1 Tuesday, 8 July 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
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 Today is Tuesday, the 8th of July, 2008. Good morning to the
13 accused, to the Defence counsel, to Mr. Stringer and his assistants, as
14 well as to all people assisting us in this case. We are going to proceed
15 with the examination-in-chief, and let me greet Mr. Karnavas again whilst
16 giving him the floor.
17 MR. KARNAVAS: Good morning, Mr. President. Good morning, Your
18 Honours. Good morning to everyone in and around the courtroom.
19 WITNESS: ZORAN BUNTIC [Resumed]
20 [Witness answered through interpreter]
21 Examination by Mr. Karnavas: [Continued]
22 Q. Good morning, Mr. Buntic.
23 MR. KARNAVAS: Mr. Usher, we will need your assistance to give
24 Mr. Buntic his binder. We had to re-arrange some documents and, Your
25 Honours, you will see there is a list we provided for you which sort of
1 traces the -- our intent, how we will proceed, how the documents are
2 arranged. So this may provide you some assistance in following along as
3 we go from document to document.
4 Q. I believe you were more or less finished with your answer to eh
5 question concerning document P 00292; so, therefore, I will move on to
6 the next document which is P 09552; P 09552, it's a P document.
7 MR. KARNAVAS: The list, Your Honours, that list that we
8 provided, I believe -- in any event. Okay.
9 Q. If we look at this particular document, and it says "Order" in
10 English. Is this an order, sir?
11 A. This is a decree; this is not an order. I spoke yesterday about
12 this document here. This is a decree on the organization, operation, and
13 jurisdiction of judiciary in case of a state of war or imminent war
14 threat in the territory of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna; and,
15 also, I said yesterday that this decree was discussed and adopted at the
16 Presidency session on the 3rd of July, 1992, but that it never --
17 Q. Mr. Buntic, you will need to slow down. The translators will not
18 be able to keep up with you. So please slow down, and just let me lead
19 you very quickly through this document. Was this -- you said it was
20 adopted. Was it ever published, this particular decree?
21 A. This decree was never published in the Official Gazette of the
22 Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, nor was it ever applied. It was
23 passed and adopted, but it was immediately after that, on the 17th of
24 October, that a new decree was adopted.
25 Q. Mr. Buntic, we have some 100 documents to go through, and we will
1 not be able to go through the document, unless you allow me to sort of
2 lead you. We will get to that document in due course. That's all I
3 needed for this particular document.
4 MR. KARNAVAS: Unless there are any questions, we will move on.
5 Q. We will discuss this document when we get to the one that was
6 actually passed, published, and applied concerning the judiciary. Okay.
7 If we go on to the next --
8 MR. KARNAVAS: Unless there are any questions on this document, I
9 will go to next document which is P 00305, very briefly.
10 Q. We can see that this is a decision to establish the Official
11 Gazette. My first question is: Why was it necessary to establish an
12 Official Gazette?
13 A. The Official Gazette was established for the transparency of the
14 work of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna. In this particular case,
15 this is about the documents of the Presidency. As is known everywhere,
16 every municipality in the former Yugoslavia
17 thus, the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna deemed it necessary to have
18 its own official publication to publish all the regulations that were
19 adopted by the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna.
20 Q. Thank you. Well, it's interesting that you say that because we
21 had a witness here by the name of Ciril Ribicic who was on the
22 constitutional court of Slovenia
23 page 25498, line 10 to 19, I will be reading.
24 "Q. And what role did the Narodni List play in the governmental
25 structure or legal structure of Herceg-Bosna?"
1 Answer from our constitutional expert from Slovenia; Prosecution
2 witness, that is. He says: "Narodni List published all decisions passed
3 by the bodies of the community of Herceg-Bosna. That was the Official
4 Gazette such as the states have in order to publish their laws and other
5 regulations. One should also mention that in the former state within the
6 republics of the former Yugoslavia
7 their own regulations in the Official Gazettes, but," and I underscore
8 this word, "but not a gazette that was their own; rather, in the Official
9 Gazette of the republic that they belonged to."
10 So my question now is: Is Ribicic correct when he says that in
11 the former system, the municipalities did not have the right or did not
12 have Narodni List Official Gazette, and they could only publish their
13 regulations in the Official Gazette of the republic?
14 A. With all due respect to Professor Ribicic, I believe that his
15 words are absolutely wrong, because the documents that you showed me
16 yesterday show a number of instances where the municipalities published
17 their regulations in the Official Gazettes of the municipalities. Not
18 only I but every professional in law should be aware of the fact that
19 every municipality in the former Yugoslavia
20 in which they published regulations adopted by the respective
21 municipalities, and it was not just one municipality that had that.
22 Every single municipality in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the period leading
23 up to the war and during the war had that.
24 Q. All right. Thank you. Now, if we go on to the next --
25 MR. KARNAVAS: Unless there are any questions, I will move on to
1 the next document, and that is 1D 01558, 1D 01558. It's dated September
2 12th, 1992.
3 Q. We see that it's signed by Dr. Jadranko Prlic, and I just want
4 to -- I'm going to move through some of these documents rather quickly,
5 Mr. Buntic, based on your previous answers yesterday, the narrative. You
6 talked about legal vacuums that were created; and, here, we see, for
7 instance, Mr. Prlic saying in the very first paragraph that -- that he's
8 enclosing some acts that were passed by the temporary executive and
9 administrative body. Then later on, on the second paragraph, he
10 indicates that with the decree of the president of the Republic of
12 inherited from the former SFRY, while other regulations are declared null
13 and void. By declaring those regulations null and void, a legal vacuum
14 has been created, the consequences of which is a fact that the whole
15 fields, especially in economy, remain unregulated.
16 So this is what you meant yesterday when you talked about the
17 passage of a law at the Presidency level, at the state level, and the
18 legal vacuums that were created; is that correct?
19 A. That is correct, and I'm aware of this letter sent by the
20 president of the HVO, Jadranko Prlic, and sent to the Government of the
21 Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. And this confirms what we just said
22 about the transparency of the HVO's work, and it is also in keeping with
23 what I was saying yesterday about the legal vacuums that occurred after
24 the breakup of the former Yugoslavia
1 regulations that had been implemented in the territory of Bosnia
3 Q. All right. Now, I'm going to cover two documents. I put them in
4 the housekeeping.
5 MR. KARNAVAS: Let me go back to one document, 1D 02441. I
6 skipped this document; it was an error on my part. This is just a press
8 Q. It's dated 3 July 1992
9 because we have been dealing with legislation that were passed as a
10 result of that -- those meetings held on that day. And, here, it
11 indicates on paragraph -- on first paragraph, there's a last sentence.
12 It says: "These decisions in no way impinge on the sovereignty and unity
13 of Bosnia and Herzegovina. All these decisions are in accordance with EC
14 principles on the constitutional order of Bosnia and Herzegovina
15 independent state."
16 So my question to you, Mr. Buntic, is: Do you agree with this
17 part of the press release that was sent out by Mate Boban; that is, that
18 the legislation that was being enacted did not infringe or impinge on the
19 sovereignty and unity of Bosnia and Herzegovina?
20 A. I absolutely agree with this, with this release. And I know that
21 it was published immediately after the Presidency session on the 3rd of
22 July, 1992, and that it was published in some dailies immediately after
23 the closing of the session. It also speaks of the transparency of the
24 work of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna about its true goals and
1 Q. All right. And now going back to --
2 JUDGE TRECHSEL: May I just ask.
3 MR. KARNAVAS: Certainly.
4 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Mr. Buntic, this document is signed by Boban.
5 Can you tell us, do you know who drafted it?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not sure, and I'd rather not
8 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Could it be yourself. The formulations, could
9 they come from you?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe there were discussions
11 about this, but I wouldn't say that I was the author of this document.
12 We discussed this after the session of the Presidency, but there were other
13 documents to this same effect, not only this one. I believe that there
14 were several press releases after this session, after we had discussed
15 this subject; and, yes, I did discuss the subject with Boban, but I'm not
16 sure that I actually drafted the document.
17 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you very much.
18 MR. KARNAVAS:
19 Q. Okay. Now, just two matters I wanted to get out of the way
20 because they don't fit into any particular topic.
21 MR. KARNAVAS: If we go to 1D 02117, and -- it's 1D 02117,
22 1D 02117.
23 Q. And this is a conclusion, and it deals with the amounts of
24 advanced payments on salaries. And, yesterday, you indicated how the
25 president -- the HVO, executive authority, worked and that everyone had
1 one vote, and the purpose of this is to show the salaries. And we can
2 see that the president, vice-president, and heads of department, they all
3 received the same salaries; is that correct?
4 A. I believe that this conclusion is correct and that this is what
5 was paid in reality, and that the ratios that existed at the time were as
6 shown in this conclusion. I don't know whether it should be noted that
7 these amounts translate into a minute amounts of money, maybe 150 euro
8 for president and vice-presidents; whereas, the others received even less
9 than that.
10 Q. Well, the whole purpose was to show that everybody's getting paid
11 the same amount; that's the primary focus of this document.
12 MR. KARNAVAS: And if we move on to the next document, 1D 00126,
13 again it's sort of what I would call a housekeeping matter.
14 Q. This is a decision on the appointment of the commission --
15 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Excuse me.
16 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes.
17 JUDGE TRECHSEL: You say it shows -- the document shows that
18 everyone gets the same amount.
19 MR. KARNAVAS: Okay --
20 JUDGE TRECHSEL: But it has a whole list of six different --
21 MR. KARNAVAS: No, no --
22 JUDGE TRECHSEL: -- steps going from 50.000 down to 20.000.
23 MR. KARNAVAS: Perhaps -- perhaps I didn't articulate myself
24 correctly or maybe it was lost in translation. I was saying the
25 department heads - the president, the vice-president - the department
1 heads get paid the same. The point being is Dr. Jadranko Prlic is first
2 among equals, and that when he signs a document, it's not his decision.
3 It's a decision of the executive authority, and obviously -- and also we
4 can see from this document that there are other heads and subdepartment
5 heads which also might assist you, Judge Trechsel, when you pose that
6 question as to who the others might have been.
7 MR. STRINGER: Just a very quick objection to the argument or
8 statement of counsel characterizing the document. I think the witness is
9 here to talk about it and not counsel.
10 MR. KARNAVAS: I totally agree with the Prosecutor. I was merely
11 invited to respond to Your Honour's question, which I thought you were --
12 since I wasn't clear enough the first time, I tried to be as clear and
13 forth --
14 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you. I probably made also mistake because
15 I ought to have, in a technique similar to cross-examination, put the
16 question directly to the witness. It was my courtesy that I address
17 myself to you, and please do not take grudge from it.
18 MR. KARNAVAS: No, no. But I take the Prosecution's point and
19 I'll try to remedy it.
20 Q. 1D 00126. This is just a decision, and we see that it's for the
21 appointment of the commission of regulations of the Croatian Defence
22 Council. It's dated 27 November 1992
23 is this commission for regulations, if you know very quickly, in one
25 A. This was a commission that proposed various regulations, very
1 often even drafted them, and then evaluated the congruency of these
2 regulations with regulations of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the other
3 regulations of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna. And this would be
4 the shortest I can tell you about the commission for regulations.
5 Q. All right. And if we look at the names, can we draw any
6 conclusions as to the ethnicity of those who were being appointed?
7 A. There were two Bosniaks, Muslims, in the commission, and two
9 Q. All right.
10 A. There was an equal representation, in other words.
11 Q. All right. Now, I'm going to go through another set of
12 documents, and this deals with other statutory decisions from other
13 municipalities. And, Mr. Buntic, I would be ever so kind -- I would
14 appreciate it very, very much if you could be very short, because we
15 don't need to go through these documents unless the Trial Chamber has
16 questions, and then feel free to expand as much as you think is
18 But we just need to show these documents to the Trial Chamber to
19 get an idea of what the other municipalities were doing.
20 MR. KARNAVAS: 1D 02261, 1D 02261. This is a statutory decision
21 of Bosanska Posavina, and we see this is 11 May 1992.
22 Q. You would have been familiar with this statutory decision at some
23 point or another; correct?
24 A. I know that the Croatian Community of Bosanska Posavina adopted
25 this statutory decision, which, in my view, provides a much simpler and
1 clearer solutions to the internal organization, and the functioning that
2 may be the statutory decision of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna.
3 I'm familiar with this decision, and this decision also points to the
4 fact that different communities had different regulations, which also
5 points to the fact that they were not synchronised in their activities,
6 that they're activities were not planned in advance. Everybody made do
7 as they could within the given situation.
8 Q. All right. And in keeping with that answer, let's look at the
9 next document and we'll -- and other documents as well, and we'll be able
10 to see that at a glance.
11 MR. KARNAVAS: 1D 01925, 1925. This is a -- this deals with the
12 region of North-Eastern Bosnia.
13 Q. And we see that it talks about the Croatian Defence Council as a
14 political organization with the following objectives and tasks. If we
15 look at the very last page, we see that this was signed on 12 June 1992
16 in Tuzla
17 document as well and the municipalities that it covered?
18 A. I'm familiar with this document providing to the establishment of
19 the founding of the municipalities of Tuzla
20 Gracanica, Srebrenik, Gradacac, Lopare, Brcko. I know that the HVO was
21 established in these areas as well, and that later on these communities
22 or parts thereof served for the establishment of the Croatian community
23 of Soli.
24 Q. And we'll come to that with the next few documents. We just need
25 to move rather quickly --
1 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Just a very small question. Are all these
2 communities we've now been looking at documents, are they part of
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The community Soli -- actually,
5 subsequently, some of these communities joined the Croatian Community of
6 Herceg-Bosna. I'm referring to the Croatian Community of Bosanska
7 Posavina. And some decisions were also issued providing for the joining
8 of other municipalities once the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna was
9 established on the 18th of November, 1992.
10 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you. But at the time of these documents,
11 they were not or some were not members or did not belong to Herceg-Bosna,
12 or did they already belong to Herceg-Bosna at the time of the documents
13 we're looking at?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It should be said that, first, the
15 Croatian community of Bosanska Posavina was established around the
16 11th of December, 1992, and that only subsequently it joined the Croatian
17 Community of Herceg-Bosna. It should also be said that in some of the
18 parts of these communities that we just mentioned or these
19 municipalities. Later on, a Croatian community was established under the
20 name of Soli, S-o-l-i; and that it also adopted the decision to join the
21 Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna. At this point in time, I can't
22 remember the dates, and I'd rather not speculate.
23 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you very much.
