Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 28025

 1                           Thursday, 15 May 2008

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness entered court]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 9.00 a.m.

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, please call the

 7     case.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Good morning,

 9     everyone in and around the courtroom.  This is case number IT-04-74-T,

10     the Prosecutor versus Prlic et al.  Thank you, Your Honours.

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you very much,

12     Mr. Registrar.  Today we are Thursday.  My greetings to the witness, the

13     accused, the Defence teams, and the Prosecution.  I would also like to

14     greet all the people who are in and around this courtroom and helping us

15     and I would also like to thank the interpreters for their work.

16             Now I hand the floor to Mr. Scott who will continue his

17     cross-examination.

18                           WITNESS:  DAMIR ZORIC [Resumed]

19                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

20             MR. SCOTT:  Thank you Mr. President.  Your Honours, good morning.

21     To all those in the courtroom, also good morning.  And as the President

22     says, good morning and thank you to all of those in and around the

23     courtroom who are helping us do our jobs.

24                           Cross-examination by Mr. Scott: [Continued]

25        Q.   Good morning to you, Dr. Zoric.  Doctor, let's try to see if we

Page 28026

 1     can move forward a bit.  I would like to go to the period now in February

 2     1993.  It is correct, is it not, sir, that sometime in February 1993,

 3     more approximately the 10th to the 28th of February, there was a major

 4     new -- some people called it apparently a census or new registration or

 5     reregistration of refugees in Croatia; correct?

 6        A.   I do not remember the exact dates but at the time in cooperation

 7     with the UNHCR, we did register the refugees and make a census.

 8        Q.   And again, touching back on this concept of refugee status and

 9     the various rights or protections that flowed from that status, it is

10     correct, is it not, that refugee status is a temporary form of

11     protection.  At one point, I believe you said it was for a period of six

12     months, given for a period of six months, that is the status, subject to

13     continuing extensions if the justifying conditions remained the same or

14     continued.  Is that correct?

15        A.   That is mostly how we operated but the status could be extended

16     for less than three months also.

17        Q.   All right.  And when this reregistration process was conducted in

18     February 1993, all the persons -- everyone who had been granted refugee

19     status up until that point in time had to reregister and if they did not

20     reregister at that time, they no longer had refugee status; correct?

21        A.   I think so.  That is what was made public because there had been

22     misuse of that status and at that time, we decided to have photographs on

23     the refugee ID cards; that is, we wanted to be more sure about the

24     identity of the respective persons.

25        Q.   And it is also correct, is it not, that as a result or in

Page 28027

 1     connection with that reregistration process, the validity period, if you

 2     will, the time period for which the refugee status was good, if I can

 3     call it that, was in effect, that was shortened to a three-month period;

 4     correct?

 5        A.   I don't remember these details.

 6        Q.   Well, let me ask you to turn to, please, Exhibit -- in the

 7     Prosecution binder which you should have there in front of you, if you

 8     can please turn to the tab that's marked P 10419.  Once you find that,

 9     sir, and again as always -- well, you should find a Croatian language

10     version there available to you and if I can direct your attention and the

11     courtroom's attention to paragraph -- specifically, paragraph 38 of that

12     report.  Do you have that, sir?  Doctor, do you have paragraph 38?  While

13     you're looking at that, for the record, that is an ECMM report dated the

14     7th of February, 1993, which is around the time that we were discussing

15     in the last few minutes, that is, mid-February 1993.

16             Paragraph 38, it says and perhaps you can just follow along and

17     tell me -- I'll ask you if this is essentially a correct statement or

18     summary of what happened at that time.  It says that:  "On 3 February,

19     one of the coordinating centres, ECMM centres, were told about the

20     announcement by the Office for Displaced People and Refugees that all

21     refugees in Croatia will be registered between 10-28 February, after

22     which they will have refugee status for three months.  Anyone not

23     registered would be treated as a foreigner.  In addition, all unlicensed

24     refugee centres will be closed and more suitable accommodation found for

25     the refugees.  The Bosnian government will advise on which areas are safe

Page 28028

 1     and which are not and refugees may be repatriated if they come from safe

 2     areas."

 3             Is that -- that's an accurate synopsis, isn't it, of the action

 4     that was taken in February 1993?

 5        A.   Yes, I think so.

 6        Q.   Is it also correct, sir, that around this same time, around

 7     February 1993, refugees had to begin reporting each month, that is every

 8     month, in order to continue their refugee status?

 9        A.   Yes.  Every month, we registered everything that had been handed

10     out as aid, their general condition, their -- the condition of their

11     health, et cetera, and that's why once a month, they were obliged to

12     contact the nearest centre.

13        Q.   Thank you, Doctor.  Just moving on to some general points in

14     terms of the refugee situation and again, so there's no misunderstanding

15     in the courtroom and perhaps so we don't have to argue about this, I'm

16     not suggesting that and I've never suggested, in fact, Croatia did not in

17     fact take in a substantial number of persons of all ethnic groups that

18     were fleeing from the conditions in Bosnia.  There's no question about

19     that.  But at the same time, it is fair to say, is it not, that Croatia

20     was not happy, not particularly happy that these people had come.  It

21     created a huge burden on the Croatian government; correct?

22        A.   I don't think anybody is happy if such a burden is placed upon

23     him or her.

24        Q.   Correct.  And you testified, in fact, to that point in the

25     Tuta-Stela case, counsel, at page 10965, line 22, "We were not happy that

Page 28029

 1     these people had come and that we had to take care of them."  And that's

 2     an understandable point, at least up to a certain point we can all agree

 3     on that.  It's not a good situation for Croatia, not a good situation for

 4     the refugees.  And you've also agreed that, in fact that's my second

 5     point, you agree, do you not, that being a refugee is not a good thing.

 6     It's not something nice.  It's a difficult situation for anyone to find

 7     themselves in?

 8        A.   I agree with you.

 9        Q.   And in fact you testified on Tuesday that:  "Whether everybody

10     there was happy, well, of course not.  Nobody was happy because it's a

11     very sad situation being a refugee.  And there could have been

12     dissatisfaction."  You also found, would it be fair to say, that these

13     people that were coming into Croatia from these various situations, many

14     of them came with great fear, fear from what they were leaving behind and

15     what would happen to their homes and fear for what their future held;

16     correct?

17        A.   Correct.

18        Q.   And you also testified and can we all agree that everything else

19     being equal, it was easier being a Croat in Croatia than being a Muslim

20     in Croatia and I'll just remind you on Tuesday, you said, at page 27896,

21     line 12, "It's a fact that the ethnic Croats found it easier to integrate

22     into Croatian society."

23             We can both agree that that's -- was correct, can't we?

24        A.   I believe it is logical that they should have -- they should have

25     a less difficult time.

Page 28030

 1        Q.   Now, if we can just touch on the topic, and moving to the topic

 2     of the movement of persons who had found themselves in Croatia to third

 3     countries.

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott.

 5             MR. SCOTT:  Yes, Your Honour.

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] There's something that I don't

 7     quite understand in your cross-examination.  You are putting answers or

 8     quoting the answers of the witness that he said in -- during the

 9     examination in chief.  If you are cross-examining it's because you agree

10     with him.  Why are you cross-examining with him if that's not the case.

11             MR. SCOTT:  Your Honour, there's just certain basic propositions

12     I would like to make sure that we do in fact agree on and it's been very

13     clear on that.  I'm laying the foundation, the Chamber can assume that

14     I'm laying a foundation for certain additional questions.  I don't think

15     there's any mystery about that.

16        Q.   Sir, if we can move to the topic of the movement of persons,

17     again who had found themselves in Croatia at this point to third

18     countries.  The Judges I think at this point -- everyone in the courtroom

19     has heard about there was a process at one point that involved something

20     that's been called getting a letter of guarantee from some destination

21     that these people would go and that that would be coupled with something

22     called a transit visa.  These are people coming out of

23     Bosnia-Herzegovina.  If they had a letter of guarantee and a transit

24     visa, they would then be able to move on to some third country.  Are you

25     familiar with that practice?

Page 28031

 1        A.   Yes, I am.

 2        Q.   And can you tell us a bit about your understanding of how these

 3     letters of guarantee would be obtained, what that process involved?

 4        A.   We mostly received those letters by mail.  Some people handed

 5     them in in person.  They had a different shape in different countries but

 6     they were also officially certified either by notary public or by the --

 7     by some public authority, and it said that a person is willing to take up

 8     some other persons and to such people, we gave agreement to go where they

 9     were invited to go.

10        Q.   And then there was this second document or aspect of this beside

11     the letter of guarantee -- excuse me.  There was something that we've

12     heard about, there's been testimony and evidence in this case, there was

13     something that also would go along with that called a transit visa.  How

14     would one obtain one of these transit visas to either cross into Croatia

15     or to travel across Croatia or out of Croatia, if you will, on to another

16     destination?

17        A.   The ODPR did not issue transit visas and transit visa is a

18     colloquial term anyway.  We issued a letter in which we stated our

19     agreement for a certain person to be admitted to Croatia at an official

20     border crossing by the Croatian police to go in a certain direction.  So

21     we only stated that we agreed to these people being admitted.  It was a

22     sort of recommendation but not a visa.

23        Q.   If I could just ask you to look at a couple of documents on this

24     point fairly quickly to see if you -- just if you can assist us any

25     further.  Can I ask you to go to P 04941, P 04941 which is an HVO

Page 28032

 1     document dated the 11th of September, 1993.  I show it to you, just

 2     simply if you look at the request, it -- as a point of reference it says,

 3     "Request for the release from prison of persons who are in possession of

 4     letters of guarantee and transit visa for the passage through Croatia."

 5             Do you see that?

 6        A.   These are not documents that we issued.

 7        Q.   No, I understand that, sir.  I'm not suggesting otherwise.  But

 8     you see, then, that this is a document that has 44 individuals listed

 9     for -- to be released if they were in possession of these two documents,

10     a letter of guarantee and what's again called here a transit visa.  And

11     based on that, sir, I just simply ask you:  Did you become aware that

12     that was, as you said maybe a moment ago, a colloquialism but that's what

13     people were describing these additional travel documents, people were

14     calling them transit visas?

15        A.   [No interpretation]

16        Q.   Sorry, sir, I heard some answer but it wasn't in the transcript.

17     Maybe I didn't, and if I didn't, I apologise.

18        A.   Yes, I'm aware that people called it a transit visa.  But transit

19     visa were not issued based on such documents.  A letter of guarantee had

20     to come from a person who would take up these people and not from those

21     people themselves.

22        Q.   No, I understand that.  Again, there were two documents, at least

23     that's what we've all -- people have told us.  There was the letter of

24     guarantee that you could -- someone in another country would take you in,

25     some arrangements would be made.  That had to be -- had to have that.

Page 28033

 1     You also had to have the second document, something that people called a

 2     transit visa.  And you say that it was something more like a

 3     recommendation, at least in terms of your agency; is that correct?

 4        A.   Yes, but that letter of guarantee didn't have to be from a third

 5     country necessarily, it could be from Croatia also.

 6        Q.   All right.

 7             MR. KARNAVAS:  If I could just interrupt and make one small

 8     observation for future purposes.  Here's a good example where the

 9     gentleman is indicating that he has prior knowledge, he's aware and he's

10     being asked questions and obviously I'm not objecting.  I mention this

11     because yesterday during my direct, there was some objections.  Here's a

12     clear example of how a witness when he has prior knowledge and you lay a

13     foundation can be asked questions about events to which he was not

14     personally involved in because he had left the -- that office.  He was

15     not a member of the parliament and now he's being asked questions.  I

16     mention this, Judge Trechsel, because yesterday there seems to be some

17     reservation on some members of the Bench as to this gentleman not being,

18     you know, qualified to comment about a period of time after March 1993

19     when he was no longer with the ODPR.

20             So I'm making this -- this is a classic example and I commend the

21     Prosecutor for using this technique.  I wish to be -- to have the same

22     right accorded to me when I do my direct examination.  Thank you.

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I am not so concerned

24     with procedural questions, I like to go to the crux of the problem.  The

25     Prosecutor is showing you a document with 44 names.  These people are

Page 28034

 1     prisoners.  They received letters of guarantee and a transit visa.  Those

 2     people whose names figure on this list, are they, according to you, from

 3     the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, is that their nationality?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  This list was obviously made

 5     in Bosnia and Herzegovina and that's what the letterhead says.

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  So those people are

 7     foreigners, basically, with regards to your country.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is right, Your Honour.

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] At the time, a foreigner,

10     whether he comes from Bosnia and Herzegovina or Hungary or the USA, when

11     such a foreigner would come to your country, did he need a visa and a

12     guarantee to stay for a while in your country?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, a visa was never

14     required for crossing from Bosnia-Herzegovina to Croatia.  Foreign

15     citizens, Bosnia-Herzegovinian citizens included, could stay in Croatia

16     and move about up to three months in accordance with the Law on the

17     Movement and Stay of Foreigners.  Longer than that if they had some

18     special reason such as medical treatment, et cetera.

19             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Hypothetically

20     speaking, let's take an example of a Hungarian person, Hungarian national

21     who comes to your country through -- let's say he leaves Budapest by car,

22     he goes through Zagreb and he wants to visit your country.  Would such a

23     person at the time need a transit visa?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour, because the

25     conditions in Hungary, hypothetical as it may be, were not irregular in

Page 28035

 1     any fashion.  It was not logical to suppose that anyone from Hungary

 2     would apply for refugee status.

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  So if I understand

 4     you correctly, the transit visa was issued because your authorities

 5     believed that these people, because there was a war, needed some

 6     financial help and in order to remedy to this type of situation, they

 7     were given a transit visa whereas other foreigners who did not want to

 8     stay in your country did not need such a document and this is why transit

 9     visas were issued and letters of guarantees were given, is that because

10     of a financial or economic reason?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think so.  Another reason, and

12     not less important, is that we wanted to know who is coming to Croatia

13     from Bosnia-Herzegovina, where they had crossed the border, where they

14     had gone because we needed to establish a database for various services

15     that were searching for people and these databases were the most

16     important resource in this activity.

17             If we hadn't had such registers, we wouldn't have been able to

18     trace people as quickly as we did.

19             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

20             Please proceed, Mr. Scott.

21             MR. SCOTT:  Thank you, Mr. President.

22             I don't want to belabour it but I do want to make very brief

23     response to Mr. Karnavas's comments which I appreciate.  Just so the

24     Chamber knows, I am also trying to be consistent with my own practice and

25     do not believe what I did -- said this morning so far was inconsistent

Page 28036

 1     with that.  I did not expect the witness to have detailed information or

 2     to be able to talk about these 44 individuals.  I did put the document in

 3     front of him just to give a concrete example of a documentation using the

 4     term transit visa so that would be maybe less abstract but I did not take

 5     him any further into the document than that and therefore, I just want to

 6     make sure -- I want to explain, at least in my mind, I've been consistent

 7     on that point.

 8        Q.   Sir, just to follow up on the President's questions.  Since

 9     you've said that, well, someone coming from Hungary, for example, would

10     be able to come into the country for a visit without a visa, without

11     something called a transit visa, but then you mentioned specifically,

12     well, we all know that conditions in Bosnia and Herzegovina at the time

13     are quite different than what was happening in Hungary at that time.

14     Therefore, there was a dimension, there was an aspect, there was a

15     difference, there was something different about people coming from Bosnia

16     and Herzegovina.  And is it not correct, sir, that part of the transit --

17     what people called a transit visa, whether it was a colloquial term or

18     what, but what people called a transit visa, another purpose of that was

19     to indicate these people were transiting through, they were not staying,

20     there was no intention of them staying in Croatia and that they would not

21     be granted and would not obtain refugee status; correct?

22        A.   We never saw those people.  In our recommendations, we stated the

23     facts that were found in the letters of guarantee.  If they were from

24     Germany, we gave agreement for them to travel on to Germany.  The same

25     applied for people who received letters of guarantee from Croatia.

Page 28037

 1             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, the question Mr. Scott

 2     just put to you is quite interesting and very relevant for that matter.

 3     Let's take one of the 44 names, let's take a person on this list and

 4     let's say that one of these people has a letter of guarantee to go to

 5     Switzerland, for instance, but then he just changes his mind at the last

 6     minute and he says, Oh, I really like Zagreb, I would like to stay in

 7     Zagreb rather than going to Lozane, for instance.  Would he have been

 8     able to request a refugee status at that point or would you have said,

 9     no, you will not get refugee status and did you ever see or experience

10     some of these cases where people decided just to stay in your country?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There were many such cases,

12     Your Honour, cases of people who stayed in Croatia after all, many cases.

13     And I will show information to the counsels how many such people such

14     were even after the date mentioned by the Prosecution, I believe it was

15     June 30th, 1992, how many persons from Bosnia-Herzegovina Croatia had

16     admitted as refugees, how many persons transited, how many returned, how

17     many were refused entry to Croatia, at least as far as we know because

18     the ODPR was not -- had no remit with regard to them.

19             I have all that information on me.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott.

21             MR. SCOTT:  Thank you, Mr. President.

22             MR. KARNAVAS:  I believe the gentleman said 1996 as opposed to

23     1992 but I don't know.  He said June 30th -- my colleague here heard

24     1996.

25             MR. SCOTT:  I thought he was referring to the questions I put to

Page 28038

 1     him yesterday about the 13th July, 1992, decision.

 2             MR. KARNAVAS:  That could be it.

 3             MR. SCOTT:  Sure, if he can clarify.

 4        Q.   Sir, if you could just clarify.  You've heard some uncertainty

 5     perhaps in what you said a moment ago.  The date you referred to, could

 6     you just give us that again, do you recall?

