Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 30509

 1                           Thursday, 10 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

 7     case.

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

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

10     the Prosecutor versus Prlic et al.

11             Thank you, Your Honours.

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

13             Today is Thursday, July 10, 2008.  Let me first greet the

14     witness, the accused, the Defence counsel, as well as Mr. Stringer and

15     his associates, and good morning to everyone assisting us.

16             Today we are going to proceed with the beginning of the

17     cross-examination by the Defence counsel of the other accused.  But

18     before we do so, I'm going to read out an oral ruling related to

19     cross-examination of witness Zoran Buntic.

20             At the hearing of the 9th of July, 2008, the Defence teams

21     requested for the cross-examination of the Prlic Defence witness Zoran

22     Buntic the following amount of time:  The Defence of accused Stojic

23     requested one hour and a half; the Defence of accused Praljak requested

24     15 minutes; the Defence of the accused Petkovic asked for about two hours

25     and 15 minutes; the Defence of the accused Coric requested about 45

Page 30510

 1     minutes; and the Defence of the accused Pusic asked for 15 minutes.

 2     That's a total of five hours.  The Defence teams of Stojic and Petkovic

 3     are therefore asking for additional time for their cross-examination.

 4             The Trial Chamber would like to note that the Prlic Defence used

 5     about seven hours and 15 minutes for its examination-in-chief.

 6     Guide-line number 5, paragraph 15, of the decision of the Trial Chamber

 7     adopting guide-lines for the presentation of Defence evidence dated

 8     24th of April, 2008, states that the Defence teams conducting a

 9     cross-examination will receive 50 per cent of the time used for the

10     direct examination.

11             Furthermore, pursuant to guide-line 5, paragraph 16, of the

12     24th of April, 2008, decision, the Defence teams should have notified the

13     Chamber of the fact that they wanted to be granted additional time to

14     cross-examine witness Zoran Buntic, and they should have done so in

15     writing and within seven days of the filing of the monthly schedule,

16     indicating which matters they wish to raise with the witness.

17             In view, however, of the examination-in-chief of witness Zoran

18     Buntic, the Trial Chamber agrees on an exceptional basis to consider the

19     late request for additional time submitted by the Stojic and Petkovic

20     Defence teams.  After considering the requests submitted by the Defence

21     teams, the Trial Chamber decides by a major, me being in dissent or

22     dissenting, the Trial Chambers decides to grant three hours and 30

23     minutes to the Defence teams that will lead the cross-examination, and

24     the additional 90 minutes will be deducted from the overall time they

25     were granted to present their case.

Page 30511

 1             Furthermore, the Trial Chamber would like to recall that pursuant

 2     to guide-line 6, paragraph 20, of the 24th of April, 2008, decision, time

 3     spent on matters not raised during the examination-in-chief will be

 4     deducted from the time allocated for the presentation of the Defence case

 5     of the team conducting the cross-examination.  As far as my own

 6     dissenting opinion, I have the following reasons.

 7             First of all, pursuant to paragraph 16 of guide-line number 6,

 8     the Defence teams requesting additional time should have done so in

 9     writing and not orally within seven days of the filing of the monthly

10     schedule; and, therefore, as far as I'm concerned, I was not inclined to

11     consider this request and to decide on an exceptional basis to grant the

12     additional time requested.  That was my first reason.

13             The second reason I have is that, as far as I'm concerned, the

14     cross-examination conducted by the other accused is only allowable or

15     possible if the other Defence teams have reasons to believe that they can

16     challenge the credibility of the witness or if they believe that the

17     answers the witness provided to the questions put by the other Defence

18     team may incriminate their own client.  And I believe that throughout

19     these seven hours and 15 minutes, none of the answers given by the

20     witness to the questions put to him, none of these answers, was likely to

21     incriminate the other accused.

22             Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, there was no ground to grant

23     the three hours and a half for cross-examination purposes.  But the

24     Trial Chamber has decided by a majority that the other accused will have

25     three hours and a half to conduct their cross-examination, and that's the

Page 30512

 1     way we are going to proceed.

 2             Furthermore, the Stojic and Petkovic Defence will have 90

 3     additional minutes.  In other words, the other accused will be granted a

 4     total of five hours to cross-examine the witness.  I don't know who is

 5     going to start, but I'm going to give the floor to the first Defence

 6     counsel who will cross-examine the witness.

 7             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, good morning.  Good

 8     morning to everyone in the courtroom.  Before beginning my

 9     cross-examination, I would only like to emphasize two points.  As far as

10     the time in extension that I asked for in relation to this witness, I did

11     not ask for a total of two and a half hours.  I asked for additional time

12     so that I have just for an hour and a half.  That's considerably less

13     than what we said.

14             Second, this concerns that we need to make written submissions

15     requesting additional time within seven days after the schedule is

16     presented.  I have to say that based on the witness list, that is, 65

17     ter (G), we cannot know exactly what's going to be in the direct

18     examination.  We can only judge about the contents of the direct

19     examination only after seeing the documents that will be tendered through

20     the witness.  We received the definitive list of documents for this

21     witness last Monday morning, and only then were we able to see that some

22     topics will be missing from the direct examination; whereas, some new

23     topics will be discussed through this witness.

24             In any case, we know the definitive contents of the direct

25     examination only once it is over, and only then can we design our

Page 30513

 1     cross-examination and assess if we need additional time or not.

 2             MR. STEWART:  Your Honours, may I just supplement a different

 3     point.  I'll ask a practical question.  It's one we've raised in writing

 4     before, and it relates to what Your Honour has just said starting at

 5     page 2, line 24, that time spent on matters not raised during

 6     examination-in-chief will be deducted from time allocated for the

 7     presentation of the Defence case of the team conducting the

 8     cross-examination.