24 MR. KARNAVAS: Just one minor clarification.
25 Q. You said on page 12, line 5, that it was December 1992 that
1 Bosanska Posavina was established. Could it be December 1991 and not
3 A. As far as I can remember, I said it was on the 12th of November,
4 1991. I don't know how it was recorded. If I said anything else, then I
5 misspoke. A week before the establishment of the Croatian Community of
6 Herceg-Bosna this happened, or on the 12th of November, 1991, to be more
8 Q. All right.
9 MR. KARNAVAS: If we go to the next document, 1D 02258, this is
10 again dated 12 June 1992
11 Q. This is a decision to establish the Croatian Defence Council of
12 Banovici, and we see from the very -- from very first article, Article 1,
13 we see that the Banovici HVO shall be engaged in defence as part of the
14 armed forces of BH. Where is Banovici, can you tell us?
15 A. Banovici is in the north-eastern part of Bosnia and Herzegovina
16 Q. All right.
17 A. And I --
18 Q. Could you repeat yourself. Could you repeat that last answer,
19 sir. Were you aware that they were part of the defence of the --
20 Croatian Defence --
21 A. I started speaking, but I didn't know whether my microphone was
22 still on. I am aware that the Croatian Defence Council was established
23 in the municipality of Banovici
24 Defence Council of Bosnia and Herzegovina. I believe that it was active
25 in one part of the municipality of Banovici
2 Q. All right.
3 MR. KARNAVAS: And then we go on to the next document, 1D 02259.
4 Q. And, here, we see a decision to form the military unit of the
6 This is dated 25 June 1992
7 A. I'm familiar with this decision which says that the HVO was
8 established and was active in one part of the municipality of Tuzla
9 Q. All right. Now, when you say "part," just to make sure, to tie
10 it in with your answer yesterday, because yesterday you corrected one of
11 the translations when you said "areas." So when you say "part," is that
12 what you're referring to, that these HVO units or HVO establishments were
13 in some areas of the municipality, not the entire municipality?
14 A. The question is connected with the topic I discussed yesterday.
15 The fact of the matter is that the HVO, specifically in this case in
17 municipality; rather, it was active only in certain areas of that
19 Q. Thank you.
20 MR. KARNAVAS: We go to the next document, 1D 02253.
21 Q. Here, we see this is dated 8 July 1992. It's a decision to form
22 administrative offices in the territory of the Croatian part of
23 Teslic-Komusina municipality.
24 A. May I?
25 Q. Yes, please.
1 A. This is a case similar to the one we've just discussed. Mention
2 is made of the administrative offices being set up in the -- in a part of
3 the territory of these municipalities. Therefore, as the very title
4 says, the establishment of these offices does not refer to the entire
5 territories of these municipalities.
6 Q. Okay.
7 MR. KARNAVAS: We go on to the next document, 1D 02053, 1D 02053.
8 We see it's dated 11 July 1992
9 Q. We see that this is an order, and two things that we can point
10 out for the Judges. One is under number 1. It talks about men liable
11 for military service, and we see the age of 18 to 60. And, of course,
12 number 3 which may be more important and you could comment on that, where
13 it says: "Men liable for military service from other municipalities, who
14 are currently in the territory of Ljubuski
15 escorted to their municipalities."
16 Can you comment on that?
17 A. It is true that this is an order, and an order which relates to
18 Ljubuski municipality. This order speaks of all the issues that the
19 municipalities had to decide upon at the time in no uncertain terms.
20 What is typical for this particular order is that the municipalities were
21 separate entities developing their own respective regulations.
22 This particular order testifies to the fact that it was very
23 difficult to organize any sort of defence in these municipalities without
24 the HVO. What it says in this part is that the military-aged men from
25 Ljubuski were unable to leave their territory -- the territory of their
1 municipality and that the authorities of the Ljubuski municipality did
2 not allow other military-aged men to enter their territory. What clearly
3 arises from this document is that neither were the military-aged men from
4 the Ljubuski municipality allowed to leave their municipality to help out
5 those in other municipalities, and vice versa.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation
7 continues] ... to me particularly important. You've just pointed out
8 that the municipalities were autonomous. We see in this text that there
9 is interference by this municipality in its use of military service
10 because they prohibit all those aged between 18 and 60 from leaving their
12 Should there not have been coordination at the level of the
13 military HVO, because there is a common enemy on the face of it; and if
14 each municipality does in its own corner wages its own individual war,
15 there could very well be chaos or major problems.
16 Now, this military aspect, in your view, was it relayed at the
17 level of the HVO echelons to ensure coordination; or given the situation,
18 did each do what they could?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe that this particular document
20 testifies to the state of affairs as it existed before the setting up of the
21 HVO of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna. Not only is this a document
22 which contains regulations, but it is also the reflection of the state of
23 affairs as it existed before the joint or Main Staff was set up, which could
24 exercise command over the armed units after the creation of the Croatian
25 Defence Council for the entire Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna. It points
1 to the difficulties that existed in these areas and to the fact that the
2 municipalities had to defend their own territories. They had their own
3 armies. This document also shows that military-aged men were not allowed
4 to leave Ljubuski municipality and were unable to help out other
5 municipalities such as Citluk, Siroki Brijeg, and others. Nor were
6 soldiers from other municipalities able to enter Ljubuski municipality,
7 not even to help them out, according to this particular document. This
8 is not a document typical for Ljubuski municipality.
9 Other municipalities issued similar regulations, but up till then
10 municipalities acted within their competencies, which pointed to the need
11 for the setting up of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, in order to
12 have a unified defence, and to establish a joint command or the Main Staff.
13 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Mr. Buntic, do you know whether similar problems
14 prevailed in the Bosniak parts of Bosnia-Herzegovina? The Muslim
15 municipalities in the same situation, did things work there more or less
16 in the same way?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise, but I did not receive
18 any interpretation. I'm not receiving it still.
19 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Make a sign, if you will, if you now get a
20 translation of my question. Still nothing?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
22 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Unfortunately, I cannot speak B/C/S, but our
23 technicians and interpreters will henceforth find a solution to this
25 Let's try again. Is it better now?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am certain that the
2 municipalities with predominantly Muslim population had similar problems,
3 but I'm also sure that in their case, the municipalities did not act in a
4 unified or uniform way, as was the case on the Croat side for instance.
5 There was joint command in Mostar because the Bosniaks were there. There
6 was a 50/50 per cent division of power. The Bosniaks, Muslims, were a
7 massive presence in the HVO in the course of 1992.
8 The same situation prevailed in the municipality of Stolac
9 Konjic in the first half of 1992; whereas, in certain other parts of
11 as an armed wing of the Party for Democratic Action.
12 For instance, in the area of Tuzla
13 of the Territorial Defence. In other areas of Tuzla municipality, there
14 was HVO. Even on the Muslim, Bosniak, side, we come across similar
15 problems and solutions.
16 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.
17 MR. KARNAVAS:
18 Q. Okay. I think we can move on to the next document, and probably
19 we don't need to spend so much time on this document given the questions
20 that were asked of you.
21 MR. KARNAVAS: This is 1D 02338, 1D 02338.
22 Q. This is a decision on general mobilisation of personnel and
23 materiel and technical equipment in the territory of Siroki Brijeg
24 here, as you indicated, different municipalities dealt with it
25 differently. This is a decision dealing with Siroki Brijeg; correct?
1 A. This is another such example. As we discussed earlier on, it is
2 quite evident that this decision was published in the Official Gazette of
3 the municipality of Siroki Brijeg; in other words, the Official Gazettes
4 of municipalities were active even in times of war.
5 Q. Thank you, Mr. Buntic, for that bonus part of your answer
6 discrediting Ribicic --
7 MR. STRINGER: Objection to the statement of counsel
8 characterizing the evidence, which is in the end for the Trial Chamber to
9 assess. I think speeches and arguments characterizing evidence don't
10 advance the cause.
11 MR. KARNAVAS: We'll move on to the next document, 1D 00591.
12 1D 00591.
13 Mr. Usher, if you could help us here.
14 Q. This is a general mobilisation in the Mostar municipality; so,
15 here, we see that this results -- we don't have a date, but it appears to
16 result from a meeting on 21 -- on 11 July 1992. And, again, we see that
17 it's published in the Official Gazette of the HVO Mostar municipality on
18 the 24 July 1992
20 A. I should say that there is no material difference between the
21 earlier decision relating to Siroki Brijeg municipality. As we can see,
22 different municipalities developed their own regulations, which in some
23 instances were similar, in others dissimilar; but they made do they best
25 MR. KARNAVAS: 1D 02254, 1D 02254. This is a statutory decision,
1 the Croatian Defence Council of Teslic-Komusina.
2 Mr. Usher, we may need your assistance again.
3 Q. This is dated, if we look on the second page, 28 July; and this
4 is a statutory decision on temporary establishment of the executive
5 authorities of administration in the Croatian part of Teslic
7 Again, this would verify what you told us earlier, that the HVO
8 presence were in parts as opposed to whole municipalities depending on
9 the area; correct?
10 A. This case also involves certain areas of municipalities. As I
11 said earlier on, the HVO was set up in the municipalities where the
12 Croats were not a majority but were a significant presence. As in many
13 other cases, the HVO was set up in the areas where there was such a
14 presence of the Croat population, in such areas that were only part of
15 municipalities. In this particular instance, we have a statutory
16 decision which in its very title says that it was -- that it refers to
17 the Croat part of Teslic municipality.
18 Q. Thank you. And, of course, if we look at Article 3, it tells us
19 exactly the locations, that it's to "... join the Croatian regional
20 community which comprises the municipalities of Maglaj, Teslic,
21 Zavidovici, Zepce, and with headquarters in Zepce"; correct?
22 A. This is another issue we've already discussed. We said that out
23 of these parts of municipalities, a community of municipalities was
24 established with a view to organizing joint defence of the general area.
25 MR. KARNAVAS: Unless there are any questions, I'll go on to the
1 next document, and this is 1D 02280.
2 Again, Mr. Usher, we will need your assistance. I apologise for
3 having -- for taxing you on these matters, but this is the last one.
4 1D 02280.
5 Q. We see this is a decision for Orasje municipality and we don't
6 have a particular date, but do you recall whether in the Orasje
7 municipality there was an HVO?
8 A. I am certain that, throughout the war, there existed the HVO in
9 Orasje, and that the Bosniaks and Croats in the municipality of Orasje
10 fought side by side throughout the war under the title of the HVO of
11 Orasje, and that there had never been any clashes breaking out between
12 Bosniaks and Croats in Orasje, not even when the conflicts broke out in
13 Central Bosnia
14 between Croats and Muslims in that particular territory. And what's
15 more, they fought in the rankings of the HVO against their common enemy.
16 This document shows, again, that in various municipalities and in
17 various parts of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the wartime situation developed in
18 different ways.
19 Q. All right. And we'll see that with the next few documents before
20 we leave this area.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I have a follow-up question,
22 Mr. Witness. After the formation of the Croatian Community of
23 Herceg-Bosna during this famous meeting in Grude, if we look at this.
24 Looking at this document, afterwards, subsequently, municipalities joined
25 the Croatian Community of HB, Herceg-Bosna, such as this municipality; is
1 that indeed the case?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That was indeed the case. In some
3 instances, certain municipalities or parts thereof joined the Croatian
4 Community of Herceg-Bosna at a later date. There were also instances of
5 complete communities of municipalities formed elsewhere joining the
6 Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna.
7 I want to note, once more, that the Croatian community of Bosnian
8 Posavina joined the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna later on. In this
9 particular case, we had a fully-fledged community; whereas, in other
10 instances, there were only individual municipalities.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very good, Witness. With this
12 document, we don't know whether there was a debate within the
13 municipality Croat and Muslim, or if it is the president of the
14 municipality, Mr. Dzojic, who as a member of the HDZ must decide this for
15 himself. Do you know if there were internal discussions or not?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am familiar with the internal
17 discussions that took place in the municipality of Orasje
18 municipality was part of the Croatian Community of Bosnian Posavina. I
19 believe that this particular document speaks to the individual course of
20 action taken by Orasje municipality. I believe that this document was
21 issued earlier on, and that later on the entire Croatian Community of
22 Bosnian Posavina with all the municipalities contained therein joined the
23 Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna.
24 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] Witness, a rather technical
25 question. Did you -- have you already seen this document?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have the document before me here.
2 I am not sure whether I've seen the document before or not, but I have
3 seen before a document whereby the entire Croatian Community of Bosnian
4 Posavina decided to join the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna. I also
5 said that I believe that the document I have before me was issued before
6 the Croatian Community of Bosnian Posavina decided to join the HZ HB.
7 That's why I said that this particular document related to Orasje
8 municipality only and was issued before the joining documents.
9 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] You're going well beyond my
10 question. You're not sure whether you have seen it before or not,
11 whether you've seen this document before. What is striking is that,
12 although it is signed, it carries no date, and this in spite of two
13 spaces specifically provided for indicating the date.
14 Do you by any chance have an explanation for this? If not, I
15 would not be surprised but I need to ask the question.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think I've answered
17 the question. I said that I've never seen the document before. I see it
18 now for the first time. I have it before me, and that's why I said that
19 this was my opinion, while saying that I'm looking at the document now
20 for the first time.
21 However, in view of the fact that I am aware of the internal
22 discussions that took place in Orasje municipality, I said that I
23 believed that this was a document issued by them autonomously. So I'm
24 just presuming that's what I'm saying.
25 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] Thank you.
1 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you. If we go on to 1D 02255, 1D 02255.
2 Q. This is a decision on the Usora HZ joining the Croatian Community
3 of Herceg-Bosna in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and we see that it's dated
4 20 August 1992
6 MR. KARNAVAS: Mr. Usher, we may need your assistance.
7 Q. If you can look at the document very quickly; and, again, I'm --
8 we have to move rather quickly.
9 A. I'm familiar with the document. I've seen it before. Again, as
10 I indicated earlier on, the joining party here is not a municipality but
11 a community. The Croatian Community of Usora decides to join the
12 Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna. I'm familiar with the document
13 because I saw it before on several occasions.
14 Q. Okay.
15 MR. KARNAVAS: If we look at 1D 02262, 1D 02262.
16 Q. This is a decision for Zepce municipality to join the Croatian
17 Community of Herceg-Bosna, and it's dated 21 August 1992. Just very
18 quickly, did Zepce join the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, as is
19 reflected in this decision?
20 A. Everything I said in relation to the earlier document on Usora
21 applies to this one. I'm familiar with it, I've seen it before; and,
22 similarly, this is a municipality located in the north-eastern part of
24 Q. All right.
25 MR. KARNAVAS: 1D 02257, dated 21 September 1992, 1D 02257.
1 Q. And, here, we see it is signed by the HVO president of Zivinice
2 municipality, where he states: "Based on the agreement with Mr. Boban
3 reached in Grude on setting up an HVO brigade in the four municipalities
4 of Tuzla
5 of this?