 7        A.   I meant the dates that you mentioned yesterday.

 8        Q.   13 July 1992, at least that's the date that I was referring to?

 9        A.   Yes, exactly.

10        Q.   All right.  Just once again, to follow-up on the President's

11     questions, we all know that human beings are complicated, changeable

12     people -- changeable beings, sure, some people arrived in Croatia, got to

13     Zagreb, decided they wanted to stay and we can all agree that undoubtedly

14     happened.  But when your office received the paperwork, when you

15     received -- when you were looking at these letters of guarantee and what

16     some people called a transit visa for the purposes of passing through

17     Croatia on to Germany or some place else, your full understanding -- and

18     when I say "your" not just you personally but ODPR, the Croatian

19     government's understanding and intention was that these people would be

20     passing through Croatia for a short time, transiting on to another

21     location, and they would not be staying in Croatia as refugees; correct?

22     Maybe some did, but that was not the intention or understanding; correct?

23        A.   I believe that that's correct.

24        Q.   Now, going back to the other side of this situation if we can,

25     that is where the people were coming from and I wanted to pick up on

Page 28039

 1     something that you touched on, I believe, yesterday.  That you said

 2     something to the effect that depending on where people came from, they

 3     could be denied refugee status or entry because you might say, well,

 4     there's no reason for someone from that location to be considered a

 5     refugee.  And in fact, in the Tuta-Stela case, you used the example of

 6     Siroki Brijeg and presumably a Croat from Siroki Brijeg, you said that

 7     remained a free area, what you considered a "free area" throughout the

 8     war and you would not have considered or approved any Croat coming from

 9     Siroki Brijeg as a refugee.

10             If counsel wants to check me on that that can be found at 11005,

11     line 10.  Is that correct, sir?

12        A.   Yes, that's correct.

13        Q.   Just so everyone in the courtroom understands these scenarios,

14     you would agree about me, wouldn't you, that a particular area might be

15     safe for some people or one ethnic group and not safe for another ethnic

16     group; correct?

17        A.   That is correct too.  And we acknowledged well-based fear as a

18     reason for refugee status and there were many cases in which our

19     decisions of a general character were later reviewed and adapted to the

20     needs of the individual person.  So, if the office said that persons came

21     from a certain municipality not affected by the war such as

22     Siroki Brijeg, are not entitled to refugee status, still, there were

23     people from these such areas who had received -- who came as refugees but

24     we cancelled their refugee status.  But if they could provide plausible

25     reasons for their being a refugee then we would grant that.

Page 28040

 1             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I was listening to you

 2     and there is another legal problem that is has just cropped up.  This

 3     Croat from Siroki Brijeg, I suppose is a national of the Republic of

 4     Bosnia and Herzegovina, he is a Croat by ethnicity, nevertheless, he is a

 5     national of the Republic of BiH, but in your -- under your law, aren't

 6     Croats granted dual citizenship?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is correct and true that Croats,

 8     even though they do not reside in the Republic of Croatia may apply for

 9     and be granted Croatian citizenship, not only the Croats in

10     Bosnia-Herzegovina but also those living elsewhere if the legislation of

11     the country they reside in allows for that.

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  So this Croat

13     person from Siroki Brijeg, an area that is not affected by the conflicts,

14     if they were to apply for Croatian citizenship, could they, being a

15     Croatian national, be regarded as a refugee because I'm under the

16     impression that you can't be a refugee in your own country.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We didn't grant refugee status to

18     the people from Siroki Brijeg.  The problem may be of a legal nature if

19     the refugees sought Croatian citizenship and were granted it and at that

20     point, they should have been deprived of their refugee status.  They

21     could no longer be refugees, rather, they embarked upon a so-called

22     integration process.  This was a procedure that we adopted in accordance

23     with the recommendations of the UNHCR.

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One very last question because

25     many of the accused said that they had dual citizenship.  I understood

Page 28041

 1     that their dual citizenship was granted automatically, you did not need

 2     to apply for it, as I understood, but you seem to say that a Croat who

 3     lives abroad, outside the country, can have the Croatian nationality but

 4     he has to apply for it.  So can you enlighten me on this?  Is this a dual

 5     citizen or a citizenship by right or do you have to apply for it?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, to the extent I'm able

 7     to explain the matter, all the inhabitants of Croatia who resided in

 8     Croatia whose place of permanent residence was in that former republic of

 9     that former state automatically became the citizens of the Republic of

10     Croatia, nationals of the Republic of Croatia regardless of their ethnic

11     background.  Everyone else had to apply for citizenship including the

12     Croats living outside Croatia.  According to the law, they had to

13     prove ...

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If I understand properly, a

15     Croat who lived in Prozor, who went to school there and then moves to

16     Croatia, does he have to apply for Croatian citizenship?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct.  He could have

18     applied for citizenship in one of the consulates, for instance, that

19     Croatia had in Bosnia-Herzegovina and if that person was eligible then he

20     could have been granted citizenship.  Otherwise, he could have sought

21     citizenship in the Republic of Croatia.

22             MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, can an additional

23     question be put to that because your question was, "Should that Croat

24     from Prozor have to apply for citizenship upon his arrival in

25     Croatia ..." and this is where a misunderstanding may arise because the

Page 28042

 1     witness said that the individual may have, could have applied for

 2     citizenship rather than -- it's not a must.  So if you could reput the

 3     question.

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I repeat, in this case, you

 5     have a Croat who lives in Prozor and goes to school there for years and

 6     years and then decides to go to Croatia for some reasons, whatever they

 7     may be.  Is he going to be a Croat automatically?  Is he then going to be

 8     given an ID card, a Croatian passport as a Croatian national or does he

 9     have to apply for his Croatian national to be acknowledged before he is

10     given an ID card or a passport?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, such an individual

12     would be required to apply for citizenship.  Citizenship was not granted

13     automatically.  I will give you an illustration:  Even today there are

14     Croats in Bosnia-Herzegovina who have declared themselves to be Croats

15     but have not applied for and consequently have not been granted Croatian

16     citizenship.  One of them was at the recent elections elected one of the

17     members of the BH Presidency and he stated explicitly that he was not a

18     Croat national, he never asked for Croatian citizenship, he's a national

19     of Bosnia-Herzegovina, though an ethnic Croat living in

20     Bosnia-Herzegovina.

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I thank you for your answers.

22             Please proceed, Mr. Scott.

23             MR. SCOTT:

24        Q.   Doctor, now that we've broached this topic, it might be worth

25     while, it might assist everyone, at least some of us in the courtroom on

Page 28043

 1     this side of the courtroom and perhaps the Judges to pursue it a bit

 2     longer.  The impression one has, and you can tell me if I am wrong, is

 3     that given the awakening of the national Croatian spirit, the Tudjman

 4     government coming into power, the HDZ, there was a desire to promote, if

 5     you will, Croatian citizenship, on a global basis that any person

 6     considered themselves a Croat in the diaspora living in the

 7     United States, Australia, Canada, Germany, if you wanted to get -- if you

 8     wanted Croatian citizenship, and of course had you to jump through some

 9     hoops which we'll come to in a moment, but there was a policy to

10     encourage or maybe a fairly liberal attitude to gaining Croatian

11     citizenship for people who were Croats; is that correct?

12        A.   No, I would not describe that position as liberal at all.

13     Individuals had to collect the relevant documentation and submit it to

14     the competent office service of the consulate and meet all the

15     requirements under the law.  If these were met, then they became

16     nationals.  I believe that some people even voiced their displeasure with

17     the slow pace of the procedure.

18        Q.   Well, we all understand bureaucracies, I think, in every country.

19     But my question to you is this and if I'm wrong then please set us

20     straight because there may be a number of people in the courtroom who

21     have thought about this.  Was there some advantage or different process

22     or different rules for a Croat to obtain citizenship rather than anyone

23     in the world can apply to be naturalized as a citizen.  That is, I am not

24     Dutch by ethnicity but if I live here long enough and I want to become a

25     naturalized citizen, I can apply.

Page 28044

 1             MR. KARNAVAS:  If I may, Your Honour, I'm going to object to the

 2     scope of the question on the grounds of relevancy.  I don't see why this

 3     is relevant, number one, and I think it is also beyond the scope of

 4     direct examination.  I may wish to be a Swiss citizen, it doesn't mean

 5     that Switzerland is going to embrace me simply because I come from a

 6     particular country, you know.  Or I may wish to be Greek, I have to go

 7     through the procedures but I don't see what this has to do with the

 8     direct examination especially given the narrow scope of the gentleman's

 9     testimony.

10             Now, there will be, I can assure Mr. Scott and everyone else,

11     there will be a witness that will be coming very shortly who was from the

12     diaspora who participated in the events and ultimately became an

13     ambassador for Croatia and perhaps he might be the one that might be more

14     relevant to ask these sorts of questions.  But this gentleman here, given

15     the scope of the direct examination, I fail to see how this line of

16     questioning is relevant and if it is relevant, I would like to know how.

17     And I would like a ruling from the Court.

18             MR. SCOTT:  Let me respond first, Your Honour, please, before the

19     Chamber deliberates.

20             First, number one, I'm following up on the President's questions.

21     Mr. President, you raised this area and I think it is relevant, having

22     said that.

23             I think it is relevant to the case because we're dealing with the

24     whole scope of the status and rights of people travelling in and their

25     rights once arriving in Croatia.  And you had Muslims going there, you

Page 28045

 1     also had Croats going there and I do think that it could be a difference

 2     if a person -- if a Bosnian Croat arrives in Zagreb and can easily then

 3     obtain Croatian citizenship and stay, because he is a Croat, that may be

 4     a fundamentally different situation than what the situation that the

 5     Muslim persons arriving in Zagreb found themselves in.

 6             MR. KARNAVAS:  I don't see how that is part of a joint criminal

 7     enterprise or a crime.

 8             MR. SCOTT:  No one's saying it is.

 9             MR. KARNAVAS:  I don't see what the relevance then is.  What is

10     the relevancy and if I may and I don't wish to take any time from the

11     Prosecution, the question from the Judge, from the Bench and from

12     Mr. Scott was basically somebody coming in and it's very clear, they can

13     come in and stay up to three months and after that, they either have to

14     get permission or they have to seek refugee status if that's the case.

15     That's the base -- now if he wants to limit the scope of his question,

16     fine.  I don't wish in any way to interfere with his cross-examination

17     but I don't see how this is advancing either side in getting -- in

18     helping the Court get to the truth.

19             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, Mr. Karnavas, you are the

20     one who called this witness to talk about the refugee status of displaced

21     persons.  That's a very important legal aspect.  Based on that, it is

22     interesting to know what was their procedure to obtain this status of a

23     refugee, to know who would stay and who would go, whether there were

24     cases of discrimination.  So basically this is what the Prosecution tries

25     to ascertain with this witness.  So these are topics that are relevant.

Page 28046

 1     We're not wasting our time, are we?

 2             MR. KARNAVAS:  Just to make sure that we're very clear because I

 3     don't want the Bench assuming -- any one of the members of the Bench

 4     assuming that I'm somehow trying to keep you from knowing the facts.

 5             I have no objection to that.  But as far as who can be granted

 6     citizenship and to say had that somehow if someone who is of a Muslim

 7     ethnicity or a Slovenian or a Hungarian or whoever who is coming from the

 8     former Yugoslavia cannot get citizenship, somehow has relevance to the

 9     case.  I don't see that.  If we stick to issues of refugee status, status

10     as far as staying in the country, benefits, that sort of stuff, I

11     totally -- I have no problem with that.

12             Beyond that, I think we need to have a narrower scope.  That's

13     all I'm saying and I just made my objection and I'll sit down for the

14     rest of the period on this.

15             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Ms. Nozica.

16             MR. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I should like to fully

17     endorse what my colleague Karnavas stated, that very soon we will have a

18     witness here who was an ambassador of Croatia to Sarajevo during the war

19     and he can explain the matters concerning the granting of citizenship.

20     I'm stating this because the Prosecutor in his latest submission on why

21     he insisted on these questions stated that it was far easier for a Croat

22     who arrived to Croatia as a refugee from Bosnia to be granted citizenship

23     than a Muslim.

24             I believe that this witness does not have the required knowledge

25     unlike the witness, the former ambassador to Sarajevo who is soon to be

Page 28047

 1     called.  It would be far more helpful to listen to the answers of that

 2     witness as to how many Muslims were granted Croatian citizenship and

 3     we're talking about very high figures during the war and that is

 4     something I believe this witness is not familiar with, either with the

 5     procedures or with the cases of the citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina being

 6     granted Croatian citizenship.

 7             For that reason, I believe that these matters should be raised at

 8     the point when the witness with requisite knowledge takes the stand.

 9     Thank you.

10             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  In other words, Ms. Nozica, you do not say that

11     this is an irrelevant question, do you?

12             MR. NOZICA: [Interpretation] No, thank you, Your Honour, for

13     giving me the opportunity to state that.  I do believe that it is very

14     relevant; I am only afraid that we are taking one direction only

15     concerning only Croats having been granted citizenship.  I believe that

16     at the same time, we have to also discuss the matter of the Muslims

17     having been granted citizenship and only then shall we have the complete

18     picture of how it worked during the war.

19             MR. SCOTT:  Briefly, Your Honour.  There was no suggestion that

20     there were not situations where Muslims from Bosnia-Herzegovina were

21     granted Croatian citizenship.  I have not stated that position.  We are

22     trying to get a better understanding.  This is a witness who has been a

23     senior official, an ambassador himself, a member of parliament, a person

24     extensively involved in the coming of people into his country and he may

25     be able to assist us, he may not.

Page 28048

 1             I think if I could just ask a few more questions, as they say in

 2     the movies, if the Chamber would grant me a bit of latitude, I think we

 3     can connect up the relevance to this if the witness can help us.  If he

 4     can't help us, then we'll go on in a couple of moments.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We think that this is relevant

 6     and we took due note of the fact that there were Muslims who could also

 7     become Croatian citizens but, of course, it is a possibility, maybe it

 8     was also a reality.

 9             MR. SCOTT:

10        Q.   So, sir, let me go back to -- what I was trying to illustrate

11     simply is we all know -- well, I think we know, I think most people in

12     the courtroom know that most countries provide for a naturalization

13     process that is by which virtually anyone can apply for citizenship in

14     another country, their non-native country.  And I simply pick the example

15     of -- I find myself in the Netherlands.  I am not Dutch by birth or

16     ethnicity, if there is Dutch ethnicity and I suppose there is, but if I

17     decide I want to stay in the Netherlands and obtain Dutch citizenship, I

18     can apply for that.  I can be naturalized and become a Dutch citizen.

19     But that doesn't turn on me being Dutch, it isn't dependant on my

20     Dutchness, if you will.  So are you telling the Chamber that based on all

21     of that, that a Croat who -- a Croat in Australia or the United States or

22     in Bosnia-Herzegovina had no other additional rights or better

23     opportunity, if you will, to become a Croat citizen than any other person

24     who would follow the naturalization process?

25             So a Croat in Bosnia-Herzegovina had no better opportunity or

Page 28049

 1     more -- a different advantage to obtain Croatian citizenship than a

 2     person from -- applying from, let's say, Germany who was not Croat?  A

 3     German citizen who applies, he's not Croat, he just wants to apply and be

 4     a -- wants to become a Croat citizen.  So you're saying the Croats from

 5     all over the world, the Croats in the diaspora that the HDZ and that

 6     Tudjman were reaching out to, they had no more right to become Croatian

 7     citizens than anyone else?

 8             MR. KARNAVAS:  Your Honour, again, now we're going about HDZ and

 9     Tudjman.  We heard from the first, very first witness, we already have

10     testimony and I will concede the point for the record, I will concede the

11     point for the record, for the first time, Croatia is a nation recognised

12     within international boundaries.  Based on their constitution it allowed

13     all Croats no matter where they were, whether they were from Cleveland,

14     Ohio, where I come from, where there is a very large Croatian community,

15     all of them had a right to apply for Croatian citizenship just as when

16     Greece became a member of the European union later on --

17             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Are you testifying again, sir?

18             MR. KARNAVAS:  Yes, I'm --

19             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  No, you should not testify, Mr. Karnavas.  I

20     think this is simply not correct.

21             MR. KARNAVAS:  We've had testimony to this and, Your Honour, I am

22     shocked that you have not objected because of the form of the question.

23     The gentleman never suggested that the Croats did not, you know, did

24     not -- had the same footing as others.  Look at the previous testimony

25     today.  You are very quick to object to me, you are very quick to jump on

Page 28050

 1     me and it seems sometimes personal but when it comes to the Prosecution

 2     and they are trying to assume facts that are not in evidence, there is no

 3     objection.  The gentleman never indicated, never indicated and we've had

 4     testimony, Your Honour, so it's not me testifying.  We've had testimony,

 5     we've had the constitution, this came into the Prosecution's case, it

 6     came through the very first witness.  Croats around the world could get

 7     citizenship and of course they had better or more special privileges but

 8     the testimony has been that they still had to make an application.  That

 9     was my reason why I indicated if I wanted to be a Swiss citizen, if a

10     Croat wanted to become a Slovenian citizen they would have to, in the

11     Slovak, a Slovenian from the United States, who would have the better

12     chance?  Who would have the more opportunities?  Who would have the

13     better privilege of becoming a Slovenian citizen?  It depends on the

14     constitution.

15             How is this relevant to the case?  How is this relevant to the

16     joint criminal enterprise.  You jump on me, Judge Trechsel, but I want to

17     know why don't you stop the Prosecution?  Why don't you suggest that he

18     is asking questions with facts that are not in evidence or that he's

19     twisting the witness's testimony?  This is why I think there is a double

20     standard.

21             Yesterday I was prevented from going into areas, on the

22     assumption that this gentleman, beyond a certain point in 1993, could not

23     testify.  Now we're asking him questions of which he is not an expert.

24     You've not objected to him not being an expert but all of a sudden we're

25     allowing it.  I'm allowing it because the Prosecution has laid a

Page 28051

 1     foundation.  I'm merely just showing and I'm frustrated today because

 2     there is a double standard in this court.  Especially when you come to

 3     objecting to me, Judge Trechsel and I think sometimes it's personal.

