and 20 days the first convoy
4 went in.
5 So I was trying to clarify whether it was three months, as we can
6 read in the first press release, two months as we can read in the second
7 press release, or whether it was one month and 20 days. So I'm just
8 trying to ascertain whether it is actually true that the convoys were
9 unable to get into East Mostar for one month and 20 days, and for the most
10 part this was due to the fighting to BH army attacks, but Mr. Thornberry
11 was unable to assist me, and that -- we will have to explore that through
12 other witnesses. So this is what I wanted to check, the length of time
13 that convoys were unable to get in. Thank you very much.
14 Q. Mr. Thornberry, just one more detail that remained unclarified
15 from yesterday.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, the UNPROFOR press
17 release of the 21st of August where you were quoted, your name is on here,
18 and it is stated today, on the 21st of August, you visited East Mostar,
19 and this seems to indicate that so far the humanitarian aid agencies and
20 the United Nations had not been able to enter the city for three months.
21 As Mr. Praljak has told us that there was an ABiH attack on the
22 13th of August at Buna Blagaj what I would like to know is this. Whether
23 this press release, which is an UNPROFOR press release, seems to indicate
24 that the fact that the humanitarian aid convoys were unable to enter
25 Mostar, that this is due to the ABiH by because of its operation on the
1 ground prevented the convoy from entering the city.
2 What do you have to say to that, because the way it is phrased in
3 paragraph one does not actually state what the reason behind this is, why
4 the agencies and the UN were unable to enter Mostar for a period of three
5 months. Is it due to the HVO, to the ABiH, X, Y, Z? I don't know. What
6 can you tell us?
7 THE WITNESS: Well, thank you very much for that question. First
8 of all, I hadn't noticed that there was an inconsistency of that kind, and
9 there shouldn't have been, but it was written probably on someone's knee
10 in an APC or something like that. So the circumstances were probably not
11 very favourable.
12 What is, however, important, I think, is that the -- is that it is
13 known that the Spanish detachment, the one which went in first and went in
14 with seven APCs, that the Spanish had had a series of very unfortunate
15 events, and in the previous six weeks or two months, as a result of which
16 they themselves had prevented -- they had stopped themselves going through
17 into -- into Mostar centrally. That wasn't the only reason why they had
18 stopped. I was there myself for several days, and it didn't -- it rarely
19 seemed as if it were a normal entry, and there were -- there were
20 shelling, in fact, of the town while UNPROFOR's convoy was present on the
22 So, yes, you are quite right, there is this mistake, but no, I
23 don't think that that was the -- a determining factor in the situation.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Your answer doesn't shed much
25 light on my question. What I would like to know is this: Who was
1 preventing the UN agencies from entering Mostar, or who was preventing
2 UNPROFOR from entering Mostar, and you respond by saying that only the
3 Spanish Battalion was able to enter, but you did not tell me why the
4 Spanish Battalion did not enter the town. You cannot tell me why. What
5 is the reason?
6 THE WITNESS: Thank you. I think the reason is -- is to me fairly
7 clear. The circumstances of a bombardment in Mostar were pretty
8 compelling, and armoured personnel carriers, even armoured personnel
9 carriers avoided such conflicts. So although I understand and appreciate
10 and agree with part of Mr. President's statement -- question, I think the
11 issue was wider than that and the implications a bit wider also.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, you have the floor.
13 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Mr. Thornberry, just one more question in this regard. When you
15 got there did the UNPROFOR officers or the people who were there tell you
16 that throughout that time, from the fall of Bugojno and onwards, there was
17 a very strong offensive by the BH army going on from the Central Bosnia
18 area to Mostar? And the Judges have already heard about that. So that
19 this whole story after the 30th of June was in fact marked by fierce
20 fighting on a front line that extended from Uscoplje, Bugojno, all the way
21 south to Mostar, 200 kilometres or so of the front line, where the BH army
22 was trying to gain advantage to push back the HVO and to set up the
23 corridor leading to the sea. So were you informed about combat
24 activities, the fighting in any way?
25 A. Yes. I think we were, sir. I think that when we had our first
1 meeting at your headquarters, your colleagues were there, a number of your
2 colleagues were there, and they wanted us to understand that the reason
3 for their reluctance to have us enter the city was your concern, which I
4 think I shared, for injury, damage, death, et cetera. It was a very bad
5 situation. And I think that was the main reason, was not what we were
6 told by the doctors, but we were told by the doctors a great deal about
7 the damage done to -- to persons in the city, and also including children,
8 that those observations, as I've already said, did not in main come from
9 direct observation. They came from a collection of information, a
10 collection of information, which our knowledge and experience and that of
11 our Spaniards -- Spanish colleagues, those things were part of -- of an
12 assessment that one makes. How does one know anything? Basically this is
13 now we get -- try to get to know when we put a vehicle into -- into harm's
15 Q. Thank you very much. Let me now ask you the following: The
16 Spanish Battalion inform you that on the 30th of June, after that
17 attack --
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, the witness has
19 just something which is rather important, and I'd like to ask him a
20 question in greater detail.
21 The consequences of this can be very great. You said that at the
22 headquarters of -- you had talked to the HVO officers that were there. I
23 don't know whether Mr. Praljak was there or not, and that he would have
24 indicated to you that the situation was very bad, and he would have, so to
25 speak, told you that it was difficult to enter Mostar because people could
1 get injured or could be killed.
2 Can you confirm today that the HVO told you that it was extremely
3 difficult for you and all the other people to enter East Mostar because of
4 the situation which had to do with the offensive launched by the ABiH?
5 Can you confirm this? This is what I understood, but I stand to be
6 corrected. This does have consequences, so can you either confirm or deny
7 this, please.
8 THE WITNESS: The language used by the colleague, Mr. Praljak, the
9 language used by him and by his colleagues at our first meeting at the
10 headquarters of the HV [sic] at that -- in -- on the west side of Mostar,
11 the language used was a different one. Very significant also, sir. That
12 is to say, we were told, but whether it was by Mr. Praljak or others of
13 his colleagues, I don't know, we were told that they could not guarantee
14 our safety. That is a shorthand for something quite significant, sir.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So they told you that they could
16 not guarantee your safety. Why not?
17 THE WITNESS: Why not? Sir, there was a battle around, going on
18 around us. Not -- when I say around, I don't necessarily mean around in
19 the sense of the size of this courtroom, but in that part of East Mostar
20 and indeed that part of West Mostar in which fighting was taking place.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. And when the HVO
22 officers told you that, were there representatives of the Spanish
23 Battalion together with you, or were you the only person to have heard
25 THE WITNESS: No, I wasn't the only person. The -- the battalion
1 leader, Angelo -- I've forgotten his name for a moment, Morales, he would
2 come with us everywhere. I mean, he was the co-leader of this movement.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So there is a Spanish commander
4 with you when the HVO told you there is some fighting around. The British
5 Battalion didn't say otherwise. They agreed with what was said at the
6 time; right?
7 THE WITNESS: The British Battalion --
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Correction, Spanish Battalion.
9 Correction, Spanish Battalion.
10 THE WITNESS: Well, yes they did tell us. They warned us that we
11 were putting ourselves at considerable risk. The Spanish colonel was very
12 much aware of it, because the Spaniards had been -- had actually lost some
13 men in the previous six weeks or so, and they were having to write the
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.
16 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. Now --
17 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I do apologise for
18 intervening, but I'd just like us to note that there was a mistake in the
19 record on page 22, line 13. It said the HV, whereas the witness was
20 talking about the HVO.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very indeed. Yes, I had
22 realised that. Yes, of course it should have been HVO instead of HV.
23 When you said that there was the headquarters, it was the HVO
24 headquarters, right, and the no the HV headquarters?
25 THE WITNESS: Yes. I think that's correct, sir.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.
2 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation]
3 Q. I'm going to ask two more questions. There's a document that's
4 not in the binder, so would you look for it, please, 4D 00736. May we
5 have that document put up on e-court. 4D 00736. And I'm going to ask you
6 something about that document but let me start off with this: When those
7 convoys were being prepared, Mr. Thornberry, were you clearly informed
8 that the HVO unilaterally would take a decision about a truce, a
9 cease-fire, and cease all combat activities while you were there on your
10 missions? That's the first question. And number two, was that the reason
11 General Petkovic asked for a member of the SpaBat, an officer from the
12 Spanish Battalion, be present throughout? That is the whole time at the
13 headquarters of Mostar HVO?
14 So did we tell you clearly that we would cease all military
15 activities unilaterally regardless of any damages that this might cause?
16 Is that true? While you were there. Is that correct?
17 A. I'm sorry to say, sir, that I cannot remember that part of the
19 Q. Very well. If you don't remember, you don't. We'll come back to
21 Now, the document is P 09495. P 09495. That's the document I'd
22 like to look at next. The date is the 20th of August, 1993. It is in the
23 Prosecution binder.
24 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Could somebody help the
25 witness, please.
1 Q. It is sent Thornberry, Medjugorje, and it says in paragraph 3:
2 "The HVO warned that while they would guarantee our security up to the
3 CFL, they could not guarantee on the other side. They said they would not
4 return fire while we were there, they would not return fire while we were
5 there, but would react if the Presidency forces, the BH army forces,
6 sought to take advantage of our presence by forward movement or marching
7 forward. During this event an officer, a liaison officer from SpaBat will
8 be present at the HVO HQ."
9 P 094 -- 09495 is the document number. You wrote that,
10 Mr. Thornberry. And we said very precisely that we would not return fire
11 whatever happened, that we would react only if they launched an offensive,
12 which is something we would have to do then, and we were asking that a
13 liaison officer from SpaBat be at HVO HQ or the operative zone in the
14 area. Do you remember that now that we discussed that?
15 A. Well, I remember that we were told that our -- our safety could
16 not be guaranteed if we went beyond a certain line which I see now is
17 described as the cease-fire line. And I've also indicated that we
18 understood, everybody in the room understood, what that meant.
19 Q. Mr. Thornberry, but on the second page there, it says that the BH
20 army provides security. And my second question to you is this: Did you
21 know that the Serbs or, rather, the army of Republika Srpska at that time
22 was still shelling Mostar, whether East or West Mostar? Did you know that
23 at least?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. All right. So security provided by one side. When they say we're
1 not going to return fire you're safe on our side. Now when the Serbs are
2 going to shoot or the BH army would launch an attack using your -- and it
3 says in one document -- in your document it says that they used your
4 presence to transport units to the other side, but we won't go into that
6 So can you confirm, one, that during your stay there from the HVO
7 positions there was absolute peace? And we're going to see this on the
8 tape that I'm going to show you. That there was complete peace and quiet,
9 that there was no return fire, that there was no shooting, and that a
10 SpaBat liaison officer was at the HVO headquarters in the operative zone
11 throughout as somebody who was there to be a controller, to control our
12 clear-cut options and the guarantees that we provided? Do you know that?
13 Were you aware of that?
14 A. Not all of it, no. What I was aware of was that there was still,
15 from time to time -- let me begin that again. I'm sorry. I want to get
16 this precisely.
17 We knew from our experience there that at various points of time
18 in the two or three days that we were there living in -- in the main
19 street, we were -- we were well aware that from time to time there were
20 likely to be outbreaks of fighting. And I believe, though I don't
21 remember this in detail, this is the difficulty after this number of
22 years, I believe that that was what was understood, and that certainly we
23 behaved with considerable caution and prudence when we -- in particular
24 when we exposed ourselves at various points in the street, in that main
25 street. That's what I remember, sir.
1 Q. Thank you, Mr. Thornberry. Now, I'd like to round off a topic
2 that wasn't dealt with completely, and that is the taking in of wounded by
3 the HVO, something that you launched while you were there. That is to say
4 that the HVO should enable the wounded to be pulled out of the hospital on
5 the east side. So may we look at document P 05007.
6 A. 305007?
7 Q. P 007. Yes. It's a document dated the 13th of September, 1993.
8 The 13th we're talking about here, the 13th of September. Point 3. Let's
9 just read what was done until that date.
10 "Despite the successful evacuations to Zenica, another 41, which
11 means a total of 160 so far."
12 Now, can you confirm or do you remember that by the 13th of
13 September a total number of wounded persons from East Mostar were
14 transported to Zenica, Turkey, Croatia, and so on, a total of 160 patients
15 were transferred?