 9             And it's a certain amount of puzzlement as to exactly how that's

10     going to work.  Is that done retrospectively, in which case we're not

11     sure how the computer system does it.  It can't be done prospectively on

12     many occasions, because until the evidence has been heard, one can't

13     allocate it into one or other of those boxes.  And, also, who and how is

14     that decision made, because essentially, as we have pointed out before,

15     it's a judicial decision; it's not an administrative decision.  And the

16     fourth point - I think I've made three points so far - the fourth point

17     would be that, in fairness, we are entitled to know what is being done

18     and to know how the allocation is being done and what allocation is being

19     done, so that we have the opportunity, if necessary, of challenging it.

20             Often it will be very trivial, we acknowledge that; but it could

21     be important on occasions.  So not necessarily now, Your Honours, it may

22     be the answer will come from some other source in some other form.  But

23     fairly soon, if not now, we would welcome knowing exactly how this

24     procedure is intended to work.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stewart, the Trial Chamber

Page 30514

 1     has duly noted your submissions.  I can give you my personal opinion.  I

 2     fully share what you've just state.  It's very difficult, indeed, to

 3     decide what is part of the cross-examination and what is part of matters

 4     not raised during cross-examination; and as far as I'm concerned, I

 5     believe that this can only be decided at the very end because you may

 6     have questions asked during cross-examination that are part of

 7     cross-examination, but other questions go beyond the scope of

 8     cross-examination.  You're absolutely right and I fully agree with your

 9     concerns, but, obviously, it will be up to the Chamber to rule, after the

10     hearing, how time will be allocated or divided.

11             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  If I may add something, I would first like to

12     recall that this is not something the Chamber invented, but this is a

13     translation of what is said in Rule 90(H) of the Rules of Procedure.

14     This distinction comes from there.  It's not an invention of the Chamber,

15     which also means, if you allow me to finish, that we have practiced it

16     for two years.  This applied also, of course, to the Prosecution.  We

17     have also applied it after the beginning of the evidence of the Defence,

18     and so far it simply has worked.  And I recall that usually the Defence,

19     including Ms. Alaburic, has indicated:  I will have these questions that

20     are the same for you, and then I will embark upon a field which does

21     not -- is not the same that was raised in direct.

22             And I am confident that we will be able to apply this as we have

23     done so far without too much difficulty.

24             MR. STEWART:  Your Honours, the distinction is perfectly clear.

25     We accept that completely; and the distinction that needs to be drawn

Page 30515

 1     when counsel is embarking upon cross-examination on matters not raised in

 2     examination-in-chief, that's perfectly clear.  I was addressing myself to

 3     the very real practical problems, and actually underneath them the

 4     problems of who makes the decision.  The real practical problem is of the

 5     actual time allocation which is of real significance in this case given

 6     the way that the trial is being managed, and that's actually a separate

 7     point, Your Honour, from the clear division.  After all, that rule is

 8     saying nothing at all about time allocation; it's simply dividing the

 9     nature of the cross-examination and the scope of the cross-examination

10     into those two boxes.

11             So, Your Honours, with respect, my question remains on the table

12     and remains requiring an answer, as His Honour, the President, Judge

13     Antonetti, very fairly acknowledged.

14             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if you allow me,

15     just one sentence when we have already broached this issue that I believe

16     is very important, but we haven't discussed it before due to very

17     specific circumstances.

18             I believe we have two different rules regarding topics in

19     cross-examination that were not raised in direct.  Under the rules of

20     this court, cross-examination is allowed to raise issues that were not

21     broached in direct examination if they are, in a certain way, related to

22     the subject of this trial.  As my colleague, Mr. Stewart, said the Rules

23     do not say whether that time goes against the cross-examination time or

24     direct examination time, but the rule on cross-examination says

25     unequivocally that it is the time that belongs to cross-examination.

Page 30516

 1             Contrary to that, neither in the guide-lines that the

 2     Trial Chamber -- in the guide-lines that the Trial Chamber prepared, we

 3     have an opposite rule.  The topics raised in cross-examination will go

 4     against the time allocated to respective Defences.  I would appreciate it

 5     very much if the Trial Chamber would consider this comment and change the

 6     guide-lines.

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.  The Trial Chamber will

 8     clarify all these in due course.

 9             I'm going to give the floor now to Mr. Coric's counsel, who is

10     ready.

11             Good morning again, Madam.

12             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your

13     Honours.  Good morning to everyone in the courtroom.

14                           WITNESS:  ZORAN BUNTIC [Resumed]

15                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

16                           Cross-examination by Ms. Tomasegovic Tomic:

17        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Buntic.

18        A.   Good morning.

19        Q.   Mr. Buntic, I asked Mrs. Tomanovic, and I believe she did as I

20     asked and showed you the CD containing registries of various prosecutor's

21     offices, civilian and military, from Mostar, Livno, and Capljina.  Before

22     we move to the documents themselves, to facilitate understanding by

23     everyone in the courtroom, I would like us to go through certain

24     abbreviations and acronyms together, those that we'll be able to see both

25     in registries and in documents.

Page 30517

 1             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] And the Chamber has three

 2     pages received from us containing these abbreviations and acronyms.  It's

 3     just an aid, it's not an exhibit.  It's just a visual aid.  I believe

 4     that Mr. Buntic should have a copy as well.

 5        Q.   Do you, Mr. Buntic?

 6        A.   Yes, I do.

 7             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] I will now read the

 8     acronyms and I will just ask the witness to confirm that they, indeed,

 9     designate what I say.