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas.

 5             MR. KARNAVAS:  I hope that it's not the case but it appears this

 6     way.  It appears and I'm talking about perceptions.

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, I fail to

 8     understand very well what the problem was about, the problem raised by

 9     Mr. Scott or yourself.  We've had a witness who's held high positions,

10     political administrative positions within this office.  He was an

11     ambassador.  Therefore, somebody who is able to understand a question and

12     to answer it.

13             Furthermore, in terms of citizenship he is competent because he

14     was an ambassador of his country to Sarajevo.  Although there is a

15     consulate, I suppose he had to deal with issues related to citizenship so

16     he knows the matter.

17             MR. KARNAVAS:  Your Honour, it is an established fact in this

18     case that Croats around the world could get citizenship.  That's a known

19     fact.  And everybody else -- so why are we belabouring the point?

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I haven't even dealt with that

21     once you're on your feet.  You don't even know what I'm going to say and

22     you rise to speak about Croats from the USA who have that citizenship.

23     That's not my topic.  I'm interested in knowing what the procedure was to

24     obtain citizenship.

25             Mr. Scott's case, and that was the purpose of his question, was

Page 28052

 1     to say that in terms of citizenship in the way it was treated, there

 2     was -- there were various reasons to obtain it, that's the question he

 3     wanted to put to the witness.  It may be that the witness would say no,

 4     there was no discrimination, the fact that you were an HDZ member did not

 5     give you citizenship.  I don't know.  I don't even know what the witness

 6     is about to answer and you are both belabouring the point on answers that

 7     can have legal answers because there were laws and regulations in

 8     Croatia, there was a practice in place to obtain citizenship.

 9             Let us not forget that in Croatia, and you yourself highlighted

10     this through documents, there were hundreds of thousands of refugees.

11     1.800.000 refugees at one point in time.  So among these people, there

12     must be people who applied for Croatian citizenship and it may be that

13     the witness can tell us that.  He can tell us that as far as he knows,

14     there were Muslims who became Croats or not.  Rather than spend too much

15     time on those other issues, I think we should deal with these substantial

16     issues.  The Prosecutor will put a question, the witness his answer and

17     then you have the possibility in redirect to come back to this subject.

18             Mr. Scott.

19             JUDGE PRANDLER:  I'm going to make an issue and I believe that we

20     are to calm down and to talk about these questions with no particular

21     vehemence, but at the same time, I do agree that this issue, in general,

22     is a topic which could and should be discussed and questions be put about

23     it in our Trial Chamber.  I would like to say, knowing the Hungarian

24     regulations, that we do have also citizenship for those Hungarians who

25     left the country before 1945, before 1956, after 1956 and -- but they

Page 28053

 1     have to apply for it.  They get a passport but with no -- in a way, no

 2     equal rights with the Hungarian citizens in situ, who are in Hungary,

 3     because of course they cannot apply for the same benefits, et cetera,

 4     like the Hungarians living in Hungary.

 5             Now, the same situation doesn't apply to those Hungarians with

 6     Hungarian ethnicity who live around Hungary.  As you know we have quite a

 7     big number of them starting from Vojvodina and also a few in Croatia but

 8     many of them in Transylvania, Romania and in Slovakia.

 9             Now, the issue I believe that it could be discussed here if there

10     was any kind of discrimination on that basis and therefore I believe that

11     the topic could be addressed too -- it may be a situation that it could

12     be addressed later on when we have another witness here.  I do not

13     exclude this possibility which was mentioned by Mr. Karnavas.  At the

14     same time, I think that again, I would like to emphasise that they should

15     remain calm about it and of course Mr. Scott should conduct his

16     cross-examination in view of the fact that it is not the, I would say,

17     the major issue here with this witness.  Thank you.

18             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please proceed, Mr. Scott.

19             MR. SCOTT:  I certainly never intended that we would get so

20     bogged down in this.  I thought that following up to the President's

21     questions there might be a few questions that would assist the Chamber

22     and assist everyone in the courtroom and I had no idea that we would wind

23     up being -- become enmeshed in such a situation.  I don't know why it's

24     so troubling to counsel -- I just don't understand why it's such an

25     apparently touchy issue.

Page 28054

 1             Mr. Karnavas himself, and I agree with Judge Trechsel as I've

 2     said and what counsel says is not testimony and that goes for me too.

 3     And simply to make the point and the reason I was asking the questions

 4     that I was asking, I was just trying to get some basic answers to,

 5     Mr. Karnavas himself answered not in an evidentiary way but just so every

 6     in the courtroom knows where we are, on page 25 today starting at line

 7     15, Mr. Karnavas said, "Croats around the world could get citizenship and

 8     of course they had better or more special privileges in connection with

 9     obtaining citizenship."

10             Now that's my whole point.  I've never said Muslims couldn't

11     obtain Croatian citizenship.  They probably did.  I don't dispute that

12     for a second.  What we were trying -- all we are trying to establish was

13     because of that policy, the very policy that Mr. Karnavas said exists,

14     the Croats had a different situation, with more privileges, if the

15     witness could just assist us and say apart from the right of any person

16     anywhere in the world to apply for naturalized citizenship, and again I

17     use the example of if I want to become a Dutch citizen, I can apply.

18        Q.   But wasn't there, sir, a different procedure by which persons who

19     were Croat or who claimed to be "Croat" could become Croatian citizens?

20     Or they could just apply to become naturalized just like everybody else.

21     It's a very simple question, really.  Were there two procedures or was

22     there just one that applied to everybody?

23        A.   I'm not sure what exactly your last question was.  You asked

24     about a German applying for Croatian citizenship or is it something else?

25     Is it about Bosniaks and Croats?

Page 28055

 1        Q.   Let me try one more time in the interests of time and I promise

 2     the Chamber that if we can't make headway, I'll move on because there are

 3     other things that I want to cover with the witness but one last chance.

 4             Witness, we all know, I think -- you understand that anyone could

 5     apply to become a naturalized -- anyone anywhere could apply to become

 6     naturalized Croatian citizen?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   However, we've heard in the case, the Judges have heard, all of

 9     us have heard that, you know, people who are Croatian citizens around the

10     world can vote in the HDZ, they can even get elected to parliament

11     because they are Croats and Croats everywhere, you know, have this

12     special relationship.  Maybe it's a good thing, the special relationship

13     with their home country, with Croatia, but the point is apart from the

14     naturalization process, did these Croats around other places whether it

15     was Australia or the United States or Bosnia, if you were a Croat, was

16     there some different, special arrangement that applied for obtaining

17     citizenship other than just the normal naturalization process?

18        A.   There is a law in Croatia that regulates these issues.  This law

19     provides for different categories, different conditions, different

20     possibilities.  You could apply for citizenship and be denied it.

21     Alternatively, you could fulfill certain conditions and then be granted

22     the citizenship.  An alien who had been living in Croatia for five years

23     without interruption fulfills the basic condition.  Then you had to prove

24     that you know the language and customs of the country where you want to

25     live in and another possibility was that citizenship was offered to

Page 28056

 1     someone if it was in the interest of the Republic of Croatia such as

 2     public personalities and top sports people, et cetera.

 3             So Croatian citizenship could be obtained on different grounds,

 4     but all these possibilities were regulated by the law and I agree that

 5     under this law, anybody could apply for citizenship but I also agree that

 6     not everybody had to be granted citizenship.

 7             MR. SCOTT:  Your Honour, I promised I would move on so I will.  I

 8     think the Chamber knows the question that is pending and I guess we'll

 9     hope to get from a future witness but I promised I would move on so I

10     will.

11        Q.   Now, you would agree, sir, would you not that in terms of people

12     returning to the -- facing the prospect of returning, the possibility of

13     returning to the place from which they had fled, left under various

14     conditions, they might -- these people might have the right on paper to

15     return, someone might say, "Well, go forth and go back to your home

16     country and be happy," but having that right on paper and actually being

17     able to go back and live in that same situation can be two very different

18     things; correct?

19        A.   In some situations, that is certainly what it could have been

20     like.  Safety is certainly the first pre-condition for sustainable

21     return.

22        Q.   Safety being as you say, certainly, a first condition.  Also the

23     conditions that existed that -- the conditions in that area not just

24     safety but would you agree whether they had anything to return to.  Did

25     their house still exist?  Would there be jobs there?  Would they be able

Page 28057

 1     to live there?  Was there any community left there or had the community

 2     been destroyed?  Correct?

 3        A.   Yes, that's correct.  The other condition is the sustainability

 4     of that return or the first or all conditions together as well as that

 5     the return had to be voluntary.  Unfortunately in Bosnia-Herzegovina,

 6     there is still many areas without any return and I doubt there will be

 7     return to those areas any time soon because the conditions are not

 8     favourable.  But return was possible at two levels.  One type of return

 9     is to the very place you had come from and the other type is return to

10     your country.  If the conditions did not exist, the conditions you

11     mentioned, if you don't have your house, if you don't feel safe, but at

12     least you could be in your country.

13             I mentioned the example of Croatia.  We were called upon by many

14     European countries to receive people from Vukovar to Croatia to take them

15     back again after three or four years or so even though the town was not

16     liberated and their houses had not been renovated, but they returned to

17     their country who continued to take care of them.  In the same way,

18     refugees, in some cases refugees from BiH, could return to their country

19     in which case they would no longer be refugees but become displaced

20     persons in BiH and there were many such situations.

21             The first step in the return process is the return to the

22     so-called majority area.  The programmes we conducted, I spoke about that

23     yesterday or the day before yesterday, was called "closer to home."  You

24     will agree with me, I believe ...

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, just to clarify today,

Page 28058

 1     in 2008, are there still refugees in Croatia from Bosnia and Herzegovina,

 2     for instance, coming from Mostar who were unable to go back to their city

 3     of origin and that still live in Croatia as such?  Do you have that?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I believe there are

 5     still such refugees, several thousand, both the ones and the others.

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Today, you said there are

 7     several thousand people living in that situation.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These are not great numbers, but as

 9     far as I know, there are still people with that status in Croatia.  The

10     office is still in existence, it has a different name though, it's an

11     agency in a Croatian line ministry but there are still people in Croatia

12     with that status be it for the reason that reconstruction is not yet

13     completed or because return is not yet possible.  The numbers are not

14     great but unfortunately, there are still such people around even so many

15     years after the events.

16             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Please proceed,

17     Mr. Scott.

18             MR. SCOTT:

19        Q.   Dr. Zoric, perhaps just to move us forward as quickly as possible

20     on this point let me refer you back to your previous testimony and just

21     ask you if you agree that that's an accurate assessment.  You were

22     talking about refugees and displaced persons at that time, that being

23     people being returned and you said -- counsel, I am looking at page

24     11022, line 24, starting at line 24.  You testified, sir, "Where could

25     they go?  To devastated areas?  To mined areas," that is areas where

Page 28059

 1     there are mines, "without reconstruction so it took another two or three

 2     years during which it was impossible to return.  And besides, during --

 3     if you live as one of these type of person, refugee or displaced person,

 4     for six or seven years, so many things change in your life, children grow

 5     up, get used to living in one place.  They've already left some place

 6     else.  It's very difficult for them to go back."

 7             Now, would you stand by that same statement today?

 8        A.   Yes, I would.  I believe that's a very real image you've painted.

 9        Q.   I'd like to move on to a different topic please, if we could, and

10     that is not the ODPR that you worked in in Croatia but an agency by

11     essentially the same name or in fact indeed the same name, the Office for

12     Displaced Persons and Refugees that was established in Herceg-Bosna, and

13     can you tell the Judges whether in your capacities as an official of the

14     Croatian ODPR, did you interact and deal with counterparts, if you will,

15     people at the ODPR Herceg-Bosna?

16        A.   I did sometimes, either with that office or with the office of

17     the Sarajevo government or with a similar office or agency or body that

18     was active in Banja Luka.

19        Q.   And concerning the people at the ODPR Herceg-Bosna, do you recall

20     and can you assist the Judges with the names of any persons that you

21     dealt with in that agency?

22        A.   There was several people who were head of that office

23     successively, one of them was Martin Raguz.  I am not sure whether he was

24     the first or the second.  And the other's name was Tadic.  The gentleman

25     in charge of that office in Sarajevo was called Recica and in Banja Luka,

Page 28060

 1     I know that he -- later on when I was in Sarajevo, I was head of the

 2     national bank, but what was his name again, Vladusic, Mr. Vladusic.  I

 3     believe that was his name.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  Concerning the Mr. Tadic who was the person I think

 5     you said in addition to Mr. Martin Raguz who was involved in the

 6     Herzegovina region, would it be correct that that was Darinko Tadic?

 7        A.   Darinko.

 8        Q.   And you were involved, in fact, if you will, recruiting

 9     Mr. Tadic, you and I believe another individual, a colleague of yours or

10     a friend named Ciro Grubisic.  You and Mr. Grubisic sort of recruited

11     Darinko Tadic to establish the ODPR in Herceg-Bosna; is that correct?

12        A.   No, I was in no position to do that.  I didn't have the power to

13     do so, nor was it possible for me.  No, that is not correct.

14        Q.   Let me see if I can prod your memory a bit more and then we can

15     move on.  So you don't recall meeting with Mr. Tadic in Zagreb in about

16     October 1992 for the purposes of discussing the establishment of the ODPR

17     in Herceg-Bosna?

18        A.   I do not remember that meeting but I know that Mr. Tadic had a

19     humanitarian organisation in Zagreb and later on I saw him but I learned

20     from TV that he had become head of that office.

21        Q.   All right.  Sir, do you recall, in fact after a meeting, if you

22     can recall, just testing your memory a bit further, do you recall after

23     meeting with Mr. Tadic in Zagreb, travelling then, that you actually

24     travelled with Mr. Tadic to Mostar where you met with Jadranko Prlic to

25     establish the ODPR in Herceg-Bosna?

Page 28061

 1        A.   No, I did not travel with Mr. Tadic, that's for sure, and I may

 2     have spoken with Mr. Prlic about the need to establish such an office.

 3     As I said earlier, it was my intention and my wish for them to do that

 4     work themselves and thus, I confirmed that I wanted to help Mr. Prlic and

 5     everybody else so that they be able to organise humanitarian aid

 6     themselves and everything else that concerns them.

 7        Q.   All right.  You say, sir, that you may have met Mr. Prlic.  You

 8     may have met him or are you now telling the Chamber that now that you've

 9     had a chance to think about it for a few more moments, you did, in fact,

10     meet -- deal with Mr. Prlic on this topic?

11             MR. KARNAVAS:  I believe he said I may have spoken as to may have

12     met.

13             MR. SCOTT:  Very well, I'll accept that.

14        Q.   You said you may have spoken to him.  Did you, in fact, do you

15     recall now in fact that you did speak with him and if so, on one occasion

16     or on multiple occasions?

17        A.   I have spoken about that already.  It is very difficult for me to

18     recall specific dates.  It is not a secret that I did speak to him.  And

19     I think that's very logical.  Many organisations from abroad came to

20     Croatia to assist us and I see nothing strange in my attempts to help the

21     people in BiH, at least by giving advice.  It would have been strange to

22     have done otherwise.

23        Q.   Dr. Zoric, I don't see anything strange about it either.  I'm

24     just asking just for some information.  So when you said that it's no

25     secret that you spoke with Mr. Prlic on this topic, did you speak with

Page 28062

 1     him on one occasion or many different occasions?

 2        A.   I can't tell now but I think it was once or twice and those were

 3     conversations in passing.

 4        Q.   Did you speak with him -- were these conversations on the

 5     telephone or did you ever speak with Mr. Prlic face to face, say, in a

 6     meeting or something such as that?

 7        A.   Once I spoke to him for at least two and a half hours because

 8     that's how long it takes to drive from Zagreb to Grac and in the winter

 9     of 1992, we rode to Grac together.  I wanted to tell him about how he can

10     collect more humanitarian aid that he needed and certainly we were not

11     quiet during that ride, we spoke, but I really cannot remember precisely

12     what we discussed.

13        Q.   Can you assist the Judges with what was the purpose of you and

14     Mr. Prlic travelling in the car for two and a half hours to Grac

15     together?  Why were you going to Grac at that time?

16        A.   I wanted him to meet people from Austrian humanitarian

17     organisations which had sent some aid down there and I wanted him to

18     establish direct contact so that they may be in direct contact from then

19     on and receive aid because until that time, we were often contacted by

20     individuals from BiH and that was a burden -- an additional burden in our

21     regular work.  I believe that we should do our work and they should do

22     theirs rather than us working for them.

23        Q.   Forgive me.  If you'll let me stop you there because of time.

24     Can you tell us, please, who did you understand Mr. Prlic to be, sitting

25     in this car with him for two and a half hours?  How did he introduce

Page 28063

 1     himself?  Who did you understand Mr. Prlic to be at that time in terms of

 2     any position or functions that he held?

 3        A.   I believe he held a high position in Herceg-Bosna, but I don't

 4     remember which position exactly.  But he was certainly a high-ranking

 5     official.

 6        Q.   And did you have any other communications or conversations or

 7     meetings with Mr. Prlic following this trip to Grac?

 8        A.   Very rarely.  I practically didn't see him until I went to

 9     Sarajevo.  If I saw him, it was not these -- these encounters were not

10     planned, they were just in passing.

11        Q.   You say until you saw him in Sarajevo that's when you took up --

12     I assume you're referencing when you took up your ambassadorial duties in

13     Sarajevo; is that correct?

14        A.   Yes.  I was ambassador and he was Minister of Foreign Affairs.

15             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I believe that it is time to

16     take a break so we'll take a 20-minute break.

17             MR. SCOTT:  Yes.

18                           --- Recess taken at 10.28 a.m.

19                           --- On resuming at 10.52 a.m.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, you may proceed.