16 A. I didn't know it was so many, and I am very glad.
17 Q. Yes. That remained unclear. And then the operation continued.
18 But up until the 13th, we managed to transfer these people, 160 of them,
19 despite all the technical problems. Thank you.
20 Now, I'd like to ask you something about the water and electricity
21 situation in Mostar. They said that there was no water in Mostar. We
22 have heard about that. But, Mr. Thornberry, you at the time, you were
23 there. Did you ask yourself any logical questions: Why was there no
24 water in East Mostar? Who was to blame for that situation? Where was the
25 water turned off if the HVO turned it off? What was the pipe situation?
1 So taking the water from the source. So these technical questions that
2 you would have to look at when there was a water shortage or no water
4 I'm asking you about this because the first reactions were there
5 was no water in east water [as interpreted] it's -- the HVO is to blame.
6 There's no electricity in East Mostar, the HVO is to blame. So my
7 question is did you ask the people around you there was this water problem
8 in East Mostar why was there this problem? Who was to blame, what had
9 lapped to the pine lines and so on? I understand that you occupied a very
10 high post, Mr. Thornberry, and you couldn't deal with all these details,
11 these minor points, however, the reports do say no water in East Mostar,
12 the HVO is to blame. So I'm wondering whether you asked any of these
13 technical questions. Who was to blame for there being no water in East
15 A. We were told by the local officials that there was no water, that
16 water had to be taken from the Neretva, that although it was already
17 polluted because there were no other adequate means of disposal, and that
18 that situation continued for some time. In other words, very limited
19 water carried around in buckets or whatever other containers there might
21 This is what we were told. This is what I observed, that we were
22 warned very solemnly by the doctors in the hospital not to use the water
23 unless it was boiled thoroughly. I think that's the answer to your
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, you are not answering
1 the question that has been asked to you, and I could have asked it myself,
2 because this question is at the very core of our concerns, and it is
3 something that is referred to in the indictment.
4 You're being told, "We have to go and get the water in the Neretva
5 River." Doctors tell you the water has to be boiled. Fine. Very well.
6 But the substantial question is why was the situation taking place? Who
7 was preventing water from reaching the area? Who was preventing the
8 electricity system from working? That's the question. Irregardless of --
9 of the problem, what was the reason for that problem?
10 THE WITNESS: At this distance, sir, I cannot pretend that I know
11 who turned the water off or who destroyed the pipes that brought water
12 into the main part of the town. I don't know. I'm sorry, I forget. But
13 it is not a -- sorry.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But at the time you were
15 probably one of the highest UN representatives there given your position
16 within the UN administration. You're being told there is no water.
17 People have to use the water from the Neretva River. Didn't you wonder
18 why, why there was no water?
19 I'll give you another example. In this very courtroom we -- we
20 had problems. People were getting sick and so on. It came from the
21 air-conditioning system. We didn't only say, okay, we're sick and we're
22 cold. We try, we try and find out what was the cause of the problem.
23 So you're being told in Mostar there's no water, there's no
24 electricity. How come you didn't try to determine what was the cause of
25 the problem? Because as you know, water is treated. You know that there
1 are power plants to produce electricity. So these -- these are questions
2 which need an answer. I understand you may not have an answer, but in
3 this case please indicate it.
4 THE WITNESS: I don't have an answer, but it's not perhaps too
5 difficult to imagine how water or electricity would flow in a city in the
6 condition in which Mostar was at that time. I think I have made the point
7 elsewhere that Mostar was, in my personal opinion, it was in a worse
8 condition, and that meant, inter alia, for utilities, water, electricity.
9 Much worse than anything than I had seen in Sarajevo, for example, or in
11 I -- you were kind enough to refer to me as a very senior
12 official. I was. I was probably the most senior official in the United
13 Nations for a hundred miles or anywhere around, but that doesn't -- I'm
14 afraid, didn't give me automatic access to information.
15 If I speak now about it, I would add just to this that I think
16 that the -- I'm pretty sure I heard about the water and the electricity
17 while I was there, but I do not remember the detail of it, unfortunately.
18 I wish I did, but I don't. I can't invent it either.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
20 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation]
21 Q. All right. You say you don't remember. Were you told in East
22 Mostar, on the east side, that from the 30th of June four large
23 hydroelectric power plants upstream from Mostar to Jablanica, that is
24 Jablanica, Grabovica, Mostar 1 and Mostar 2, were totally under BH army
25 control, these four large hydroelectric power plants after the 30th of
1 June? And then the next question following on from that would be why did
2 East Mostar not have no electricity when it had had enough power to light
3 up a town of a million and a half inhabitants? So anybody who was with
4 you or you yourself, did you wonder? Did you ask yourselves that
6 A. Well, I speak only for myself and I don't have an answer to it,
7 but I would have to say that I assumed, being not very skilled in these
8 matters, that there was a good reason for there not being electricity,
9 there was a good reason for not having water, there was a good reason for
10 women scurrying across open spaces and being attacked by snipers. These
11 were the kinds of things that in the daily business of running an
12 operation you have to take for granted and then move on. If -- if we were
13 not able to take it for granted, then we would have to find some other
15 MR. KHAN: Your Honour, forgive me. Your Honour, do forgive me.
16 On two occasions now the witness has been asked questions on this very
17 important point, and in fairness to the witness in relation to Your
18 Honour's question, he did say he couldn't answer, but he imagined, and he
19 gave a scenario. Your Honour, once again he's asked a very
20 straightforward question, and he says well, he supposes there's a good
21 reason. I think it would help the Court to know, well, what was the good
22 reason he thought. These are critical issues for anyone with an ounce of
23 compassion nevermind a very senior, very respected United Nations
24 official. They deal with water, electricity and the plight of civilians
25 and to say that he imagines a good reason doesn't help us move matters
1 forward an awful lot.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, indeed. Without going into
3 speculations you say you suppose there might have been a good reason, but
4 you didn't know that there were four power plants which apparently from
5 the month of June and onwards were under the control of the ABiH. If such
6 power plants were under the control of the ABiH, the electricity going
7 towards Mostar, if it was cut at the level of the power plants, well, the
8 cause of the situation is the ABiH, not the HVO.
9 On the other hand if power plants send electricity towards Mostar
10 and if some people cut the pipes or do something to prevent electricity
11 from reaching the city then it might be somebody else's fault. But I get
12 the impression from your answers that you're not in a position to actually
13 answer the question. Did you actually -- of course you said that you
14 actually observed people running, that there was shooting, that some
15 people were going to get some water in the river but the real cause behind
16 the situation or the real causes you didn't try and find them, right?
17 A. There was the army -- pardon me. There was the army on the other
18 side of the Neretva which did not cease for very long with respect to
19 the -- to our colleagues which did not very long abstain from shooting at
20 people who crossed the old bridge, for example. There was a particular
21 difficulty in Mostar that the boundary line incorporated a part of West
22 Mostar -- or was it the other way round? Incorporated part of the other
23 side around the region of the bridge, the old bridge which has now been
24 rebuilt. And indeed that was where some of the most unattractive conduct
25 of the authorities in West Mostar, that was where they took place, these
2 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry, Witness. You are going a bit astray.
3 I'm -- it's me who asks you.
4 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
5 JUDGE TRECHSEL: You're going a bit astray. You were asked
6 several times, repeatedly, whether you had any knowledge about the reasons
7 why electricity and water were not available in East Mostar. You have
8 volunteered imagination and suggestions, but isn't the fact that you
9 simply do not know the reasons for either the water shortage or the
10 shortage of electricity? You just know the fact of it.
11 THE WITNESS: I think that is so, sir, yes.
12 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you. Thank you.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, please proceed.
14 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Thank you, Mr. Thornberry. I certainly do agree with you that the
16 problem of electricity supplies and water supplies in wartime is very
17 problematic, and I know that not a day goes by when a shell doesn't hit a
18 pipeline of some kind. All I was asking was no water, HVO to blame. No
19 electricity, HVO to blame.
20 Now, let's just look at something you mentioned here several
21 times, the ruins of East Mostar. So let us look at 3D 01057, which was
22 already shown here, and if it's on e-court, may we have it?
23 My first question is this: Did you know that in Mostar in 1992
24 there was a very difficult war between, first and foremost, HVO units and
25 the Yugoslav People's Army? Did you know about that? Did you know that
1 in the spring and summer of 1992, to all intents and purposes, the BH army
2 had taken control of East Mostar -- I'm sorry I misspoke. The Yugoslav
3 People's Army, not the BH, the JNA and that it expelled the population and
4 that it took control of parts of the hills above West Neretva? Did you
5 know about that in 1992?
6 A. No. I did not.
7 Q. So when you arrived in Mostar and you saw a town that had been as
8 destroyed as Vukovar, did you ask yourself about the ruins in East Mostar
9 and West Mostar, did you ask yourself how this came about? Through the
10 shelling done by the HVO perhaps, or were the buildings destroyed from JNA
11 shelling and torching? Perisic's units these were because General Perisic
12 was the commander of those units in that area. Did anybody tell you about
13 that, tell you of those facts?
14 A. They probably did, but I don't know from my own knowledge who,
15 which side, which of the combatants was responsible for -- for these
17 There is one other point that I ought quickly to make it. Going
18 back if I may for a moment, before we left Medjugorje, all of us stocked
19 up on bottled water, and we had enough water for drinking, in any event,
20 for the four or five days, or three or four days when we were there. I
21 had forgotten about that.
22 Q. Mr. Thornberry -- Mr. Thornberry, my time's almost up, and I'm
23 sure you're tired, too, so let's try and simplify this. My question was a
24 simple one.
25 We're going to take a look at the document. May we have the
1 document put on e-court. And could you go through some of the images
2 there? Can we look at the images, the footage. Take them in order,
3 please, one by one. 3D 01057. 3D 01057 is the document number.
4 And now let's just see the photographs. Here we have the first
5 one. That's by the old bridge. By the old bridge. I'm going to ask you
6 what year this happened.
7 The second photograph is this. That's the hotel which was called
8 Hotel Neretva, the Neretva Hotel in Mostar.
9 Picture three, please. That's the old baths by Tito's bridge.
10 Photograph four. That's the house next to the baths house. It's
11 a musical school. It had been burnt down. You had to see whether it had
12 been torched or burnt down in some other way.
13 Could we please move on.
14 That's Tito street. That's the main road, the main street that
15 you yourself took.
16 Let us stop here. Sir, do you know that these photographs were
17 taken in the early fall of 1992? This was taken in 1992, in the early
18 fall a book was published, the "Urbicide in Mostar."
19 Could you please look at the next photograph?
20 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Mr. Praljak, perhaps to save time one could await
21 the answer of the witness to your question. Because I do not think that
22 two pictures more would make much difference.
23 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, you're
24 perfectly right. It won't make any difference.
25 Q. So my question is as follows: According to a book that was
1 published jointly by Croats and Muslims in 1992, it's call "The Urbicide,"
2 a claim is made that 90 per cent of Mostar, particularly the east part of
3 Mostar, Mahala and so on, was destroyed by heavy artillery. It was set on
4 fire, too, by the Yugoslav People's Army and the reservists who had come
5 in from Montenegro. First there was the shelling, and then when the
6 people fled the east side, and when they retreated in the face of our
7 counter-attack they set everything on fire.
8 For God's sake, did anyone give you those facts in Mostar? If
9 not, I will move on.
10 A. It's the first time I've seen these photographs.
11 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I am drawing
12 to a close, but if this is the time for the break, perhaps it would be a
13 good time to do it -- to do it now so Mr. Thornberry can rest a little
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] No, ideally it would be better
16 to finish now. If there is no redirect, then the witness could leave and
17 we can bring in the next witness.
18 Could you just proceed quickly and put clear-cut questions to the
19 witness so that we can finish now.
20 MR. STRINGER: Excuse me, Mr. President, it is my intention to
21 lead some redirect. It will be brief, however.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let's let Mr. Praljak finish
23 before the break, then, that he finishes his cross-examination, and then
24 we'll have the redirect after the break.
25 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Fine.
1 Q. Can we please go back to 4D 00736 that I have asked to be
2 prepared. This is a document from Bosnia and Herzegovina army where Sok
3 Busic [phoen], and you were there at the time. The commander of the 6th
4 Corps orders in the first paragraph: "Do not allow any movement of
5 UNPROFOR, the ICRC, the UNHCR, and other international organisations, and
6 prohibit the movement of any foreign journalists without the written
7 approval of the corps commander."