10        Q.   So, on page 1, we see that "K" is a designation for a criminal

11     file, municipal or district; "KT" is a prosecution document; "KTN" is a

12     designation for a prosecution file with a perpetrator unknown; "KTA" is a

13     designation for a prosecution document where it is presumed that no crime

14     has been committed; "KZ" is the acronym for penal code; "ZKP" is the

15     acronym for law on criminal procedure; "KZ RBH" is the penal code of the

16     Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina; "KZ SFRY" is the penal code of the

17     Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia; "JT" is the acronym for the

18     public prosecutor; "SUP" is the acronym for the secretariat for internal

19     affairs, later renamed MUP.

20             Mr. Buntic, is all this correct?

21        A.   Correct.  Those are the acronyms that were commonly used to refer

22     to court files and in-court files, and they were also used in everyday

23     speech, documents, textbooks, forms, statistics, et cetera.

24        Q.   Let us now turn to page 2 where I listed certain crimes according

25     to the penal code of Bosnia and Herzegovina:  Article 36, murder;

Page 30518

 1     Article 38, manslaughter; Article 42, serious bodily injuries; Article 55

 2     security breach; Article 56, violation of integrity of an apartment;

 3     Article 88, rape; Article 129, illicit trade --

 4             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's correction:  Theft.

 5             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation]

 6        Q.   Article 136 --

 7             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's correction:  Article 147, theft.

 8             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   Article 148, aggravated theft; Article 150 robbery.  Article 147,

10     theft; 148, aggravated theft.

11             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Article 88 is rape.  I'm

12     informed by my colleagues that it was not recorded previously.

13        Q.   Article 150, robbery; Article 153, seizure of motor vehicle;

14     Article 172, inciting a general state of danger; 226, crime of abuse of

15     office or powers.  And I singled out one crime, 154, racial and other

16     discrimination from the penal code of the SFRY.

17             Can you confirm all that I said, Mr. Buntic?

18        A.   I believe you did.

19             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Can we move on to the

20     first document 5D 0 --

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, please.

22             Witness, I read the list related to criminal offences with great

23     interest, but it seems to me that there is one article missing, a

24     significant one, the one related to crimes against humanity, war crimes,

25     and so on and so forth.

Page 30519

 1             To your knowledge, which article regulated these sorts of crimes,

 2     if there was such an article?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It existed and it was included in

 4     the penal code of the SFRY; that is, the federal penal code.  I don't

 5     know the exact article, but it is chapter 1 of the federal penal code.

 6     There are a number of articles concerning violations of international

 7     humanitarian law.  I don't know exactly which one this is, but it is a

 8     special chapter of the federal penal code.

 9             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] If I may be assistance of

10     Your Honour, the reason I didn't mention it is that there is chapter 16

11     of the penal code of the SFRY, Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

12     The reason I didn't mention it is I wanted to draw some conclusions

13     together with the witness after we look at registries, and then we will

14     talk about how certain crimes were qualified legally and why they were

15     qualified that way.

16             So I wanted to call up into the electronic courtroom 5D 04234.

17        Q.   You have your sets of documents.  Could you please find this one.

18     I will try with every document, with every file that we look at, first to

19     show you the documents and then we will try to identify them and compare

20     them to the registry of the prosecutor's office and the number of the

21     prosecution that refers to that case.

22             5D 04234.  It's a criminal report of the police station Capljina,

23     dated 7 July 1993, addressed to the basic public prosecutor's office in

24     Capljina.  The number -- the registry number is KT 91/93.

25             This criminal report was filed against a person named Dragan

Page 30520

 1     Bunoza.  We see that he is an ethnic Croat.  The report was filed

 2     concerning aggravated theft, Article 148 of the penal code of the

 3     Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the injured party is named as

 4     Habib Suta.

 5             Mr. Buntic, will you agree with me that from the name of the

 6     injured party, we see that it is a Bosniak?

 7        A.   Obviously, it is a Bosniak, and the report is made against an

 8     ethnic Croat.

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, please, Witness.

10     Here we see "KT," but I also see the following:  KU 89/93 on the top left

11     corner.  What does "KU" stand for, please?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not sure.  KT is a prosecution

13     file.  KU, I'm not sure about KU.

14             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] If I may be of

15     assistance, Your Honour.  I believe KU concerns internal affairs, and

16     K is crime.  I believe it is the police file in which this report is

17     contained.

18             MR. STRINGER:  Mr. President, just stating the obvious, I take it

19     the Trial Chamber is going to distinguish between the witness's evidence

20     and the representations of counsel, which may be correct and I'm not

21     disputing them.  But I think that we don't really know what KU is in an

22     official way until a witness has said what it is.

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, can you confirm what

24     the Defence counsel has just explained, or is it something you really

25     can't tell us anything about?  Would KU mean that this is a document

Page 30521

 1     coming from the civilian police and that it was thus recorded here or

 2     registered here?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I stand by my previous answer.  I'm

 4     not sure, so I cannot affirmatively state whether it is or isn't.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.  Very well.

 6             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Can we now please look at

 7     PD 04246 [as interpreted].

 8             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  Could counsel kindly

 9     adjust her microphone.  We have trouble hearing her.  Thank you.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot find these documents.  I

11     don't know whether I've been given these documents, and I don't know in

12     which order they were given to me or should I follow them on the screen?

13             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation]

14        Q.   You should have it on the screen.  We handed them over to the

15     court deputy, and I think that you should have all the documents.  Is

16     there any way the court deputy can help you?

17        A.   I don't know in which order they are registered.

18             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, please.  The usher,

19     who's very experienced, is going to help you.

20             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] I hear that it says "PD"

21     in the transcript, and it should say "5D," 5D.

22             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreters again kindly ask that counsel

23     adjust her microphone.  We have great trouble hearing her.  Thank you.

24             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] I see that we have a

25     problem.  Perhaps I can give the witness my own copy where all the

Page 30522

 1     documents are put in the right order, but you can see it on the screen as

 2     well.