21             MR. SCOTT:  Thank you, Mr. President.

22        Q.   Sir, I'd like to move on to another topic now, please.  Before I

23     do that, just to touch on some of your additional background.  We

24     understand already that you were elected to parliament in 1993 and served

25     until sometime in 1995; is that correct?

Page 28064

 1        A.   That's correct.

 2        Q.   And while you were a member of parliament, I believe you served

 3     in the position -- in addition to being a member, you were the

 4     vice-president of the Chamber of Counties; is that correct?

 5        A.   That's correct.

 6        Q.   Perhaps you can tell us who perhaps know a bit less about it than

 7     some in the courtroom, the Chamber of Counties, that is one of the two

 8     chambers of the Croatian parliament?

 9        A.   That's correct.

10        Q.   And just so the record is clear, is that considered to be the

11     higher chamber or the lower chamber or maybe that doesn't apply at all

12     but where does it fit into the structure?

13        A.   At the time, the Croatian parliament had two chambers whereas now

14     it has only one chamber following the amendment to the constitution.

15     Which of the two was higher or lower, well, they thought that they were

16     the higher chamber and we thought that we were and the debate never

17     ended, in fact.

18        Q.   I understand that, Dr. Zoric.  Mr. Stringer and I have that same

19     argument all the time.  But at the time in -- when you held this

20     position, I realise there was now only one Chamber, but at the time there

21     were two, you said it was the Chamber of Counties, what was the other

22     chamber called?

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, please, you have the

24     floor.

25             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] I think that there is an

Page 28065

 1     error in the transcript which changes the meaning of the answer.  These

 2     are lines 22 to 25 and that's in the following, and that's the witness

 3     said that with the amendment to the constitution, it was after the

 4     constitution was amended that the Croatian parliament had only one

 5     chamber and not that after the change to the constitution there were two

 6     chambers and that's when the witness referred to the debate.  The debate

 7     referred to the situation before the amendment to the constitution

 8     because that's the time when there were two chambers.  So the debate

 9     about which of the chambers was more important was not related to the

10     amendment to the constitution.

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.  Please proceed,

12     Mr. Scott.

13             MR. SCOTT:  Thank you for that, counsel.

14        Q.   If we could just proceed to get for purposes of the record what

15     was the name of the other chamber?  You were vice-president of the

16     Chamber of Counties.  At the time when there were two chambers, what was

17     the name of the other chamber?

18        A.   One of the chambers was called the Chamber of Deputies and the

19     other the Chamber of Counties and I was in the latter.

20        Q.   All right.  And how did you get to be the vice-president of the

21     Chamber of Counties?  Can you tell us very briefly just how does one get

22     selected or appointed vice-president?

23        A.   The vice-president is not appointed, rather, he is elected at the

24     constituent session.  There were two vice-presidents and I was one of

25     them.  The deputies elect a vice-president.

Page 28066

 1        Q.   All right.  And at the time that you were a member of the

 2     Croatian parliament, you were a member of the Social Liberal Party; is

 3     that correct?

 4        A.   Correct.

 5        Q.   And that is sometimes abbreviated the HSLS?

 6        A.   Correct.

 7        Q.   And at the time, sir, it's correct, is it not, that the HSLS was

 8     the largest opposition party in Croatia, that is, in opposition to the

 9     HDZ which was in power at the time?

10        A.   That's correct.

11        Q.   And then you've told us that sometime later, you became the

12     Croatian ambassador to Bosnia and Herzegovina; is that correct?

13        A.   That's correct, too.

14        Q.   And just, and I'm not asking anything sinister about this but

15     just so that the record is clear, were you -- was that -- were you

16     considered the Croatian ambassador to Bosnia and Herzegovina or did you

17     have some position that had ambassadorial functions perhaps associated

18     with it but different than being the ambassador?

19        A.   I was the ambassador.  I don't know what other function there

20     could have been.

21        Q.   Very well.  And you held that position for how long?

22        A.   Which one do you mean, the ambassadorial?

23        Q.   Please, yes.

24        A.   A bit under two years.

25        Q.   From when to when, approximately?

Page 28067

 1        A.   January 1999 through to November 2000.

 2        Q.   All right.  Thank you, sir.

 3             Now, based on all these positions that you've held including some

 4     actually quite senior positions, vice-president of the chamber of

 5     parliament, ambassador, a party leader, would you agree with me, sir,

 6     that in various of those functions, you've experienced that life, and

 7     sometimes in particular political life can be complicated?

 8        A.   Yes.  I tried to be active in politics but I wasn't that good at

 9     it, which is the reason why I stopped.

10        Q.   That might be a good thing.  But when you were in political life

11     or in any life, for that matter, one can have at the same time multiple

12     agendas, multiple goals in life in business or personal life.  In fact,

13     one can have competing agendas; correct?

14        A.   I don't understand the question.  What do you mean competing?

15        Q.   Sometimes, I think, would you agree that in life, again, both

16     perhaps personal life and in business or political life, one may have

17     several different agendas or objectives and they may even to some extent

18     conflict with each other but you try to balance them out as best you can;

19     correct?  At least I do.  I don't know how you live your life but ... or

20     do you just have, at any given point in your life, sir, do you just have

21     one agenda, one objective at a time?

22        A.   I had never had only one agenda.  I tried to engage in politics

23     but I wasn't that successful at it which is why I stopped.  I am good --

24     I'm a good businessman and I decided to engage in my profession and I

25     have remained loyal to my profession.  I may not excel at it but I'm good

Page 28068

 1     at many things.  It is quite difficult and demanding to be a public

 2     figure.

 3        Q.   And I'm not limiting my questions, really, to just political

 4     life, sir.  I did make a comment about that.  But -- and I'm not in any

 5     way passing judgement or denigrating your various positions or your work

 6     at all.  But you would agree with me, would you not, that in business or

 7     life or relationships or politics, one can at any given time have

 8     multiple different objectives, strategies, again to use the word

 9     "agendas" and sometimes those agendas can even conflict with each other.

10     On the one hand you want to do A and at the same time you want to do B,

11     which may conflict with each other but you try to reconcile, you try to

12     balance them out as best you can; is that right?

13        A.   If you are referring to my political engagement, then it may be

14     true.  Sometimes you have to do things that you like doing; at other

15     times, your party colleagues may ask you to do things that you do not

16     particularly like.  Sometimes you have to say things that you don't

17     really mean.  Life in the public light has to do with a great deal of

18     compromise.

19        Q.   Let me ask you -- let me move on from that and come back to that

20     in a few moments.  But in terms of your involvement in getting

21     humanitarian -- delivery of humanitarian aid and you've talked about that

22     a bit in your direct examination.  If I'm not wrong, you talked about

23     taking some humanitarian aid to Tuzla; is that correct?

24        A.   On one occasion, I took it there personally, yes.

25        Q.   And in the Tuta-Stela case, you were asked whether your attitude

Page 28069

 1     or the attitude of ODPR in Croatia changed depending on whether or not at

 2     any given time, for example, the Croats and Muslims were in conflict in

 3     Bosnia-Herzegovina, that is, did that conflict cause you or your agency

 4     to change its practices or policies.  You said at the time they did not,

 5     I'll just tell you that.  You said at the time they did not change.

 6     Those circumstances did not change your attitude.  Is that correct?

 7        A.   I don't remember what it was that I said specifically in that

 8     case, but I know that the attitude did not change although I do not wish

 9     to conceal the fact that it was under psychological pressure.

10             The individuals working in humanitarian organisations are only

11     human beings.  They work under pressure.  They have their emotions, their

12     perceptions and knowledge.  It isn't that easy to witness a scene of

13     massacred individuals.

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation

15     continues] ... in the Tuta-Stela case in which the witness testified,

16     please give the page number.

17             MR. SCOTT:  I will, Your Honour, and I was about to do that.

18        Q.   To be fair to you, witness, and let me just give you the fuller

19     context and then I want to go on from that, building on that, if you

20     will.

21             Counsel, I'm referring to page 11029, starting at line 23.  Just

22     let me read this to you, Dr. Zoric, and counsel for Mr. Prlic has a copy

23     of the same transcript and I'm sure that if I read something wrong, I

24     will be corrected.

25             You said during your testimony at that time, you said, "At

Page 28070

 1     times," I'm starting at line 23, "At times there were certain tensions

 2     which I tried to calm down and also if I may add, with regard to what the

 3     Prosecutor asked," in that case, "whether after the conflict in BH

 4     between the Muslims and Croats, there were some changes in our attitude

 5     to refugees.  I must emphatically say no, that our attitude to them did

 6     not change."

 7             Then you go on in that passage to talk about, "I was the one who

 8     led," at the time you said, "several convoys to Tuzla," and then skipping

 9     a couple of lines, and counsel will see those, and you went on to say,

10     "Had my attitude or anyone's attitude to those refugees changed, somebody

11     in Sarajevo would have begrudged me that and very seriously."

12             My question to you further on that, Doctor, is when you say that

13     if your attitude or your practice had changed at that time, someone in

14     Sarajevo would have begrudged you very seriously, what did you mean?

15        A.   Presumably I would not have been given the accreditation had I

16     displayed discriminatory conduct toward the peoples of Bosnia-Herzegovina

17     and the country itself.  I was given accreditation to be ambassador

18     there, I was well-received there and I am still travelling to that

19     country frequently.  I have many ties with that country and I feel quite

20     at ease in Sarajevo, if you will.

21        Q.   If I understand what you've told us now is your political

22     standing or your acceptance or the peoples' attitude toward you would

23     have changed for the negative if you had changed your practices at the

24     time, if you stopped giving aid because of that situation or said, "Well,

25     now the Muslims and Croats are fighting each other, no more aid."

Page 28071

 1             You understood that that would have affected your standing at the

 2     time; correct?

 3             MR. KARNAVAS:  Mr. President, Your Honours, I believe it's a

 4     mischaracterisation and if I may, and I believe the gentleman was talking

 5     about accreditation when he went to, as we all know, when you become an

 6     ambassador, I think that's what he meant, not about the -- if Mr. Scott

 7     could please rephrase the question and be accurate with the facts and

 8     maybe even ask a non-leading question but I don't think that's what the

 9     gentleman meant and I think it's a mischaracterisation of his answer.

10             MR. SCOTT:

11        Q.   Let me go back, sir, which is exactly the reason -- rather than

12     characterise something is exactly the reason I simply quoted your

13     previous sworn testimony in the Tuta-Stela case and you said and I'll

14     read it again.  "Had my attitude or anyone's attitude to those refugees

15     changed, somebody in Sarajevo would have begrudged me that and very

16     seriously."

17             I will simply, in light of Mr. Karnavas's comment, I will just

18     ask my previous question again.  When you say that someone in Sarajevo

19     would have begrudged you that very seriously, what did you mean?

20        A.   I think I've answered that question.  Presumably you'd like to

21     know whether I engaged in humanitarian activities in order to paint a

22     better picture of my person in Sarajevo.  I engaged in humanitarian work

23     because that was my personal commitment and I did not get any pecuniary

24     reward for that, it was merely something that I wanted to do as a human

25     being.  But if I found myself in a similar situation again where there

Page 28072

 1     were people who needed assistance that I could provide, I would engage in

 2     that activity.

 3        Q.   Very well.  Now, let me go to another topic and then I'll come

 4     back and see if we can tie the two together.  We've heard extensive

 5     evidence in the courtroom and I don't think there's any dispute about it,

 6     in fact, that in Croatia during this period 1991, 1992, had gone through

 7     a terrible war.  We know about the situation in Vukovar which was

 8     terrible.  The case about that, in fact, was brought in this Tribunal.

 9     We know that at the time the JNA or the Serbs occupied approximately

10     one-third of Croatia's territory.  It was a difficult time in Croatia,

11     correct, to say the least?

12        A.   Yes.  It was a difficult time and you described it well.

13        Q.   And in terms of the international political scene, Croatia was

14     also concerned with the continuing integrity of its own borders and in

15     fact reclaiming the territory that was then occupied by the Serbs;

16     correct?

17        A.   Every country, including Croatia, wishes to preserve its

18     national -- its territorial integrity.

19        Q.   And sir, would it be fair to say that just as you wanted to

20     preserve your best standing, as I suppose we all do, you wanted to

21     preserve your best standing in the political community in Sarajevo when

22     you were ambassador, at the same time in these terrible and difficult

23     circumstances, Croatia wanted to maintain its best standing in the

24     international community; correct?

25             MR. KARNAVAS:  Your Honour, this is not only out of the scope but

Page 28073

 1     now he's asking for some sort of an expert opinion.  I don't know how the

 2     gentleman can now opine with respect to Croatia itself.  You know, with

 3     the international community versus what?  In what capacity?  With respect

 4     to Bosnia?  I mean, if he could lay some sort of a foundation but again I

 5     don't see the relevancy particularly the scope of my direct examination.

 6     So perhaps Mr. Scott can tell us a little bit.  I don't wish to object.

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Scott.

 8             MR. SCOTT:  If you don't want to object, Mr. Karnavas, then

 9     don't.

10             MR. KARNAVAS:  I can't help it.

11             MR. SCOTT:  To respond to the foundation, Your Honour, that was

12     exactly again which I was careful to go back and review so there would be

13     no doubt of the foundation of this witness.  Senior government official,

14     vice-president of one house of parliament, ambassador, party leader, et

15     cetera, et cetera.  And if this man cannot voice any view on what was

16     happening in Croatia at the time, then I'm not sure who else can except a

17     handful of other people that would have held higher positions.

18             I think it is directly relevant and I think if the Chamber will

19     allow me another couple of questions, you will see that.

20             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Mr. Scott, this may be a very naive question,

21     but do you question this because of the facts you're referring to or

22     because of the credibility of the witness?

23             MR. SCOTT:  No, Your Honour, it relates to the substance of

24     positions in this case going to the merits of the case.  And I have -- I

25     want to put questions to the witness about things directly related to

Page 28074

 1     matters in the case.

 2             MR. KARNAVAS:  Which period, Your Honour?  If it's 1999, I know

 3     we heard --

 4             MR. SCOTT:  1992, 1993.

 5             MR. KARNAVAS:  That's -- okay.  Well, I was under the impression

 6     that we're talking about 1999, I must confess.

 7             MR. SCOTT:  I don't know why.  I said that we're during the time

 8     when Croatia was occupied, at war, after Vukovar.

 9             MR. KARNAVAS:  Very well.  You mentioned all of this -- okay.

10     Very well.

11             MR. SCOTT:  I will be happy to clarify.

12             MR. KARNAVAS:  I withdraw my objection.  If it's 1992, 1993, very

13     well.

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just to make it clear to the

15     witness that you're speaking about the 1992-1993 period.

16             MR. SCOTT:

17        Q.   Witness, and to be clear on that, I am referring to the 1991,

18     1992, 1993, 1994, the time that you were in parliament and the preceding

19     time and the very events and circumstances that I outlined to you a few

20     moments ago about which I suspect there is no controversy in the

21     courtroom, the circumstances facing Croatia during this period of time.

22             Now, when I asked you about that, I don't know, we've lost the

23     screen, the question that was last pending before the intervention.  But

24     my question to you was this:  At that particular point in time, faced

25     with those conditions, I think where we left off was the proposition that

Page 28075

 1     the State of Croatia, your government certainly wanted to maintain the

 2     best standing possible in the international community; correct?

 3        A.   I believe that every government except for the one who desires

 4     isolation wishes for that sort of support.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, it is a very political

 6     question that is put to you, since the Prosecutor is asking you what the

 7     position of the government was.

 8             I was under the impression that you were in the opposition.  So

 9     little by little, I'm wondering, you were in the opposition so you were

10     opposed to Tudjman, to the HDZ; yes or no?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I took up the

12     position, the high ranking position in the government was at the time of

13     the coalition government.  In 1991, a coalition government was set up, a

14     government of national unity.  There were no confrontations at the time

15     because what was at stake was the very survival of the country.

16     Subsequently, we were confronted -- we confronted one another on some

17     issues and on others, we agreed.

18             As far as I'm concerned, personally, I both agreed with them on

19     some matters and disagreed on others.  I was able to voice these

20     agreements or disagreements through a given democratic procedure.

21             MR. SCOTT:  If the Chamber might allow me and I apologise,

22     Mr. President, I certainly don't want to cut across the President but if

23     the Chamber might allow me, I intend to get to some of those questions

24     but if I could finish this line of inquiry first, but I do very much

25     intend to touch upon your questions, Your Honour.

Page 28076

 1        Q.   Sir, my question, following question from all that and I'm sorry

 2     that with all the number of interventions, perhaps the flow has been

 3     broken a bit, but my point to you, yes, you said a moment ago and I think

 4     we may have lost it again, of course every country wants to have - just

 5     leaving the screen now - the best standing possible.  And my question to

 6     you on that is:  We've heard an awful lot about Croatia's assistance to

 7     refugees and the sending of humanitarian aid into Bosnia-Herzegovina or

 8     the transit of humanitarian aid through Croatia to Bosnia-Herzegovina

 9     which is not disputed, by the way, is not disputed, but can you tell the

10     Chamber, sir, based on all your political involvements and experience

11     including as an ambassador to another state, what would have happened to

12     Croatia's standing in the international community if they had just

13     basically said, "No more humanitarian aid to Bosnia.  We're cutting it

14     all off.  No more refugees.  We will not send a single additional

15     humanitarian convoy into Bosnia.  Never again."  What would Croatia's

16     standing have been in the international community if they had taken that

17     position?

18             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Mr. Scott, is that not a question calling for

19     speculation.

20             MR. SCOTT:  I don't think so, Your Honour, I think it's any

21     political experienced politician, I think, and I think the Judges, you

22     can probably draw your own conclusions, frankly.  What do you think, what

23     do you think the international community -- he's a political leader of

24     that country, Your Honour.  Who else can we expect -- who else do we ask

25     that to?

Page 28077

 1             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  He is asked to speculate what would happen if

 2     and that is speculation, I would say.