6 A. I don't recall seeing this document before, but I know that
7 discussions took place on this subject.
8 Q. All right.
9 MR. KARNAVAS: If we go on to the next document, 1D 00265.
10 Q. And this is a decision to establish the political and legal
11 status of Orasje municipality, dated 29 September 1992. And, again, this
12 would tie in to what you said earlier, but now we're talking about the
13 Orasje municipality as a political, legal, and territorially associated
15 A. I'm familiar with the document. As is quite evident, it was
16 published in the Official Gazette of the municipality of Orasje
17 Q. All right.
18 MR. KARNAVAS: If we go on to the next document, 1D 02260,
19 1D 02260, dated 14 October 1992
20 Q. This is dealing with North-East Bosnia, Tuzla
21 conclusions from a session of the HVO of the North-East Bosnia held on
22 13 October 1992
23 the name HVO of North-East Bosnia is going to be changed, I guess, to HVO
24 Community of Soli based in Tuzla
25 referring to earlier; correct?
1 A. Correct. When talking about one of the previous documents, I
2 said that the Croatian Community of Soli was established later on, and
3 this document speaks about that precisely.
4 Q. All right.
5 MR. KARNAVAS: 1D 01981, 1D 01981.
6 Q. Here, we have minutes of a meeting of the HVO Banovici, Lukavac,
8 very quickly.
9 And we can see, in the third paragraph, it talks about: "The
10 Draft Statutory decision on temporary organization of executive authority
11 and administration in the territory of the Soli HZ was read out."
12 Again, this would tie in with your earlier remarks; correct?
13 A. Correct. It ties in with my earlier remarks, but I've never seen
14 this document before. It does tie in with what we have discussed so far.
15 Q. All right.
16 MR. KARNAVAS: And then I think the last document in this chapter
17 is 1D 02013.
18 Q. And, here, we have the statutory decision on the temporary
19 organization of the executive government and administration in the area
20 of the Croatian Community of Soli. So, apparently, this would tie in
21 with the previous document that we just covered, the minutes of the
22 meeting; and we can see from the very first article, this concerns the
23 establishment of a body of executive -- go ahead --
24 A. The executive, yes.
25 Q. The executive government and administration. And then in Article
1 2, which you might wish to comment, it says: "The HVO is a provisional
2 body which shall discharge its powers until regular executive government
3 and administration is established."
4 Can you just briefly comment on that part before we leave this
6 A. As may be seen, this is a statutory decision on the temporary
7 organization of executive government; and, again, I emphasize in one part
8 of Teslic municipality, the document confirms the previous remarks about
9 this municipality, which is also in the north-eastern part of
10 Bosnia-Herzegovina. And this decision illustrates the fact that
11 municipalities continued to adopt decisions in order to regulate certain
12 issues. As we have seen, some municipalities and some communities of
13 municipalities then subsequently joined the Croatian Community of
15 Q. All right. Thank you.
16 MR. KARNAVAS: We'll go on to the next segment, and I want to
17 deal with now 14 August 1992
18 session of the Presidency of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna that
19 was held in Grude. And we can see that from document 1D 01659, 01659.
20 Q. Do you have it, sir?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Okay. Just look at it, just go through it very quickly. If you
23 look at it, you'll come across your name. So I suspect that you were
24 present during that particular meeting; correct?
25 A. I was present, yes. I was present at the meeting of the
1 Presidency of the HZ HB.
2 Q. Okay. And just -- the Judges may have some questions on this
3 document. I just wanted to point out a couple of things. One, if we go
4 on to page 8 in the English version, I don't -- it would be under
5 number -- it was after the report that was given by Bozo Rajic. And it
6 would be under paragraph 6, which after the report paragraph 6, it's on
7 page 8 in the English version. We see that there's a gentleman by the
8 name of Ivan Azinovic, Konjic HVO. Do you have it, sir?
9 A. I can't find it actually. Can you refer me to the correct page
10 in B/C/S?
11 Q. I'll try to do that.
12 A. I've got it now. Thank you.
13 Q. Okay. And it just says here that: "Sefer Halilovic has ordered
14 all equipment be seized from HVO, and that the HVO in this territory be
15 declared the aggressor and a paramilitary unit.
16 "He proposed that the convoy with humanitarian aid be allowed to
17 pass, but only the part that contains food and after reloading, while
18 equipment should be blocked until an agreement is reached."
19 Were you aware of Mr. Halilovic's activities as reflected here by
20 Mr. Azinovic in Konjic; that is, that he was seizing the equipment and
21 declaring HVO to be the aggressor?
22 A. Problems in the municipality of Konjic
23 document, involved the HVO and BiH army or the Patriotic League. They
24 started after the summer of 1992. As may be seen from the document,
25 Mr. Azinovic informed the Presidency of those problems; although, before
1 the summer of 1992, Konjic was a peaceful area in which there were no
2 conflicts whatsoever between the HVO and the units of the Muslim or the
3 Bosniak side.
4 I'm also aware of the fact that a large number of skirmishes
5 arose from the fact that Mr. Halilovic's role increased. Even Azinovic
6 from Konjic speaks about that in this particular case. Konjic is a
7 municipality which is north of Mostar on the border between Bosnia
9 border between Bosnia and Herzegovina.
10 Q. All right. Now, I'm not going to cover every instance where you
11 spoke. The Judges may wish to question you on that.
12 MR. KARNAVAS: That's an invitation, by the way, Your Honours.
13 Q. But I'm going to focus your attention on page 11 under paragraph
14 number 13, because there you do speak about the decree on the application
15 of the Law on Court Fees. And, here, it says you gave some explanations.
16 This would be page 12 for you in the Croatian version. So if you
17 could just please tell us if you recall what your remarks were concerning
18 the amendments that were made related to court fees.
19 A. Under item 12, you can see that this is about the decree on the
20 application of the RBH KZ and the SFRJ KZ in the territory of the
21 Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, as well as the decree on the
22 application of the Law on Court Fees. Both decrees relative to both the
23 republican and federal regulations, the only thing that they changed was
24 the fact that the fees expressed in the dinars of the former Yugoslavia
25 as the legal tender were then converted into the Croatian dinars. No
1 other provision of any of the two laws was changed or modified by these
2 two decrees. They were adopted verbatim as they existed before then.
3 Q. All right. Now, we heard testimony a couple of weeks ago of a
4 gentleman who was able to assist us a little bit on financial or monetary
5 issues in Bosnia-Herzegovina at the time. But very briefly, if you could
6 tell us, why the Croatian dinar, why not the Bosnian-Herzegovinian dinar
7 or the Deutschemark or some other currency? Why that currency?
8 A. When it comes to Yugoslav dinars at the time that we're talking
9 about, which is August 1992, they did not exist in any of the monetary
10 transactions in the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina. I'm not a financial
11 expert, but I believe that this may be explained by the fact that the
12 payment transaction service that was in charge of the payments both in
13 Bosnia and Herzegovina and in the former Yugoslavia
14 Yugoslav dinars could not reach the area; and, indeed, they
15 didn't reach the area. And at that particular time, I don't think that
16 Bosnian dinar had been issued as a legal tender; and if it had been, then
17 just like the Yugoslav dinar, it was exposed to the galloping inflation
18 and devaluation.
19 At that time, in this area of the Croatian Community of
20 Herceg-Bosna, most of the payments were effected in Croatian dinars
21 because Croatian dinars were most easy to be had and somewhat less was
22 carried out in German marks. We were faced with one of the possibilities
23 then, to adopt Croatian dinar as the legal tender, and there were plenty
24 of Croatian dinars in circulation. And the second possibility was to
25 adopt German mark, the currency that was in very short supply.
1 Q. Okay --
2 A. And a third option, and please let me finish, was to issue one's
3 own currency as the legal tender; and there was even a fourth option and
4 that was to effect payments in kind.
5 Q. Okay.
6 A. And I fully believe that the last option is -- was really out of
7 the question, that it wasn't acceptable.
8 Q. All right. We're going to have to move a little bit quicker on
9 the next few documents.
10 JUDGE TRECHSEL: If I may.
11 MR. KARNAVAS: Certainly.
12 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Just a question of understanding.
13 In the previous paragraph, number 12, one speaks of the RBH KZ.
14 Could you tell me what "KZ" is as an abbreviation?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "KZ" is the criminal law.
16 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you very much.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
18 MR. KARNAVAS:
19 Q. All right.
20 MR. KARNAVAS: We'll go on to 1D 0005, and we see that this is
21 dated September 1992; well, the Official Gazette, that is.
22 Q. But, at the bottom, we see Boban's name, 14 August 1992, and this
23 is a decree on application of the Law on Court Duties. And then just
24 very quickly, as you indicated, if we look at number -- if we look at
25 Article 2, we see that the: "Dinar values stipulated in the Law on Court
1 Duties on Municipal Tax Fees issued before this decree came into effect
2 shall be changed into Croatian dinars ..."
3 So that was based on the explanation you gave us earlier,
4 correct? These are just examples for the Court to see.
5 A. Correct. This corresponds to what I previously said, but I would
6 still like to read Article 1 which confirms what I said also. This
7 reads: "The Law on Court Duties of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina
8 shall also be applied in the territory of the Croatian Community of
9 Herceg-Bosna." And as has already been said, everything remained the
10 same save for the fact that Yugoslav dinars were transformed into
11 Croatian dinars.
12 Q. Right. And then if we look at the preamble, it also -- it also
13 makes reference to a decision proclaiming an imminent threat of war; and
14 it states it's the Official Gazette of the Republic of
16 MR. KARNAVAS: Now, if we go on to the next document, P 00449,
17 the preamble looks more or less the same as the previous document.
18 Q. This is a decree on the application of the Criminal Code of the
19 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Again, as you indicated in your previous
20 answer, if we look at Article 1 and then Article 2, again, it reflects
21 the dinar value.
22 Other than what you've already told us with respect to the
23 previous document, which was number 5, 1D 0005, anything else to comment
24 about this document which deals with the criminal code?
25 A. This is yet another example showing that the laws of the former
2 the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina
3 interventions, because without those interventions or corrections, it
4 would not have been possible to apply these regulations. And this also
5 refers to the criminal code.
6 Q. All right.
7 MR. KARNAVAS: We can go on to the next document, P 00440,
8 P 00440.
9 Q. And this is a decree on the organization and responsibilities of
10 the departments and commissions of the Croatian Defence Council. And
11 perhaps if you could tell us a little bit about what exactly these
12 commissions are about, just very briefly, one sentence, and then I'll
13 focus you to a particular article.
14 A. This decree regulates commissions as special, professional,
15 technical bodies established by the HVO of the Croatian Community of
16 Herceg-Bosna. I know that there were, for example, commissions: A
17 commission for regulations, a commission for restructuring and
18 development, and that there was also, for example, a commission for war
20 Q. All right. Now, if we look at Article 7, we see that:
21 "Departments and commissions of the HVO shall cooperate with the
22 republican bodies in the preparation of acts which confirm the policy of
23 the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina
24 other regulations and general acts, referring to issues of the equality
25 of the constituent peoples of the Republic after Bosnia and Herzegovina
1 Now, if you could comment on that a little bit because it may be
2 of some interest to the Judges, keeping in mind this is 14 August 1992
3 Here, HVO clearly, Article 7, says that they shall cooperate, and it
4 would appear that the cooperation is to be with the state.
5 A. As may be seen from the text of this regulation, of its Article
6 7, that is, it points to cooperation between the departments and
7 commissions with the republican bodies. And as it may be seen here,
8 they're supposed to cooperate in the preparation of the documents of the
9 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina concerning the issue of equality of
10 constituent peoples. In addition to what is contained in the Article 7
11 of this regulation, I believe that this regulation was motivated by the
12 previously signed agreement between the president of the Republic of
13 Bosnia and Herzegovina, Alija Izetbegovic, and Franjo Tudjman in
15 That agreement called for cooperation between the HVO of the
16 HZ HB and the republican bodies. That is why according to that agreement
17 it was necessary to establish certain commissions and bodies which would
18 be tasked with finding a peaceful solution within the framework offered
19 by the European Community during the peace talks about Bosnia and
21 Q. Okay. I think that helps us.
22 MR. KARNAVAS: If we go on to the next document, P -- yes.
23 JUDGE PRANDLER: I follow your advice, and I ask a question. The
24 Article 7 which you referred to and Mr. Buntic answered this question,
25 your question.
1 I would only like to ask you, Mr. Buntic, about the following:
2 Article 7 speaks about the cooperation, but somehow it is not very clear
3 for me when it says that departments and commissions of the HVO shall
4 cooperate with the republican bodies in preparation of acts, et cetera.
5 And, again, in the second paragraph, it also says the: "Departments and
6 commissions of the HVO shall cooperate with administrative bodies of
7 other states ..."
8 Now, as far as the first part of Article 7 is concerned, it
9 speaks about cooperation, as I already mentioned this, but I do not see
10 how the cooperation is being followed in case e filaci [phoen]. There
11 are certain divergent views or whatever the means to reach some
12 conclusions, to reach some compromises, et cetera, because here we speak
13 only about cooperation but there is no mention of the hierarchical, in a
14 way, acting in conformity of the laws and regulations adopted by the
15 republic; that is, Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
16 And in other words, the cooperation before me in this sense would
17 only mean that there is cooperation between and among equals. This
18 article suggests that the major position of that time of HVO was that it
19 was a cooperation among equals, because we do not find here anything
20 which would indicate that in terms of discussion or disagreements what
21 kind of laws and regulations should be applied.
22 It is my question that, in case of conflicts between two regimes,
23 let's say regime as applied and as established in Herceg-Bosna and regime
24 as applied and, of course, established by the republican bodies in
1 views and rules?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] From the previous decrees passed by
3 the Presidency of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, which is the
4 decree on the application of the criminal code, the decree on the
5 application of the Law on Criminal Procedure, on judicial fees, as well
6 as of all the other regulations passed by the Croatian Community of
7 Herceg-Bosna, it is obvious that all these decrees -- laws were adopted
8 in full, save for in those parts where interventions were necessary.
9 And when I spoke about the interventions, I said what those
10 interventions were; like, for example, when Yugoslav dinars were
11 transformed into Croatian dinars in order for the law to be applied.
12 When we're talking about this, I believe that what is striking is
13 the cooperation with other states. But in my previous answer, I said
14 that this Article 7 was by and large motivated by the previously signed
15 agreement between Messrs. Tudjman and Izetbegovic, as presidents of two
16 states. This agreement envisaged the establishment of certain
17 commissions which would work to overcome and find solutions to the
18 problems that existed at the time and coordinating all the regulations.