8 I'm waiting for the document to come up, but in the meantime as
9 we're waiting for the document to come up, let me ask you whether anyone
10 ever told you that the BH army, in this case it was the 6th Corps in
11 Jablanica, at the time while you were there, expressly prohibited the
12 movement of any vehicles of any international organisation?
13 A. They might have done, but I'm not aware of it. It can't have been
14 too significant.
15 MR. STRINGER: Can I ask which binder or where this exhibit can be
16 located, please?
17 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] [No interpretation]
18 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, perhaps I can
19 explain. General Praljak's Defence thought that this document would be in
20 our binder, in General Petkovic's binder. Unfortunately, at the last
21 minute we changed the way in which we intended to cross-examine, so we
22 left it out. So you don't have it in hard copy. So could we please just
23 all refer to the e-court.
24 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation].
25 Q. You were not aware of that at any rate. Did you hear of it? Did
1 anyone from UNPROFOR ever told you about that, about this ban on the
2 movement of vehicles, at least as far as the 6th Corps is concerned.
3 Jablanica, Konjic, that was the area covered by this corps of the BH army.
4 And it is indicated here all the locations where the ban was in force, but
5 I would like to speed this up. I don't want to bother you any more with
7 A. It's quite likely at that we were told about that. I -- I cannot
8 be sure, and I cannot be certain, that's for sure.
9 No. I don't remember where it comes from. I mean I know where it
10 comes from. I don't remember its substance.
11 Q. Thank you very much, sir. I would just like to refer --
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute.
13 Witness, the order is dated 29th of August, 1993, is sent by the
14 6th Corps to all its units as well as to UNPROFOR as I can see. It is
15 stipulated that UNPROFOR should not move about, the ICRC and UNPROFOR,
16 without a written permission from the 6th Corps.
17 Theoretically you must have been made aware of this, because the
18 UNPROFOR was one of the recipients of this order. Were you aware of this?
19 THE WITNESS: 1993.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. 29th of August, 1993.
21 THE WITNESS: I have no memory of this at all. Sorry.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
23 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Sir, let me read out the number of the document. You don't have
25 to go looking for it. It's P 04358. It's a report, Geneva, the 20th of
1 August, and so on. And at one point, at the bottom of the first page, it
2 says -- or, rather, I'm misquoting. At the beginning the first page it
3 says: "A UN convoy that was under escort was turned back by the HVO
4 immediately before crossing the river..." I don't know about that. "...on
5 route to east Muslim sector where 35.000 people are living."
6 Since one of the problems that we're facing now is how many people
7 actually lived in this enclave there, what indicators were used by the
8 people from any international agency, so this is within your purview, were
9 used to come to an estimate as to the number of people who lived on the
10 east bank of the Mostar river, to the south and to the north? So how did
11 people learn of the number of people, because we have 35.000 people here,
12 elsewhere we have 50.000, 30.000, 45.000. So I'm interested in the method
13 of learning facts that was applied here, because this is what's killing us
14 all, the ease with which apparently people learn facts.
15 A. Well, I haven't learned any. Not about this anyway. I don't know
16 what the answer to this is. This is not only X number of years ago, it is
17 also -- in my case I simply don't know how -- how we measure people. It's
18 perfectly -- it's regrettable but factual.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. You have one more
20 question before we finish. We need to finish now.
21 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Well, Your Honours, perhaps
22 we still have this problem of the ultimatum that is mentioned here.
23 Perhaps I would take a couple of minutes more to do that, but at the
24 bottom of the page in the same document it says that on Thursday the UNHCR
25 reported that the situation in the Croatian part was really bad and on
1 this basis we can assume what the situation is like in the Muslim part.
2 Q. Is it true, as far as you were able to see, that the situation as
3 far as the water, food and electricity was concerned was very bad in West
4 Mostar, too, while you were there?
5 A. I believe I remember learning that it was not quite as bad. I
6 think they had power, for example. I don't know how, but I think they had
7 power. I don't remember about water.
8 Q. Well, if -- if I can be allowed just to show P 01299, the
9 Kiseljak BH command. That's in the Prosecution binder. P 01299. The
10 date is the 25th of January, 1993 and could we please look at paragraph
11 4(A), 4(A). This is all very short. 4(A), BritBat sector, British
12 Battalion. And then in paragraph (A) it says Travnik, Novi Travnik. The
13 situation has been very tense throughout the week. Some serious incidents
14 have occurred during the past few days. The HVO ordered the Bosnian in
15 Travnik, Novi Travnik, and Vitez to hand over their weapons by 2400 hours
16 on the 19th of January, 1993."
17 So claim is made that by 2400 hours on the 19th they were supposed
18 to hand over their weapons according to this famous ultimatum that we've
19 heard so much about here. But it says -- goes on to say: "The order was
20 later withdrawn by the HVO on the 20th of January, 1993."
21 Are you aware of the fact that on the 20th of January this huge
22 problem that arose from the so-called ultimatum ceased to exist, that this
23 was all withdrawn, that this unfortunate piece of paper was withdrawn and
24 was no longer valid at all?
25 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, I'm going to raise the objection I
1 raised previously in cross-examination by other counsel. This is prior to
2 the time of the witness's testimony, and it's also outside of the scope of
3 the Trial Chamber's order which relates to Mostar. So I think both in
4 time, in geography, this is beyond the scope of the direct examination.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Mr. Stringer is right, but
6 the Trial Chamber may, at the request of -- I believe my colleagues don't
7 agree with me. The witness was about to provide us with an accurate
9 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] I fully understand, Your
10 Honours, whatever your decision might be.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So the Trial Chamber feels that
12 the question cannot be put unless the witness would like to respond
14 Please, you have the floor, Witness.
15 THE WITNESS: Should it be relevant, I wasn't actually in the
16 mission area during that time.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So we shall --
18 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, thank you very
19 much Mr. Thornberry. I understand the argument proffered by the
20 Prosecution. Thank you very much for your attention.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It is now 4.00. We are going to
22 have a 20-minute break and resume when we shall address the redirect.
23 --- Recess taken at 4.00 p.m.
24 --- On resuming at 4.24 p.m.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stringer.
1 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President.
2 Re-examination by Mr. Stringer:
3 Q. Greetings, Mr. Thornberry. I've just got a couple of follow-up
4 questions to ask you and then we'll be finished with your evidence.
5 A. [Overlapping speakers] -- qualification.
6 Q. The first question relates to something you were just talking
7 about a couple of minutes ago on the cross-examination by General Praljak
8 about the possibility that the electricity plants to the north had been
9 taken over by the -- the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and in response, part
10 of your answer you indicated that you didn't have access to all of the
11 information that was out there on that, and I wanted to use that to ask
12 you in general to what extent did you and those around you in Mostar in
13 those days have access to all that was happening, information to all that
14 was happening on the ground militarily, both military activities of the
15 HVO and the Armija and the extent to which those activities may have been
16 affecting the things you were trying to do.
17 A. Well, we were at the mercy largely of information that was coming
18 from Mostar to New York and then back again, and upon the decision of our
19 colleagues in New York what was and was not relevant. So that was -- that
20 was at times a very limiting factor.
21 We were also receiving information back from some other duty
22 stations in other places.
23 On the whole, I think the information we were receiving, to be
24 quite fair, was quite diligently presented, and the senior people of the
25 United Nations secretariat were very active indeed they -- in seeing
1 President Tudjman and many of the other senior personnel.
2 One thing which was not included and which I haven't seen written
3 about anywhere, was that at one point when things were getting rather
4 unpleasant, somebody somewhere sent us three F-16s, I think they were,
5 which buzzed up and down above the main street and made it -- made
6 their -- their presence quite clear and significant.
7 Q. Excuse me. Let me. I should have been more precise in my
8 question, because you're clearly and correctly describe the access to
9 information provided to you by people within the United Nations. I was
10 actually -- I should have -- I should have asked it this way: To what
11 extent did you have access to the information about the military
12 activities of the HVO at the time? What were they doing there in Mostar
13 as well as other places?
14 A. We didn't have any -- we didn't really have any -- any contact
15 with the -- with them at all.
16 Q. And was it the same for the Armija in terms of access to
17 information of their's, what they were doing at any given time?
18 A. I think possibly more. More information of that kind was coming
19 to us. We had very good relations all around, but I think the Armija was
20 quite clearly had -- had an upper hand.
21 Q. And during the cross-examination by counsel for General Petkovic,
22 Ms. Alaburic, she showed you a document that related to a shelling
23 incident in West Mostar when some children were killed and wounded. Do
24 you remember seeing that document?
25 A. No.
1 Q. Okay. I'm going to ask you -- well, if -- let me just -- let me
2 just put it to you this way rather than taking the time to go back to the
3 document, which was dated the 3rd of September, 1993. I just want to take
4 you to another one which I don't have in the courtroom, which I ask that
5 they put up on the e-court which is Exhibit P 4778, because this is also
6 dated the same date, 3rd of September, 1993. 4778. I'm hoping we can get
7 the translation on the e-court as well. There it is.
8 Now, I don't expect you to have seen this before. This is a
9 document that indicates it's an order to attack, and it's being issued on
10 the 3rd of September by an HVO military commander. And I just show this
11 to you to ask you to comment on this issue regarding negotiations with
12 warring parties, what they say and what, on the other hand, might be
13 happening in the field, and the extent to which you accept as true or as
14 genuine representations that are made by warring factions in negotiations.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Could we see the document in
16 B/C/S on one side and in English on the other side, please.
17 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, for the record, I
18 would like to object to this question. Not so much to the question itself
19 but to the document that is supposed to serve as the foundation for the
20 question, because this is an order from the commander of the operation
21 zone North-west Croatia -- Herzegovina. I do apologise. So this is the
22 territory that does not include Mostar, and the cross-examination focused
23 on Mostar. I don't think it is proper to extend the topic to include
24 other zones in redirect.
25 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, I think it's -- it's -- I don't
1 think there's any dispute that the witness was asked a lot about what the
2 ABiH was doing and its effect on the negotiations and the activities of
3 Mr. Thornberry.
4 Now, we have heard that allegedly the Armija had taken control
5 over some power plants that were up toward the Jablanica region as well.
6 So in fact these are not issues which have been limited to Mostar. And I
7 don't think that's relevant. I think the point is that the witness has
8 been asked about Armija activities, and I think it's fair in redirect to
9 ask him about HVO activities as well. In the context of the negotiations,
10 which is the point of my question. I don't expect the witness to know
11 about any specific attack.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak.
13 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I may just note one
15 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] I'll do it.
16 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] The date is the 3rd of July -- or,
17 rather, the 3rd of September. This is after the events we've heard about,
18 the events in Mostar. And second of all, this is a whole different area.
19 This is the area around Prozor, as my colleague pointed out.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak.
21 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation], Your Honour, Mackovac is a
22 small area around close to Gorni Vokuf and Uskoplje, and there was intense
23 fighting there for the reasons that were indicated earlier. Positions --
24 it changed hands very quickly. It has nothing do with power plants,
25 Mostar. I could discuss that with another witness for hours. Mackovac is
1 small hill close to Uskoplje.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] All right. Explain yourself,
4 MR. STRINGER: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. September
5 3rd, Ms. Alaburic showed the witness a document from September 3rd as well
6 which was one in which it indicates that shelling in West Mostar killed
7 some children and injured some children. I think the point here is to go
8 to the same day and to point out whether the HVO is engaged in military
9 activities as well.
10 The point was raised by counsel from General Petkovic in respect
11 of the impact of the shelling activity on attempts to carry out these
12 medical evacuations that were being attempted in early September of 1993.
13 That's not just Mostar. It's Nova Bila as well, which is way up in
14 Central Bosnia, and so I --
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] To sum up, to sum up, the
16 Defence presented a document dated September the 3rd indicating that the
17 ABiH carried out an attack in West Mostar. Now you're presenting an HVO
18 document dating the same day, which provides for a military attack. Not
19 in Mostar but elsewhere, and you want to establish a parallel, indicating
20 that both forces, despite the discussions that were under way, that both
21 forces were fighting. Am I correct? Okay. Well, then put your question
22 to the witness.