 3             MR. SCOTT:  Well, if that's the -- Your Honour's conception of

 4     speculation, I think I can ask --

 5        Q.   What do you think would have happened, sir?  What do you think if

 6     Croatia had taken that position, do you think Croatia's position would

 7     have remained the same, the high-standing -- a supported position in the

 8     west and in the UN and the international community?  Or might that

 9     community have taken a very different view toward Croatia?

10             MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I don't know whether

11     I am entitled to complaining to the questions of the Prosecution in the

12     cross-examination, because this is not my witness, but as a Defence

13     counsel, and a party to the proceedings, I think I can say that if this

14     is not speculation in the area of politics and if a person who albeit

15     with political experience is supposed to say his opinion what would have

16     happened if, for example, my grandfather had been Hungarian, whether I

17     would be Hungarian.  What is the point of all this?  With all due

18     respect, I don't see the point in all this.

19             I wanted to say this much but I think this is wasting time.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Mr. Scott, your

21     question calls for speculation indeed, but your question is so obvious

22     that the question is obvious as well -- the answer is obvious as well.

23     So unless you have another follow-up question to tie, to make a link with

24     another topic, I will allow it.

25             MR. SCOTT:  Your Honour, if the Chamber's view is that that is --

Page 28078

 1     the answer is so obvious to the extent that it would be essentially

 2     common knowledge then I'll ask the Chamber to take judicial notice of

 3     that fact that we can all understand based on our common experience that

 4     it probably have not have improved Croatia's standing in the

 5     international community.

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] When I say that it is obvious,

 7     all you have to do is to look at Burmania [as interpreted][Realtime

 8     transcript read in error "Romania"] today whenever there is catastrophe,

 9     humanitarian catastrophe, you see that if international humanitarian

10     organisations do not intervene then there is a problem.  Now you're

11     asking a question to the witness and he can only answer and give an

12     obvious answer.  It would be interesting to see what he will say but it's

13     all relative.  I didn't say Romania I said Burma.

14             MR. SCOTT:  Your Honour, I would just -- and I will move on and I

15     would just again say for the purposes of the record that if someone that

16     combines the various positions of this person can't express a view on

17     that, I'm not sure who would be able to.  He was a senior official in

18     providing refugee and humanitarian aid.  He was a senior party official.

19     He was the vice-president of one house of parliament.  He was an

20     ambassador to another country.  If he doesn't understand something about

21     international politics and what taking that action would do to the

22     standing of the Republic of Croatia in the international community, I'm

23     not sure who else could express a view on that.  It seems to me directly

24     relevant to the case.

25             Of course Croatia had powerful motivations not only -- perhaps

Page 28079

 1     many, undoubtedly many to do the right humanitarian thing, but there was

 2     also a political dimension to this as well and it's directly relevant to

 3     this case.

 4             MR. KARNAVAS:  Your Honour, if I may just very briefly.  First,

 5     the question could have been asked in a leading fashion, perhaps it would

 6     not have drawn as many complaints, but more importantly, we've indicated

 7     and established that Croatia did sign on to certain international

 8     agreements, they have obligations, so obviously there might have been

 9     some repercussions but I don't think -- how is this related to the case?

10     I fail to see unless Mr. Scott is going to show somehow that Croatia did

11     not abide by its obligations under the circumstances.  I think that's

12     what's at issue.  Perhaps if he could just move on but otherwise, it is

13     speculative and I can just draw one example.

14             What would happen if, say, one permanent member of the

15     Security Council were to bomb one of the capitals in Europe?  Well, they

16     did, they bombed Belgrade and what happened?  Nothing.  So it is kind of

17     speculative.  Everybody complained but at the end of the day, the US did

18     what it wanted to do.  Same thing with Iraq, they invaded Iraq, they're

19     occupying Iraq.  So I think it is speculative but how does this advance

20     the case?  I don't know.

21             MR. SCOTT:  I think on that I will move on.  I will move on.  I

22     hope the point's been made.  As Mr. Karnavas has said many times in the

23     last two years, I hope the Chamber gets the point.  As to the examples

24     Mr. Karnavas made, that further proves the Prosecution's point.  I don't

25     think the standing of the United States in the international community

Page 28080

 1     and in Europe is particularly higher after taking its positions and doing

 2     what it's done in Iraq; I think it's had a dramatically detrimental

 3     effect on the standing of the United States in the international

 4     community which proves my point.  It is directly relevant, Your Honour,

 5     to the case and we will argue at the appropriate time but I'm not

 6     going -- we have to move on to other topics.

 7             If anyone expects me just because I am an American to defend some

 8     of the positions of my government, you are mistaken.  I'm sorry.

 9        Q.   Now, let's go on to another topic, sir.  In terms of your

10     humanitarian work, your refugee work, your work as an ambassador, is it

11     correct that you have very good and fair relations with

12     President Izetbegovic?

13        A.   Yes, it is correct that I had good relations with him.

14        Q.   And can you confirm to the Judges, in fact, that sometime after

15     the war that President Tudjman, in fact, awarded to President Izetbegovic

16     and Haris Silajdzic Croatia's highest national decorations?

17        A.   That is correct.  President Tudjman decorated both

18     President Izetbegovic and Mr. Silajdzic with the highest Croatian

19     national decoration.

20        Q.   Moving on to another topic arising out of your testimony in the

21     Tuta-Stela case.  You said there, and counsel, I'm referring to page

22     10981 starting at line 3.  "People were in a way always going towards the

23     centres of their own republics so it was quite logical for people from

24     the Croatian areas in Bosnia and Herzegovina to study in Zagreb or Split

25     and not in Sarajevo."

Page 28081

 1             Then going on down the page, you say, "The interest was in the

 2     life of their own people, nation, not of their own republic."

 3             What did you mean by that, sir?

 4        A.   I think I was interpreting the sociological fact of the

 5     affiliation of individual peoples in ex-Yugoslavia.  It is a fact that

 6     Croatia [as interpreted] was made up of federal units called republics

 7     but it's also a fact that it was inhabited by peoples, some that didn't

 8     all live in just one republic.

 9        Q.   Sorry, my apologies for interrupting you, if you will allow me

10     just to correct the record at page 56, line 2, I assume you meant to say

11     it is a fact that Yugoslavia was made up of federal units, you said

12     Croatia.  I assume you meant Yugoslavia.

13        A.   Yugoslavia, yeah.

14        Q.   I'm sorry.  Can you please continue with your answer.

15        A.   There were clear identities.  With the arrival of democracy,

16     these identities developed, but Yugoslavia had to be split into its

17     republics, its federal units.  As a consequence, tensions arose.

18             As you know, initially, it was Croatia's position that Yugoslavia

19     should be reorganized to become a confederation.  Milosevic's position

20     was that it should become a unitarian state.  He also thought that in the

21     case of his own people, the ethnic principle should be followed to the

22     effect that all persons belonging to his people should live in one unit;

23     but in the case of Kosovo, he advocated another principle, the historical

24     principle.

25        Q.   I'm just waiting for the translation, I'm sorry.  I apologise for

Page 28082

 1     cutting across you but because of the time constraints that we all have

 2     to operate under, my question to you is not so much about Milosevic and

 3     the views of various politicians in Yugoslavia at the time, but more at

 4     the level of many of the people.  Let me be very clear, I'm not saying

 5     all people.  But your statement in the Tuta-Stela case that I read to you

 6     just a moment ago suggests that at least for many people, there was a

 7     stronger bond, there was a stronger affinity, a connection, to their

 8     people and their nation, and I'm using the two words that you used in

 9     your testimony, as opposed to the political entity that they found

10     themselves in; is that correct?

11        A.   Yes.  There was such groups and individuals, that is correct.

12     It's a sociological fact.  And that has been the case for many years and

13     it reflected itself in the destinations of their migrations, where they

14     sought a better life for them and their families.  Some people thought

15     that there was no future for them in the areas where they had come from

16     so that they migrated toward their own republic so that many Croats from

17     Bosnia-Herzegovina went into the direction of Zagreb rather than

18     Sarajevo.  That is a well-known fact.

19             I just wanted to say that the political developments were --

20     could even -- could accelerate that.

21        Q.   All right.  And just building on that, if I could take you to

22     another part of your previous testimony.  Counsel, I am at page 10984

23     starting at line 2, you talk about there the identifying something a city

24     or a town as a capital.  And you said -- I'm not directly quoting you

25     here because of the length of the passage but I'll quote you directly in

Page 28083

 1     a moment.  The point you were making was to identify something as the

 2     "capital would mean ..."  and now I am quoting you, "... something

 3     entirely different for a Serb or Croat not Sarajevo."  "So when a Bosniak

 4     says Bosnia and Herzegovina, he or she, they do not mean the same thing

 5     that Croats do when they say Bosnia and Herzegovina."  Can you tell us

 6     what you mean by that?

 7        A.   That is indeed the misfortune of that country that not all people

 8     who lived there, who are citizens of that country, who are constitutive

 9     parts of that country do not see it in the same fashion.  All of them

10     speak about Bosnia-Herzegovina but when you ask them what that country is

11     like or what it should be like, then you see that there are great

12     differences among them and those differences, as you know, had even

13     tragic conflicts as their consequence.

14             I think that conflicts of the kind that took place in BiH

15     unfortunately, but accurately show the amount of differences in that

16     country, which is small, much too small for such huge differences.  And

17     at times, it couldn't manage those differences or at least not everybody

18     could manage those differences and that is why such tragic events

19     occurred.

20             It is obvious that the country needed the assistance of both

21     neighbouring countries and the international community as a whole.  It is

22     good that it received that assistance or aid.

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I would just like to intervene

24     to ask Mr. Scott the following.  I am slightly astonished, as you know

25     the cross-examination is not -- the scope of the cross-examination is not

Page 28084

 1     limited and the Trial Chamber has mentioned it on numerous occasions but

 2     the cross-examination should mainly stem from the questions put by the

 3     Defence and mainly it should deal with the refugees, humanitarian aid and

 4     humanitarian convoys, so on and so forth.  But now, you are using the

 5     Tuta-Stela transcript, you are quoting what the witness said then.  You

 6     could have brought this witness actually as a Prosecution witness and now

 7     we're talking about something quite different.

 8             Time is precious in this case and the topics that you are

 9     mentioning with this witness you could perhaps talk about these things

10     with other witnesses and you are quite far from what this witness came to

11     talk about.  He came to testify on very precise questions and now you are

12     talking about all sorts of topics.  You were given four hours, that is

13     true, but you are not rationally using the time.  This, for me, I call

14     this a waste of time.  I don't know where you are going to.  You are

15     biding for time and you could just ask to have the transcript admitted

16     into evidence, for instance.

17             MR. KARNAVAS:  We will be asking to have the transcript admitted

18     into evidence in light of the questioning, Your Honour.  We have

19     absolutely no problem with his prior testimony coming in addition to his

20     testimony here today.

21             MR. SCOTT:  I could not have taken that -- I was not considering

22     that scenario previously because that's the first of I've heard of that,

23     so of course if Mr. Karnavas wants to do that that's up to him to file

24     his motion.  I do submit, number one, in terms of time, I'm -- and I

25     don't want to waste the Chamber's time, but at the same time, I'm well

Page 28085

 1     within my time limits.  I'm not even close, not even close to the four

 2     hours and I do think it's directly relevant.  I think it relates to -- I

 3     think it relates to the positions and views of this witness, the Chamber

 4     should be informed of in assessing his evidence and the weight of his

 5     evidence.  I think he has information that can assist the Chamber.

 6             The Chamber has, in the last two years, heard extensive evidence

 7     about the political views and even when sometimes people use the same

 8     words, they mean something entirely different.  And I thought when I saw,

 9     when I reviewed this witness's testimony and what he said in the last two

10     passages that I put to him including even when a Bosniak says the words

11     Bosnia and Herzegovina and when a Croat says the words Bosnia and

12     Herzegovina, it means two different things.  It seems to me that that's

13     something directly -- that's clearly relevant to this case.

14             Beyond that, Your Honour, relating to the scope, I do believe --

15     number one, I do believe it's in the scope of cross-examination.  That's

16     my first position, number one.  Number two, I would refer the Chamber to

17     Rule 90 -- excuse me, 90(H)(i) which specifically states ...

18             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment please.  I will read

19     what we have stated in our decision on the 24th of April, 2008, on page

20     7, paragraph F.  Rule 90(H)(i) of the rules.  The cross-examination shall

21     be limited to the subject matter of the evidence in chief and the matters

22     affecting the credibility of the witness and where the witness is able to

23     give evidence relevant to the case for the cross-examination party to the

24     subject matter of that case.  The Trial Chamber may request the party

25     leading the cross-examination to explain how is the question put to a

Page 28086

 1     witness relevant.  The Trial Chamber will not allow that the

 2     cross-examination go overboard and may reject all inappropriate questions

 3     and all questions that are not credible as well as all repetitive

 4     questions and irrelevant questions.

 5             This is what we've stated.  This is our ruling.  This is our

 6     decision.  So you can raise various topics with this witness, but one

 7     must bear in mind that you can say the following:  You said this in

 8     answer of a question put to you in examination in chief but I am putting

 9     this to you, and so on and so forth.  You can also put questions relating

10     to the credibility, et cetera, et cetera.

11             So you have to frame yourself with respect to the examination in

12     chief and not go overboard as I'm under the impression now.  So please

13     proceed.  We will be more vigilant in controlling the proceedings and if

14     we make rulings, we have to apply them.

15             MR. SCOTT:  Yes, Your Honour, of course and the passage that you

16     just read a moment ago, it quotes from Rule 90(H)(i), and I refer the

17     Chamber, as I was about to a few moments ago, to specifically that

18     language which is found both in the rule and in the Chamber's guidelines

19     which says, "... and where the witness is able to give evidence relevant

20     to the case for the cross-examining party," in this case, the

21     Prosecution, "to the subject matter of that case."  I am well within both

22     the rule and the Chamber's guideline.  Now whether it's irrelevant or

23     not, is -- I believe that I've said why I think it is relevant so I'm

24     within the scope of cross-examination, I'm well within my time limits and

25     it is relevant.

Page 28087

 1             I agree, if I went on for hours and hours about something, I

 2     would agree.  I've asked a couple of questions about this topic.  I don't

 3     think it can be considered abusive.  But in any event, I was finished

 4     with that topic.  To return to the topic in fact that the President

 5     raised, I hope, Mr. President, since you raised the topic you will

 6     consider it to be within the scope and relevant.

 7        Q.   Sir, when you were a, again, a member of the Social Liberal Party

 8     which was the largest opposition party to Croatia -- excuse me, in

 9     Croatia, my apologies, in Croatia during the 1993-1994 period and perhaps

10     thereafter, you were also at that time as we've indicated the

11     vice-president of the Chamber of Counties.  Can you tell us who the head

12     of the HSLS was at that time?

13        A.   Yes, I can.  It was Mr. Drazen Budisa.

14        Q.   And within the Social Liberal Party at the time that you were a

15     member of parliament, did it have something -- I don't know how it

16     translates out in English but something called the reduced board?

17        A.   Yes, there was such a body.

18        Q.   What term -- perhaps there's a better term than reduced board,

19     perhaps you can say it in your own language and the translators might be

20     able to assist us.  Or perhaps that's exactly what it's called.

21        A.   It was called "malo vijece" in Croatian, which is approximately

22     the small council or literally the small council and I was a member of

23     that body.

24        Q.   Would it be fair to characterise that some of us perhaps in other

25     systems or countries might consider that like the executive board or the

Page 28088

 1     executive committee, the smaller, real senior managing group; is that

 2     correct?

 3        A.   Yes, that would be correct.

 4        Q.   And at that time, apart from presumably the party president,

 5     Mr. Budisa and yourself, how many other people made up the reduced board

 6     of the HSLS?

 7        A.   I think there were 10 to 15 of us, I'm not sure.

 8        Q.   I'd like to direct your attention, please, to -- in the binder to

 9     Exhibit P 10420.  P 10420, if you have that, please.  I see that you have

10     it.  I can see that you have it.

11             Sir, is it correct, and again building on some questions that the

12     President began to put to you some minutes ago, as the opposition party,

13     in fact, the HSLS was opposed to President Tudjman and the HDZ's policy

14     toward Bosnia and Herzegovina; is that correct?

15        A.   At the time, yes, not only regarding this issue.  The opposition

16     party has conflicting views on many issues.

17        Q.   Of course.

18        A.   But we soon -- the -- we soon were in a position where there was

19     disagreement about many issues and then the party was split into several

20     smaller parties.  At that time --

21        Q.   Let me stop you there because time is precious as the President

22     just reminded us.  In the -- Exhibit P 10420 for the record is an article

23     in The Independent, a British publication, dated the 30th of July, 1993.

24     And in the second paragraph in the text, it says, "Croatia's President

25     Franjo Tudjman is under increasing domestic pressure to end Zagreb's

Page 28089

 1     support for irredentist Croats in Herzegovina and to abandon his plans to

 2     share in a carve-up of Bosnia.  However, Croatia's founding father is

 3     showing no signs of yielding to ever-louder demands for a policy

 4     reversal."

 5             Can you describe to the Judges, please, since you were very much

 6     in the political world at the time, the vice-president of one chamber of

 7     parliament, what was the domestic pressure referenced here concerning

 8     President Tudjman's policy towards Bosnia?

 9        A.   Well, the different parties, individuals, and groups voiced

10     different opinions with regard to the situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

11     There were various proposals coming either from the local level or from

12     the international community as to how the situation in the countries

13     should be settled.  Some of them supported the Vance-Owen Plan, others

14     the Stoltenberg Plan, others were in favour of leaving it down to the

15     local level to solve the situation.  There was a flurry of activities at

16     the international level, at the levels of the countries, locally,

17     including Croatia.  Everybody voiced their different opinions including

18     the political parties.

19        Q.   Of course, and we know political disagreement is common to

20     virtually every political system, I think, at least where dissent is

21     allowed.