19 As a result of all that, immediately after the meeting between
20 Tudjman and Izetbegovic in Medjugorje, I had a meeting with the deputy
21 minister of justice of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and we discussed the
22 issues of judiciary. It was this conversation between the minister of
23 justice of Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina and me that took place in
24 Medjugorje which resulted in the decree on the fact that the decree on
25 military courts was never published and it was never applied. In keeping
1 with our agreement, me and Mr. Jusuf Halilagic, the deputy minister of
2 justice of Bosnia and Herzegovina, at our session on the 17th of October,
3 we adopted a new decree on district military courts and district military
4 prosecutor's offices, which was published in the Official Gazette of the
5 Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna and which was applied in practice, and
6 which was coordinated with the positions of the republican Ministry of
8 JUDGE PRANDLER: Thank you, Mr. Buntic, for your answer.
9 MR. KARNAVAS: Just a point of clarification.
10 Q. When you indicated that the decrees on the military courts were
11 not implemented, you were referring to P 09552 of 3 July 1992 that we
12 spoke of yesterday, and I cut you off and I said we will cover that later
13 on; correct?
14 A. Correct. That's the decree I was referring to.
15 Q. And what --
16 A. With your permission, yesterday, in answer to Their Honours'
17 question about subdepartments, this is something that we discussed. And
18 this particular decree in Article 12 regulates the setting up of
19 departments and subdepartments, both Articles 12 and 19. Article 19
20 lists all the subdepartments within the HVO. As we can see, there is a
21 total of 13 of them. That's why I had difficulties yesterday in listing
22 them all.
23 Q. Okay. I have one follow-up question, but we can take care of
24 that after the break.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.
1 We are going to break for 20 minutes.
2 --- Recess taken at 10.34 a.m.
3 --- On resuming at 10.56 a.m.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, you have the
6 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you.
7 Q. Mr. Buntic, I want to go back to the question that was asked of
8 you by Judge Prandler. This is a follow-up question; and when I look at
9 the question, it would appear that at least the impression is that from
10 reading this particular article, that the Judge believes that you have
11 two different states operating in the same territory, two different
12 regimes; in other words, that the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna is a
13 state within a state.
14 Could you please explain to us, was that the case?
15 A. That was not the case, nor do I believe that this is what follows
16 from Article 7 and the meaning it conveys. I have already talked about
17 what I believe the -- what it was that immediately motivated Article 7.
18 The Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna recognised and never called into
19 question the sovereignty and independence of the Republic of
20 Bosnia-Herzegovina. This follows from all of its documents, wherein
21 almost every heading of the document, you can read Republic of
22 Bosnia-Herzegovina and then below that Croatian Community of
24 In addition to that, all of the regulations passed by the HZ HB
25 state clearly that those were merely provisional regulations valid only
1 while there was a state of war. These regulations were the result of
2 necessity, and we were able to see that the regulations were passed only
3 for those areas where it was strictly necessary in order for the
4 legislation of Bosnia-Herzegovina to be applied. We were able to see for
5 ourselves, based on the enactments, decrees, and regulations we looked at
6 before, that these were passed only where it was strictly necessary.
7 I don't believe that this particular article implies that there
8 were two states in existence. Simply, these were entities that were
9 treated as such, that through peacemaking negotiations aimed at finding a
10 settlement of the crisis, all the three parties to these negotiations
11 were treated as equals.
12 Q. And just --
13 JUDGE PRANDLER: I'm sorry, Mr. Karnavas, but I would like to
14 thank Mr. Buntic for his answer, and I have to be very frank that I'm
15 grateful to you, too, because you asked your question which was my
16 question, too. But I was probably more cautious than you were and that
17 is why you put it in shorter form. But I admit that it was my original
18 intention to ask this question because the same Article 7 speaks about a
19 cooperation with the authorities of the republic. And, also, at the same
20 time, in the second paragraph, it speaks about the cooperation with other
21 states. So that is why I asked the question. And I thank you both for
22 the answer. Thank you.
23 MR. KARNAVAS: Now, if we go on to the next document, P 00429.
24 Q. We see that it's dated 14 August 1992, and we see that this is a
25 decision on the election of the president of the Croatian Defence Council
1 of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, Dr. Jadranko Prlic. You would
2 confirm that it was on this day that this decision was passed; correct?
3 A. Correct. I talked about this decision yesterday. It was passed
4 on the 14th of August, 1992. I said that Mr. Jadranko Prlic was
5 appointed president of the HVO only on the 14th of August, 1992. So,
6 yes, that's the decision.
7 Q. Now, could you please explain to us --
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Witness, you were in Grude
9 because your name is indicated. I'm trying to understand this election.
10 Is it the fact that Mr. Boban had far too much work because he had
11 several hats, or is it because those who voted for Mr. Prlic were trying
12 to better control Mr. Boban by putting in place someone from the election
13 of the municipalities? In this election, did it have political
14 significance or was it a reorganization of the powers or no purpose
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think there were various reasons,
17 as we were able to see yesterday. In the period running up to the
18 14th of August, that's to say mid-August 1992, all the powers were in the
19 hands of Mr. Mate Boban, who, as we were able to see yesterday, was the
20 president of the Presidency of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna,
21 the president of the HVO, therefore, of the executive government as well,
22 and the president of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, which was a
23 third function. He was also the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces;
24 that is to say, of the military section of the HVO. And he was also
25 deputy president of the Croatian Democratic Union, the strongest Croat
1 political party in Bosnia-Herzegovina which had as its followers 95
2 per cent of the Croats in Bosnia-Herzegovina. It could be said that all
3 the powers were concentrated in the hands of Mr. Mate Boban alone.
4 One of the reasons might well have been the fact that he could no
5 longer carry all the various hats that he had. Another reason could have
6 been an attempt at separating the various powers, the legislative from
7 the executive power. The attempt was made through the decree of the
8 3rd of July, which was, in fact, implemented only on the 14th of August,
9 in such a way that the executive civilian authority got as its president
10 Mr. Jadranko Prlic.
11 This relates to the civilian segment or the executive branch of
12 authority of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, whereby the
13 then-hitherto president, Mate Boban, was replaced by Jadranko Prlic.
14 After that, Mr. Mate Boban held to all the other different functions that
15 he had.
16 MR. KARNAVAS:
17 Q. All right. Now, Mr. Buntic, prior to August 14, 1992, how much
18 work was actually done by the HVO?
19 A. We were able to see that, up until the 14th of August, heads of
20 offices or departments of the Croatian Defence Council had been
21 appointed: The head of the defence department, head of the department of
22 the interior, head of the department of justice and general
23 administration, and head of the department for the economy, I believe.
24 I'm not sure whether Mr. Prlic, prior to this appointment, had been
25 appointed head of the finance department.
1 Q. Okay. But other than these appointments, concretely, how much
2 legislation had been passed? How many meetings were held? How much
3 actual work was done?
4 A. To my knowledge, the first meeting of the Presidency of the
5 Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna was at the same time a constituent
6 meeting of the HZ HB on the 18th of November, 1991. The second meeting,
7 as arises from some of the documents, was held on the 15th of May of
8 1992. A third meeting was held on the 3rd of July, 1992. The 14th of
9 August meeting was the fourth meeting of the Presidency of the HZ HB.
10 It's difficult for me to cite the exact number of decrees or
11 decisions taken by the Presidency of the HZ HB; however, on the basis of
12 the various minutes and documents we were able to see here, we can
13 conclude that a number of regulations in the form of decrees was passed,
14 as well as decisions that certain appointments to certain posts within
15 the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna were made.
16 Q. Let me be a little more specific. How many meetings between the
17 heads of departments were held prior to the 14th of August?
18 A. As far as the HVO is concerned, none.
19 Q. All right. This was my --
20 A. When it comes to that executive branch of government, not a
21 single meeting had been held.
22 Q. All right. Thank you.
23 MR. KARNAVAS: If we go on now, we're going to go on to a
24 transcript of a meeting 17 September 1992. It's 1D 02366.
25 Q. We don't have time to cover it all. The Judges may have
1 questions. This meeting took place in Zagreb, and I just want to look at
2 two portions of it and then have you comment; and then if the Judges wish
3 to ask you to -- to ask any further questions, that would be fine.
4 In this particular instance, you do recall being at this meeting
5 on 17 September 1992, do you not?
6 A. Yes, I do.
7 Q. And were you aware at the time, by the way, that you were being
8 tape recorded, you, along with everybody else?
9 A. No, I wasn't.
10 Q. All right.
11 A. I wasn't aware that we were being taped.
12 Q. All right. Now, if we look at page 27 in the English version
13 where Mr. Prlic begins speaking towards the bottom, that's where it
14 starts. And I'm going to go to actually page 28, and there he talks
15 about what the Serbs want or their option, the Muslim option; and then he
16 comes to the Croat option, and that would be on the fourth paragraph on
17 page 28 in English.
18 He says, and I quote: "The Croats, at least the soldiers in the
19 Croatian Defence Council and the people who are involved, the organs of
20 authority, have a clear political aim. It has been clear to me ever
21 since I became involved in this and since I have been in this post. This
22 aim is the forming and ordering of Bosnia and Herzegovina in accordance
23 with the principles of the European Community; that is, the constituting
24 of Bosnia and Herzegovina through three national units."
25 Now, let's just move on, just think about that, and I want to go
1 to where you speak. This would be on page 16.
2 MR. KARNAVAS: You will note, Your Honours, that this has a
3 different number, this document, because we translated pages that were
4 not translated by the Prosecution, this being an excerpt of it.
5 Q. Here, we have you speaking and you talk about the situation, and
6 I'll just read portions of it. You say: "I think we must make a
7 distinction between important and unimportant facts, i.e., between
8 contested and uncontested ones. I would count the following as important
9 and uncontested fact. Firstly, according to the current Constitution of
10 Bosnia-Herzegovina, it is defined as a complex state consisting of three
11 constitutive elements. Secondly, I do not know of any other multi-ethnic
12 community in the world arranged in accordance with the unitary principle.
13 Thirdly, since the beginning of the peace talks on Bosnia-Herzegovina
14 under the agencies of the international community, the findings of the
15 Badinter Commission, the European Community, and the United Nations have
16 been offering a solution to the effect; that is to say, configuring
17 Bosnia-Herzegovina as a complex state ."
18 I won't read the rest, the Judges may have some questions, and it
19 is rather interesting. Due to time, I simply cannot.
20 Having heard of what Dr. Prlic said and now having heard your own
21 words or parts of them, could you please explain to us what is being said
23 A. I recall being at this meeting held on the 17th of September,
24 1992. Its purpose -- or rather, it followed an earlier meeting in
25 preparation for the London Conference, peace conference, to find a
1 resolution to the crisis in Bosnia-Herzegovina. It was organized by the
2 international community. That was the reason why this meeting was held
3 in Zagreb
4 presented our views which we believed we were supposed to advocate at the
5 peace conference on Bosnia-Herzegovina.
6 I remember the fact that the speech by Jadranko Prlic is mostly
7 reflected in this transcript, and that it, indeed, tallies with what
8 you've read out. I can also confirm that my intervention, the part which
9 you cited, is accurate or is accurately reflected in the part that you've
10 read out.
11 It is also true that I spoke more extensively than is reflected
12 here, but that the part you quoted does constitute the gist of what our
13 discussion was about and of what Mr. Prlic and I advocated at that
14 meeting. The position we advanced was that of the HVO, of the Croatian
15 Community of Herceg-Bosna, and it was the subject of discussion at a
16 meeting which preceded the visit to Zagreb.
17 Q. Okay. Thank you.
18 MR. KARNAVAS: Unless there are any questions from the Bench, I
19 will go on to the next topic.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Sir, without doubt, the
21 intervention of Mr. Prlic during this meeting and yours are crucial
22 interventions and really at the heart of the indictment; and so I must,
23 therefore, ask you a follow-up question.
24 When we compare what Mr. Prlic says and what you yourself state,
25 it is almost the same thing with just a few nuances. But your
1 intervention before President Tudjman, you're at some point interrupted
2 by someone who says: "That's not true."
3 President Tudjman says to the speaker: "Wait a moment. Let
4 Mr. Buntic finish and you will speak after him."
5 And you ended on the question of the platform, and the person who
6 doesn't agree with you is Mr. Vlado Pandzic. I don't know who that
7 person is but you will tell us, and this Pandzic rejects your comments
8 and notably through question of the HDZ platform. And it would appear
9 that he states the following: That the Croatian people is sovereign in
10 Bosnia-Herzegovina and would seem to challenge the legality of the other
11 ethnic groups. In other words, he takes the opposite view.
12 Then there are other speakers who take the floor, and I'd like to
13 know ultimately what is Mr. Tudjman's conclusion; but, unfortunately, not
14 all the pages have been translated. I find no trace of the conclusion.
15 Do you recall, because to be in the presence of a head of state,
16 that isn't an everyday occurrence. So you no doubt have in your mind a
17 specific recollection of that meeting and the fact that Vlado Pandzic
18 interrupted you. Who is this Mr. Vlado Pandzic?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Vlado Pandzic is a member of
20 the Croatian Democratic Union
21 or the Presidency of the HVO, and I believe he was deputy in the
22 parliament of Bosnia-Herzegovina. The discussion between Mr. Pandzic and
23 myself had to do with the fact that - if I remember correctly - I was
24 critical of Mr. Pandzic.
25 I criticised the HDZ for not having come forth with their own
1 proposals as to what the future structure of Bosnia-Herzegovina should
2 be, for not having come up with that proposal within the framework of the
3 parliament of Bosnia-Herzegovina. We're referring to it here as a
4 platform, although -- or rather, both the SDS and the SDA had come up
5 with their own proposals, and I criticised the HDZ for not having taken
6 up their own position as to the future structure of Bosnia-Herzegovina
7 while the BH parliament was still in session.
8 Mr. Pandzic's view was different from mine. He believed that
9 they had a firm position on that. The discussion between Mr. Pandzic and
10 myself revolved around that issue.
11 My understanding of a political platform was one that embraced a
12 broader view which did not contain specific solutions or proposals for
13 the future internal organization of Bosnia-Herzegovina. This is
14 something that I plainly described by saying that one ought to
15 distinguish important matters from unimportant matters and contested
16 matters from uncontested matters.