23 MR. STRINGER:
24 Q. Witness -- I defer to counsel who is on her feet.
25 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I showed this document,
1 not Ms. Alaburic. Despite your order to Mr. Stringer to continue, I would
2 just like us to remind ourselves of the context. I showed this document
3 precisely because I wanted to show that the BH army obstructed the
4 implementation of this agreement about evacuation of the sick from East
5 Mostar. I didn't want to use it in this broader context, and this is why
6 I think that exhibiting those documents that refer to this whole area is
7 completely unacceptable.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let's wait and see the question
9 to be put to the witness. We are anticipating. We don't know what
10 question will be put to the witness, and I don't know the answer either.
11 So please put your question to the witness Mr. Stringer.
12 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President.
13 Q. Mr. Thornberry, you've see the document and you've heard the
14 discussion of the other document which was shown to you by counsel for
15 Mr. Stojic. And I apologise to counsel for the mistake. The point of the
16 questioning is this -- and actually let me introduce maybe another remark
17 or a point that was raised by the President when he was commenting on the
18 video that was shown of the meetings in Medjugorje which the HVO -- my
19 question is this. If you could comment on someone who has been a
20 negotiator at these levels, cordiality as was indicated on the tape,
21 things that are said in negotiations versus events on the ground, and to
22 what extent you had access to military activities, and comment on how that
23 could have effected, then, your ability to carry out your mandate in these
25 A. I'm sorry, I'm not sure that I understand what is being asked.
1 Q. The question is this: In negotiations, even those that are being
2 conducted in a cordial atmosphere, do you accept at face value
3 representations and statements made by warring factions?
4 A. Certainly not.
5 Q. And do you have access to -- are you privy to information about
6 military activities that are being carried out perhaps at the same time by
7 those warring factions?
8 A. It does happen. It depends on a number of factors, including
9 where you are and -- and at what stage and so on.
10 Q. Okay. The next question relates to the issue of --
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stringer, could we see that
12 video again, because I believe it's quite enlightening, the video where we
13 see the witness meeting with other officials, but he's not of course the
14 only one. There are also UNPROFOR members present. Could we see that
15 video again, please.
16 MR. STRINGER: Yes. Let me just reach for my notes and I can get
17 the number for Ms. Winner.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It's very brief. I think it's
19 only two minute long.
20 [Videotape played]
21 "Welcome. Very good to see you. Please come through. You know
22 Shannon Boyd.
23 "[Inaudible] Interpreter: "Hello.
24 "Did you find the interpreter? "Yeah, we did.
25 "[Indiscernible] Thank you very much indeed, General. Thank
2 "General, I want to introduce my -- the new commander. We come
3 here. [Indiscernible].
4 "Mr. Albert Benabou. Okay.
5 "Okay. Very good. All right. "Thank you very much."
6 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, for the record, that is Exhibit
7 P 02950. I should say also that the other two clips are also the same
8 exhibit which is P 04296.
9 Q. And witness, and I know I'm asking this inartfully, but we have
10 the images there. At the same time we have a war going on. And the
11 question is you're approached in negotiations in this context then,
12 whether the words and the views expressed in these negotiations then would
13 be accepted by you and whether you approached them differently.
14 A. The -- the manner of speaking on the part of the two parties
15 there, the United Nations on one side and the MOAT -- the MOAT on the
16 other is absolutely characteristic of -- if one in fact did not
17 communicate and slap the back of and all that kind of thing, it would be
18 regarded as being a false -- something false.
19 It can be taken to extremes, but they are de rigeure really is
20 what it comes down to, and I have once or twice in my lifetime been simply
21 unable to shake the hand of someone who is on the other side, but those
22 are extremely rare events.
23 Q. You testified on cross-examination that the source of information
24 about the targeting of civilians in East Mostar was the surgeons, I
25 believe you indicated.
1 A. The source of it, yes.
2 Q. Did you have any other sources who -- on the issue of targeting
3 civilians in East Mostar apart from those -- those -- the Bosnians who
4 were living in East Mostar?
5 A. Well, there was -- of course there was Colonel Morales who was
6 shown on the -- on the screen.
7 Q. That's what I was getting at actually. Were any internationals
8 also a source of information on that?
9 A. Well, Colonel Morales was a source of a great deal of information,
10 and a very competent and experienced colonel, and he, of course, had been
11 brought in fairly recently into the area, and he had been -- he had
12 actually been briefed by many of the same people who briefed me also,
13 because although I was just a given, technically speaking, in this
14 international peacekeeping the lines become -- become -- military and
15 civilian, become somewhat blurred at times, and in crisis very blurred.
16 Q. Okay. In his cross-examination, General Praljak showed you
17 photographs of the east side of Mostar from the 1992 conflict with the
18 Serbs. Do you recall that?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. You don't have to go to the document although you can if you wish.
21 It's P 4673, 4673, which is in your binder there, which you testified
22 about yesterday. This is your 1 September 1993 memo to Mr. Stoltenberg.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And right at the beginning of it you said that you had met with
25 civilian and military leaders of East Mostar yesterday evening. "East
1 Mostar had been pounded with artillery and mortar for many hours that
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. So my question is do you recall then during this latter half of
5 August, was East Mostar the target of -- of shelling activity?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And do you know which of the parties was shelling East Mostar
8 during that time?
9 A. Not really.
10 Q. Okay.
11 A. I could make a guess, but it wouldn't be a useful guess.
12 Q. You were asked questions yesterday about the media campaign that
13 was organised in respect of the trip, the first trip to East Mostar.
14 Actually, I'm finished with the document now, so I'm moving on to
15 the next question.
16 My question is this, Mr. Thornberry -- excuse me. You don't need
17 to read the document any more. I've got the answer for that last
18 question. The next question is about the media campaign, and you were
19 asked questions about the impartiality which was involved in that, and the
20 one question I had for you on that is in making that media campaign and in
21 showing the images that were shown, did you approve or intend that any of
22 the images or any of the information was to misrepresent --
23 MR. KHAN: Your Honour.
24 MR. STRINGER:
25 Q. -- the actual situation?
1 MR. KHAN: Your Honour, I think my learned friend is -- knows very
2 well that the proper question, of course, is to ask what was intended.
3 Leading questions are not appropriate in re-examination as they're not
4 appropriate in examination-in-chief, and the witness is highly
5 intelligent. He doesn't need to be spoon fed in this rather blatant
6 manner in my respectful submission.
7 MR. STRINGER: I don't think that's a leading question,
8 Mr. President, but I'll abide by whatever decision obviously the Trial
9 Chamber takes.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute. Just rephrase
11 your question. Make sure that it is a broad question that the witness can
12 answer. When I put a question, for instance, there are several possible
13 answer. I never hint at an answer. So please try and put the question to
14 him in such a way that he can answer it, and then you can go into the
15 detail of that subject by asking a follow-up question to that one.
16 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President.
17 Q. Mr. Thornberry, the question is about the media campaign, and you
18 testified that the intent or the desire was that it generate a response to
19 the international community. The question is, then, what was your
20 approach to the information that was to be included in that media
22 A. Under normal circumstances, I would expect to see the text of a
23 draft document, for example, before anyone else other than the author of
24 it became -- moved on. It's difficult to -- it's difficult for me to
25 understand exactly what counsel may be reaching for in this question,
1 because the relation -- it is not really a media campaign, quote and --
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I think that you did
3 not understand the question that was put to you by Mr. Stringer.
4 You told us that in order to convey the mission, in order to
5 convey the idea of what you were doing on the ground, you decided to visit
6 on a number of occasions certain parts of that region, and you decided
7 that you would be accompanied by television crews, and this is what we saw
8 a while ago. We saw you and somebody had shot that film. We see you
9 meeting with the HVO.
10 So Mr. Stringer is putting the question to you, but when this kind
11 of campaign is underway, how can you control all of this? How can you
12 make sure that you are still aware of the message that is going out to the
13 rest of the world?
14 THE WITNESS: Well, we are in fact controlling the information
15 which is contained in this "campaign." I wouldn't use that term myself,
16 perhaps, because it suggests a rather broad detailed document such as we
17 were looking at a few minutes ago.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Precisely. How do you control
20 THE WITNESS: Well, you control it at source. You -- I mean, this
21 is what fact gathering by an international organisation who is -- which is
22 in an operational situation, this is the kind of thing which they're
23 supposed to -- to deal with, and some of us have also been journalists at
24 some point or other in our misspent youth.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] That is your case, I believe.
1 You were a journalist in the past, weren't you?
2 THE WITNESS: I was a long time ago.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you are an expert, aren't
5 MR. STRINGER: Excuse me, was the President's question that the
6 witness was an attorney or a journalist?
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Journalist, journalist.
8 THE WITNESS: Well, to begin with, you don't usually go to the
9 press with a story until you have authenticated it and checked it out
10 essentially politically. Whether it -- if it's in fact a United Nations
11 document, is it going straight down the middle. Are you in fact being
12 adequately objective in a situation in which feelings and experiences may
13 run very high and very hot.
14 I can't really -- I've done it many, many times. I think most of
15 us who work in the political upper reaches of the Secretariat of the
16 United Nations are very familiar with the necessities of those -- that
17 situation. I'm not sure that I'm responding to you, sir, but I'm trying.
18 MR. STRINGER:
19 Q. I'll just follow up with one last question on this. What you --
20 what you just said, Mr. Thornberry, is that you don't usually go to the
21 press with a story until you have authenticated it and checked it out. So
22 the question then would be: In respect of this media campaign that you've
23 testified about, are you confident that that was authentic.
24 A. Yes, I think it was authentic. It was a little bit -- it was a
25 little bit too long to be effective would have been my response at that
1 time. And I probably wasn't able to find the author of the story in any
2 event because I was probably in some other place in movement, and that
3 situation was difficult.
4 Q. Okay. My last question relates to an exhibit that was shown to
5 you, or whether you were asked about, I should say, by counsel for General
6 Petkovic, and that is the transcript of a tape-recorded meeting of the
7 Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina. It's Exhibit 4D 00930. And you don't
8 have to turn to it, Witness, but there is a reference here to a meeting,
9 or I should say there is a reference to the Croatian foreign minister,
10 Mr. Granic, whom you've testified about, and I wanted to ask you one thing
11 from this transcript and ask you if you could comment on it. I'm at page
12 14 of the English version.
13 Someone named Haris Silajdzic is talking, and he says: "I pointed
14 out -- I pointed that out to Granic during the talks in Vienna. He says,
15 you know, that we expect that after two years of European Union
16 administration Mostar becomes the capital of Herceg-Bosna."
17 Now, my question, Mr. Thornberry, is whether in all of your
18 dealings and negotiations with Mr. Granic, he ever expressed a view that
19 Mostar would be the capital of Herceg-Bosna?
20 A. Not publicly.
21 Q. Did he do so privately?
22 A. It sounds very familiar, but I -- I would not want to be
23 absolutely categorical. I think I know when it comes -- what it comes
24 from, but I'm not completely sure about that.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 MR. STRINGER: I have no further questions, Mr. President.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
3 Sir, after having testified for three days, I would like to thank
4 you for having come, and I wish you well in your future endeavours and in
5 your current job, and I wish you a safe journey home. I would like to
6 thank you. And I would like the usher to escort you out of the courtroom,
8 [The witness withdrew]
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In the meantime, before we hear
10 the next witness, I have two decisions to hand down. Our time is
11 precious, and I like to do as best I can.
12 Oral decision pertaining to the admission of evidence tendered
13 through Witness EI. I'm going to check the English translation at the
14 same time.
15 The Trial Chamber is handing out a decision on the matter of the
16 admission of evidence presented to Witness EI, who appeared before the
17 Trial Chamber on the 10th of January, 2008. It admits the evidence
18 P 10210 under seal, and P 10211 under seal presented by the Prosecution
19 through its list IC 00771.
20 It also admits Exhibit P 09440, presented by the Defence of
21 Mr. Coric through its list IC 00772.
22 These exhibits, in the Chamber's view, do have a certain
23 reliability, relevance, and probative value.
24 So let's move into private session now, please, because we need to
25 hand down a decision in private session.
1 [Private session]
1 [Open session]
2 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in open session.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stewart.
4 MR. STEWART: Yes, thank you Your Honours. It's short simple
5 application and I'll be as quick as I can. It's an application for the
6 hearing of a preliminary issue and what I'll do, Your Honours, first is
7 say what we propose the preliminary issue should be and then indicate what
8 we have to say about the suggested practicalities. It's -- it's
9 relatively short. It is to -- the issue is what powers does the Trial
10 Chamber have, A, under Rule 98 bis or alternatively, B, under Rule 54 to
11 strike out a discrete material allegation included under any one of the 26
12 counts in the indictment on the ground that there is no evidence capable
13 of supporting that allegation, notwithstanding that the Trial Chamber does
14 not enter a judgement of acquittal on that count under Rule 98 bis.