 3        Q.   What really matters for me are names and numbers.  We have here a

 4     document of the higher prosecutor's office --

 5             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreters did not hear the number, there

 6     is too much background noise, and we cannot hear the speaker.

 7             MR. STRINGER:  Excuse me, Mr. President.  I don't know, I think

 8     only a few of us are listening in the English; but on the English channel

 9     we're hearing from the booth that they're asking counsel to adjust her

10     microphone, so that they can hear her more clearly because they're having

11     trouble hearing counsel.

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I may have been the culprit

13     because my microphone was still on.  I may be the one responsible for it,

14     and she's not.

15             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation]

16        Q.   So what we have here is a document of the higher prosecutor's

17     office in Mostar.  Later on, we are going to look at the basic

18     prosecutor's documents and the higher prosecutor's number.

19             KT 44/93 is the number.  Yet, again, it has to do with a crime

20     for Article 148.  We see that the defendants are the same; and further on

21     in the text, in the very last paragraph on the first page, we can all see

22     the name of the injured party, again as Habib Suta.  I think it is

23     obvious that it is the same case.

24             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Right now I'm not going

25     to read this out, but everyone in the courtroom can read the entire

Page 30523

 1     document and see that the crime described is the same, and this is a

 2     motion to issue an indictment without conducting an investigation.

 3             Later on -- or rather, we should move to the next document,

 4     please.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, let me ask you a

 6     technical question which may be of relevance to the Trial Chamber when we

 7     look into the issue of Article 7(3) of the Statute.

 8             Through this case, we saw that there is a police report sent to

 9     the prosecutor.  The prosecutor seizes the investigative judge of the

10     file; that is, the judge in Mostar.  Let us imagine that the judges would

11     do nothing or that he would say that no crime was committed.  The judge

12     does nothing or just keeps the file in a file of documents.  Can the

13     prosecutor appeal if a judge fails to do anything?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The prosecutor always had such

15     possibilities; that is to say, to call for an investigation to be carried

16     out and to seek information about the investigation.  Also, if the

17     investigating judge believes that there are no elements for issuing an

18     indictment, the prosecutor can file an appeal against that decision to a

19     panel of judges.  So the prosecutor does have all these possibilities

20     available even after the investigation was carried out.  Obviously, this

21     is a document of the deputy senior prosecutor.  I know that this was

22     Mr. Blago Dodig, and it is his document.  Again, I see on the basis of

23     the designator in this document, again we see that this is a KT document;

24     that is to say, a prosecution document.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you for this very clear

Page 30524

 1     explanation.

 2             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Then we have document

 3     5D 04151.

 4        Q.   It's going to appear on the screens.  Don't bother trying to find

 5     it.  5D 04246 -- or rather, 4151.  I am going to say that it is the

 6     indictment that was issued by the senior public prosecutor's office in

 7     Mostar.

 8             Can you confirm that?

 9        A.   Yes, I can.

10             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Let us move on to the

11     next document in relation to this; that is, 5D 04236.

12        Q.   Now we see the judgement that was passed by the high court in

13     Mostar, and the number is K 18/94.  Can you confirm to me that this

14     K 18/94 designates a court file, and since it says 1994 that the

15     prosecutor handed over these files to the high court in Mostar in 1994?

16        A.   Obviously, on the basis of the designator, because this is -- it

17     is a court file.  As for the names of the accused persons, it is obvious

18     that this is the same case that we've been following through all the

19     time, through all the stages, from filing a report and then issuing an

20     indictment and then passing a judgement.  It is obvious on the basis of

21     the number of the file and the names of the accused persons.

22             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Could we now see in

23     e-court 2112 from 5D 04288.

24        Q.   This is a KT register of the senior prosecutor's office in

25     Mostar.  Here it is.  I think that in the third box we see -- or rather,

Page 30525

 1     before we look at it, Mr. Buntic, will you agree with me that the

 2     prosecutor's list contains the number of the file, the name of the

 3     accused, the name of the person filing the charges, and the name of the

 4     injured party inter alia?  It contains other elements, too, but this is

 5     what matters the most for us at this point in time.

 6        A.   I've just seen it on my screen, so I need to have a look.  Yes,

 7     that is the information concerned.

 8        Q.   We can all see that in the fourth column we find the names of the

 9     accused, and two columns onwards we see the name of the injured person?

10        A.   That is correct.

11        Q.   In the first rubric, we see KT 44, and that is that number

12     KT 44/93 that we saw earlier on in the documents of the senior

13     prosecutor's office in Mostar; is that correct?

14        A.   Yes.

15             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] 2317, please.  Here it

16     is.  Column 2.

17        Q.   It's the first number we looked at of the prosecutor's office in

18     Mostar, KT 91/93.  Can you confirm that it is one and the same case and

19     that is the number?

20        A.   On the basis of the names that appear on the screen, it is

21     obvious that it is the same case.

22        Q.   Now we're going to move on to another document.

23             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Could we have 5D 04245 in

24     e-court.

25             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Excuse me.

Page 30526

 1             Unfortunately, Ms. Tomasegovic Tomic, we have not received this

 2     document in paper.  We just -- what we have here is a photocopy of a CD

 3     which is not, in fact, very helpful.

 4             Now, could we see this again, Usher, and see it all to the end of

 5     the form because we have only the left part, and obviously the form is

 6     bigger.  What is on -- I would like to see what follows, whether there is

 7     any other entry on the same case.

 8             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] I think, Your Honour,

 9     that it can be moved left and right.

10             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Yes.

11             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] You can see the entire

12     procedure.  I do apologise to the Trial Chamber, but quite simply there

13     is no photocopier that is big enough, either in this Tribunal or the

14     court in Mostar.  I believe that some specialised institutions for

15     photocopying perhaps may have such facilities; but, technically, in our

16     investigation, we could not make a hard copy of this document for

17     technical reasons.  That is why we provided the CD in the 65 ter list;

18     and, again, we provided it at an early stage so that everyone could

19     become aware of it.  I do apologise.  But for technical reasons, there

20     was no other way of doing it.