17 Conclusions reached at the meeting were as follows: President
18 Tudjman endorsed the idea and principles, the gist of which was conveyed
19 in Mr. Prlic's speech as well as mine. It was also concluded that at the
20 forthcoming peace conference, we ought to advocate precisely the issues
21 that were touched upon in Mr. Prlic's speech as well as mine. This is
22 something that we did in the subsequent negotiations that took place at
23 the peace conference.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Prlic was recording the
25 principles of the European Community. Is it your sense that this was to
1 be taken into consideration by Tudjman and all the participants? Does
2 that mean that not just anything could be done?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I should like to remind the
4 Trial Chamber of the fact that by that time, the Badinter Arbitration
5 Commission had already expressed its conclusions which were publicised,
6 and according to which Bosnia-Herzegovina was a state of three
7 constituent peoples, and that the treaties of the international
8 community, namely, the UN Charter, the Paris Declaration, and other
9 international instruments, were to be applied by that state. This
10 included the international regulations which had to do with the rights of
11 peoples and ethnic minorities.
12 The Badinter Commission also expressed clear views about the fact
13 that all the entities in Bosnia-Herzegovina had a right to formulate
14 their own administrative structures in the field of justice
15 administration, police, education, and other areas of vital national
17 At the end of the day, a recognition of Bosnia-Herzegovina -- or
18 rather, the recognition of Bosnia-Herzegovina in the month of April was
19 achieved on a condition that it recognise and accede to these treaties.
20 Therefore, our views expressed at this meeting in Zagreb were based on
21 these very views advanced by an international arbitration commission on
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you very much for this
24 lengthy answer.
25 Mr. Karnavas, you have the floor.
1 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you.
2 Okay. We're going to move on to another area, and dealing with
3 matters that occur on or about October 17, 1992, that's the general topic
5 First document is P 00596.
6 Q. And with some of these documents, Mr. Buntic, we don't need to
7 dwell on too much; others we will have to, but if you bear with me.
8 MR. KARNAVAS: P 00596. We see that these are the rules of
9 procedure of the Presidency of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna.
10 Q. And I take it you would confirm that, correct? You would confirm
11 one that you recognise these as the rules and that these rules were being
13 A. Yes. These are the rules of procedure that were passed on the
14 17th October 1992
15 work of the Presidency of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna.
16 Q. All right.
17 MR. KARNAVAS: Now we'll move on to the next document. P 00684,
18 P 00684.
19 Q. And we'll probably have to spend some time on this, not too much
20 I hope, and the Judges may have some questions. This is a decision on
21 amending the statutory decision of the provisional organization of the
22 executive power and administration in the territory of the Croatian
23 Community of Herceg-Bosna.
24 And, very briefly, we see from Article 1 that the HVO has the
25 power to adopt decrees, decisions, dispositions, and conclusions. We
1 have a definition of these instruments, and we see the hierarchy. Still
2 with Article 1, we see that it says that: "The HVO shall also decide by
3 a conclusion when it does not adopt other documents."
4 Then it also says: "In case not suffering delay, the HVO shall
5 adopt enactments falling within the competence of the Presidency of the
6 HZ HB with the understanding that it shall be duty-bound to submit these
7 enactments for consent to the Presidency of the HZ HB at the first
8 session of the Presidency allowing the adoption of such enactments."
9 Then it goes on that: "These enactments indicated in the
10 preceding paragraph," the one I just read, that is, "shall be in force as
11 of the day of their adoption ..."
12 Now, it would appear that on 17 October 1992, as a result of
13 Article 1, the powers of the HVO, this temporary executive authority,
14 their powers were to some extent increased. Would you not agree with me
15 on that?
16 A. This decision was adopted, and a similar one was adopted by the
17 parliament of the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina. A decision was made
18 to provide for a situation in which the parliament could no longer be
19 convened, and its powers were transferred on to the Presidency of the
20 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina. The parliamentary body could not be
21 convened during the war, and its authorities were delegated to a smaller
22 and more operational body.
23 The purpose of the decision which was adopted on the 17th of
24 October at the Presidency session, the Presidency of the HZ HB, was if
25 not the same then at least similar, and the goal was more or less
1 identical. The authorities of the larger and bulkier, so to speak, body
2 were delegated to a smaller body, and the Presidency by this decision
3 authorised the HVO to make decisions in emergencies and also to adopt
4 regulations that would otherwise fall within the purview of the
6 At the moment when this statistician was adopted, we did not
7 think that the Presidency of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna would
8 never be convened again. The decision was adopted in order to provide
9 for the adoption of the regulations between the two Presidency sessions.
10 That was the meaning of this decision, and then any regulations that
11 would have been adopted in such a way in emergency would be submitted for
12 a ratification to the Presidency. Then if the Presidency approved them
13 they would remain in effect; and if the Presidency failed to approve
14 them, then they would no longer be implemented and they would no longer
15 be in effect as of the date when the Presidency adopted a decision to
16 that effect.
17 Q. Okay. Thank you.
18 MR. KARNAVAS: Unless there are any questions, I will be moving
19 on, Your Honours. 1D 0073. And, again, we can go through some of these
20 documents rather quickly.
21 Q. We see this is 17 October 1992
22 establishment of a department of the public prosecutor's office of Bosnia
23 and Herzegovina
24 Herceg-Bosna during the war -- during war or the imminent threat of war.
25 And from Article 1, we see that this is an affiliate department.
1 Now, this is what you were speaking about yesterday, some
2 creative measures had to be taken such as establishing affiliate or
3 branch departments or offices, and this is an example of it; correct?
4 MR. STRINGER: Objection to the leading question, Mr. President.
5 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, it was based -- it was based in part
6 on the testimony of the gentleman from yesterday. I can understand the
7 Prosecution wanting to eat up my time, but that was the purpose of the
9 MR. STRINGER: Well, I'm not trying to eat up counsel's time,
10 Mr. President, but I do think that there is something that the witness
11 can contribute in introducing the document as opposed to counsel.
12 MR. KARNAVAS:
13 Q. If you could comment very briefly on this document, keeping in
14 mind the comments that you gave us yesterday, your rather lengthy
15 narrative on this topic.
16 A. I would like to refer to my testimony provided yesterday, during
17 which I explained the reasons for which this decree was adopted and the
18 reasons preceding the establishment of the department of the public
19 prosecutor's office in Mostar. This is not about the establishment of a
20 body of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna. It is just one
21 department of the republican body, which is clearly stated under
22 Article 1 of this decree.
23 Q. That would be fine.
24 MR. KARNAVAS: If we go on to the next document, 1D 00074.
25 Q. This is a decree on the implementation of the Law on Public Order
1 and Order of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina on the territory of
2 the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna during war or the imminent threat
3 of war. And, here, I just want to focus a little bit on Article 1.
4 It says: "The Law on Public Law and Order of the Republic of
5 Bosnia and Herzegovina," it goes on, "shall be applicable on the
6 territory of the Croatian Community." And then under Article 2, we see
7 some amendments.
8 If you could very briefly tell us, these amendments, what do they
9 reflect, just very quickly?
10 A. It arises from this decree that the republican law of
11 Bosnia-Herzegovina is being adopted, the law that regulates this matter.
12 And the law is being adopted in its totality, save for in the part in
13 which Yugoslav dinars are being translated into Croatian dinars. The
14 rest remains in effect.
15 Q. All right.
16 MR. KARNAVAS: Now, let's look at 1D 00075.
17 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry.
18 You are saying, Mr. Buntic, that this decree says that, as it
19 stands, the law for the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina is being
20 adopted. Now, if I look at this text here, I find - I hope I'm not
21 mistaken - Article 4 where it says: "The Presidency of HZ HB appoints
22 the deputies to the republican public prosecutor's office."
23 Article 4. Am I in the wrong document because that probably is
24 not --
25 MR. KARNAVAS: You are.
1 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I am. Okay.
2 MR. KARNAVAS: That's in the previous document.
3 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Oh, yes. I'm sorry.
4 MR. KARNAVAS: But --
5 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry. Let my words become chocolate, as we
7 MR. KARNAVAS: Well, we can go back to 1D 00073.
8 JUDGE TRECHSEL: No. It's not necessary because this is not
9 claimed to be taking over the --
10 MR. KARNAVAS: Right. And the purpose, Your Honours, is to show
11 that the laws themselves, the substantive part, is the same except for
12 the monetary values that are being amended.
13 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I can see that. Thank you.
14 MR. KARNAVAS:
15 Now, if we go on to the next document, 1D 00075.
16 Q. The same would apply for this particular decree; that is, without
17 leading you too much, that it is the same law that is being adopted with
18 the exception that there's some amendments in Article 2 dealing with
19 monetary fines that will be reflected in dinars. Correct?
20 A. This is just another example showing that all the laws of
21 Bosnia-Herzegovina were adopted with some necessary interventions that
22 had to be implemented in order for the laws to be applied in practice.
23 Q. And can we say the same thing for 1D 00076, 1D 00076, which is
24 the decree on the change of the Republic of BiH Law
25 in the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna?
1 A. Everything that was said about the previous documents applies to
2 this one, and everything that I provided as answers to your previous
3 questions may be an answer to this question as well.
4 Q. Thank you. Thank you.
5 MR. KARNAVAS: Now, if we go to the next document, which is
6 1D 00087.
7 Q. We see that here just very quickly, just so the Chamber can get
8 an idea, this is a decision to appoint the district military prosecutor
9 in Mostar and a deputy district military prosecutor. And, so, do you
10 recall whether these individuals actually served at some point or another
11 as a result of this decision?
12 A. This is a decision to appoint the district military prosecutor
13 and the deputy district military prosecutor, which was adopted on the
14 17th of October, 1992. If the names of these persons are correct, they
15 were, indeed, appointed. Mladen Jurisic was appointed to the post of
16 district military prosecutor, and Ekrem Insanic and Mario Bogdanovic were
17 appointed to the posts of deputy district military prosecutors.
18 Q. Okay. Are all three of them Croats?
19 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Mr. Karnavas, you content yourself with a
20 partial answer, because you have also asked whether these persons did
21 actually take up and exercise their function .
22 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes, you're right.
23 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Did they actually function once they had been
24 nominated? Did they take office and act the role that they were
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] After the appointment, they did
2 take their roles. They worked in their respective posts, but they could
3 not assume their posts immediately because there were no premises of the
4 district military court, i.e., there was no building where they could
5 work. That's why they could not embark on their work immediately after
6 being appointed.
7 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Do you have an idea, can you tell the Bench when
8 they did actually start, when the infrastructure was sufficient?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was sometime in spring 1993. It
10 was only then that the premises were re-appointed. They started working
11 sometime in March or April 1993. It's very similar to the situation with
12 this Tribunal. It certainly didn't start working on the day when it was
13 established, and the same goes for the Prosecution, I believe. I believe
14 that it took some time for the Prosecutor's office to become fully
16 JUDGE TRECHSEL: And that would be time after March or April?
17 They start in March or April, but then until they are functional some
18 more time elapses? Did I understand that correctly?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Only in March or April they moved
20 into the offices in a building of the school of law in Mostar. That's
21 when they were given premises where they could work. And you, of course,
22 know that it takes some time for any decisions to be made and especially
23 when it comes to judiciary. This was just the beginning. This was just
24 the moment when the conditions were put in place to allow them to start
1 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you. I absolutely understand that. And
2 can you give some precision or some indication on how long it took from
3 the taking of office in the physical sense until they had become
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe that they become -- they
6 became operational sometime in summer or autumn 1993, but I say that it
7 was sooner in the summer than in the autumn.
8 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you very much.
9 Excuse me, Mr. Karnavas.
10 MR. KARNAVAS:
11 Q. And very quickly on the names, are they all Croats that were
12 being appointed?
13 A. Mr. Jurisic and Mr. Bogdanovic are Croats, and Mr. Insanic is a
14 Muslim, a Bosniak.
15 Q. All right. Now, I'm going to go through about three or four
16 other documents very quickly. These are just decisions on appointments,
17 if you could confirm that.
18 MR. KARNAVAS: The next document is 1D 00088.
19 Q. And we see that this is a decision to appoint -- to elect a
20 president of the high court in Mostar.
21 A. I confirm that this decision was indeed adopted on that day.
22 Q. Okay.
23 MR. KARNAVAS: And then 1D 00081.
24 Q. This is a decision that relieves the judge of the lower court in
25 Capljina, because we'll see that he's going to be going to another duty.
1 So can you confirm this decision?
2 A. I confirm this decision, and I also confirm that Mr. Katic was
3 relieved of his duty as judge and was appointed as prosecutor by another
5 Q. All right.
6 MR. KARNAVAS: And 1D 00086.
7 Q. We have a decision where four judges were appointed to the
8 district military court, dated again 17 October 1992. Can you confirm
9 that this decision was passed; and to follow-up on some of the questions
10 from Judge Trechsel, did they actually take their post at some point and
11 begin to work, as you've indicated?
12 A. Everything that is said about the decision concerning military
13 prosecutors applies to the military court as well. It is about the same
14 buildings which was reappointed for that person and it only happened in
15 spring 1993, which means that they started working only then.
16 Q. All right.
17 MR. KARNAVAS: Now, if we go to the next document, 1D 00083.
18 Q. Here, we have a decision to appoint Kresimir Zubak, who was a
19 lawyer from Doboj and, as I understand it, was also a judge there at some
20 point. He's appointed as vice-president of the Croatian Community. Can
21 you confirm this decision?
22 A. I confirm that this decision was adopted at the Presidency
23 session on the 17th of October, 1992.
24 Q. All right.
25 MR. KARNAVAS: Now, if we go on to P 00590, P 00590.
1 Q. And I would ask you to kindly read the title of the decree
2 because, as I understand it, it may need to be corrected from the English
3 title that we have here. This is from the Official Gazette. So could
4 you please tell us what -- read the title to this decree.
5 A. This is a decree on district military prosecutor's offices in the
6 territory of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna in times of war or
7 the immediate threat of war. Article 3: "The district military
8 prosecutor's office shall prosecutor perpetrators of criminal acts that
9 fall within the jurisdiction of district military courts and are subject
10 to prosecution ex officio. Accordingly, it shall ..." --
11 Q. Okay. No, that's fine. Just so we know, was this decree
12 actually applied to your understanding?
13 A. Yes. This decree was applied, as I already told you yesterday.
14 Q. Okay.
15 MR. KARNAVAS: Now, if there are no questions from the Court and
16 the Judges, I'll move on. All right.
17 P 00594.
18 Q. This is a decree on the establishment of a department of the
19 public prosecutor's office of Bosnia and Herzegovina on the territory of
20 the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna.
21 Now, two questions: One, did this decree come into effect; and
22 secondly, and more importantly, what exactly did this department of the
23 prosecution's office do?
24 A. We spoke yesterday about the reasons behind the establishment of
25 the republican prosecutor's office, i.e., the council of the republican
1 prosecutor's office in Mostar. This was because the public prosecutor of
2 Bosnia and Herzegovina could not exercise his authorities in any
3 territory outside of Sarajevo
4 Q. All right. And did this decree actually go into effect?
5 A. This decree did go into effect, and it was applied for as long as
6 the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna existed.