15 Now, Your Honours will see that language that bit of language in
16 the middle, there is no evidence capable of supporting that allegation is
17 lifted from Rule 98 bis, but the point being that where this applies not
18 to every allegation in a particular count but only to some, but we do
19 qualify it by referring to them as discrete material allegations.
20 Your Honour -- Your Honours, this -- an answer to this question
21 would be very important to set the fundamental guidelines for the
22 substantive application that under the current Scheduling Order Your
23 Honours have in mind to begin on Monday, the 28th of January.
24 Now, Your Honours, what we suggest is that it would be extremely
25 valuable to the Trial Chamber, in fact, with respect, but also to the
1 parties to have an answer to that question. Now, of course to some extent
2 the practicality depends -- Your Honour, I -- Your Honour just --
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, I'd like to answer on the
5 legal matter, and then if you wish you can address the practicalities at a
6 later stage.
7 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, may I straight away before Your Honour
8 does that, it's absolutely -- I notified Mr. Stringer that I would be
9 making this application so that we didn't spring it on them unexpectedly
10 today, but I have assured him, and I rather think it's his position but he
11 can speak for himself, but I wasn't proposing to argue anything today on
12 the -- the substance of that preliminary issue. It's absolutely not my
13 intention to argue anything, and I was not inviting, and with respect, was
14 rather disinviting the Trial Chamber from any expression or any point of
15 view. That's for the hearing of the preliminary issue, but perhaps I
16 ought just to have added that Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stewart, you're raising the
18 issue of Rule 98 bis. I'd like now to give you my personal opinion, not
19 the opinion of my colleagues. I was part of the Plenary meeting when the
20 decision to alter this rule was taken, so I can give you an informed
22 As you know, this is a common law rule. At the beginning there
23 were a lot of written decisions. Each time there was a particular
24 application on Rule 98 bis, parties would provide submissions, written
25 submissions, and then this would be followed by an oral procedure. This
1 was taking a lot of time, and sometimes the decisions rendered by Trial
2 Chambers could be a hundred pages and more.
3 Aware of that problem, Judges decided to amend that Rule and to
4 amend it on the basis of a proposal made by a common law Judge who
5 explained how the whole thing worked. He explained to his fellow Judges
6 that in his own jurisdiction, in his own country, at the end of the
7 Prosecution case, this is how things would work, the Defence was allowed
8 to step in and say that the Prosecutor, on a particular charge of the
9 indictment, did not provide enough evidence and then the Judge would
10 decide whether the application should be dismissed or agreed, adopted.
11 This was a very quick way of dealing with this matter, and of course it
12 was very convincing for all the Judges within the Tribunal, and that's why
13 there was a new Rule 98 bis which allows such procedure to take orally.
14 You will have noted that Rule 98 bis does not talk any more about
15 charges, counts, which means that the discussion will focus on counts.
16 The issue at stake for a particular Chamber is that for a particular
17 count, let's take the example of persecution, the Chamber will have to
18 decide whether the Prosecution was able to show enough evidence proving
19 that there had been persecution. And if there is one piece of evidence,
20 because there is a minimum standard set in that Rule, then there is no
21 acquittal and the proceedings will continue.
22 This is how things should work.
23 As everybody else I studied what had happened in other Chambers to
24 see how in practice things worked and of course practices varied. In some
25 cases Defence counsel decided to deal with various paragraphs saying in
1 paragraph 4, for instance, the Prosecution was not in a position to bring
2 in any significant evidence, and then others dealt count by count saying
3 for at that particular count there hasn't been any evidence, which means
4 that with this very quick procedure, when the Defence takes the floor the
5 Defence may say let's deal with it paragraph by paragraph or count by
6 counsel, on that particular paragraph or count the Prosecution was not in
7 a position to present enough evidence showing that there was indeed cases
8 of persecution, but again this is an example I'm taking.
9 Then the Prosecution will take the floor and say, "I have shown
10 such document, P, X, Y, Z. I have shown this particular witness," and
11 then will give you references to the transcript. And then after
12 deliberation the Chamber will issue a decision.
13 This is the letter and the spirit of the Rule 98 bis. I believe
14 that in two cases, in two particular cases, I believe that the Prosecution
15 case ended at 11.53 and at 12.53 in multiple accused case. The decision
16 was rendered by the Chamber, i.e., less than an hour after.
17 We have decided to wait for a few days before issuing our
18 decision. This is all I can say. When the hearing will take place, for
19 each different accused we have decided upon one particular day. That is,
20 you have almost more than four hours to say whatever you want to say.
21 Then the accusation will reply, and then we will issue our decision two
22 weeks later.
23 If you want to, you can deal with it paragraph by paragraph. You
24 can deal with it count by count. But what I want to say is that a count
25 may refer to several municipalities. For the count of destruction, it is
1 enough for one municipality to have one document saying there was a case
2 of destruction in that municipality for the counts to be kept, and then
3 there will be no acquittal.
4 This is the letter and this is the spirit.
5 Mr. Stewart, I don't know if -- if I shed some light on this
6 matter but this is what I am in a position to stay at this stage.
7 MR. STEWART: That has certainly shed some light on Your Honour's
8 views by expressing them. There is no question about that. But may I
9 observe two things. First of all, it is precisely these issues which we
10 wish to argue and have the possibility of making submissions upon before
11 there's a ruling, and Your Honour has very clearly and expressly stated
12 that the views that you have just expressed are not the views of the Trial
13 Chamber, were simply Your Honour's own views. Consequently we do not
14 have, and that was our position, we didn't ask for a decision this
15 afternoon in fact we've asked specifically not to have a decision because
16 we wish to adopt, with respect, conventional old-fashioned approach of
17 making submissions first and then inviting a decision on our submissions.
18 So, Your Honour, what we wish to do is avoid the situation where
19 this important issue is canvassed at the beginning of the substantive 98
20 bis application, then we go straight on to that application. We suggest
21 that on this important issue it's much more satisfactory if we do have a
22 clear ruling based on our argument from the Trial Chamber so that we know
23 where we are with -- with at least some sort of a gap then before we
24 return for the actual application.
25 And, Your Honour, by the way, may I -- Your Honour, may I simply
1 add one thing. It is it is my application, Your Honour that Rule 54 is
2 expressly mentioned in our application. Nothing that Your Honour said a
3 moment ago touched on Rule 54. It is extremely important to bear in mind
4 that that Rule is there. It's often appealed to by the Trial Chamber as a
5 general power, and we will argue and we do argue that quite separately as
6 an alternative to 98 bis Rule 54 does offer the opportunity of proper
7 discipline in relation to the situation contemplated in the preliminary
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stewart, you're right. I
10 gave you my personal opinion, because I took part in the exercise which
11 led to the new version of Rule 98 bis. This is my own opinion. As
12 regards the decision that will be made by the Chamber as a whole, this is
13 something else.
14 You will have one day, one day, to present your submissions.
15 You'll have one day. You and the other member of your team, you will have
16 the time to tell us what you want to say. We'll give you enough time for
17 four hours. Four hours and a half. You will let us know what you want to
18 say have to say. While you will be presenting your submissions we'll take
19 notes as is usual. Then the Prosecution will have the opportunity to
20 answer, and we will have two weeks to deliberate before we issue a
21 decision, and it will it be an oral decision, which will be a response to
22 your arguments, your submissions. So do not fear.
23 Judge Trechsel would like to take the floor.
24 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry. I will address you in your own
25 language to avoid the necessity of interpretation. I'm not quite sure
1 whether your query has actually been answered by the president. As I
2 understand you, you are raising a question that goes slightly beyond
3 Article 98 bis.
4 MR. STEWART: Absolutely correct, Your Honour, yes.
5 JUDGE TRECHSEL: And you wonder whether, let's say, alongside a
6 strict application of that disposition which speaks of charges, not
7 accidentally but some way --
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Of counts of counts of counts.
9 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I think in English it is -- whatever. We
10 understand. One of the 26. Your -- your -- the question you want to
11 raise is whether there is a possibility within these 26 points to extract
12 not acquit but drop, as it were, certain elements in order to alleviate
13 the weight of the further proceedings, and I -- I think this is a -- a
14 question that is worth discussing. I'm not in any way taking a point
15 on -- on the merits of it. I think it is something on which, of course,
16 the Prosecution must also be heard, and I think we should probably not too
17 late next week find a moment where we can have a session where we discuss
19 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour -- Your Honour absolutely has the
20 point spot on with respect, absolutely spot on, and that is exactly the
21 point. I -- I need say no more, Your Honour, because what Your Honour
22 said encapsulates the application I've made absolutely perfectly.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you,
24 Mr. Stewart. I'll add one thing. I limit myself to Rule 98 bis. I
25 didn't mention Rule 54. This is a 98 bis procedure. That's my position.
1 I saw somebody waving. Mr. Prlic maybe?
2 THE ACCUSED PRLIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. May I say
3 for the record. I heard your decision. The ruling is as it stands, and
4 my only reason was transparency for the proceedings, why I made the
5 request. But let me just say that I'm not quite clear why your oral
6 decision was made in public session, in open session. That's the first
7 point. And secondly, I'm not quite clear about why in the court ruling
8 announced in open session words are quoted which were uttered in closed
10 And I'm also not clear on another point. It's not my Defence
11 counsel who is being punished but me, why the parties weren't heard
12 properly before this ruling was made. But I'm not asking for a new
13 ruling. I'm saying all this in order to achieve my primary goal, which is
14 complete transparency for these proceedings and that all the decisions and
15 rulings of this Trial Chamber be consistent and proper.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Thank you for your
18 Yes, please.
19 JUDGE TRECHSEL: A very short commentary, Mr. Prlic. The decision
20 is on -- on formal grounds, but as far as the substance is concerned, you
21 may have noticed that the declaration made, I think on the 14th by your
22 counsel, has been made in open session, and it gives quite a bit of
23 information in fact. So the matter is not as sealed as you might fear. I
24 think a certain transparency is apparent therefrom.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stringer.
1 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President. Just two very brief,
2 because we have a witness. Certainly if the Trial Chamber's going to
3 consider the application that my learned friend Mr. Stewart has just
4 described, the Prosecution will look forward to presenting its views on
5 that. I'm not going so say anything more about that at that -- at this
6 time. Clearly we want to be heard.
7 It may be that if we find ourselves discussing the modalities of
8 98 bis, the Prosecution may, and I'm just going to mention this now,
9 because I was -- actually, what interested me more was less the
10 application and more the remarks of the president regarding the procedure
11 in which it's apparently envisioned that the Defence makes a submission
12 for any number of hours of length related to any number of the allegations
13 and evidence that is included in this vast case, and then the Prosecution
14 is expected to stand up and address those issues in a way that is viewed
15 as -- as full enough to at least accurately present the Prosecution case.
16 I don't know that we can do that, and it would be our request that
17 we take all the Defence submissions on this orally in open court and that
18 at -- after some break, after some passage of time, the Prosecution then
19 has the opportunity to address those, which gives us time to prepare our
20 submissions, which is what the Defence are doing right now. They have an
21 advantage to prepare their submissions.
22 We don't know what they'll be, and I don't know that it will be
23 very helpful to the Trial Chamber to expect the Prosecution to then stand
24 up immediately and to address any number of specific issues which we don't
25 see coming. So we'll be asking -- and I'm not asking for any decisions
1 now, just like Mr. Stewart's not asking for any decisions now, but it's
2 something that we'd like to discuss further with the Trial Chamber if
3 we're talking about this next week.
4 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, we can help Mr. Stringer on this.
5 Maybe -- I don't know about Mr. Khan, perhaps he's going to be helpful as
6 well, he usually is, but we can help Mr. Stringer on this as far as the --
7 on the previous application I had the support of all my colleagues having
8 discussed it with them. Here I'm just speaking for the Petkovic Defence,
9 but we will provide the Prosecution with -- with some outline of the
10 submissions that we propose to make. We do consider that to be good
11 practice. We consider it to be helpful to everybody, and we will offer
12 such a skeleton.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before we continue, first of all
14 I wish to say that as far as I'm concerned, and I'm speaking as a personal
15 capacity, not on the behalf of my fellow Judges, I do not want to be
16 manipulated in this 98 bis proceeding. There is a Rule in the Rules of
17 this Tribunal. I've had in the past the opportunity to deal with that
18 Rule, so I won't take any lessons.
19 There are four Chambers, four Chambers. They issued decisions.
20 Let me invite you to read those decisions, to read whatever was said by
21 the Defence counsel as well as by the Prosecution teams on that particular
23 Up to now there hasn't been anything revolutionary. It has always
24 been very classical, traditional, so please do not make more complicated
25 than it is, a specific procedure which has been working for years in this
1 Tribunal, which has been working in written form, which has worked as well
2 in oral proceedings.