21             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you.  I take that.  Architecture offices

22     normally have big photocopying machines because they use them for plans

23     and that might be where you could find assistance, but I'm glad that this

24     was possible.  Thank you.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness -- one moment.  I have

Page 30527

 1     a question for the witness.

 2             At some point in time, you were in charge of the justice area.

 3     We have this document in front of us; and as was pointed out by counsel

 4     just now, we can see that this entire case was recorded in the office of

 5     the prosecutor.  And for those like me who know how justice works, how

 6     the judiciary works, we can see that this entire case is recorded in this

 7     type of registry or register.

 8             The prosecutor, whomever he may be, when he or she receives a

 9     case from the police, were they obliged to record everything in a

10     register, mentioning every step of the proceedings including the final

11     decision?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is correct.  Once a criminal

13     report is received, that is to say, when a prosecutor receives it from

14     the police, he is duty-bound to record the criminal report in his own

15     records.  As the colleague already mentioned, it has to do with

16     prosecution registers that are of large format.  That is what they looked

17     like.  It is true that this is a standard form that was used in the

18     former Yugoslavia as well.  This is not a new form at all and the format,

19     too, is standard, like the ones that existed before the war.

20             And the prosecutor's office kept the file once they received it

21     from the police or from the citizen concerned or from authorised

22     officials.  And then, as we can see here, from beginning to end, they're

23     going to keep it in their own register.

24             The court also keeps it in its own register once they receive it,

25     and then they keep it up until the end.  As you know, it can go from

Page 30528

 1     first instance to second instance even to third-instance courts, and then

 2     it receives different designation numbers from each and every one of the

 3     courts involved and in connection with the legal remedies that were

 4     involved in terms of the decisions of the lower courts.

 5             You see here that the file was recorded by the prosecutor's

 6     office and it's one and the same file.  It's obvious here from the

 7     numbers, designators, as well as the names of the accused persons and the

 8     name of the injured party.  It is one and the same file or case.

 9             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Could we call up in

10     e-court 5D 04245.

11        Q.   While we're waiting to see it on our screens - here it is - yet

12     again this is a special report of the Capljina police station sent to the

13     senior public prosecutor's office.  Again, we see the KT 74/93 number, as

14     it was received in the prosecutor's office.  We see from the

15     document - we can have a look - that the crime involved is aggravated

16     theft from Article 148 and the suspect is Andrej Zovko.  It says that

17     he's an ethnic Croat, a national of the Republic of Bosnia and

18     Herzegovina.  And Adem Fazlagic is the injured party.

19             Sir, can we agree yet again on the basis of the names that the

20     accused person is an ethnic Croat and the injured party an ethnic

21     Bosniak?

22        A.   This special report itself says that the -- a person charged is

23     an ethnic Croat and the injured party is an ethnic Bosniak.  We can see

24     it by the names.

25        Q.   One more thing in relation to this that is of interest.

Page 30529

 1             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have a

 2     look underneath the name in the next paragraph.

 3        Q.   It says that the person was suspected of committing other crimes,

 4     falsifying documents and false representation.

 5             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Could we look at page 2

 6     now, and the paragraph that starts with the words:  "On the 19th of

 7     May ..."

 8             I don't want to read the entire paragraph because we can all read

 9     it.

10        Q.   The person misrepresented himself impersonating a police officer

11     and he falsified a police ID, forged a police ID.

12             Sir, do you know that there were cases when different

13     perpetrators of crimes falsely represented themselves as members of the

14     police or the military; whereas, they were not members of either?

15        A.   I am aware of such cases.  For the most part, it had to do with

16     persons who had had a criminal record.  They were trying to take

17     advantage of the war situation and the fact that all state organs were

18     functioning with difficulty.  So they tried to take advantage of the

19     situation, and we can see that they used it for looting, theft, and

20     different forms of property-related crime.  So the times did make it

21     easier for such people to engage in crime.  This is not an isolated case;

22     there were other such cases.

23        Q.   When we were looking at page 1 of this document, we saw that

24     below the heading "Special Report," there's another line supplementing

25     the criminal report.  On page 3 in -- page 4 in English and page 3 in

Page 30530

 1     Croatian, we see the relevant information.

 2             From the brief description of crime following the word "because,"

 3     we see that the crime is against Adem Fazlagic and that it is the same

 4     offence described in the supplement to the criminal report.  Can you

 5     confirm?

 6        A.   Yes.  It is obviously the same case and the same persons, both

 7     the injured party and the offender, yes.

 8        Q.   Under the rubric "against," we see NN.  Does that mean that at

 9     the time of the report, the perpetrator was unknown and his name was

10     given only in the supplement to the criminal report?  Does that mean that

11     the investigation resulted in an identification of the perpetrator?

12        A.   Yes.  A criminal report against perpetrator NN means unknown

13     perpetrator.  So it is the same person, Adem Fazlagic, as we have seen

14     before from these documents shown earlier.  And from the later procedure,

15     we see that it is the same case.

16        Q.   While we are with the unknown perpetrator, do you know that a

17     special problem for prosecuting authorities --

18             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Excuse me, Ms. Tomasegovic Tomic.

19             The last number of a document that I find in the record is

20     5D 04245.  I guess that you have switched to another document, but I

21     missed the number and it is not recorded.  You're on the same document?

22             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] The same document, Your

23     Honour.  It's just page 4, the same document, page 4.

24             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Oh, I'm sorry.  Thank you.