7 Q. All right. And attached to this particular exhibit, we see two
8 other decrees: One on the implementation --
9 JUDGE PRANDLER: I already would like to ask in a way the
10 expression of the affiliate department. Here, we see: "During war or
11 the imminent threat of war, an affiliate department of the republican
12 public prosecutor's office," et cetera, "shall be established ..."
13 I wonder if, under this affiliate, it would like to suggest that
14 it is in addition to other departments which have been working already,
15 or does it mean some special kind of status, to speak about affiliation?
16 I'm not quite sure that that in the original B/C/S, the "uredbu," et
17 cetera, if this affiliate is included or not. Probably Mr. Buntic may
18 tell us what the affiliate department would have meant to mean.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In our judicial practice or in our
20 judiciary practice, there always existed court branch offices and
21 prosecutor's branch offices. For example, the municipal court in Mostar
22 had its branch offices or affiliated offices in Citluk and Nevesinje in
23 other municipalities there, and there were days when judges worked in
24 these affiliated departments. Just like the department in Citluk which
25 was affiliated with the court in Mostar was never an independent court.
1 It was just a department of the municipal court in Mostar. The same
2 applied to the municipality of Nevesinje
3 branch offices did not have the status of a legal subject. They were
4 just parts of the republican prosecutor's office if we are talking about
5 the prosecutor's office, or the republican courts if we're talking about
6 the court.
7 JUDGE PRANDLER: I thank you, Mr. Buntic, for this explanation.
8 My problem is that in the title of the decree itself, it says: "Decree
9 on the establishment of a department of the public prosecutor's
10 office ..."
11 Whereas, in Article 1, it says: "During the war," et cetera, "an
12 affiliate department of the republican public prosecutor's office," et
13 cetera, "shall be established ..."
14 Now, it is why I asked the question what the affiliate means,
15 because in the title of the whole decree, we do not have this affiliate,
16 but we do have it in Article 1. So it might be not a very important
17 question, frankly, but I just wanted to clarify if there is any
18 difference between the two expressions as they are figuring in the major
19 title and in Article 1.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not sure if the translation of
21 the Croatian version is correct. In Article 1, there appears the word
22 "izmjesteno" which does not exist in the heading, which was translated in
23 English, I don't know how. But what it means is that it is outside of
24 the head office. The republican courts and prosecutor offices normally
25 had their head office; whereas, this term practically means that it is a
1 branch office, it is not housed in the main seat of a court of law. I
2 don't know if that's what you are referring to. It's relocated.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I think you referred here to
4 the problem of translation. What you meant in Article 1 is that it's
5 devolved or delocated because of the circumstances of war. Is that what
6 you meant, that it's not affiliated, it's devolved? A prosecutor who has
7 been relocated, as it were, because circumstances dictate that he should
8 be elsewhere than where he should normally be, that's why you used this
9 term delocated -- relocated?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, relocated. I believe that
11 would be the right term. That it is relocated; that would be the
12 appropriate term.
13 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Mr. Buntic, I have another question. I'm
14 somewhat surprised or I wonder why here the Presidency of Herceg-Bosna
15 nominates or creates an office for the public prosecutor of Bosnia
17 possible? I see you smile.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, my only answer would
19 be the question: Who else could have done it? There was nobody else;
20 nobody else could have done that. I'm going back again to what I said
21 yesterday. The same thing happened elsewhere in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The
22 relocated departments were established in Bihac, Tuzla, and Zenica as
23 well, because the republican prosecutor could not reach those areas. Had
24 the Presidency of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina even passed a
25 decision, there was no way for them to forward it to us in Mostar. There
1 was no other practical solution, and we had to find one.
2 We kept highlighting, however, that this would remain in force
3 while there was a war on, while there was a state of an imminent threat
4 of war. We were not able to reach Sarajevo
5 the decisions of the Presidency. We had to find functionable solutions
6 and models. We had no use for any other ones that didn't work. They had
7 to be workable. We were faced with problems which we had to solve and
8 solve them in a way that was workable.
9 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I can understand that, but then why not a
10 department of the public prosecutor's office of the Croatian Community of
11 Herceg-Bosna? Why give it a name of Bosnia and Herzegovina? Because I
12 suppose that this prosecutor's office could not function outside of
13 Herceg-Bosna either. Why attach to it the Bosnia and Herzegovina
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was always our intention to
15 highlight that this was a prosecutor of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and that it
16 was only his deputies that were relocated to that area who worked within
17 a relocated department; in this particular instance, it was in Mostar.
18 We wanted to emphasize the fact that the structure belonged to
19 Bosnia-Herzegovina and to the republican prosecutor's office. The
20 situation involving courts was similar. When we will be referring to the
21 Supreme Court, the reasons behind that particular solution were similar.
22 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you. You have answered my question.
23 I think Mr. Karnavas is getting impatient.
24 MR. KARNAVAS: [Microphone not activated]
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, just one moment.
1 Witness, I'd just like to go back to the time of Yugoslavia, when
2 there was a prosecutor. Was there a prosecutor in Mostar in the days of
3 the former Yugoslavia
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At the time, there existed the
6 municipal prosecutor's office in Mostar, that is to say, the prosecutor
7 in the first instance; and the district public prosecutor's office,
8 that's to say, the prosecution in the second instance.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. When the JNA left, the
10 Serbs left, I assume that the prosecutor was Serbian so he had to leave;
11 or was he Croat or Muslim? I don't know.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't remember specifically all
13 the names from that period, but I do know that most of the members of the
14 prosecutor's office in Mostar were Serbs; whereas, in the courts, there
15 was a presence of Serbs that was in proportion larger to their share in
16 the ethnic make-up.
17 We had cases of Serb judges who remained there throughout the war
18 in their capacities as judges or prosecutors, and were never removed from
19 those positions by the HVO. I also said yesterday that most of them,
20 most of the Bosniaks, that's to say, Muslims, who were members of the
21 prosecutor's office or judges, remained in their positions. None of them
22 were removed or demoted. I believe some of them even advanced in their
23 professions, and there is among the documents here a decision which can
24 confirm this, I believe.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] When the Republic of
1 Bosnia-Herzegovina was recognised, did they have the time to appoint a
2 prosecutor in Mostar or not?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, no. It was at that
4 point in time precisely that problems emerged and that an all-out war
5 broke out in Bosnia-Herzegovina after the referendum for the independence
6 of Bosnia-Herzegovina was held; in other words, as soon as the Bosniaks
7 and Croats voted in favour of an independent Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbs
8 at their own referendum voted for the Republika Srpska, war activities
9 escalated and Sarajevo became encircled.
10 From that point on, Sarajevo could not be reached, and we're not
11 talking only about the courts. We're talking about the parliament, the
12 government, the Presidency. The Serbs had by that time already abandoned
13 all these structures: Parliament, Presidency, and government. The
14 Bosniaks and Croats kept these structures alive until such time as they
15 were able to meet again.
16 However, as soon as this situation emerged and the war activities
17 broke out, it was impossible -- it became impossible for the government,
18 the Presidency, and the parliament to meet regularly. We were forced to
19 find a solution to make decisions in the absence of those organs. Even
20 where these organs were able to make decisions, it was impossible to
21 physically forward them to Mostar.
22 I don't know if I've answered your question.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. And that's perhaps why,
24 in Article 3, you required that the prosecutor should be a citizen of the
25 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This definition was taken over from
2 the earlier law. There's nothing novel about that. We're not asking or
3 we're not making a requirement for that person to be a resident of the
4 HZ HB or to in any way be present in the HZ HB; merely that he has to be
5 a citizen of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation
7 continues] ...
8 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Mr. President.
9 Q. Attached to this particular document, that is, P 00594, we also
10 see a decree on the implementation of the Law on Public Order; and,
11 again, there's also an implementation on the Law on Road Traffic and
12 Safety. And I take it your previous concerning the changes applied to
13 these two decrees? There's no need to dwell on them. Just if you could
14 confirm that, that would be fine.
15 A. I confirm that. We've already discussed it. These were merely
16 amendments with the purpose of translating Yu dinars into Croatian
18 MR. KARNAVAS: P 00592.
19 Q. Again, this is 17 October 1992. This is a decree on district
20 military courts in the territory of the Croatian Community of
21 Herceg-Bosna in a state of war or an imminent threat of war; and, here,
22 we can see in Article 2 -- or Article 1 that were establishing --
23 Article 2, I'm sorry: "When performing their functions, district
24 military courts shall act independently and shall administer justice on
25 the basis of the Constitution and the law."
1 Again, this is -- based on your previous answers, this was a
2 necessary decree because of the conditions; correct?
3 A. Yesterday and today, we discussed the reasons behind these
4 decrees. This decree has to do with district military courts. It was
5 applied in the territory of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna. It
6 was first harmonized in consultation with the deputy minister of justice
7 of Bosnia-Herzegovina. This is also something I referred to today.
8 This type of regulation was passed elsewhere in
9 Bosnia-Herzegovina to the effect that in the territories under the
10 control of the BH army, district military courts and district military
11 prosecutor's offices were set up almost in the same way as had been done
12 in the HZ HB and the territory it covered.
13 Q. All right. Now, you said when you met with this minister, who
14 again was the ethnicity and what was his ethnicity or national make-up?
15 A. Deputy minister of justice of Bosnia-Herzegovina, that was Jusuf
16 Halilagic. As I've already said --
17 Q. Okay --
18 A. -- we met in Siroki Brijeg.
19 Q. And what was his national make-up? These may not seem very
20 consequential to outsiders; but for this case, trust me, every question I
21 ask is pretty important. So, was he a Croat?
22 A. I apologise for not answering right away. Jusuf Halilagic was a
23 Muslim or a Bosniak.
24 Q. All right. Now, staying with this document, very briefly go to
25 Article 5 (b). I just want to see if maybe you can help us with this a
1 little bit, a comment: "The Supreme Court of Bosnia-Herzegovina, or in
2 cases where communications have been disrupted, the relocated Chamber of
3 the Supreme Court of Bosnia-Herzegovina, which has itself -- which has
4 its seat in Mostar, shall hear appeals against the decisions of the
5 district military courts, in such cases are mentioned in Article 18,
6 paragraph 2."
7 Now, I take it from -- this would tie-in with your answers
8 yesterday where you indicated that a chamber of the Supreme Court was
9 established because Sarajevo was under siege, basically. Is that
11 A. I stand by the answer that I believe I already gave to that
13 Q. Okay.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, Article 5(b), in fact,
15 recognises that the Supreme Court of Bosnia-Herzegovina is competent
16 unless communications with Sarajevo are disrupted, but the natural
17 Supreme Court remains that of Bosnia-Herzegovina. That's what seems to
18 be written in Article 5(b).
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think it is best to read it out,
20 and then you -- we can see how it is translated into English.
21 Article 5(b): "The Supreme Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, or
22 in cases where communications have been disrupted, the relocated Chamber
23 of the Supreme Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which has its seat in
24 Mostar, shall hear appeals against the decisions of district military
25 courts, if such cases are mentioned in Article 18, paragraph 2."
1 In other words, what this article expressly states is that the
2 Supreme Court of Bosnia-Herzegovina has the jurisdiction to hear appeals,
3 and where the Supreme Court is unable to hear such cases because
4 communications have been disrupted, and there were such cases documented
5 at the time, the relocated Chamber of that court in Mostar will -- would
6 hear these cases.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. Thank you.
8 MR. KARNAVAS: [Microphone not activated]
9 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
10 MR. KARNAVAS: If we go on to the next document, 500 -- I mean,
11 P 00589, P 00589.
12 Q. Here, we see the actual decree on establishing an office of the
13 Supreme Court on the territory of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna
14 in wartime or when there is an imminent threat of war. And just as
15 you've explained, we see Article 1. It talks about: "A relocated office
16 of the Supreme Court ... is to be established ..."
17 Article 2 talks about seven judges to be appointed. And we look
18 at Article 3, which indicates that the office shall be responsible for
19 carrying out functions cited in Articles 39 of the Law on Regular Courts,
20 and it refers to the Official Gazette of Bosnia -- of the Republic of
22 So that's what you were talking about. This decree establishes
23 the relocated office that we've been speaking about; correct?
24 A. Correct. While we were referring to the relocated department of
25 the public prosecutor's office, I said that everything that applied to
1 the relocated office of the republican prosecutor also applied to the
2 relocated Chamber of the Supreme Court of Bosnia-Herzegovina. I don't
3 know if there's any need for me to give any further explanation. I
4 believe that the regulations were quite similar, and that we've already
5 discussed them.
6 Q. That's fine.
7 MR. KARNAVAS: 1D 00085.
8 Q. I don't mean to rush you, Mr. Buntic. It's just that time is
9 of -- time is my enemy in this courtroom at times.
10 MR. KARNAVAS: 1D 00085.
11 Q. This is a decision to appoint the deputy head of the department
12 of justice. This is another example of an appointment being made. Do
13 you recall whether this individual actually took his position based on
14 this decision?
15 A. Correct. This is an appointment of Karlo Sesar, who was an
16 attorney-at-law from Mostar, to the post of deputy head of the justice
18 Q. Very well.
19 MR. KARNAVAS: If we go on to the next document, 1D 01979, 1979.
20 Q. This is dated 10 August 1993. It's a list of HZ HB HVO acts, and
21 it says: "Approval requested." Without going through the document
22 itself in any detail, could you please describe to us in one sentence
23 what this document reflects.
24 A. The president of the HVO, Mr. Jadranko Prlic, informs the
25 Presidency of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna through this letter
1 of all the enactments passed by the HVO which fell under the competence
2 of the Presidency. I will go back to what I said earlier.
3 On the 17th of October, 1992, the Presidency passed a decision
4 authorising the HVO to pass regulations from the purview of the
5 Presidency where the situation dictated that. This is a list of the
6 enactments passed by the HVO, which the HVO president submits to the
7 president of the HZ HB for approval.
8 In other words, these were the enactments passed on the basis of
9 the decision of the 17th of October, 1992, and were forwarded for
10 approval to the Presidency.
11 Q. Thank you. And that ties in with your previous answer, as you
12 told us when there was an amendment to the statutory decision; am I
14 A. Yes. That's the 17th of October, 1992, amendment.
15 Q. All right.
16 MR. KARNAVAS: Now, the next document is 1D 02545, 1D 02545,
17 dated -- it's 46, I'm told. So it's 1D 02546.
18 Q. This is an Article from Slobodna Dalmacija, 28 October 1992, and
19 we can see that your name -- you're being quoted, the head of the
20 department of justice. I want to read a couple of parts and then have
21 you comment very quickly.