3 Some of you may have some experience, Mr. Karnavas among other
4 Defence counsel, Mr. Kovacic, and others maybe, maybe others will have
5 less experience in the matter. I'm also very surprised by what I've heard
6 from Mr. Stringer, he's asking for more time. His colleagues in other
7 trials were in a position to reply on the basis of what Defence counsel
8 say. When you know a specific case, you're in a position to say on that
9 particular count I have such-and-such documents which go in a different
10 direction from what the Defence is arguing.
11 Something else I haven't said. This procedure takes place on the
12 basis of the evidence presented by the Prosecution and not by the Defence.
13 Please keep this in mind. It was recalled in various decisions issued by
14 other Chambers. However, the Chamber has heard Mr. Stewart, has heard
15 Mr. Stringer. We will discuss this matter because I've only given you my
16 own personal opinion. Maybe my colleagues will have another opinion. We
17 will issue a decision which will either be unanimous or by majority.
18 It is now 25 past 5.00. We need to bring the next witness in
19 because the idea would be to proceed expeditiously and to finish with that
20 witness by 7.00.
21 There hasn't been any new information about this witness, so we'll
22 have the witness brought in without further ado.
23 My colleague is talking to me about a break. You know that I
24 don't really like the word "break." It seems that a break is needed, so
25 we will a have a 20-minute break. I wanted this witness to have him
1 brought in so I completely forgot about the break, but we will resume in
2 20 minutes.
3 --- Recess taken at 5.26 p.m.
4 --- On resuming at 5.48 p.m.
5 [The witness entered court]
6 WITNESS: KEMAL LIKIC
7 [Witness answered through interpreter].
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, sir. First of
9 all could you stand up, please, because I would like you to take the
10 solemn declaration. Please give me your first name, last name, and date
11 of birth, please.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Kemal Likic, the 4th of January,
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Do you currently have an
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm a pensioner.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Have you already testified
18 before a court on the events that took place in your country or is it the
19 first time you testify today?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is the first time that I'm
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Can you read the text before
23 you, please.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
25 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, sir. You may sit
3 So I'm going to give the floor to the Prosecution. The
4 Prosecution is going to give us a brief summary, and I'd like the
5 Prosecution to speed things up, please.
6 MR. FLYNN: Good afternoon, Your Honours. I'll try to be as
7 expeditious as possible.
8 I'll start with a brief summary of the witness's evidence taken
9 from the 65 ter summary.
10 The witness in this case was a Bosnian Muslim man from Stupni Do.
11 In July 1992, he joined the Muslim guards of the village who had already
12 organised themselves. They were supervised by Esref Likic. In a sketch
13 attached to the statements given by him, the witness locates the trenches
14 that were dug around the village to defend them against Serb and Croat
15 attacks. He explains how the guards were organised. Potok was the most
16 dangerous duty point. On the 23rd of October, 1993, when he returned from
17 his guard duty, the attack on Stupni Do began.
18 THE INTERPRETER: Kindly slow down, Counsel, please.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One interpreter is enough. I
20 don't need two. Let me repeat. There are two interpreters that are
21 translating into French. I only need one.
22 MR. FLYNN: He went home, put on his uniform, took his gun, and
23 with his neighbour, Salko Likic, went towards the trench position on Bogos
24 hill. On their way they were told by other guards about the death of two
25 fellow guards at the Bogos hill trench. One of the victims was Salko
1 Likic's son. Later, Salko's body was found near the place where his son
2 had died.
3 The rest were able to reach Ravasnica where they were involved in
4 combat. After a while, two women from the village came to their position
5 and told them that they were the only survivors of a group that had sought
6 refuge with them. The Croatian Defence Council soldiers sent a message
7 through the women ordering them to surrender. Some men went back to the
8 village to try and help the villagers.
9 The witness and others left in the direction of Strijezevo and at
10 Pajtov Han where a Croatian Defence Council check-point was they had to
11 hide. From their hiding point, the witness could see the roads and
12 noticed a lot of movement. He saw a local camouflage painted Croatian
13 Defence Council APC moving on the road making several rounds that day
14 between Vares Majdan and Pajtov Han.
15 On the road to Planinica he saw trucks carrying heavy arms. On
16 Monday morning, 25th of October, 1993, the witness and other villagers
17 went back to the village. At the place called Stanica, the witness saw
18 the dead body of Zejnil Mahmutovic who was shot with a dum-dum bullet. He
19 only entered the village at night and was accompanied by Dzafo Rasim.
20 During the day he saw two soldiers drinking. When he arrived near his
21 house he saw a burnt dead body which was afterwards identified as Merima
22 Likic. His house had been burnt.
23 In the basement he saw the massacred and mutilated bodies of
24 Nevzeta Likic, Hatidza Likic and Medina Likic. The next morning the
25 witness and other villagers were rescued by UNPROFOR. Three days later,
1 UNPROFOR found five other burnt bodies in the witness's house, amongst
2 them Merina Likic, Vahidin Likic, Mebrura, Likic Suhra, and Zukic Lejla.
3 The witness knows that they were brought to the morgue. Later the burnt
4 body remains of his son, Adis Likic, were found in the house.
5 And that concludes the summary, Your Honours.
6 Examination by Mr. Flynn:
7 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Likic, I just have a few questions for you and
8 I would greatly appreciate if you could give me short answer unless I ask
9 you to elaborate further. Firstly, did you provide written statements to
10 the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICTY in connection with what happened
11 in Stupni Do?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And would it be correct to say that those statements were given on
14 the 16th of March, 1998 -- 1996, and the 28th of October 1998
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And at the time you gave those statements, did you answer any
18 questions the investigators asked you correctly and truthfully?
19 A. No. I didn't understand that question, actually. Could you
20 repeat it, please?
21 Q. Did you speak the truth to the investigators when they asked you
22 any questions? Were you answers correct and truthful?
23 A. Yes. Yes. Yes.
24 Q. And did you give the information freely and without any force or
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And at the conclusion of the two statements were your statements
3 read back to you in Bosnian?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And do you remember did you sign and initial those statements?
6 A. Yes.
7 MR. FLYNN: With the assistance of the usher, Your Honours, I'd
8 like to show the witness the statements at this stage, please.
9 Q. If you could turn firstly to P 10102 and to the Bosnian version.
10 Do you recognise this as the statement that was given?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And if you look at the start -- at the English version, do you
13 recognise the signatures appearing on the English version on the back
15 MR. FLYNN: Perhaps if the usher would stay with him for the
16 moment it would speed things up.
17 Q. Last page of the English version. Do you recognise the signature
19 A. Yes, yes, yes, yes.
20 Q. Is that your signature?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And if you turn then to the second statement, which is P 10074.
23 Again if you look at the English version, do you recognise the signature
24 and the initials appearing? And again are those your signatures and
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And did you recently confirm those statements again before a court
3 officer before coming to this court?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And when you travelled to The Hague here a few days ago, did you
6 meet with myself and an investigator, and did you review your statement?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And do you have any additions or alterations to make to the
10 A. No.
11 Q. And if you had to give the evidence as contained in those
12 statements over again, is what you said in the statements what you would
13 tell us at the Court here today?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Starting with your first statement on the 16th of March, 1996, you
16 told -- you said at the early stage that you were performing guard duty in
17 the village of Stupni Do starting on the 1st of July, 1992. Is that
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Were you a part of a larger group of guards from the village?
21 A. Three soldiers. Three soldiers up at the trench, if I understood
22 your question properly.
23 Q. And did the village have a larger defence guard stationed in it?
24 How many soldiers or how many guards were in your guard unit?
25 A. Forty-two or 43. I'm not quite sure. Thereabouts.
1 Q. And what was the average -- what was the average age of the
2 members of this guard unit?
3 A. From 18 to 60.
4 Q. And were you uniformed?
5 A. Yes, which I personally bought.
6 Q. And did everybody have a uniform?
7 A. No.
8 Q. And what training did you receive within this guard unit to assist
9 you in performing your duties?
10 A. I did not attend any training.
11 Q. Did most of the members of the guard unit have some form of
12 training from their time serving with the former Yugoslav army?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. How were you armed in your unit in 1992? What kind of weapons did
15 you have?
16 A. I had a Russian -- an old Russian automatic rifle manufactured in
18 Q. And when the unit was formed initially, how many pieces of
19 armaments did you have between your 42 to 43 people? How many rifles did
20 you have?
21 A. We had seven rifles.
22 Q. And did you receive some armaments from outside between July 1992
23 and the summer of 1993?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. During this period was your unit, if we want to call it as such,
1 taken over and did it fall within the umbrella of the Armija?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And did the numbers on your unit stay the same in 1993?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And can you tell me in the latter part of 1993, in the period
6 September/October, who was the commander of your unit?
7 A. The commander was Himza Likic.
8 Q. Sorry, could you say that name again for us?
9 A. The commander was Himza Likic.
10 Q. Himza Likic?
11 A. Yes, Himza.
12 Q. And did he remain as commander of the unit?
13 A. He was commander until he was arrested by members of the Croatian
14 Defence Council, their soldiers, seven days prior to the attack on Stupni
16 Q. And prior to the attack on Stupni Do, what was the position in
17 terms of weapons that your unit possessed? You had got some weapons from
18 the outside you told us. How many weapons did you now possess within your
20 A. Twenty-eight barrels.
21 Q. And what type of weapons were they?
22 A. Three Russian automatic rifles, three M-48 rifles, semi-automatic,
23 well, I don't know how many semi-automatic rifles there were, and two
24 Kalashnikovs. That makes, I think, 28. I can't really say how many
25 automatic rifles there were, but there were two Kalashnikovs, so 28 in
2 Q. Okay. For the sake of completeness, did your unit possess a
3 mortar which it had received from the Armija?
4 A. Yes, but I never saw it, nor did I ever hear that it was used.
5 Q. Now, you described having been on guard duty on the night of the
6 22nd of October, 1993, and you were relieved by a shift, the other shift,
7 in the morning of the 23rd of October. How long were these shifts?
8 A. The shifts lasted 12 hours.
9 Q. And in your statement you stated that you went home and that while
10 having coffee with a neighbour the attack on Stupni Do started; is that
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Were you expecting -- were you expecting an attack on Stupni Do on
14 this particular day?
15 A. No.
16 Q. And what form did the attacks take? How did you know there was an
17 attack starting? What did you see or hear?
18 A. There was firing. The first shell was fired from the positions of
19 the Croatian Defence Council at the positions of the BH army and the
20 attack started with all available artillery weapons and infantry weapons.
21 Q. And when you say the positions of the Croatian Defence Council,
22 what positions were they occupying?
23 A. The HVO positions were located at Bijelo Borje, the village.
24 Q. And was this the only position that fire was coming -- attack was
25 coming from?
1 A. There was another position from town, from Vares Majdan.
2 Q. Now, you stay in your statement that you put on your uniform and
3 you made your way with another neighbour. You were attempting to go
4 towards the Bogos trench and that you met a number of soldiers halfway up
5 the hill; is that correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Had you fired at anybody at this stage? Had you seen any of the
9 A. Yes. We opened fire from the forest, and they were shooting when
10 they took Bogos and moved towards the village of Stupni Do.
11 Q. I'd like at this point in time if I may, I enclosed at the back of
12 your booklet a number of photographs which don't, unfortunately, have
13 exhibit numbers, but I enclosed them for the benefit of the Court, and I
14 wonder if they could be put on the ELMO, starting with the first one, just
15 to help us orientate ourselves.
16 Do you recognise what's depicted in this photograph? Is that the
17 village of Stupni Do towards the centre?
18 A. Yes. That's the village of Stupni Do and the surrounding parts.
19 Q. And is this a view of Stupni Do coming from the direction of Vares
21 A. Just a moment. Let me take stock. No. No. Oh, just a minute.
22 Just a minute.
23 Q. If you see, there's a road running from the front of the
24 photograph --
25 A. To the right of Vares Majdan.
1 Q. Yes. Do you see the road running through the centre of the
2 photograph from the front of the photograph towards the village?