25             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation]

Page 30531

 1        Q.   Tell me, sir, do you know that for the prosecution authorities

 2     and the judiciary, the group of unknown perpetrators were a special

 3     problem, and can you say something about this phenomenon, why was it able

 4     to occur?

 5             MR. STRINGER:  Excuse me.  I apologise for the interruption.

 6             Mr. President, I think if a person just walked into the courtroom

 7     or the gallery, they would assume that they're watching a direct

 8     examination because that's really what's happening here.  I think we need

 9     to be honest about what the status of this investigation is.  It's only

10     different from a real direct examination by the fact that these documents

11     were provided to the Prosecutor yesterday and that, of course, we've

12     received no summary or prior indication of the nature or the scope of

13     this direct examination.  So it's certainly not a direct examination in

14     that respect.

15             But I am going to object to the use of leading questions.  I've

16     been hesitant to do so.  I think it's fair to let counsel lead to the

17     extent necessary and it moves things along faster to allow us to navigate

18     through these documents, particularly through these photocopies.  But at

19     the same time, this is a direct examination.  I think leading questions,

20     such as the one that's being put to the witness now, are inappropriate.

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please, Counsel, try to take

22     into account what the Prosecutor has just said.

23             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] I will rephrase.

24        Q.   Would you be able to tell us anything about the criminal

25     prosecution of unknown perpetrators?  Did such a problem exist and what

Page 30532

 1     do you know about it?

 2        A.   It was a recurring problem, a constant problem.  It's better

 3     perhaps to explain using an example.  For instance, at a location known

 4     as Ubarak, around 70 bodies were discovered, and it was presumed they

 5     resulted from a crime committed by the Yugoslav Army before they withdrew

 6     from Mostar.  After the discovery of these bodies, normally a criminal

 7     report was filed recording this crime, but even that report was filed

 8     naming unknown perpetrators, referring to unknown perpetrators, because

 9     neither the civilian police nor the military police nor the prosecutor

10     had access to information about the persons who might have committed it

11     and there existed another problem.

12             Even if they had been able to file a criminal report against

13     specific persons, those persons had by that time become inaccessible.

14     They had left the territory together with the Yugoslav Army; and even if

15     one were able to identify a perpetrator to the degree of well-grounded

16     suspicion, as the phrase goes, there was this other problem.

17             And at this time, there were, indeed, a number of similar

18     problems that made the work of the prosecutors and the judiciary

19     difficult.  Not only in this case but in many cases criminal reports were

20     filed against perpetrators unknown, but this is a very eloquent example

21     of the whole category.

22             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at

23     5D 04153.

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Since counsel has finished

25     examining the document, I'd like to go back to it for a detail.  I looked

Page 30533

 1     at it closely.  I was interested in it, and I see that the author of

 2     these offences, there are many of them, hails from Mostar.  He went to

 3     Capljina, and he wore a camouflage uniform and green beret and was armed

 4     with a rifle.

 5             At the time, as far as you know because you were in the area, was

 6     it customary to see individuals circulating, moving around, in camouflage

 7     gear with green or red berets and armed individuals?  Was it something

 8     normal, current?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, perhaps I do have an

10     example that might be illustrative.  After the 4th of April, 1993 [as

11     interpreted], there were international monitors in Citluk, five of them;

12     and on a daily basis or once every two days, they called on the command

13     of the Citluk Battalion.  And they asked me, and it was typical for their

14     whole stay in that area of two or three months, they asked me how come

15     they never saw a person in civilian clothes.  For the duration of their

16     stay, they did not see a person in civilian, a woman, a child, or an

17     elderly person.  All persons who were not fit for the army were by that

18     time removed from Citluk, and everyone was moving around wearing military

19     uniforms.  Sometimes it was the uniform of people serving in the civilian

20     protection, sometimes it was a police uniform, but it was always a

21     uniform.

22             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] I'm sorry.  The witness said that

23     it was the period after 4th April 1993, and it was recorded --  I believe

24     that it must be 1992 because that's the year when the witness was in

25     Citluk.

Page 30534

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not sure whether I made a slip

 2     of the tongue or it was recorded inaccurately.  I thought I said 1992.

 3             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Mr. Buntic, do you have some knowledge in

 4     criminology, statistics?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We discussed yesterday a large

 6     number of reports that misdemeanour courts filed, civilian courts filed,

 7     prosecutor's offices filed.  A large number of reports went into

 8     evidence, and they contain all sorts of statistics about cases dealt with

 9     by prosecution offices and tried in various courts.  You will see that

10     there are thousands of cases there.

11             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Yes.  Thank you.

12             Now, are you also aware of studies that establish the percentage

13     of crimes where an author is eventually found, as compared to those where

14     the author remains unknown?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] From statistics, I can agree that

16     the ratio between detected, charged, and convicted persons is

17     considerably lower in this period and the statistics in peacetime.  So,

18     in this period, much fewer perpetrators were detected and tried than in

19     peacetime.

20             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Would you have any figures that established

21     this?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, in principle, I'm talking

23     about pre-war statistics at the level of Yugoslavia.  The number of

24     elucidated cases and identified perpetrators was 75 to 80 per cent, and

25     the number of convictions compared to the number of indictments was also

Page 30535

 1     around 70 per cent.  And I believe it is quite understandable, and it is

 2     not even to be expected, that in times of war when armies came and went

 3     and one war was immediately followed by another and the buildings of

 4     courts were completely destroyed and the number of judges, as you saw on

 5     the example of the municipal court in Mostar, 10 out of 23 judges left --

 6             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Excuse me, Witness.  I did not actually ask for

 7     interpretation and so forth.  What I would finally also like to know is

 8     whether you are aware or whether you have compared these figures with the

 9     figures of other countries?  And, of course, the average is one thing,

10     but normally the investigations differentiate between different kinds of

11     crimes and the elucidation rate differs also very much as to the kind of

12     crime.  What you have told us has sounded very familiar to me.  I also

13     had to do with the criminal prosecutions, where quite a considerable

14     number of offence could not be elucidated, no author was ever found.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't think we had the

16     possibility to compare.  I don't think it was possible to compare that

17     with another state in a state of war.  We could only compare with the

18     statistics maintained by other countries and that Yugoslavia, too, had

19     maintained in other peacetime conditions.  But I'm not aware that anyone

20     in those wins of war could reliably keep such statistics about the number

21     of committed crimes, identified versus unknown perpetrators, and the

22     number of convictions.  I don't know that such statistics exist, and I

23     don't think I could have used them for comparison.  I could only compare

24     to peacetime.  But in the state of war, and as I said one war was

25     immediately followed by another, the comparative method was not of much

Page 30536

 1     use to me.