22 You say in the second paragraph -- or it's said, it's reported:
23 "To begin with, he recalled that the founding enactment of November 1991
24 defined the HZ of Herceg-Bosna as a cultural, economic, and regional
25 entity of the Croatian people and other peoples who live in the
1 territory. Mr. Buntic explained in more detail that the goal of its
2 foundation was also its development into a constitutional unit of the
3 Croatian people in BH.
4 "The goal, according to Buntic, was grounded in three vital
5 facts: First, the Constitution of BH defined that state as a community
6 of three peoples; furthermore, nowhere anywhere in the world is there a
7 multi-ethnic community as a unitary state; and, third, the EC Commission
8 for BH proceeding from the fact that BH is a compound state of three
9 constituent peoples put forward the concept of a new Constitution in this
10 respect, and so it was directly on such constitutional principles that BH
11 also received international recognition."
12 Mr. Buntic, was this the position that you held then, as is
13 reflected in this article dated 28 October 1992?
14 A. It is true that this is my statement. It was accurately conveyed
15 here. The only thing where I disagree with this article is that the
16 journalist styled me as a minister, and I was not a minister. I was a
17 head of the justice department. Everything else, however, is accurate.
18 Q. And if we were to go back to the previous document that we saw
19 the transcript, that is, the presidential transcript of September, are
20 these more or less the same?
21 JUDGE TRECHSEL: May I just comment on the last thing you have
22 said, Mr. Buntic. You made a case, and we've heard this before, in the
23 difference between and head of department. Is there a legal basis for
24 such a difference?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There is, and the difference is
1 significant. It's not a minor difference. The Croatian Community of
2 Herceg-Bosna was not a state, nor did it ever wanted to be one. What is
3 emphasized in this statement of mine which was published by a newspaper
4 is that throughout the existence of the Croatian Community of
5 Herceg-Bosna, its primary goal was to defend the territory from
6 aggression, and it succeeded in that. Just a moment.
7 The second goal --
8 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I hear that, and I've heard it before. I know
9 that ideology. But I'm a bit depressed now because it seems that I come
10 from a non-state, because the state where I come from - Switzerland, it's
11 no secret - has only departments and the heads of departments are called
12 head of department. Does that mean that Switzerland is not a state?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not sure that the comparison is
14 fair. Judging by what I know about the Swiss constitution, it contains
15 confederal elements, so the Swiss model is not purely a federal model.
16 We may agree to disagree. I preceded my words by saying that this is
17 what I know.
18 In this particular case, I adhere by my words, and that is that
19 the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna never wanted to become an
20 independent state. Its primary goal was to organize defence, the defence
21 of its own territory; and the secondary goal was to establish a
22 constituent unit of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina in that area.
23 That goal was never a hidden agenda. You must see that. I promoted it
24 in public. I always promoted that goal during international
25 negotiations, during the talks that were transcribed. And you can see
1 here that I consistently adhered to what was transcribed and stated at
2 several places. There were no aberrations, there were no hidden agendas,
3 there were no different policies, and at different times; the goals were
4 always the same.
5 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm not addressing the issue behind it, only the
7 Am I correct in understanding you as saying: We choose on
8 purpose the term "department" rather than "ministry" to demonstrate that
9 Herceg-Bosna was not supposed to be regarded as a state?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It did not have a legal foundation
11 for that. It didn't -- it wasn't a state. It did not have a
12 constitution. It did not have any legal foundation to call me or anybody
13 else who was the head of any department at the time a minister. Those
14 were not ministries. Those were just these departments. If you have a
15 ministry, then its head is a minister; if you have departments, then its
16 head is only the head of that department. This was a regional community
17 of municipalities which was not a state. It did not have ministers;
18 therefore, it could not have ministers as such.
19 I personally was not very pleased when I was called minister.
20 Some other people were pleased. But I myself did not like being called
21 minister. And as I said here, the journalist wanted to flatter me and
22 portray me as something else to the general public.
23 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Excuse me for stopping you, but I do it for
24 Mr. Karnavas.
25 MR. KARNAVAS:
1 Q. All right. I have a follow-up question on this because if we
2 fast-forward a little bit to the creation of the -- or the establishment,
3 I should say, of the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna, there we do see
4 that ministries as opposed to heads of departments are called for.
5 Now, can you explain that, that transition from department to
6 ministry; that's number one. And number two, should the Trial Chamber
7 from the fact that now we have ministries as opposed to departments, that
8 now the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna is a state within a state?
9 A. I believe that certain parallels should be drawn here as well
10 between what had existed up to then in Yugoslavia and what was happening
11 on the international scene. When the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna
12 was being constituted, the international community had offered the
13 Owen-Stoltenberg peace plan which implied a confederation of three
14 constituent units in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This was to be at the
15 confederal model of the organization of the state of Bosnia and
17 In practical terms, this would mean that there would be a
18 contract between three independent states, a confederal state, the
19 federal level would have only very minor parts of state authorities and
20 all the other competencies and authorities would remain with the
21 constituent units. The foundation for the establishment of the Croatian
22 Republic of Herceg-Bosna was the stage reached in the peace talks within
23 the peace conference on Bosnia and Herzegovina.
24 The plan that was offered was partially adopted. Its
25 constitutional principles were adopted, and the main sticking points were
1 some minor territorial issues. The Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna
2 based its foundation in the Owen-Stoltenberg plan. It considered this
3 plan a favourable solution for Croats in Bosnia-Herzegovina. They deemed
4 the plan acceptable, and they acted or reacted by establishing the
5 Croatian Republic
6 If we're talking about a confederation, then we are talking about
7 an alliance of sovereign states; and it is only logical that in such a
8 state, the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna would have been a state with
9 its ministry. And this would have been the case if the Owen-Stoltenberg
10 plan had taken off the ground. The only ministries that would have been
11 at the federal level were the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of
12 Foreign Affairs.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. We need to take a
14 20-minute break.
15 --- Recess taken at 12.40 p.m.
16 --- On resuming at 12.59 p.m.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We have exactly 45 minutes
19 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Mr. President.
20 Q. Mr. Buntic, I have one last question regarding the document that
21 we were discussing. But before I do that, I just want to pick up on your
22 last answer, because you described to us basically your understanding of
23 the Owen-Stoltenberg, what it envisaged; that is, three republics. If
24 you could in one sentence, just tell us, when you compare the
25 Owen-Stoltenberg plan and what ultimately emerged at Dayton under the
1 Dayton Peace Accords where you have two entities - the federation which
2 came about from the Washington Agreement and the Republika Srpska - are
3 there any major differences between those two peace plans?
4 A. In my view, there are major differences. Again, I can only give
5 you my opinion, nothing else. What happened in Dayton is not what I
6 consider a good solution for Bosnia-Herzegovina. I would have never
7 personally accepted that solution, and I still claim that Vance-Owen Plan
8 and the Owen-Stoltenberg Plan were much better solutions for Bosnia and
10 And as may be seen from all of my public appearances and
11 propositions, I believe it was a clear constitutional foundation, a
12 foundation in international documents for both the implementation of
13 Owen-Stoltenberg and Vance-Owen plans. The solution as it was at the
14 moment and was adopted for Bosnia and Herzegovina is what I consider --
15 THE INTERPRETER: The witness's microphone is off.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm having problems.
17 I'm not aware of any such similar model in the world. I don't
18 know of any one state that consists of three constituent peoples which
19 has been organized in the way Bosnia and Herzegovina has been organized.
20 For one people to be recognised the rights that have been denied to the
21 other two peoples, that would be the gist of the whole situation.
22 MR. KARNAVAS:
23 Q. All right. Setting aside that aspect, when it comes to the
24 relationship between the entities and the state in the Dayton Peace
25 Accords versus, say, the relationship between the republics and the state
1 and the Owen-Stoltenberg Plan, that is, the powers that were given to the
2 republics, you know, and those that were kept by the state in the one
3 plan and again the powers given to the entities and those that were kept
4 by the state; are there any major differences there?
5 A. When it comes to the differences between the Dayton and the
6 Washington Agreements, then we're talking about two entities; and if
7 we're talking about two entities, I could say that the Serbian entity has
8 kept the rights that were envisaged by the Owen --
9 Q. Mr. Buntic, I'm trying to draw a parallel between the powers that
10 the republics would have had in the Owen-Stoltenberg and the state. You
11 said the state would have certain powers. The rest would be allocated to
12 the republics.
13 Now I'm asking you to look at the Dayton. Never mind that the
14 Croats were bundled together with the Muslims as a result of the
15 Washington Agreement to form the Federation. Setting aside that, when
16 you look at what was envisaged initially and what was being implemented
17 initially at Dayton, the powers given to the entities and those that were
18 kept by the state, are there similarities or differences between the two
19 peace plans?
20 A. I'm not sure that I have understood you properly, but I already
21 started answering you. When it comes to the entities, the powers are
22 very similar. The Owen-Stoltenberg implied two entities, and the other
23 agreements implied three entities --
24 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: The other way
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But according to Owen-Stoltenberg,
2 there were three entities; and according to the Washington and Dayton
3 Accords, there are two entities. And I already started talking in that
4 sense and answering you in that sense.
5 MR. KARNAVAS:
6 Q. Thank you. My apologies for framing the question inartfully, but
7 that's basically what I wanted to bring to the Trial Chamber's attention.
8 Then, just one last point with respect to this last document,
9 which was 1D 02545, we can see in the very last paragraph of your -- of
10 the interview where you're attributed to having said: "The department
11 head, Buntic, pointed out the need for representatives of the Muslim
12 people to take on their share of responsibility in those provisional
13 authorities. According to him, during the recent visit to Mostar by
14 President Alija Izetbegovic, accord was reached on a proposal that the
15 Muslims in Mostar should participate in the authorities, administrative
16 organs, and public activities in a ratio of 50/50; and at the level of
17 the constituent units, namely, HZ of Herceg-Bosna, they should
18 participate with 35 per cent."
19 Could you please explain that to us. I don't recall having much
20 testimony in this courtroom in the last two and a half years about Alija
21 Izetbegovic being in Mostar. We briefly touched on it, but maybe you
22 could elaborate a little bit before we go on to the next segment.
23 A. This information was obtained from the then-leadership of the SDA
24 for the region of Herzegovina
25 People that I contacted informed me that some agreements were reached,
1 and that the HDZ and the SDA were participating in the power in the ratio
2 of 50/50 in Mostar, and in Herzegovina the ratio would be 35 per cent.
3 I'm giving you this on the basis of the information that I received from
4 the then-leadership of the SDA for Bosnia-Herzegovina, i.e., based on my
5 conversation with Dr. Ismet Hadziosmanovic.
6 Q. [Microphone not activated].
7 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the counsel, please.
8 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you. This deals primarily with the
9 judiciary. So we'll first start off with P 01264, P 01264.
10 Q. And I just want to focus your attention on page 3 in the English
11 version where it says: "Formal oath." We can see from this document
12 that this is the 21st Session of the Croatian Defence Council meeting on
13 22 January 1993, and all I want to do is focus your attention where it
14 says "formal oath."
15 MR. KARNAVAS: If we look at item 2 on page 2, Your Honours, at
16 the bottom, we can see that this is the oath that would be given to
18 Q. It says, and I quote: "I pledge that I will abide by the
19 Constitution, the law, and other existing regulations, and through
20 conscientious work, I will protect the interests and the state system of
21 the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna and the Republic of BH, and that I
22 will perform my duty and task conscientiously."
23 Now, no doubt, the judges are asking themselves why the Croatian
24 Community of Herceg-Bosna first, and then the Republic of BH. And can we
25 draw any conclusions from that, that would be contrary to this, to any
1 allegiance to the state, that is?
2 A. You can see here that this statement was adopted at the meeting
3 on 22nd January 1993; thus, we are already in 1993. And today, as I'm
4 reading this statement, I can see that some things may be changed, that
5 the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina could precede the Croatian
6 Community of Herceg-Bosna. I'm talking about the order of the words.
7 As for the rest of the statement by which the judges are asked to
8 abide by constitutions and laws of both the Republic of Croatia -- of
9 Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as the Croatian Community of
10 Herceg-Bosna, I believe that the rest of this statement is correct, this
12 The only thing, as I've said, it could be the inversion of places
13 between the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Croatian Community
14 of Herceg-Bosna. But what is implied here is that the constitutionality
15 of both should be respected.
16 JUDGE TRECHSEL: An additional question on this text of the oath.
17 Is "Bog," God, a word that refers equally to the Judeo-Christian God, and
18 for Mohammed to Allah; or is it to be understood as a
19 Catholic-Christian's god. And attached to the question, an atheist
20 judge, is that conceivable and could he have sworn otherwise?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This was discussed. The issue was
22 discussed, and I know that Bosniaks who took the oath. I had taken with
23 them before the ceremony; and for them, it was Allah. There were no
24 problems with that. The overall atmosphere was one of understanding and
1 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In the former Yugoslavia in the
3 federal republic, would judges take an oath?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. They did take an oath. The
5 wording was similar to the wording of this oath. But when the state is
6 mentioned here, the oath implied that they were to uphold the state of
7 the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia
8 just the state that it was but its ideology, the socialist and communist
9 ideology that were contained in the title of the state.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But in that particular oath,
11 was any reference made to God, or was this something that was added later
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There was no reference of that sort
14 in the previous statement. God was not mentioned. The former regime was
15 atheist, and there was a ban on mentioning God or indicating God in any
16 shape or form. And if the oath had been worded in that way, it would
17 have been contrary to the then-constitution of the socialist and
18 communist Yugoslavia, as existed at the time. An oath of this type would
19 have been incriminated, and whoever wanted -- might have wanted to push
20 that would certainly have been prosecuted. By including this word, a
21 distinction was being made between the new regime and the former regime
22 during which God could not be mentioned for over 40 years in any shape or
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
25 MR. KARNAVAS:
1 Q. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Buntic. Now we're going to move rather
2 quickly on some documents, and others I will have you comment more on
3 them. So I just need a confirmation on a couple of documents to start
5 MR. KARNAVAS: One is 1D 01179, 1D 01179.
6 Q. These are minutes of the 4th Session of the Croatian Community of
7 Herceg-Bosna, 22 September 1992. We see that your name is there, having
8 participated. And, of course, if we go to page 4 in the English text, I
9 don't know exactly on what page it's yours, but we see that you do
10 mention or you give an explanation on the judicial system and propose the
11 election of judges to the district and military courts.
12 Can you confirm that at that session, you provided these
13 explanations? We will get to the laws. I just need the confirmation for
14 the purposes of this document.