3 A. Yes, yes.
4 Q. Is that the road leading from Vares Majdan into the village?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Perhaps if we turn to the second photograph it would be clearer.
7 On the second photograph you see two roads running from the front of the
8 photograph to the back. The road on the left, is that the road from Vares
9 Majdan leading into the village?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And --
12 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry, Mr. Flynn. If you look at the first
13 picture again, the previous one, you will see that the road which you have
14 now identified as going to Vares is far -- or quite a bit to the left from
15 the one we had first. It's the lower road.
16 MR. FLYNN: That's right. I had asked him initially to identify
17 the road in the middle of the photograph leading into Vares, which is the
18 lower road, and that's why I showed him the second one. I think it's
19 easier to determine it from the second one.
20 Q. So the lower road, the one towards the left of the photograph, is
21 the one leading into -- into Stupni Do from -- from Vares Majdan; is that
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And do you see Bogos hill in that photograph, for the benefit of
25 the Court?
1 A. No, you can't see it. You have to go a little further up this
3 Q. In which direction, to the left or right of the photograph?
4 A. The right. Towards the right.
5 Q. And if you turn to photograph number three, this shows a side
6 view, I believe of the village, with the road from Vares Majdan coming
7 from the right into the centre of the village. Is that correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And do you see Bogos hill in that photograph?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And can you tell us if you can see it or approximate where you
12 were positioned, where you had met your comrades often the hill who had
13 told you that there were people killed?
14 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Prosecutor, don't you think that it
15 might be interesting to give a pen to the witness so that he can mark
16 things on the photographs.
17 MR. FLYNN: That's what I was in the process of about to say. I
18 was asking him if he could indicate where he was, and then I was going to
19 ask him if he could mark it.
20 Q. So again, Mr. Likic, could you indicate if you can see on the map
21 where you were when you met your friends who had come from Bogos hill and
22 could you mark it with an X.
23 A. [Marks]
24 Q. And can you tell me were there any HVO forces on Bogos hill that
25 you saw?
1 A. No. We did not manage to get to the Bogos hill because the HVO
2 forces took them. This is where I put the mark "X."
3 Q. And did you see or hear any HVO forces on the hill? Were there
4 any forces close to you?
5 A. The Croatian Defence Council forces, I didn't see them. They
6 fired from the deciduous forest, and we returned fire from this position
7 where I put the mark, which was a pinewoods.
8 Q. Do you know if the HVO forces were descending down the hill in the
9 direction of where you were?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. How long did you remain in the position which you've marked on the
13 A. An hour and a half to two hours. I didn't have a watch, so I did
14 indicate that I was giving a rough estimate.
15 Q. And during that time did you happen to look back in the direction
16 of Stupni Do, and if you did, could you tell the panel what you saw?
17 A. Well, I saw the Bogos hill, the village, the road to Vares Majdan,
18 the road to the Prica Do hamlet.
19 Q. Could you see whether all the houses in the village were still
21 A. Yes. This is a newly built village.
22 Q. But we're talking about on the day of the attack. When you
23 looked back to Stupni Do, were the houses the same as they had been, for
24 example, the day before?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Did you see any signs of any premises being on fire?
2 A. First the barns were set on fire, some of them.
3 Q. And what happened after that?
4 A. When the Croatian Defence Council troops entered the village, the
5 infantry, they started to torch the houses and kill the innocent
7 Q. Did you see houses that were on fire?
8 A. Yes. I saw them from up there where I was, the position that I
9 marked with an "X."
10 Q. Now, you told about your wife and another lady arriving up from
11 the village having been sent to ask you to surrender. From that I
12 understand that the -- that the HVO forces must have entered into the
13 village. Is that -- was that your understanding?
14 A. Yes. Yes. That's when the Croatian forces entered the village.
15 Q. Do you know from which direction the forces that entered the
16 village would have come?
17 A. From what I was able to see, from the direction of Vares Majdan
18 and from the direction of Bijelo Borje village. And the forces that
19 headed from Bogos were not able to go through, and they went to the Prica
20 Do hamlet where they committed this crime, and they came in towards my
21 house through this area here.
22 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please be asked to speak into
23 the microphone.
24 MR. FLYNN:
25 Q. Would you make sure that you speak into the microphone so that the
1 interpreters can hear you and accurately interpret what you're saying,
3 When you say that committed this crime in the Prica Do hamlet, was
4 this hamlet part of Stupni Do?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And what crime was committed there, if you know?
7 A. I can only tell you what I heard. I was not there.
8 Q. And can you tell us in brief what crime was committed?
9 A. Well, they killed Zejnil Mahmutovic, who was on guard duty, and
10 then the women and the children, civilians, there were also some men
11 there, they slaughtered them. They slit their throats. They slit the
12 throats of the men, and they shot the rest into a small house, and they
13 set fire to it.
14 Q. Do you know from what you were told as to how many people at this
15 particular location were killed on that occasion?
16 A. Ten people, I believe, ten people.
17 Q. Now, you described in your first statement of the 16th of March,
18 1996, where your defensive trenches were situate, and these appear to have
19 been situate outside the village of Stupni Do. Is that correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Did your -- did your unit have a second --
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Did your unit have a second line of defence in the event that
24 these trenches fell or were captured?
25 A. No.
1 Q. Do you know, for example, if there were any strong points or
2 bunkers or trenches situate within the village itself from which the unit
3 could defend the village in the event that they had to leave the first
5 A. No.
6 Q. There were a number of houses in the village with cellars; is that
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. I think your own house, for example, had a cellar.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Was there any possibility that these cellars could be converted
12 into a strong point or a bunker from which a defence could be operated or
14 A. No. My cellar, I used it to put the winter food stores, and this
15 is where people took shelter when the village was shelled.
16 Q. Remaining with your cellar, you told in your statement about
17 coming back to the village and finding three women in the cellar who were
18 dead. Can you tell us, was there anything in your cellar at the time --
19 was there anything in your cellar at the time that might have presented a
20 danger to the HVO that would have justified them killing the people in the
22 A. No. There was just the winter food stores, potatoes, onions, and
23 so on.
24 Q. And as regards Stupni Do itself, just looking at the maps we see
25 the road leading from Vares Majdan into the village, and if you go through
1 the village the road comes out, I believe, on the other side and goes in
2 the direction of the village -- the Croat village of Mir; is that correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And did people from Mir use this road to get access from Vares
6 Majdan and ultimately to the town of Maric?
7 A. Yes. And they use it to this very day.
8 Q. And to your knowledge during the summer of 1993 and leading up to
9 the time of the Stupni Do attack, was there any attempt on the part of
10 your unit to prevent any of the Croat population from the surrounding
11 villages to use this road?
12 A. Could you please repeat your question? I didn't understand it.
13 Q. During the period -- during the summer of 1993 leading up to the
14 incident in Stupni Do, did any of your unit -- did you or any of your unit
15 try to prevent your Croat neighbours from using this road?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Is there any reason why you can think -- that you can think of why
18 the -- your village should have been attacked by HVO on the 23rd of
19 September, 1993?
20 A. There was no reason.
21 Q. Now, you said -- you told in your second statement, and I'm coming
22 towards the end of my questions, you said in your second statement of the
23 28th of October, 1998, at the end that after the bodies of certain people
24 which had been found and identified by UNPROFOR had been found, your son
25 Adis, his body was later found; is that correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Can you tell us approximately when Adis's body was found and where
3 it was found?
4 A. My son Adis, his body was found close to my family home, 15 to 20
5 metres away. There was some planks put up there for some construction
6 work. This is where he was killed. Actually, he was wounded close by.
7 His mother saw him there. He was wounded, and probably - I was not
8 there - he was thrown onto this plank or board. He was either dead or
9 still alive but wounded, and he was -- he burnt down there and his bones
10 were found there and they were identified.
11 Q. How was he identified, in what manner? Was it through his dental
12 records or clothes or -- take your time.
13 A. He was identified -- he was identified since he was the -- in the
14 19th generation of the police academy in Vraca. He was wearing military
15 police-type boots when I got him out of Vraca, and he had a police belt
16 with a holster, and then in the morgue in Visoko they managed to later on
17 identify his body, his bones, using DNA analysis.
18 Q. Apart from Adis's body, do you know of any additional bodies or
19 remains that were discovered within the village of villagers who had been
20 killed that UNPROFOR had not managed to discover?
21 A. I don't know. I was not there.
22 Q. And so apart from Adis's body, knowing about Adis's body being
23 discovered sometime afterwards, you don't know about any other bodies
24 being discovered; is that correct?
25 A. My son Adis's body was the last to be discovered of all the people
1 who died or who were killed in Stupni Do 28 days after he was killed.
2 Q. And the panel has been presented with evidence that UNPROFOR
3 found, some days after the Stupni Do event, located 16 bodies. So there
4 was a difference of some 22 bodies, Adis being one of them. Do you know
5 anything about the other 21 bodies being found after UNPROFOR had left?
6 A. Among the bodies that were retrieved by UNPROFOR from my house, my
7 son Adis was not among them, because I went twice to the morgue in Visoko
8 and he was not there. His bones were not there. But only 20 days after
9 he was killed, when the BH army entered Vares and liberated Vares, this is
10 when Stupni Do was liberated too, and this is when his bones were found.
11 Q. Could I ask you to turn to the last exhibit in the booklet that
12 you have in front of you. It's number 8461, and it's actually the last
13 page because that's the B/C/S version which I want you to look at.
14 Have you seen this before?
15 A. Well, to tell you the truth, no. No.
16 Q. This is a list of deceased people who were killed in Stupni Do
17 prepared and presented to a commission by Mr. Husnija Mahmutovic, and he
18 lists some 38 villagers. I think you looked at this yesterday when we
19 met. Isn't that correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And I think I asked you if you could -- you could identify from
22 the list which of those persons were members of the ABiH who had been
23 fighting in Stupni Do on that particular day. And did you inform me that
24 Salko Likic, number 8, had been an ABiH member on at that day?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And the same with number 10, Muharem Likic?
2 A. That's his son. Muhamed Likic. He was Salko Likic's son, but
3 there is a mistake here. H. There was no H. Muamer, not Muhamer.
4 Q. Number 10 was also an ABiH member. Is it correct that you also
5 mentioned number 11 and number 12? Rifet Likic and Samir Rahic?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And you also mentioned number 17, Zejnil Mahmutovic.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And lastly, you mentioned number 30, Sefko Likic.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. So apart from those six people, were all the other people on the
12 list civilians who were killed?
13 A. Likic Sulejman Medina was also a member of the BH army. Zejnil
14 Mahmutovic -- or, rather, Edin Mahmutovic, Zejnil's son. Adis Likic, son
15 of Kemal, my son.
16 Q. And was Adis involved in the defence of the village on that day?
17 A. Yes. He was on the night-shift. Because he was not 18 yet he was
18 a courier. He brought food.
19 Q. And looking at this list of 38 people that you looked at
20 yesterday, did you know each one of these people?
21 A. Yes.
22 MS. TOMANOVIC: [Interpretation] I do apologise. I think the
23 witness did not complete with listing all the names from this list. I
24 think that the Prosecutor interrupted him before he was finished. If I am
25 mistaken, then I apologise.
1 MR. FLYNN: I thought he had, but we'll go back to it.
2 Q. The names which you mentioned which were serving ABiH members,
3 again, Mr. Likic, were number 8, number 10, number 11, number 12 --
4 A. Yes. Twelve, 15, 16, 17, 27, and 35.
5 Q. And I think you also mentioned 30.
6 A. Yes. Yes. I do apologise. Sefko Likic, son of Vejsil, yes,
7 that's right.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Sir, is your son number 27?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Is he on this list as a soldier?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
12 MR. FLYNN:
13 Q. On the day in question did you have any knowledge that he picked
14 up a rifle and was fighting prior to being killed?
15 A. He was in my house. He did not have a rifle because not all of us
16 had rifles. We didn't have enough weapons.
17 Q. What -- what was the arrangement with the weapons? You had -- you
18 had two shifts. When one group of soldiers would relieve the other group
19 of soldiers, would they bring weapons with them or would they take over
20 the weapons which the operative soldiers were using?