 2             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you.

 3             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

 4        Q.   I would like to follow-up on what His Honour Judge Trechsel said

 5     concerning statistics and the possibility to prosecute.  We heard

 6     yesterday from you about the shortage of judges, and we saw the example

 7     of the engineer who was misdemeanour magistrate.  We saw that in your

 8     reports.  But what can you tell us about forensic experts, ballistic

 9     experts, medical forensic experts, and other experts that are

10     indispensable for prosecuting the gravest crimes?

11        A.   Ballistic experts, we did not have any in the Croatian Community

12     of Herceg-Bosna.  We did not have a single forensic expert.  We had some

13     medical experts, but we did have a single graphologist in the Croatian

14     Community of Herceg-Bosna.  And in those circumstances, we had no other

15     choice but to ask someone from the Republic of Croatia to come over

16     because we had no physical communication with other parts of the country,

17     and it was impossible to establish such communication.  And the only

18     thing we could do is address a request either to an institution or to an

19     expert personally in the Republic of Croatia.

20        Q.   Thank you.

21             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Can we now call up

22     5D 04153.

23        Q.   It's the last document concerning this case before we move on to

24     the register.  We see from the document that it is a decision of the

25     higher court in Mostar.  Look at the name of the accused, please.

Page 30537

 1        A.   I see it.

 2        Q.   And the name of the injured party on page 2.  Can you confirm

 3     that it is the same person we discussed before?

 4        A.   I see page 1.  I can see that it is a court file by the

 5     designation K.  I see that the accused -- the defendant is an ethnic

 6     Croat.  I just got page 2.

 7        Q.   Let's go back to page 1, para 1, and you will see the name of the

 8     injured party.  You will see it now.  In English, we have the right page.

 9     Look at the sentence beginning:  "On 17th May 1992 ..." and then read the

10     name of the injured party.

11        A.   Yes.  I can see it's the person we discussed before, Mr. Adem

12     Fazlagic, and the defendant is Andrej Zovko.

13             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have in

14     e-court image 2313.  It is part of the KT register of the prosecutor's

15     office in Capljina.  Here it is, the one-but-last.

16        Q.   You can have a look at all of it.  Once you've had a look, can

17     you confirm that it's the same case?

18        A.   Yes.  Obviously, this is a copy of the prosecutor's register,

19     and, obviously, it's the same case, judging by the names of the persons

20     involved, namely, the accused and the injured party, and also the numbers

21     under which they were filed.

22        Q.   Thank you, sir.

23             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Could we please move on

24     to 5D 303482 -- P 03482.

25        Q.   While we're waiting for the document, while everybody's looking

Page 30538

 1     for it, I will say that this is a document of the department for fighting

 2     crime at the military police administration in Mostar dated the 16th of

 3     July, 1993.

 4             It is the record of an interview of a member of the military

 5     police.  In the record of interview --

 6             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] I don't really have to

 7     read it out, everyone can see it in this courtroom.

 8        Q.   In the first paragraph, there is a reference to three persons in

 9     addition to the person being interviewed; namely, three persons who are

10     members of the military police.  And in the second paragraph, in order to

11     protect the identity of the person involved, I'm not going to mention the

12     names, it would be rather indelicate of me.  The injured parties are two

13     persons of the female gender.

14             Sir, please don't give us the names, but tell me, at least as far

15     as one of these female persons is concerned, can we on the basis of her

16     name conclude that she's an ethnic Bosniak, or rather, Muslim?

17        A.   I think that it is with a high degree of probability that that

18     conclusion can be made.

19             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] P 03571 is the next

20     document.  Could we all please look at page 2 of the document first.

21     P 03571.  Here it is.

22        Q.   This is a request of the military police sent to the military

23     police administration on the 18th of July, 1993.  We see from this

24     request that what is requested is that four military policemen be removed

25     from duty because they had committed the crime of rape as well as gross

Page 30539

 1     breaches of military discipline.  Can we confirm that it is evident that

 2     these are the same persons from the previous document?

 3        A.   I can confirm that.

 4             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Can we look at the first

 5     page of this document now, please.

 6        Q.   It is an authorisation issued by the chief of administration of

 7     the military police, Valentin Coric, dated the 19th of July, 1993.  This

 8     is an authorisation to remove from duty those policemen whose names we've

 9     already seen.

10             MR. KHAN:  Your Honour, I apologise.  But at page 30, line 2, the

11     answer of the witness hasn't been properly or fully recorded at this

12     moment.  Perhaps that can be clarified.

13             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation]

14        Q.   Sir, am I not right if I say that earlier on you confirmed to me

15     that the four names were the four names mentioned in the previous

16     document, that these were the same four military policemen?

17        A.   Yes.  That is what I confirmed in my previous answer.

18        Q.   So now I said that we have an authorisation here, and it states

19     inter alia what I have already stated.  And it also says that these

20     persons tarnished the name of the military police, that their further

21     presence in this unit would be detrimental, and that the entire case was

22     submitted to the military prosecutor's office.