15 A. Unfortunately, I can't just say yes. I believe that this calls
16 for an explanation. If you look at the date of this session, we can see
17 that this was on the 22nd of September, 1992; and that in this particular
18 case, proposals were tabled based on the previously adopted decree, a
19 decree that was adopted on the 3rd of July, which was never adopted in
20 the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna as we know, and it was never
22 These proposals were tabled based on that decree that was never
23 adopted and applied, and we have already spoken about that before this
24 Trial Chamber. And we said that the decree that was, in fact,
25 implemented was passed on the 17th of October, 1992. In other words,
1 these were proposals with the caveat that they were tabled based on a
2 decree that was never applied. And that's why these proposals were never
3 adopted, but, rather, the proposals that were adopted were those that
4 were adopted after the 17th October 1992.
5 Q. All right. Thank you.
6 MR. KARNAVAS: Now, unless there are any questions from the
7 Bench, I'll move on to the next document, which is P 00543.
8 Q. This is from minutes of the 5th Session, 29 September 1992.
9 Again, we see that you're named as having been present; and, again, I
10 just need just a confirmation, sir, because we will get to some of the
11 details later on.
12 If we look on page 8 in the English version, we see that you
13 report that: "The department works in a very difficult condition -- or
14 works in difficult conditions (no telephone, machine workshop is in the
15 same building, no police security)." And then you propose that the
16 Presidency meet more often and that the Presidency separate the
17 jurisdiction of the HVO from that of the Presidency.
18 Now, perhaps you would comment on this because this might be of
19 some importance. We can see that you're having difficult conditions; but
20 the latter part, the separation between Presidency and the HVO and your
21 urging the Presidency to meet more often.
22 A. Already yesterday, we spoke at great length about some
23 ambiguities with regard to the separation between the powers of the
24 Presidency of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna and the executive
25 body. I believe that we elaborated that topic yesterday. We spoke about
1 the powers that were concentrated in one person who united several
2 functions, and he could not discharge all of them. That's why
3 regulations had to be adopted in order to separate all these powers and
4 authorities. That is one thing.
5 Here, it is pointed for the need for the Presidency to meet more
6 often because such meetings - and we already said that the authorities
7 that were handed over to the HVO - that these were valid between the
8 Presidency sessions which called for decisions to be made urgently. And
9 we know that after the session which took place on the 17th of October,
10 no single Presidency session was ever held again; and that at the
11 Presidency sessions - and I don't know whether it has been reflected on
12 all the records - but I remember that at many sessions of the HVO, this
13 need was pointed out.
14 It is true that this was discussed, and I believe that the record
15 correctly reflects my discussion. I was at that meeting, and I remember
16 my words very well.
17 Q. All right. Thank you.
18 MR. KARNAVAS: Now we go on to the next document, which is
19 P 00559.
20 Q. And these are the minutes from the 6th Session, 7 October 1992;
21 and here's where you will need to give us some explanations. If you
22 could be as brief as you can, unless of course the Trial Chamber asks the
23 question and then you can go ahead, be as expansive as you want. But in
24 looking at item 3, this is on page 3 of the English version, and I'm
25 going to be looking at page 3 and page 4.
1 Here, it says that you proposed two versions of a decree on
2 temporary establishment of courts and proceedings before courts in the
3 area of HZ HB.
4 Now, you already talked earlier about a draft that was never
5 published and never implemented. When we look at what you -- these
6 minutes, we see that there is version 1 and version 2.
7 MR. KARNAVAS: And, of course, I was referring to the earlier
8 document for Your Honours' attention, which was P 09552, when I said that
9 he had indicated that it was drafted but never actually implemented or
11 Q. Which of the two versions was implemented ultimately that is
12 reflected in this, in these minutes - can you just answer that question
13 first - version one or version two?
14 A. The minutes clearly show that the department of justice and
15 general administration drafted two versions. The argumentation in favour
16 of version one was presented here. It was stated that by adopting
17 version one, one would avoid the setting up of a dual justice
18 administration system, one would guarantee the legality of the decisions
19 rendered by it. It allowed for the possibility to abolish the decisions
20 challenging jurisdiction. It was also said that this version was
21 discussed with representatives of Bosniaks or Muslims, or rather, the
22 minister of justice of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
23 Ultimately, version one was adopted and implemented at the
24 meeting of 17 October 1992
25 Version two provided for the establishment of a separate and
1 autonomous system. We said that this was adopted at the meeting of the
2 3rd of July and had never been applied simply because it had never been
3 published in the Official Gazette of the HZ HB.
4 This was something we discussed earlier on reference to some
5 documents, and here you can find an explanation of why that was the case.
6 Q. Thank you.
7 MR. KARNAVAS: Now, unless there are any questions -- sure.
8 JUDGE TRECHSEL:
9 MR. KARNAVAS: I will allow Judge Trechsel to --
10 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry. Maybe I'm again mistaken in the
11 document; but the last-but-three lines from the paragraph of 4, I read:
12 "Since that is not possible due to the above reasons, the draft decree
13 (version two) was unanimously agreed..."
14 And you have just said, Mr. Buntic, that the decision had been
15 for version number one. So I find it difficult not to see a certain
16 contradiction, but probably I have something wrong.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Such an interpretation is possible,
18 too; however, what I'm talking about is what the Presidency of the HZ HB
19 decided upon. At the 17th of October, 1992, meeting, as you can clearly
20 see, version one was adopted on the organization and run of the justice
21 administration system: The decisions on setting up the department of the
22 Supreme Court of the Republic of BH, the department of the republican
23 prosecutor's office, the department of the republican misdemeanours
24 court. In other words, the justice administration system of the BH
25 remained intact, and district courts were set up based on the same
1 principles and the practice employed by the Bosniaks. I'm talking about
2 what was officially carried, publicised, and implemented in our work.
3 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You are right, Your Honour, in
5 saying --
6 MR. KARNAVAS:
7 Q. Mr. Buntic, do you allow for the possibility that perhaps the
8 minutes are wrong; in other words, that there it was recorded wrong?
9 Because if you look at the rest of the sentence, and then if you could
10 look at the Croatian version with the ERN number 0403995 --
11 MR. KARNAVAS: Mr. Usher, if you could assist us here, I can
12 point to the -- Mr. Usher, if you could be so kind to assist. And, of
13 course, this is a follow-up from Judge Trechsel's question.
14 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Microphone not activated].
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Evidently the text in brackets,
16 "version two," deviates and departs from the full tenure and meaning of
17 the discussions at the meetings, as well as from the explanations and
18 conclusions provided. In my view, the text in brackets, namely, the word
19 "two" was a mistake. It should instead read "one." This is what follows
20 from the text as it stands. It follows that the word "two" is an error.
21 The text in its entirety indicates that version one was adopted,
22 because the text then says: "The Presidency of the HZ HB should be
23 personally acquainted with version one." In other words, the Presidency
24 should become familiarized with version one, not two. In my view, this
25 is a typographical error in the minutes.
1 MR. KARNAVAS:
2 Q. And I take it - again, a follow-up question from Judge Trechsel's
3 question - if we were to look at the actual implementing instruments and
4 compare them with the two versions, what was actually implemented
5 ultimately would be version one versus version two. That's the
6 conclusion that could be drawn by doing such a comparison?
7 A. Based on the document subsequently issued by the Presidency, it
8 becomes obvious that version one was adopted.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 MR. KARNAVAS: Unless there are any questions, we go on to the
11 next document, 1D 02001.
12 Q. And this is - again, we're going to move rather quickly -
13 9 October 1992
14 we see your name at the bottom. I want to focus your attention to the
15 last paragraph. It says: "The Presidency of the Republic of Bosnia and
16 Herzegovina has already appointed the following Muslim members of the
17 District Military Court in Mostar," and then we see three names. Is that
18 correct, sir?
19 A. It is correct that this is my letter sent to the municipal board
20 of the Mostar Party of Democratic Action, to the president personally,
21 wherein I inform the president of the Mostar SDA that the Presidency of
22 the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina had in the meantime appointed the
23 three judges listed therein. We can clearly see that all the three
24 judges were of Bosniak ethnicity, and this letter asks the SDA to provide
25 their nominations for the president of the misdemeanour court in Mostar,
1 for the president of the lower court in Mostar as it was called at the
2 time, and their nominee for the president of the district military court
3 in Mostar. The nominees were, in fact, sent to me and forwarded to the
4 department for defence in order for these appointments to take effect.
5 In addition to the three judges, therefore, which were nominated
6 by the Presidency for judges of the high court in Mostar, Mr. Memic was
7 subsequently appointed; in other words, there were four Bosniaks and four
8 Croats in all.
9 Q. All right. Thank you very much.
10 MR. KARNAVAS: If we go on to the next document, 1D 00113,
11 1D 00113.
12 Q. This is a decree, it's on the Law on Civil Procedure, and, of
13 course, we saw similar such decrees dealing with -- I don't know if it
14 was criminal or criminal procedure. But if we look at again where this
15 decree adopts what is already in existence with the change of the amounts
16 quoted in dinars; correct?
17 A. Correct. Everything we said about the legislation of
18 Bosnia-Herzegovina having been taken over also relates to the litigation
19 law, and the only thing that was changed was the translation of the
20 Yugoslav dinars into Croatian dinars.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 MR. KARNAVAS: 1D 00131, 1D 00131.
23 Q. This is a decree on the implementation of the decree laws on the
24 adoption of the Law on Administrative Disputes and so on. I just want to
25 point to Article 3. It says here: "The Supreme Court of Bosnia and
2 administrative disputes."
3 Now, for those of us who are not familiar with the legal system,
4 could you please explain Article 3 to us. Why was it necessary for the
5 Supreme Court to handle administrative disputes? And I assume the reason
6 that we have the department in Mostar is because, as you've indicated,
7 the Sarajevo
8 A. Correct. As was the case with other decrees, this one, too,
9 changes the Law on Administrative Disputes only to the extent necessary
10 for that particular law to be applied. One of these areas was the
11 impossibility for the appeals to reach the relevant court in Sarajevo
12 and you can see in Article 2 that the provisions not to be applied will
13 be the ones referring to proceedings before the federal court; in other
14 words, the court of the former Yugoslavia
15 the law remained the same and remained in force.
16 Q. Thank you.
17 MR. KARNAVAS: 1D 00133.
18 Q. This is another decree. This is on the Law on Executive
19 Procedure implementing -- implemented as a republican law in
20 Bosnia-Herzegovina at the time of war or imminent threat of war. Again,
21 as we've indicated before, we can see that it's grounded in the
22 republican law, with the exception of Article 2 which amends the quoted
23 fees. Would that be correct?
24 A. Correct.
25 Q. All right.
1 A. This is a federal law on the enforcement procedure; and as we can
2 see, the only intervention was in the conversion of sums from Yugoslav
3 dinars into Croatian dinars.
4 Q. Okay.
5 MR. KARNAVAS: If we look at 1D 00138.
6 Q. This one is a decree to amend the Law on Court Duties. And
7 again, if we just look through it, this basically, consistent with your
8 previous answers, just sets out the monetary values. It changes to
9 reflect the Croatian dinar as a result of the challenges as you've
10 indicated before; correct?
11 A. Correct. In contrast to the other decrees, this particular
12 decree, due to a galloping inflation which completely devalued court
13 fees, a more extensive intervention had to be made which went beyond the
14 conversion of Yugoslav dinars to Croatian dinars; that's to say, the fees
15 had to be raised to compensate for the devaluation of the currency.
16 Q. Thank you.
17 MR. KARNAVAS: If we go on to the next document, 1D 00139,
18 1D 00139.
19 Q. This is a decree on the application on the rules of procedure of
20 regular courts. And I just wish to point out a couple of things for your
21 comment on, again very briefly. Article 5, we can see the dinars are
22 being changed to reflect Croatian dinars; but Article 2, it says: "In
23 the text of the Rules of Procedure of Regular Courts, the words 'Ministry
24 of Justice and Administration' shall be replaced with the words
25 'Department of Justice and General Administration of the HZ HB ...'"
1 Was there a reason for that change?
2 A. A specific reason was the fact that the republican Ministry of
3 Justice was physically cut off and was not able to discharge its duties;
4 and under Article 2, these duties were deferred to the department of
5 justice and general administration. And as you rightly state, in
6 Article 5, the amounts were converted into Croatian dinars. All the
7 other provisions of the rules of procedure remained the same.
8 Q. And, again, I want to go back to the question that was --
9 JUDGE PRANDLER: Mr. Karnavas, I'm sorry to --
10 MR. KARNAVAS: That's okay.
11 JUDGE PRANDLER: -- interrupt you, and we are now approaching the
12 end of today's meeting. But anyway, I have of course listened carefully
13 to your questions and the answers concerning the Croatian dinars issue,
14 and somehow I am a bit perplexed since last time when Mr. Primorac was
15 here, that time Mr. Primorac and the documents which you have submitted
16 mainly wish to suggest and to demonstrate that actually it was not the
17 Croatian dinars which had been mainly used.
18 Now during the very last -- during the presentation of the last
19 documents, I believe that, probably I am not wrong, when I say that here
20 everywhere the Croatian dinars are being mentioned, like in one of the
21 last documents, that is, 1D 00139, 00139. And then in that one, in that
22 decree, Article 5, it says that: "In all provisions of Article 1 of the
23 Rules, the word 'Croatian' shall be added before the word 'dinar.'"
24 So my only question is that probably we should give some further
25 attention to this issue as far as the use of the Croatian dinar is
1 concerned. Thank you.
2 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you for that observation, Judge Prandler,
3 and I can assure you - you may rest assured - that that issue will be
4 dealt with when we have the head of the department of finance who will
5 come here and he will explain to us why it was necessary. So I trust you
6 can wait until the head of -- that will be in September. It's not too
7 far off. But we will answer that question for you.
8 I just wanted to, in the time that we have left, just ask one
9 question that might go back to the question that was asked by Judge
10 Trechsel with respect to "ministry" versus "department."
11 Q. I know terminologically speaking, terminologically speaking, in
12 Bosnia-Herzegovina in a hierarchical sense, "ministry" versus
13 "department," are they at the same level or is one above the other? And
14 I'm saying that as a result of Article 2 in this particular decree, which
15 is 1D 00139; and, again, this is a follow-up question from Judge
17 A. In a nutshell, as a rule, departments are only portions of
18 ministries, because in Bosnia-Herzegovina, ministries are composed of
19 departments, which are in turn composed of several offices, and so on.
20 Q. Thank you very much.
21 MR. KARNAVAS: I think that's it for the day.
22 And I hope, Judge Trechsel, with that explanation, now you can
23 rest assured that at least in Switzerland
24 the same as a ministry.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.
1 Witness, you will return for the hearing tomorrow at 9.00, and
2 Mr. Karnavas has one hour, 30 minutes left. Pleasant afternoon. See you
4 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m.
5 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 9th day of
6 July, 2008, at 9.00 a.m.