22             But if I can ask you to skip a paragraph down to where it says,

23     "On Wednesday, leaders of Croatia's 15 opposition parties united for the

24     first time to oppose Mr. Tudjman's aim of Bosnian partition.  'Croatia's

25     policy towards Bosnia-Herzegovina needs a turnabout,' Drazen Budisa," the

Page 28090

 1     leader of your party, "the main opposition Social Liberal Party told the

 2     daily Vecernji List.  'It is not too late to reach the agreement with

 3     Muslims,' he was quoted as saying."

 4             Now, in the view of your party, Mr. Budisa, yourself, you were a

 5     member of the governing board of that party, why did Croatia's policy

 6     towards Bosnia-Herzegovina need a "turnabout"?

 7        A.   First of all, there's a factual error there, an exaggeration.

 8     Croatia had never had 15 significant parties that would have had 15

 9     leaders.  We could have considered there to have been four or five

10     significant political parties in Croatia at the time and today.

11             Secondly, isn't it typical for a politician to speak of a

12     turnabout.  Barack Obama's main word is change and not support, he's

13     calling for change.  Leaders of the opposition always call for change.

14     Therefore, the requests put forth by the opposition leaders are

15     legitimate, they may be more or less acceptable, and it is the job of the

16     head of state to move within certain set limits and as you know, the

17     international community had a very active part to play in that.

18        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ... we've heard a lot about

19     that.  But my question to you now is very specific and it isn't whether

20     there were 13 opposition parties or 15.  That's not my question.  It

21     says, "Croatia's policy towards Bosnia-Herzegovina needs a turnabout."

22             Now, in order for there to be a turnabout, there has to be, first

23     of all, a current policy, a present policy.  What was Croatia's current

24     policy as of 30 July 1993, and what it had been in the previous months,

25     what was the policy which your party said had to be turned about?

Page 28091

 1        A.   As we were able to see yesterday, in Croatia, the political

 2     leaders often times spoke of matters they didn't know enough about, of

 3     matters they didn't have firsthand knowledge of.  The first delegation of

 4     that parliament, a member of which was Drazen Budisa responded to the

 5     invitation by Mr. Praljak who sits here and as you are well aware, that

 6     party had different opinions on many matters and I personally parted ways

 7     with Mr. Budisa because we disagreed.  You have that individual still

 8     alive and well and you can ask him personally what it was that he meant

 9     by saying that.

10             The fact of the matter is that he brooked a failure not success

11     with such political speeches.

12        Q.   The point, sir, is not whether Mr. Budisa's position then or now

13     is successful.  The question is the -- what was happening at this time.

14     Now, you've told this Chamber in no uncertain terms that the HSLS was the

15     largest opposition party.  Mr. Budisa was the head of that party.  You

16     were a member of that party and vice-president of the Chamber of Counties

17     and a member of the party's governing board.  So when HSLS took this

18     position against being critical of Tudjman's policy toward

19     Bosnia-Herzegovina, I'm sure you knew exactly what the policy was that

20     you were opposing.

21             MR. KARNAVAS:  Your Honour, if I may, it's the individual here

22     that's taken -- that's expressing this position as the leader.  Now, we

23     don't know whether it's his personal or whether it's the party's, that's

24     number one.

25             Number two, as the witness indicated, the gentleman is alive and

Page 28092

 1     now, you know, and he could be called to explain what exactly that

 2     individual meant but to ask this witness to opine on what somebody else's

 3     thoughts are, I think, he's asking for speculation.

 4             MR. SCOTT:  I'm not asking for opinion, I'm asking --

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I don't agree with you,

 6     Mr. Karnavas.  This witness was part of the executive committee of the

 7     party.  We have a document of British origin that seems to indicate that

 8     there was a political change.  Does the witness know?  Does he not know?

 9             Mr. Witness, you did not answer the question put to you by the

10     Prosecution.

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, all of us in Croatia

12     including the ruling party and the opposition parties wanted the

13     conflicts in Bosnia and Herzegovina to be put to a stop and we wanted

14     normalcy to be restored.  The opposition parties including the one I was

15     a member of was not always too happy with the manner in which there were

16     attempts to achieve this or the speed at which this was done.

17             I believe that this -- these were discussions on the eve of the

18     reaching of the Washington Agreement which as you know was signed by

19     representatives of Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.  I believe that the

20     agreement was a sort of ...

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, this was not on the

22     eve of the Washington Agreement, the date of this article is the 30th of

23     July, 1993.  30th of July, 1993.

24             MR. SCOTT:  May I continue, Your Honour?

25        Q.   Sir, if we can just move forward, then, because perhaps if I

Page 28093

 1     refer you to some other part of the article, you can assist us.  If you

 2     will skip down several paragraphs, you will find a paragraph that starts

 3     with the words, "Former associates," and for those following in English,

 4     it is the third paragraph on the second page.

 5             It says, "Former associates say Mr. Tudjman is obsessed with the

 6     division of Bosnia and reluctant to abandon Herzegovina hardliners

 7     because their financial support helped propel him to power.  He rejected

 8     the opposition's proposals.  Those who proposed changes in policy seek to

 9     destabilize both Croatia and the ruling party, the steering committee of

10     his Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ) said."

11             What was the reaction, sir, to your party of which you were a

12     governing member to President Tudjman's and the HDZ's reaction

13     essentially dismissing your opposition?  What was your party's reaction

14     to that?

15        A.   Every party including mine presented such positions as were felt

16     were most favourable for the party at the time.  The position of the

17     official policy of Croatia in that regard, as I see it today, was to

18     achieve the integration of the Republic of Croatia as soon as possible

19     and with as few victims as possible.  One of the aspects related to that

20     was the stabilization of the situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina.  Now, was

21     this understood by all the different actors in the politics in Croatia

22     alike, it's very difficult to say.  The opinions professed differed.  The

23     only thing we can draw upon ultimately are the facts.

24        Q.   Yes, that's absolutely the case.  If I can direct your attention

25     skipping one more paragraph to the last paragraph and -- excuse me, I

Page 28094

 1     have several questions for you about that.  It says, "Critics fear that

 2     carving up Bosnia will set a precedent for the dismemberment of Croatia,

 3     which still has its own festering territorial dispute.  Serbian rebels

 4     control a third of the republic's territory and want to join their

 5     Bosnian brethren in creating a Greater Serbia.  There are also many

 6     Croats who believe Zagreb's continued support for Croatian extremists in

 7     Bosnia will result in international sanctions on Zagreb which would bury

 8     the Croatian economy."

 9             Now, can you assist the Chamber with this?  Can you explain the

10     point being made as to what was the basis of the concern that when it

11     says, "There was a fear that carving up Bosnia would set a precedent for

12     the dismemberment of Croatia by the Serbs."  Can you explain that to the

13     Judges?

14        A.   As you know, at the time, one-third of Croatia was under

15     occupation.  As you know, the Serbs who were in control of the territory

16     at the time were calling for an independent state of their own.

17     Likewise, it was common knowledge that part of the international

18     community back in 1994 offered the so-called Z-1 plan.  Under the plan, a

19     state within a state was to be formed in Croatia whereby the Serbs in

20     Croatia would practically be given their own state with all the

21     attributes and hallmarks entailed; their currency, government, police,

22     army, borders.

23             For Croatia, the only thing it envisaged was the obligation for

24     Croatia to finance all of that, and it was supposed to be some sort of a

25     federal Croatia.

Page 28095

 1        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ... I apologise but wasn't the

 2     fundamental problem was that in the view of many in Croatia at that time,

 3     including the opposition, the various opposition parties, the concern was

 4     that Croatia's policy toward Bosnia was in fundamental contradiction of

 5     its own territorial interest in terms of preserving its own territory and

 6     if -- to the extent that Tudjman supported a carve-up of Bosnia, that was

 7     inconsistent with refusing the Serbian carve-up of Croatia; correct?

 8        A.   In that case, Mr. Prosecutor, I don't know how President Tudjman

 9     could have attained his goal.  A war is a big game where not everyone

10     needs to win.  Very often in 1992, 1993, 1994, the international

11     community offered different agreements and settlements and the

12     statesman ...

13        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ... my question to you was very

14     --

15        A.   I'm answering your question.

16        Q.   Please.  Please.  Wasn't there -- wasn't the position of the

17     critics, here referred to as critics and your party was one of those

18     critics, the position was that there was a fundamental inconsistency with

19     the HDZ policy to carve up one country, that is, Bosnia, while at the

20     same time refusing the Serb's rights to carve up Croatia?  If one country

21     can carve up another country then everyone can do it; correct?

22        A.   But Croatia wasn't carving up Bosnia-Herzegovina.  Now, was there

23     a division within the country, yes, it was divided and there were

24     different solutions for how to divide the country internally.

25        Q.   I don't want to go through this entire article with you again.

Page 28096

 1     But back on the very first paragraph that I directed your attention to,

 2     the second paragraph in the article, "Croatia's president, Franjo Tudjman

 3     is under increasing domestic pressure to end Zagreb's support for

 4     irredentist Croats in Herzegovina and to abandon his plans to share in a

 5     carve-up of Bosnia."

 6             MR. KARNAVAS:  Mr. President, may I remind everyone that this is

 7     an article written by a journalist.  That's the journalist's position.

 8     That's the journalist's position.  So that journalist can hold whatever

 9     position he wishes when he writes the article.  Now when he goes to the

10     quotes, there at least we know who said what but this is something that

11     the journalist -- now if he wants to bring the journalist in to vouch for

12     that but he's asking the witness to accept that.

13             JUDGE PRANDLER:  I would like to say a few words, only that in my

14     view, of course what Mr. Karnavas said that it was a journalist's

15     opinion.  On the other hand, again in I believe in paragraph 4 which was

16     already quoted, it says, and I quote, "On Wednesday, leaders of Croatia's

17     15," it may have been, I don't know, probably fewer, "opposition

18     parties," because the doctor has already said that there is no 15

19     opposition parties, "united for the first time to oppose Mr. Tudjman's

20     aim of Bosnian partition."  And here is a quotation again, "Croatia's

21     policy towards Bosnia-Herzegovina needs a turnabout."  It is what was

22     said by Budisa, by Mr. Drazen Budisa, that is the leader at that time, of

23     the main opposition Social Liberal Party to the daily Vecernji List.

24             Now, if Dr. Zoric doesn't want to reply to the Prosecution's

25     question concerning the paragraph which was later on quoted and asked

Page 28097

 1     about then I would like to ask Dr. Zoric if what he and the time his

 2     party meant and I quote again, "to oppose Mr. Tudjman's aim of Bosnian

 3     partition," and Mr. Budisa said "Croatia's policy towards

 4     Bosnia-Herzegovina needs a turnabout."  So what, in his view, that

 5     turnabout meant and how the turnabout could have been implemented?  It is

 6     my question, Dr. Zoric.

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Witness, I do support this

 8     question asked by Judge Prandler.  I wanted to ask the same question.

 9     This is at the very heart of the matter when we look at this article, of

10     course it is drafted by a journalist but it seems to make references to

11     political leaders, local political leaders who made specific statements.

12     So please answer Judge Prandler's questions because it is a very relevant

13     one.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I believe that this is

15     what happened at the time, the proposals coming from Zagreb and from this

16     group of people in particular were to the effect that the Croats in

17     Bosnia-Herzegovina had to establish cooperation with the Muslims in

18     Bosnia-Herzegovina.  And that there was a need to engage in the

19     discussions about how this country would be structured and that these

20     discussions should be different from the discussions that were being

21     conducted at the time.

22             The opposition opposed vehemently the plans put forth by the

23     international community.  They repeatedly said that for instance the

24     Vance-Owen Plan was very dangerous for the future of the country.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, you are a diplomat and

Page 28098

 1     you answer in a diplomatic manner.  This text relates to problems of

 2     inner policy, so put aside the international dimension of it.  When you

 3     read this article, let me convey to you my impression.  One is under the

 4     impression that there was a specific political attitude or line defended

 5     by many opposition parties in Croatia and according to this article,

 6     there was an objective, Tudjman's objective which is to partition Bosnia

 7     and Herzegovina.

 8             Now, if we go by this article, there are disagreements in this

 9     political line and some political parties, including yours, apparently,

10     seem to say that there is a risk, a danger to go, if we go along the

11     lines of partition, because there could be a sort of boomerang effect on

12     Croatia itself, a third of which is occupied by Serbs.  It is therefore

13     necessary, they say, to change lines, to change policies, to have a

14     turnabout which could account for the political division within this

15     agreement between the political parties.  This is what the article says.

16             Do you agree with the fact that partition of Bosnia-Herzegovina

17     had been envisioned; yes or no?  Is it because there were Serbs on a

18     third of your territory that some, like you said, "Do not go down that

19     line because it is a dangerous way."  With regard to the Croats in BiH,

20     we need to develop another approach.  Is this a way in which you can

21     interpret this article?  Does this article mirror the inner political

22     debates you had?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.  You have

24     interpreted the article correctly.  The only thing that I cannot confirm

25     is that the partition of Bosnia and Herzegovina was envisaged or rather,

Page 28099

 1     that there was a partition of Bosnia and Herzegovina envisaged officially

 2     or that any of the individuals professed that officially.  The only thing

 3     I can admit is that there were many plans around and as for the opinions

 4     of particular individuals, I don't think we should waste any time on them

 5     if there were any such individuals.

 6             What we have here, after all, is only a newspaper article, in my

 7     view.  With all due respect, I heard Mr. Prosecutor say that he's not too

 8     happy about what his country is doing in Iraq.  At the same time, I'm

 9     sure that I can find many newspaper articles coming from either his

10     country or other countries who speak favorably of the president of his

11     country just as there are many articles who speak positively of the

12     future leaders of that country and who advocate a positive change of

13     policy in the US of A.  What we are having is a discussion on political

14     commitments or views.  What I can confirm is that there were never any

15     discussions or activities aimed at partitioning that country and in our

16     view, and this is my view today as well, the plans put forth by the

17     international community were deemed to be dangerous for the future of

18     Croatia at the time.

19             In my view, that country over there is still divided and it is

20     divided in such a way that does not make matters look up for the future

21     of that country.  That sort of division cannot be beneficial for any

22     country including Bosnia-Herzegovina.

23             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  If I may, perhaps, last question before the

24     break, come back to the intervention of Mr. Karnavas which I think was

25     fully justified and what I was missing was a kind of a foundation-laying

Page 28100

 1     question.

 2             These passages, in particular the one referring to Tudjman being

 3     obsessed with the division of Bosnia.  Would you agree that this was a

 4     correct description at that time of the political situation in Croatia or

 5     is the journalist wrong?

 6             Ms. Alaburic, it is a slightly directive question, quite a

 7     leading question but it leaves open the answer.

 8             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would like to say

 9     something to avoid misunderstanding.  This may be a linguistic problem as

10     well as a problem of fact that certain notions are perceived differently.

11     Let us first say what we mean by saying the partitioning of Bosnia.  We

12     do not know what the journalist who is the author of this article meant,

13     but I can tell you that we in Croatia implied different meanings at

14     different times of this notion.

15             At one point, we conceived of it as a division of Bosnia within a

16     country that would have been a single country, therefore, a division into

17     several entities so it would not have been a division of the state of

18     Bosnia-Herzegovina.  At other times, what was meant was the division of

19     the state of Bosnia in -- and thereby the disappearance of Bosnia as an

20     internationally-recognised state.  So let us first define what we are

21     talking about before we proceed in our discussion.

22             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I'm not much convinced by that because this

23     speaks of Herzegovina hardliners.  Herzegovina hardliners.  So I think

24     it's really clear.  But I would like the witness to answer the question

25     because it's really a founding question.  Maybe the witness will tell

Page 28101

 1     this is all rubbish and nothing is true, this is an invention and I would

 2     like you, Dr. Zoric, to answer my question.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will gladly answer your question.

 4     President Tudjman was not obsessed with the division of

 5     Bosnia-Herzegovina in the sense of breaking it up or annexing a part to

 6     Croatia.  He knew he very well what international relations were like.

 7     He knew the balance of forces on the ground and he had a crystal clear

 8     objective he wanted to reach.  That objective is a free Republic of

 9     Croatia, free on its entire territory.

10             To achieve that objective, he had to be patient.  He had to

11     resist with weapons to provide armed resistance and he also had to

12     attack.  He also had to talk and as you know, he was able to achieve his

13     goal.

14             There are many documents, agreements signed by Dr. Tudjman.  He

15     signed them with President Izetbegovic and those documents always mention

16     Bosnia-Herzegovina.  They were conducive to bringing about peace in that

17     country.  In some of these agreements between Croatia and

18     Bosnia-Herzegovina, mention is made of various proposals for the internal

19     structure or territorial organisation of that country, the remit of the

20     individual parts, et cetera.

21             President Tudjman certainly wanted to preserve the status of

22     constituent people to the Croats there, they had it in the former

23     Yugoslavia.  Unfortunately, though, I doubt that this is still the case

24     today.  And concerning all these questions that worried the public, I can

25     only repeat that Croatia under the leadership of President Tudjman called

Page 28102

 1     upon the Croats in Bosnia-Herzegovina, as you know, to vote at the

 2     referendum for the independence of that country which independence was

 3     advocated by the Bosnian Muslims too.

 4             If it hadn't been for that referendum, the independence would

 5     have been doubtful from a legal point of view.  Croatia, while

 6     Mr. Tudjman was president, was amongst the first to recognise the

 7     independence of that country and Croatia was the first to send an

 8     ambassador there.  I believe that these are clear enough indications.

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, what's your

10     problem?

11             THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] I ask Judge Antonetti as

12     the President of the council to allow me the following question:  Did the

13     opposition, when they say the division of Bosnia-Herzegovina, mean its

14     break-up under the Vance-Owen Plan or the status of constitutive people

15     for Croats in Bosnia-Herzegovina?