21 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I may. My
22 colleague asked two leading questions and I did not intervene, but now he
23 is on the border -- in fact, I think he crossed the border and I suggest
24 that he should really take care.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You have exceeded the time
1 allotted to you, so please conclude.
2 MR. FLYNN:
3 Q. What was the arrangements for the exchange of weapons? How did
4 you share the weapons amongst your unit?
5 MR. KOVACIC: Again. Again. Now there's a suggestion that they
6 shared the weapons.
7 MR. FLYNN: It's obvious -- no. It's obvious --
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Wait. It is obvious for you.
9 It may not be obvious for the Defence and not for the Judges. So please
10 ask him without leading him in any way. Ask him had what was the
11 situation regarding weapons. There were 42 men. How many weapons did
12 they have, and how did they manage? And the Judges will draw the
13 appropriate conclusions.
14 MR. FLYNN:
15 Q. You've already told us how many weapons there were. You've
16 already told us how many men there were in the unit. What was the
17 arrangement in relation to the use of the weapons?
18 A. When the shifts rotated the weapons remained in positions with the
19 exception of the seven rifles. We decided that four to five people should
20 be on guard at any given time, and that's how it happened that day that
21 there were five of them in Bogos. So that two or three weapons would
22 always remain there. Naturally people took weapons home with them, and if
23 a need arose a courier would come and would bring the weapons back to the
24 line. And the rest of the weapons, up to 28, they would be there.
25 Sometimes you would have 27 people in the trenches and only one
1 piece would remain there, and sometimes there would be only two people in
2 the trenches and so and so forth.
3 Q. My time is up. Just one last question. As regards the list of
4 people prepared by Husnija Mahmutovic, did you know each one of these
6 A. Yes. Yes. Those are all my relatives and neighbours, because
7 this was not a large village.
8 Q. And following the Stupni Do incident, have you ever seen any of
9 these people again?
10 A. No, never. I -- and it's impossible to see a dead man, dead
12 Q. Thank you.
13 MR. FLYNN: I don't have any further questions. I apologise if I
14 extended my time.
15 Questioned by the Court:
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Sir, I have a very technical
17 question to ask you. This village was defended by people on guard, 40 in
19 THE INTERPRETER: 42, interpreter's correction, in total.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You took part in the defence of
21 that village, being in a trench. Here is my question: We were told that
22 the HVO had taken control of the Bogos hill and then had entered the
23 village. We would like to know whether the whole village was encircled
24 and, if so, how you yourself were able to escape to the HVO.
25 Tell me, after the fighting, when the HVO entered the village,
1 what did you do yourself? Did you run away? Did you stay in the village?
2 What happened?
3 A. I went to my relative -- or, rather, my next door neighbour, Sacko
4 Likic, and we headed towards the Bogos hill. We went up there and we
5 couldn't proceed any further because the Bogos hill had been taken. The
6 HVO soldiers had already started moving from the Bogos hill, and we
7 encountered some other soldiers who survived there at the Bogos hill and
8 maybe two or three other soldiers from our unit. So these were all the
9 soldiers that were on the night-shift, and I myself was on the night-shift
10 the night before, but they did not manage to pass through that route
11 because we returned fire, the soldiers who had taken Bogos hill and that
12 place in the plain. And so they bypassed, detoured this area, and they
13 went to Prica Do, the hamlet.
14 We remained where we were, and two women approached us, my wife,
15 and I asked them, "Why did you come?" And they said, "We have come
16 here --" I apologise. "We were sent here to tell you to surrender," and
17 we should come back as soon as possible, and if we do so they will no
18 longer kill people and burn the villages. But I made the decision, and
19 everybody else who was there, we all decided that we would not be going
20 back, because we had seen everything that had happened in the village. I
21 personally saw that with my own eyes.
22 So these two women and another soldier who was together with me,
23 we managed to get to the free territory. UNPROFOR helped us.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In light of what you've just
25 said, the HVO may not have entirely surrounded the hill and the village
1 as you remained on the hill, when your wife and the other woman came to
2 ask you to surrender; is that right? And you stayed there, and after that
3 you left.
4 A. Yes.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So from a purely technical and
6 military --
7 A. [Previous translation continues] ... Night fell, we went.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] -- and military standpoint. So
9 you can confirm to me that the village was not entirely surrounded by the
11 A. The village -- well, partially -- I don't know how to express
12 myself. It was not surrounded on all sides. There was a free area from
13 the -- from the Strijezovo side. Forces of the Croatian Defence Council
14 entered the village from the direction of Vares Majdan and Bijelo Borje,
15 and afterwards the forces who took control of Bogos hill entered the
16 village from the hamlet of Prica Do by my house.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So according to the way you are
18 describing this, the HVO forces, well, some take control of the Bogos
19 hill. Other men enter the village and come from Vares Majdan and Bijelo
21 A. Yes.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Right?
23 A. Yes, that's right.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] According to your estimation,
25 how many were there? Give us a figure, an approximate figure, please.
1 Were they greater in number than you were? Were there -- there more men
2 or less?
3 A. I can't give you an exact figure, but there were twice as many as
4 there were us.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you're saying at least twice
6 as much. There might have even been more than that.
7 A. Yes, if not more. More, yes.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And how were they armed? Were
9 they better equipped? Were they equipped like you, not so well-equipped?
10 A. They were very well-armed.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And my last question: Do you
12 know that members of the village guards during the fighting killed a
13 number of HVO members? Do you know? Don't you know that?
14 A. Where I was they didn't, but about other places I can't say. I
15 can't testify.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] My last question: This village
17 was defended, and you have confirmed this, by guards. A witness came to
18 tell us that a short while before that that people had come to the village
19 to ask the villagers to hand over their weapons and to surrender.
20 According to you, this is true, that a few days or a few weeks
21 prior to that people came from Vares and asked you to surrender and to
22 hand over your weapons?
23 A. Would you repeat that question, please? Before the attack on
24 Stupni Do. How long before the attack?
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation continues]
1 ... Attack, yes. A few days, a few weeks before. Before, at any rate.
2 A. Yes. Yes.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Why did you not surrender? What
4 could you do with just a few rifles in the face of units that were
5 perhaps -- please answer the question. Why didn't you surrender?
6 A. Well, we did not surrender in order to preserve the population.
7 They wanted us to lay down our arms, to hand over our weapons, not just us
8 to surrender.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And did you hand over your
11 A. Well, we didn't, not that day when they set the ultimatum.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] When did you hand over your
14 A. Several weeks before the attack on Stupni Do.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So -- does the Defence have any
16 questions? My colleague would like to ask the question, then I'll give
17 you the floor.
18 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Witness, you have seen a photograph of Stupni Do,
19 and you have made a cross where your location was. Would you be able, if
20 you were shown that photograph again, to draw the different trenches that
21 had been dug for the defence of Stupni Do? Would you remember? Could you
22 do that?
23 A. Yes.
24 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I would then -- then I would ask the usher to
25 present you again with that picture and a pen.
1 It is this one, I think. Take this.
2 Mm-hmm. That's not the one. The one where the witness marked a
3 cross. He put a cross. Yes. This is the one, yes.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute. There's another
5 photograph where you can see the entire village. That might be more
6 appropriate to indicate where the trenches were. So please show this
7 photograph to the witness. That might be -- might speak for itself.
8 So please put the photograph on the ELMO so that everybody can see
9 it, my photograph.
10 So that said, we have an overall view here, an aerial view. Now,
11 can you mark the areas where the trenches were with a cross.
12 A. I can only mark two trenches. The others can't be seen. On this
13 photograph, you can only see two of them. [Marks]
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, can we have a number,
15 please, for these two trenches.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will become Exhibit IC 777.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So now we will ask the witness
18 to mark the other trenches on the other photograph. You can only see two
19 trenches on this one.
20 So here we have it. This is the first photograph, and you had
21 marked a cross on this one. So can you tell us where the trenches were?
22 A. Bogos hill.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please indicate where the
24 trenches were.
25 A. This is the trench. There were just two trenches there, and it
1 was called Do.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You can't tell us where the
3 other trenches were? You can't mark those?
4 A. I can't because they're not on this picture. If you have another
5 photograph, I can.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Can we have an
7 exhibit number for this map also, please, registrar.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit number IC 778.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Now, among all those photographs
10 you've seen, is there one on which you could mark all the trenches?
11 A. I did not see any.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Among the photographs that the
13 Prosecution has shown you, is there one of these photographs which would
14 enable you to locate all the trenches, all the trenches that were dug
15 around the village, because so far you've only showed us two.
16 You don't understand my question?
17 A. I will show them when you show me another photograph. I saw
18 Bradvica and Borava Glava a moment ago.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Flynn, during
20 your examination, that is what you should do. You should have remembered
21 to ask him to locate trenches on the photographs and to mark these.
22 MR. FLYNN: Yes, but I was short of time and I was trying to be
23 expeditious. I can't ask all the questions, Your Honour. Perhaps -- I
24 mean, if you wish for a clarification, when I showed these photographs to
25 him yesterday he was able to mark more than two, and maybe if you would
1 like to show him the very first photograph again, I think he might be able
2 to mark a number of the trenches.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, we'll show you again
4 the two photographs. Please take a look at this one. Can you indicate
5 other trenches on this one?
6 A. Yes.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please do so then.
8 A. [Marks]
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Could we have a number for that
10 photograph, please.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit number IC 779.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'm a bit surprised when I see
13 you marking those trenches. Why aren't there any trenches in the lower
14 part of the photograph? It seems that all the trenches are on the line
15 which is north on that photograph, but are there any other trenches in the
16 east, in the west, in the south?
17 A. There were just trenches, seven of them, on all sides.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So there were seven
19 trenches on all sides. Okay. Fine.
20 Did we give a number to the last photograph?
21 Very well. Mr. Ibrisimovic, you were on your feet.
22 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] We were supposed to start off
23 with the cross-examination, but our Defence team does not have any
24 questions for this witness. Thank you.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Defence doesn't have any
1 questions or you don't have any questions?
2 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] No questions for the Pusic
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Prlic's Defence.
5 MS. TOMANOVIC: [Interpretation] The Prlic Defence likewise has no
6 questions, and we cede our time to the other Defence teams if they need
8 MR. KHAN: Your Honour, not for Mr. Stojic.
9 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I just have one
10 question, and my client would like to ask two questions.
11 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] No, no, don't limit me in
12 that way. Don't limit me. These are very technical questions, clear
13 questions, and there's no point in not approaching the truth of Stupni Do,
14 whatever that truth might be.
15 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] I apologise I thought there were
16 changes. As I said I have one question:
17 Cross-examination by Mr. Kovacic:
18 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Witness. Could you take up the
19 photographs you were looking at a moment ago --
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute. If there's one
21 question from Mr. Kovacic, two questions from Mr. Praljak, and if there's
22 no more questions from other Defence counsel we might be able to finish
23 today, otherwise, everybody will have to come back tomorrow.
24 Ms. Alaburic, will have you questions to ask to that witness or
1 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, yes. The Petkovic
2 Defence does have a few questions for this witness.
3 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I think that there's
4 been a misunderstanding. I misspoke, but General Praljak intervened. He
5 hasn't only got two questions, he has more. Not many, but quite a bit
6 more, which we won't be able to get through in the next five minutes
7 certainly. So it's up to you, of course. We shall abide by your ruling.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Okay. If Mr. Praljak Defence
9 needs five minutes, if Ms. Alaburic has a few questions to ask, a few
10 minutes, maybe, and if there is no question from Mr. Coric, maybe we could
11 finish by 7.15. Right. So we will finish by 7.15. It's better for us to
12 finish with that witness rather than to have him come back tomorrow for a
13 few minutes.
14 Mr. Kovacic.
15 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with your permission,
16 I really do think that this is an important part of the indictment and an
17 important witness, because he was a member of the Bosnian-Herzegovinian
18 army and he can speak about the combat activities that were undertaken in
19 the village and the preparations for the village of defence of a possible
20 HVO attack. I don't think it would be right to reduce the
21 cross-examination to just some 10 minutes. So I would like to propose
22 that we leave the cross-examination of this witness for tomorrow even if
23 it only lasts half an hour, to do it in the proper way.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] As you wish.
25 Sir, your hearing will continue tomorrow since the Defence so
1 wishes. We'll meet again tomorrow at 2.15. Thank you.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you too.
3 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.07 p.m.,
4 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 17th day
5 of January, 2008, at 2.15 p.m.