16             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, this question could be

17     put as part of the redirect but anyway, I shall take it up myself.

18             Witness, you've heard what Mr. Praljak has just said.  Can you

19     answer his question?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that both options are

21     possible.  The opposition, in part, was against the Vance-Owen Plan which

22     could have been an introduction to a negative outcome in Croatia, and as

23     we're discussing newspaper articles, I would like to remind one in which

24     a leader mentioned here spoke or rather said that he can imagine a

25     federal Croatia.  And after that, after a certain time, the Z-4 proposal

Page 28103

 1     was made.  Some other leaders also joined in with such -- joined in with

 2     their respective statements.  They were also against the Vance-Owen Plan,

 3     against any break-up and for unitarian Bosnia-Herzegovina.

 4             In my opinion, President Tudjman always insisted on the

 5     preservation of the status of constitutive people for the Croats in all

 6     of Bosnia-Herzegovina.  Unfortunately, this is not the solution that

 7     prevails today.

 8             The first question is whether the Croats are a constitutive

 9     people at all.  And the other question is whether an ethnic Croat who

10     lives in Mostar has the same right as an ethnic Croat who lives in

11     Banja Luka.  The fact is that they don't have the same rights and in my

12     opinion, they should have.

13             This also means that every Serb in Bosnia-Herzegovina should also

14     have the same rights, whether he or she lives in Doboj or in Capljina and

15     every Bosnian Muslims should have the same rights wherever he or she may

16     live.  The current situation is such that the people who live there are

17     the ones who are least satisfied with it.  People who live in

18     Bosnia-Herzegovina know that this country is very difficult to run the

19     way it is organised now.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It's 12.30, we're going to

21     break for 20 minutes.  I'm looking at the clock.  We're going to resume

22     at ten to 1.00.

23                           --- Recess taken at 12.30 p.m.

24                           --- On resuming at 12.50 p.m.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Mr. Scott, would

Page 28104

 1     you be able to tell us how much more time do you need?

 2             MR. SCOTT:  Your Honour, under the circumstances, it's extremely

 3     difficult to predict because of all the interventions.  So far, I've used

 4     just barely over half of my total time.  I was given four hours.  The

 5     Defence so far in total including all the follow-up examinations has been

 6     four hours and 46 minutes.  The Prosecution so far has had two hours and

 7     20 minutes so we've had only half as much time as the Defence.  It's hard

 8     to say.  If there was absolutely no interventions, if the witness gave

 9     short responsive answers we might finish by 1.45 but it's very doubtful.

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Please proceed.

11             MR. SCOTT:

12        Q.   Dr. Zoric, in light of the discussions so far, the testimony so

13     far concerning the article, P 10420, and the answers you've given, I have

14     to put to you that the position that you're -- in large measure, in large

15     measure, the position that you've state to the Court today is quite

16     different than the position that you and your party took in 1993 and

17     1994.  And the position you're stating today is a change of heart,

18     perhaps, or a different position than the one you held at the time; isn't

19     that correct?

20        A.   The circumstances have also changed and the facts are different

21     so that now, I hold a different position with regard to some issues.

22        Q.   Well, precisely.  But, you see, Dr. Zoric, you can tell us that

23     and it's fine for you to say, I've changed my mind, but what the Judges

24     need to know and in response to the questions about the exhibit I put in

25     front of you, my questions were not what you believe now, but what you

Page 28105

 1     and your party believed at that time in July 1993 and indeed in the

 2     months preceding July 1993.  So to the extent as you've just indicated,

 3     you've given different answers, you've changed your view, then you

 4     haven't told us even yet and we don't have probably time, you haven't

 5     told us yet what your position was at that time.

 6             Now, in that regard, sir, I think the Chamber should know is it

 7     correct that in June 1995, you left the HSLS and joined Tudjman's party,

 8     the HDZ?

 9        A.   That is correct.  But that wasn't in June 1995.

10        Q.   When was it, please?

11        A.   Later, in September or October.

12        Q.   September or October 1995, you left the HSLS and joined

13     Franjo Tudjman's party, the HDZ.

14        A.   Exactly.

15        Q.   All right.  If we can go on to Exhibit P 10422.  This is an

16     article from Globus, a well-known Croatian publication.  On the 28th of

17     January, 1994, concerning an interview with the same Drazen Budisa who

18     was your party head and in that sense superior at the time.  Again,

19     because of shortness of time, we don't have time to go through the entire

20     article.  But if you can please go well into the interview, sir, and for

21     those following in English, to -- toward the top of the third page.  If

22     you can find, Dr. Zoric, if you can find please the passage,

23     the paragraph that's starts, that's attributed to Mr. Budisa, it starts

24     with the words, "Because President Tudjman is captured ..." and I want to

25     give you a fair opportunity to find that so please tell me when you've

Page 28106

 1     found it.  Do you have it yet, please?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   It says there, and I won't read the entire paragraph but,

 4     "Because President Tudjman is captured by the concept of rearranging the

 5     former old Yugoslavia in completely different historical circumstances,

 6     he has pointed out several times that there is no solution to the Croat

 7     issue without an arrangement with Belgrade, and that our interest is the

 8     encompassing of the Croat ethnic territories.  This is in itself neither

 9     correct nor wrong outside the historical context.  Macek, the Croatian

10     signatory of the 1939 agreement founding the Banat of Croatia also acted

11     upon these bases."

12             Sir, building on the testimony that or the topics and the

13     information we've covered so far today, isn't this a further confirmation

14     that what your party was opposed to in terms of Tudjman's policies

15     towards Bosnia in 1993-1994, what your party was opposed to was his

16     desires to establish the Croatian Banovina borders inside

17     Bosnia-Herzegovina?

18        A.   These are the assertions of one person from the leadership of the

19     party.  Even though that person is president, I did not agree with such

20     positions so that a year later we parted.

21        Q.   A year later you parted, but that was indeed Doctor -- or excuse

22     me, Mr. Budisa's position as stated here; correct?

23        A.   Well, yes, but in politics, some things mature, they take their

24     time.  The reasons are not simple.  Such statements contributed to my

25     dissatisfaction and not only did I part with him, other people did too.

Page 28107

 1     I have already mentioned the party split into three parties due to a

 2     disagreement over crucial issues.

 3        Q.   Dr. Zoric, let me ask you this:  There was also -- already a

 4     reference to Mr. Macek, the Croatian signatory of the 1939 agreement that

 5     established the Banovina.  In the next paragraph, there's a reference to

 6     a Dragisa, forgive me pronunciations if it's wrong, Cvetkovic --

 7        A.   Cvetkovic.

 8        Q.   -- and can you tell us or remind the Judges, please, who was

 9     Dragisa Cvetkovic?

10        A.   I know that because I have a university degree in history,

11     otherwise I wouldn't be qualified to explain that here.

12     Dragisa Cvetkovic was the prime minister of the kingdom of Yugoslavia and

13     Vladko Macek was the president of the Croatian Peasant Party which at the

14     time was the leading Croatian political party that enjoyed the support of

15     the largest number of Croats not only in Croatia but also in

16     Bosnia-Herzegovina and it's a political paradox mentioned in literature

17     that even in some municipalities in Serbia, Macek had voters, people who

18     voted for him.

19             It is generally known that Cvetkovic and Macek signed an

20     agreement about the restructuring of the kingdom of Yugoslavia in 1939.

21     They thought that agreement would be the solution of the so-called

22     Croatian national question in Yugoslavia.  The subsequent development of

23     the situation showed that -- or rather proved them wrong.

24        Q.   In the interviewer's question following the part that I read to

25     you a moment ago, it says, "Do you think that Tudjman is trying to find

Page 28108

 1     his Dragisa Cvetkovic (prime minister of Yugoslavia, co-signatory of the

 2     1939 agreement mentioned above) in Milosevic?" In other words, Tudjman

 3     wants to play the role of Macek and casting Milosevic in the role as

 4     Cvetkovic?  Correct?  That's the question by the interviewer.

 5        A.   I think that it would be much more practical for this Court to

 6     invite the man who said what is -- what we can read here.  I am not

 7     qualified to interpret his words.  I am here to testify about refugees

 8     from Bosnia-Herzegovina and the assistance we provided to them.

 9        Q.   Well, that's not entirely correct, sir, as the Judges explained

10     the rules and the scope of the examination.  Sir, let me direct your

11     attention another couple of paragraphs down in the next -- skipping over

12     where Budisa says, "Today ..."  Skipping over the next question and then

13     when Budisa starts talking again, down in that paragraph, he says and I

14     put this to you in -- particularly in light of the ongoing questions from

15     this morning, "If the Croatian politics continues to aspire," I emphasise

16     continues to aspire, "towards Herceg-Bosna being annexed to Croatia, then

17     the question arises how we will retrieve our occupied areas.  There is

18     constant talk that the two-thirds of the Croats in Bosnia-Herzegovina who

19     will be left outside the Croat republic of Herceg-Bosna will be equal in

20     all respects."

21             Now, again, that was the issue over which Budisa and your party

22     was taking issue with the HDZ and President Tudjman; correct?

23        A.   Yes.  We were in disagreement.  We failed to understand how that

24     could be prevented from reflecting upon Croatia.

25        Q.   Let me next take you, please, then to Exhibit P 10409.

Page 28109

 1             MR. SCOTT:  Your Honour, I'm told that there was a correction,

 2     there was a translation correction and there is a new copy of that

 3     document that's loose so hopefully everyone has it in front of them.  If

 4     you don't then we will certainly assist you.

 5        Q.   Sir, you've made several references in the last few minutes or

 6     some time that, you know, you would like to be confronted with your own

 7     words, perhaps, and so I'm doing that.  This is an interview that you

 8     gave on the 13th of March, 1994 to Vijesnik; do you see that?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   And can we all go forward with the understanding that you agree

11     and confirm that you did give an interview to Vijesnik around this time,

12     the 13th of March, 1994?

13        A.   Yes, I gave many interviews at the time, among others, to

14     Vijesnik.  When exactly it would be hard for me to say.

15        Q.   All right.  Now, your position seems to be, and I've read this

16     interview several times, your position in this interview appears to be

17     that the Washington Agreement and this is now the interview is the 13th

18     of March 1994, your position seems to be at the time that the

19     Washington Agreement should be supported; is that correct?

20        A.   Yes, I understood that that agreement could put an end to the

21     conflict and make the warring parties sit at a table together.  In my

22     opinion, it's better to talk than to wage war.

23        Q.   And once again, sir, can you agree with me that the

24     Washington Agreement represented a fundamental shift of what had been

25     President Tudjman's policy up until that time?

Page 28110

 1        A.   I don't know if it was a shift in his policy, but it's a fact

 2     that after talks and several attempts, an agreement was brought about,

 3     but it takes two to have an agreement.

 4        Q.   Sir, in the first paragraph after the box text, if you will, the

 5     first paragraph reading down through it, I'm going to touch on various

 6     parts of these in turn, but you say, "'The Croatian-Muslim agreement in

 7     Washington should be supported, but without any euphoria,' claims

 8     Damir Zoric, the vice-president of the Chamber of Counties and member of

 9     the reduced board of the HSLS.  Zoric says that, 'This is maybe really

10     about a strategic turn in Croatian policy.'"

11             So this was a fundamental -- well, I'll use your word, it was a

12     strategic turn from the previous existing Tudjman policy, wasn't it?

13        A.   Yes, I do consider that a shift, but a shift is not the same

14     thing as is a turn.  A shift means moving from one situation to another

15     and then continue forward.  But a turn is something else.  It can mean

16     abandoning one position and embracing another instead.

17        Q.   At the time, you and your party viewed this or at least can I put

18     it to you this way:  Did you hope, did you hope at the time that this

19     represented Tudjman abandoning the policy of partitioning Bosnia and

20     establishing the Banovina borders?

21             MR. KARNAVAS:  Your Honour, first, he needs to establish that

22     fact.  I want him to finish his cross but now this is a fact that's not

23     been established.  He needs to establish that that was Tudjman's policy

24     as he understood it.

25             MR. SCOTT:  Your Honour, that's the entire Prosecution case has

Page 28111

 1     presented that proposition and I've shown you two articles, the two

 2     articles that have just said clearly make that point.

 3             MR. KARNAVAS:  The two articles are discussing somebody else's

 4     words.  The gentleman is alive.  He was here.  He could have been brought

 5     during the Prosecution's case.

 6             Now, he needs to lay a predicate.  That's his theory.  Fine.  He

 7     can state it as a theory but not as a fact.

 8             MR. SCOTT:  I didn't draft these documents, Mr. Karnavas.  They

 9     say what they say and the presidential transcripts say what they say.

10        Q.   Let me put it to you this way, sir.

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, please proceed.

12             MR. SCOTT:

13        Q.   Let me put it to you this way and I know that the Defence doesn't

14     like this evidence, but when you say --

15             MR. KARNAVAS:  I object to that as well.  Why don't we tell the

16     witness what the previous witness said on direct examination.  Mr. Zuzul

17     said quite clearly that that wasn't President Tudjman's policy.  Why

18     don't we say that and then ask him, now, do you disagree with Mr. Zuzul?

19             MR. SCOTT:  I assume that if the witness read --

20             MR. KARNAVAS:  It's not whether I like it or not.  It's proper

21     etiquette in court, lay a foundation, sir.

22             MR. SCOTT:  I assume that if Dr. Zoric read in the Croatian media

23     about Mr. Zuzul's testimony he's already heard that.

24             MR. KARNAVAS:  Now we're saying that all our witnesses are

25     confabulating.  Quite interesting, the Prosecution witnesses come in and

Page 28112

 1     tell the truth; the Defence witnesses are confabulating.  Sir, set the

 2     predicate.  Ask the foundational questions and then there won't be any

 3     objections.

 4             MR. SCOTT:  We spent the last two years establishing the

 5     predicate, Mr. President.

 6        Q.   Let me ask you this, sir, let me ask you this to use your own

 7     words.  Let me ask you this.  Let me find if for you.  On page 3 of the

 8     English translation and I'll have to help you find it, sir.  You were

 9     asked at one point, if you can find this question, it's under the heading

10     "The fatal Tito's youth."  It says, "Does it mean that the HSLS will now

11     be less critical towards the authorities?  No, it does not.  We did not

12     criticise the HDZ only because of their catastrophic policy towards BiH

13     and inside BiH."  So perhaps you can tell us, sir, those are your words,

14     what was catastrophic about Croatia's then existing policy towards BiH

15     and inside BiH?

16        A.   I can answer that question regardless of what the procedure

17     dictates, I wanted to answer your previous question although it was

18     qualified as a speculation, there is no reason why I shouldn't answer it.

19             We were active in the public domain and spoke publicly on various

20     issues mainly through TV broadcasts or newspaper reports.  The political

21     infrastructure or rather the infrastructure of the political parties at

22     the time was insufficiently developed in order to enable us to speak

23     specifically on all matters; however, it was part of the political

24     competition where parties wanted to use up as much room as they could and

25     be able to speak.

Page 28113

 1             Now, when it comes to this statement of mine you referred to, I

 2     believed at the time and I still believe that the Washington Agreement

 3     constituted a significant step forward.

 4        Q.   All right.  Thank you for that.  I'm sorry that I started to

 5     interrupt you.  Let me go back to what you said and what you were saying

 6     in answer to -- you said my previous question.  Sir, you say you're

 7     relying on broadcasts, what you read the newspapers, et cetera.  Sir, you

 8     were and I'm using the word government not in the sense of the executive

 9     branch, I'm talking about the government of Croatia as a whole, you were

10     a senior member of that government, a senior member.  Vice-president of

11     one of the houses of parliament in the governing board of the largest top

12     opposition party.  Now, please, don't tell the Judges that you didn't

13     understand what the politics in Croatia were at the time.  You knew what

14     Tudjman's policy was and you knew that you and your party presumably

15     after the reduced board had decided its platform and its policy position,

16     you knew that you, Mr. Budisa and the party opposed Tudjman's policy to

17     partition Bosnia, didn't you?

18        A.   Of course I knew.  How else would it have been an opposition

19     party had it not been opposed to matters.  Opposition parties normally do

20     that.  I have tried to answer your question but you keep interrupting me.

21     I can answer every question you put to me even the one that I referred to

22     a moment ago that remained unanswered by me before the break because of

23     procedural issues.

24             There isn't a single reason why I shouldn't answer every one of

25     your questions.  I can answer this one as well but please do not

Page 28114

 1     interrupt me.  I wish to explain to you what my position is and what my

 2     answer is.

 3        Q.   Well, the Chamber knows that the time constraints but assuming we

 4     won't finish today in any event, I'll let you go ahead.  Say whatever you

 5     want to say.

 6        A.   Your Honours, I do wish us to conclude today because I am a

 7     businessman.  I have business to attend to.

 8             In answer to your question, yes, as an opposition party, we

 9     criticised the ruling party in all manners possible.  We criticised, and

10     I mean both the leader of the party and the members of the party.

11     Oftentimes when opposition parties criticise the ruling party, this is

12     done in a general way by way of specific illustrations, specific

13     examples.  Sometimes we disagree on policy decisions, on legislative

14     decisions.  Sometimes we are opposed to those, and I'm referring to

15     Bosnia-Herzegovina now who are opposed to talks, who are opposed to

16     the -- to those who propose certain solutions and I believe this was the

17     case in this case at point.

18             Very often, the political discourse includes platitudes and as

19     I'm able to glean from this, I was the one using them as well.

20        Q.   If I can ask you, sir, to go to the part of your interview where

21     you are asked -- and in English it's toward the top of the second page,

22     if you can find the question, sir, please, "What do you think about the

23     confederation of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina?"

24             You say, "Croatia and BiH may begin certain inter-state

25     relationships only after they have become sovereign in the whole areas

Page 28115

 1     they respectively occupy.  Croatian interest is that BiH remains one

 2     unique country and that Croats in it be equal with other citizens."

 3             Now, when you say that these things can only be further

 4     addressed, "only after they have become sovereign in the whole areas that

 5     they respectively occupy," is it correct that you were talking about

 6     Bosnia-Herzegovina in it's entire internationally-recognised borders, not

 7     only that those borders would be respected but that Bosnia and

 8     Herzegovina would be, your word, "sovereign in that entire area"?

 9        A.   Yes.  These are my words and I stand by them today.  I have

10     always stood by them and will.  Bosnia-Herzegovina ought to be sovereign

11     in every inch of its territory as is the case with Croatia and with any

12     other internationally-recognised country for that matter.

13             Now, once these countries have resolved their fundamental issues

14     and problems, will they engage into discussions about their mutual

15     relations, cooperation, and accession to a higher level association, I

16     believe this is something that can only be wished for at the

17     international level.  However, in order to accede to such associations,

18     every country concerned must be -- must have sovereignty over its

19     territory to begin with.

20        Q.   You go on, if I can direct your attention to page 4 in the

21     English translation and if you can find, sir, the question that's put to

22     you, "Can the implementation of the Washington Agreement encounter a

23     serious resistance in a part of the ruling party or the opposition?"  And

24     you say there, I'm skipping the first paragraph although everyone in the

25     courtroom has it, I'm not misleading anyone, "However, the implementation

Page 28116

 1     of the new policy could be very painful in Herzegovina.  The policy of

 2     the Croatian-Muslim understanding is in the collision with the facts and

 3     emotions that presently exist.  Therefore, one should be careful that the

 4     implementation does not collide with the reality.  It is also the

 5     question whether the same people can implement two concepts that are so

 6     different and that went from war to alliance."

 7             If I could combine that, please, and ask you to hopefully save a

 8     few minutes, we might be able to finish today, at least my part, I can't

 9     speak for anyone else.  Toward the bottom -- well, in the English towards

10     the bottom of that page but after the question where it says, "Do you

11     mean Mate Boban?"  Then in the third paragraph in your answer, sir, you

12     say, "Nowadays, their political leaders report that there are allegedly

13     no problems in Herzegovina.  However, it is very much so that there are

14     problems in Herzegovina.  People are confused because they waged the war

15     for something, they lost their lives, children, husbands, property.  More

16     victims fell in the war against the Muslims than against the Serbs.  Many

17     ask themselves today:  Why?"

18             In both of those two passages that I just put to you, Dr. Zoric,

19     isn't what you're saying here:  This, again, Washington represented a

20     fundamental shift.  The people had thought that they were fighting, or at

21     least many people, certainly not everyone, many people including the

22     Herceg-Bosna leadership thought they were fighting for a part of

23     Herceg-Bosna that would join and be part of Croatia and now, now as

24     Washington finally evolved, this was an abrupt change of course which it

25     was going to be difficult for people to accept?  That's what you are

Page 28117

 1     expressing your concern about; correct?

 2        A.   No, that's not a correct interpretation.  I didn't say that the

 3     people fought and died for something that was to become a part of

 4     Croatia.  There may have been individuals who did, but I believe that

 5     the -- that the majority of people who took part in that struggle did not

 6     find the sense in it because they thought that they were creating a

 7     better Croatia but because that they thought that they were creating this

 8     third entity, the Croat entity of the state of Bosnia.

 9             As you know, the notion of a federation is quite something else.

10     It does not include the notion of an entity and the people at large found

11     it very difficult to accept that.  They took it emotionally, although we

12     know that one should not rely on emotions, one has to accept matters

13     rationally.

14             My view of that settlement was that it was better than the

15     settlements that were being passed around at the time.  I did not see it

16     as part of something that would become Croatia but the people are

17     entitled to an opinion, to formulate that opinion, and to advocate their

18     opinions.  What remains, of course, to be defined is in what way they

19     want to attain this objective of theirs.  In my view of the matter was

20     that it should be through talks with the international community.

21        Q.   Dr. Zoric, thank you for that and believe it or not, I am trying

22     to assist you by hopefully moving forward to see if we can possibly

23     complete your testimony today.

24             My final topic, my final question, I suppose, depending on your

25     answer, there might be one or two follow-up questions.  I just want to

Page 28118

 1     direct your attention to the text immediately following, immediately

 2     below the question, "Do you mean Mate Boban?"  And you say, well, the

 3     question is "Do you mean Mate Boban?"  And your answer is, "I mean Tito's

 4     youth who rule BiH nowadays.  Those who did their best during work-drives

 5     to earn shock-workers' badges.  Some people who nowadays lead the HDZ as

 6     the people's party of the Croats in the BiH and therefore as my party too

 7     were in their time bringing in for an interview even the first founders

 8     of the HDZ.  They are very skillful political executors but they are

 9     unskilled with their own people whom they chase from pillar to post,

10     driving finally many of the people in Herzegovina crazy too."

11             Can you please tell the Judges when you refer to Tito's youth and

12     the people who nowadays lead the HDZ in BiH, who are you talking about?

13        A.   As you can see, I didn't want to name any names, I wanted to

14     encourage, through my answer, the people in that part of the world to

15     seek new faces.  As you know, in young democracies, it is best for the

16     officials to fluctuate.  I don't know how far my answer could be deemed

17     to be politically correct, but the term of Tito's youth was not something

18     that was deemed in a positive light at the time and I believe that this

19     would incite them to engage in a process of looking for new people.

20        Q.   Well, sir, it's my job that I have to ask you the question

21     whether despite the fact that it may make you uncomfortable, which I

22     might personally regret that, but I am required to ask you what

23     individuals did you have in mind?  Please give us, if you can remember,

24     give us the names of the individuals you had in mind.

25        A.   I didn't have anyone specifically in mind.  As you can see for

Page 28119

 1     yourself, I spoke in very general terms.  My intention was to give the

 2     people in the area food for thought and to tell them that they should

 3     carefully look for new people who would lead them.

 4             You see what the journalist's question was.  His question

 5     referred to a specific person whereas I, in my answer, did not refer to

 6     any individuals.  I know that subsequently, there was change in that

 7     quarter, some new people emerged replacing the ones who were there before

 8     and I believe that change is always beneficial.

 9        Q.   Well, sometimes.  The question to you was, "Do you mean

10     Mate Boban ?" And of course you could have answered the question very

11     quickly, "Yes," but you didn't.  You didn't.  You said, "I mean Tito's

12     youth who rule BiH nowadays."  Then going down to the next line, "Some

13     people who nowadays lead the HDZ ..."

14             Now, sir, you must have known, I'm sorry, but when you said,

15     "Some people who nowadays lead the HDZ," you knew exactly who you were

16     talking about.  So please tell us who those persons were.

17        A.   You would definitely not have voted for me, I see.  That was the

18     way I spoke in public.  I was trying to be active in politics at the time

19     and I told you that I wasn't very good at it and I went back to the job

20     that I am good at.  Perhaps I should have given a more straightforward

21     answer here but I did not and I cannot speak in hypothetical terms about

22     what I specifically had in mind 15 years ago.

23        Q.   Well, sir, I must say I wasn't laughing at you, I was laughing

24     with you because I know that these things can be difficult, we try to

25     find some humour where we can.  But, sir, I have to conclude with this

Page 28120

 1     and I will leave it up to the Judges if they want to press you further

 2     but I put it to you, sir, that you do in fact know who you were talking

 3     about and you just don't want to tell us.  Isn't that true?  Yes?

 4        A.   I think it will be highly improper of me to name names here 15

 5     years later.  I don't think it would be proper on my part and I believe

 6     that I achieved as much as I wanted to achieve.  If you want me to, I can

 7     answer the question that you put to me that remained unanswered from

 8     before the break because there was a procedural dispute about it.  If I

 9     recall well, you asked me -- if that was important for you, I can give

10     you an answer.  If not, fine.

11        Q.   Let me conclude with this, I will leave you in the Chamber's

12     hands.  If the Chamber wants to press you further for that information

13     then the Judges can choose to do so.  I want to thank you despite some

14     rather firm questions, I thank you for coming to The Hague and giving

15     your testimony.  I wish you a safe return and that concludes my

16     questioning.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We have 12 minutes left for

18     redirect.  Do you have any additional questions?

19             MR. KARNAVAS:  I do and just picking up on that last question.

20     If the gentleman wishes to go into private session and name names, if he

21     remembers, that may make it more comfortable assuming that he has

22     specific names because that option was not given to him by the

23     Prosecution.

24             So if we were to go into private session, sir, would that make

25     it ...

Page 28121

 1             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, we can move into

 2     private session if you so wish.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't know what a

 4     private session is.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, private session, that is

 6     a situation in which nobody knows what you could say unless -- but for

 7     the people who are in this courtroom, of course.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Let me respond this way:  "De

 9     mortuis nihil nisi bene."

10             MR. KARNAVAS:  We may need a translation for that one.

11             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  It means that of the dead, nothing unless it's

12     good.  It means that one should not slander persons after they -- one

13     should not say the truth perhaps after they are dead.

14             MR. KARNAVAS:  With that I just have some very quick questions.

15                           Re-examination by Mr. Karnavas:

16        Q.   On page 2 of today's transcript, there was a question with

17     respect to refugee status and at one point you said that there was some

18     misuse of the refugee status and as a result, there was some changes so

19     that that status was only allowed for three months and then that there

20     would be some -- they would have to check in once a month to review their

21     status and what have you.  Very briefly, when you said "misuse" were you

22     speaking of Croats and Muslims both, and if so, could you give us just

23     very illustrative, just one example of what kind of misuse you are

24     talking about?  Keep it brief because I have 10 minutes, sir.

25        A.   I did not have members of an ethnicity specifically in mind.

Page 28122

 1     This was not a feature that was unique to one ethnic group only.  We

 2     tried to prevent these as far as we could.  This was not a prevailing

 3     practice.  If it was, then we prevented it.  This was something that

 4     could be found among the Croat and Muslim refugees alike who tried to

 5     misuse their status by obtaining benefits that did not belong to them in

 6     the first place.  That is what I had in mind.

 7        Q.   Thank you.  Now, you were asked a question, you were asked a

 8     question by the Prosecution and it was somewhere in the -- on page 31

 9     about returns and you said words to the effect that safety was one and of

10     course you were pressed with another question and you admitted, yes,

11     accommodation was another.

12             This is today's transcript, it's not in the documents, sir.  Sir,

13     it's not in your documents, it's in the transcript.

14             So with respect, you indicated today that trying to return folks

15     back to where they came from, you had to look at safety and

16     accommodation; correct?

17        A.   Correct.

18        Q.   Now, if we could look at one particular example, for instance, in

19     1D 01593, I have a copy for the gentleman, if I could have the assistance

20     of Madam Usher and I have copies for everyone else.  It is in the e-court

21     system and then you could distribute this to everyone else.  One to the

22     Prosecution and then the Bench as well.

23             Now, here is an example, for instance, this is a letter dated

24     7 April 1994.  If we flip to the second page, we see that it's signed by

25     Dr. Jadranko Prlic, president of the government and it's addressed to the

Page 28123

 1     president of the government of the Republic of Croatia,

 2     Mr. Nikica Valentic.  Was Mr. Valentic the president at that time of the

 3     government?

 4        A.   Yes, he was the prime minister at the time.

 5        Q.   Now it appears from the letter, if we were to look at it, and in

 6     this letter Dr. Jadranko Prlic is indicating that for some reason, there

 7     was a lack of coordination and that folks were being returned and that he

 8     was concerned that perhaps the areas where they were being returned were

 9     not quite ready to receive them.

10        A.   Yes, we came across such situations when regarded from Zagreb

11     some areas seemed safe whereas the local authorities knew better.  We

12     were looking at the municipalities within their territorial boundaries as

13     at 1990.  However, in the meantime, the territorial organisation and

14     structure changed.  Secondly, the municipalities covered wide territories

15     and some of the specific locations within the municipality could still

16     have been unfit for return although other parts were fit for that process

17     and the authorities back in Zagreb could not be fully familiar with the

18     situation.

19             I believe that this is a request on the part of Mr. Prlic to stay

20     a decision passed by Mr. Adalbert Rebic whereby the population should

21     return to the BH and he states therein that he has the support for this

22     of the people from -- both from Sarajevo and Mostar.

23        Q.   Suffice it to say if we look at this letter, it would appear

24     that, at least from Croatia's part, some errors might have been

25     occurring.  In other words, they're trying to -- they may think that

Page 28124

 1     areas are safe and there's a lack of coordination; am I correct in that?

 2        A.   Both options were possible.  If they were unsafe areas and Zagreb

 3     didn't know about it, then we're talking about`poor coordination and

 4     communication, but there had been such situations before and there were

 5     similar situations after and each such decision could be reviewed and

 6     corrections were made.  If return to a place was impossible or impossible

 7     for some people, then they would stay where they were, the decision was

 8     revoked, et cetera.  I think this is about such a case.

 9        Q.   All right.  Now, you're not a lawyer; is that correct?

10        A.   I'm not and I'm glad I'm not.

11        Q.   Okay.  Well, very well.

12             Now, you were pressed on some questions with respect to refugees,

13     citizenship and what have you and you gave some answers and having spoken

14     about my client during the break, he had indicated to me that his family,

15     his wife, for instance, who was from Herzegovina went to Croatia, got

16     citizenship, but at the same time because of the conditions was also able

17     to have refugee status which was important, if for no other reasons, for

18     health care.

19             Now, sir, was that a possibility, do you know?  Do you know how

20     the law was structured?  And be very quickly about it because I have a

21     couple more questions.

22        A.   I don't know of such situations, no.

23        Q.   All right.  Now, you were asked about Tudjman's policy to

24     carve-up Bosnia and Herzegovina and in the Tuta-Stela case, for instance,

25     you had indicated that it was widely noted in a statement by the high

Page 28125

 1     representative of the UN in Sarajevo General Klein, that would be

 2     Jacques Klein, that Izetbegovic had offered Herzegovina to Tudjman and

 3     Tudjman had declined it.  Do you recall that part of your testimony?

 4        A.   Yes, I remember that part and I remember the statements given by

 5     General Klein.  Yes, I remember it.

 6        Q.   And also you indicated, to be fair, that in the press that then

 7     came out that Izetbegovic was not denying that but then he was putting a

 8     sort of a spin or qualification that "... this was a tactical move to

 9     embroil Croatia in another type of game where, in my mind at least, it

10     would never, ever be able to liberate its own occupied territories,

11     Vukovar and Knin, because of some other principles would have applied in

12     that case ..." and I'm reading from the revised transcript, not the one

13     that the Prosecution indicated, but these are pages 11.080 to 11.081.

14             Now, do you stand by that, sir, that you recall Izetbegovic in

15     the press putting his spin that this was just a tactical move in order to

16     embroil Croatia to see maybe if Tudjman would have taken the bite and the

17     bait, as it were, and then he could use that for tactical reasons?

18        A.   This shows that apart from the job of a lawyer, there is another

19     very difficult and demanding job, namely politics and that's why I don't

20     do either.  I spoke several times with Mr. Izetbegovic in his office in

21     Sarajevo.

22             As far as circumstances allowed, we also discussed political

23     issues.  My conclusion was exactly what you quoted.  But that's how it

24     goes in politics.  Everybody tries to attain their goals and used

25     different means to do so.  It is my impression that Mr. Izetbegovic would

Page 28126

 1     sign anything he was given to sign just to get another opportunity.  He

 2     signed a lot of things, first with Boban and then immediately after that

 3     with Karadzic, he signed a confederation or federation with Croatia, but

 4     then that idea was given up.

 5             His goal was the sovereignty of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

 6        Q.   One final question here about Tudjman, because I think we want to

 7     make sure we fully understand.  You indicated that this was a unity

 8     government, different factions.  Sir, within -- at that time, is it not a

 9     fact that Tudjman had a lot of different players with a lot of different

10     agendas, some thinking that the borders should be at the Drina which

11     would have encompassed all of Bosnia-Herzegovina; others, the Banovina.

12     Others wanted all sorts of different variations and isn't it a fact, sir,

13     that Tudjman was playing one side against the other in order to achieve

14     his own goal which was an independent Croatia within its recognised

15     borders?  Can you comment on that?

16        A.   I think this is an adequate assessment of him.  I don't believe

17     that the groups that advocated a Greater Croatia reaching to the

18     Drina River were significant or powerful but there were some people.

19     There was some hot heads advocating that not necessarily in the people

20     around Tudjman, but many people were moving around him.  He used many

21     people to attain his goal both internally and internationally and I

22     believe that in a rather long period, he was able to achieve his goals.

23             Some people had a much -- didn't -- weren't able to look into the

24     future for -- as far as he did but President Tudjman was aware who was on

25     the other side, who was against him and I believe that he was able

Page 28127

 1     eventually to attain his goal.  It was difficult but he --

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You have to finish.

 3             MR. KARNAVAS:  I have no further questions, Your Honours.

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes.

 5             MR. KARNAVAS:  I did want to make one comment about the next

 6     witness but I can do so even by way of e-mail.

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.  Witness, thank you.  We

 8     are sort of pressed by time but I thank all the parties for making it

 9     possible for you to complete your testimony.  I know you have other

10     commitments which I understand perfectly well.  The Trial Chamber wishes

11     you a safe return to your other commitments.

12             Yes, Mr. Karnavas.

13             MR. KARNAVAS:  I just wanted to thank the witness, too, on behalf

14     of everyone here because I didn't get a chance to thank him and I forgot

15     actually but we do appreciate him coming here so we thank him.

16             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The hearing stands adjourned.

17     We have another witness next week in the same conditions as for this

18     witness.  I think it's going to be Dr. Rebic, four hours --

19             MR. KARNAVAS:  Five.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I said four.  So we shall

21     reconvene next week in the afternoon, 2.15 on Monday.

22                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.50 p.m.

23                           to be reconvened on Monday, the 19th day of May,

24                           2008, at 2.15 p.m.