23             Sir, you are familiar with military discipline rules.  Is this

24     the right kind of procedure that is to be taken in such a case?

25        A.   I think that this indicates that there was consistent

Page 30540

 1     implementation of the rules on military police discipline, and also these

 2     persons were removed from police duty and criminal proceedings were

 3     instituted against them.  So I see that this authorisation moves in that

 4     direction.

 5        Q.   I would like us to look at 2413 and 2414 of the KT register of

 6     the municipal prosecutor's office in Mostar.  Would you please look at

 7     the last column; the first one is 2413.  I would be interested in the

 8     first rubric.  In it we see VT Mostar KT 265/93.

 9             Can you confirm that this means that the case was transferred to

10     the municipal prosecutor's office in Mostar from the military

11     prosecutor's office, and that in the military prosecutor's office, it was

12     registered under number KT 265/93?

13        A.   VT Mostar would mean military prosecutor's office; whereas, KT

14     obviously shows that it's a prosecutor's file.  The rest is the number of

15     the file.

16             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have a

17     look at the second column.  Could we scroll up a bit so that we see the

18     top of this column, so that we see what it says.  Further on, further on.

19     Yes.  Could you zoom it in.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that that is the column

21     where the persons against whom proceedings are instituted are recorded.

22             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   No.  I am asking about the previous column because I think that

24     that has to do with the authority that is actually bringing the charges,

25     but we can't really see it here.

Page 30541

 1             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Can we go back down

 2     again.

 3        Q.   We see that it says VP in the next column.  Is VP an abbreviation

 4     for the military police?

 5        A.   VP, yes, military police; whereas, VT is military prosecutor.

 6             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] I would like to say for

 7     the record, if anyone challenges this, I would like to ask the Prosecutor

 8     to check what I'm saying now, but we don't really have much time now.  We

 9     don't have the technical facilities, but I think that the column says, at

10     the top, that this is who is bringing the criminal charges against

11     someone so that can be confirmed.

12        Q.   If we're looking at these names, let us look at the fourth column

13     and all the rest that is stated here.  Is it not obvious that this is one

14     of the persons whose names we saw in the previous documents of the

15     military police?

16        A.   Yes, that is one of the persons.

17             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] 2414, could we see that

18     now.

19        Q.   It's the same number.  This is the way it's been dealt with

20     technically.  Please look at the names of the first three persons on the

21     list and the column of the injured party.  So are these the remaining

22     three?

23        A.   It is correct.  Judging by the names, these are the three

24     remaining persons who appeared in the previous document.

25             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would

Page 30542

 1     just like to say for the record that there is image 1828 that I'm not

 2     going to call up now.  That is registry of the district prosecutor's

 3     office in Mostar.  The number is KT 265/93, and that is how it was filed.

 4     We can see on the basis of this register that I showed that it was a case

 5     that was transferred on the basis of both numbers.

 6             Could we please have a look at PD 04172 [as interpreted] -- 5D.

 7     5D 04172.  Have we found it?  Yes.

 8        Q.   This has to do with a criminal complaint of the military police

 9     of Mostar, dated the 16th of June, 1992, against Jelenko Brajkovic for

10     having stolen a motor vehicle.  And in the description of the crime

11     concerned, we see that it is an automobile that was owned by Rent-A-Car

12     Sarajevo.  Can you see that, sir?

13        A.   Yes.

14             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Now I'm going to show a

15     short set of documents in relation to this.  5D 04171.

16        Q.   While the document is being searched, I will say that this is a

17     document of the district military prosecutor's office in Mostar.  Let us

18     remember the number, KT 40/92; and the date is the 5th of January, 1993.

19     This is a request to conduct an investigation sent to the district

20     military court in Mostar to the investigating judge.

21             Tell us, sir, when we look at this request and the name of the

22     accused person and the name of the injured party, is it one and the same

23     case?

24        A.   On the basis of the KT number, 40/92, it is obvious that it is a

25     prosecutor's file.  It is obvious from the request itself that it

Page 30543

 1     involves the persons that we have already mentioned.

 2             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] 5D 04170, please.

 3        Q.   This is a document of the district military court in Mostar,

 4     KI 90/93.  This is a ruling on conducting an investigation, dated the

 5     9th of April, 1993.  Now I have a few questions in relation to this

 6     document.

 7             Tell us, KI, that is an investigative file, right?

 8        A.   A court investigative file; that is to say, in the investigations

 9     stage.

10        Q.   We see the name and surname of the judge down here.  Is the judge

11     an ethnic Bosniak?

12        A.   Yes.  That was an investigating judge of the then-court in

13     Mostar.  I know him personally, Husnija Sabljic.

14        Q.   On the basis of the information about the suspect and the injured

15     party, is it one and the same case?

16        A.   Yes, Jelenko Brajkovic, the suspect we already discussed.  And

17     the company concerned is the Rent-A-Car company, and I can confirm that

18     it is the case you said.

19             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Can we display 1627,

20     KT register of the district court in Mostar.  We have that KT number,

21     40/92.  Yes, here it is; the first person, the first column.

22        Q.   Can you look at the information there.  Here, it is more legible.

23     You see what it says here:  "Who is bringing the charges" and the rest.

24     Can you confirm that it's the -- it's one and the same case?

25        A.   Yes, I can confirm that.

Page 30544

 1             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would

 2     like to ask how much time I have left so that I see what else I'm going

 3     to show as far as these documents are concerned.  I don't know whether

 4     I'll have enough time.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The registrar has just told me

 6     that you've used 45 minutes.

 7             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, could we

 8     have a break now so that I can organize my documents?  I would just like

 9     to say that the Trial Chamber that I have some documents that are

10     extremely important.  This is a document against a member of security in

11     Dretelj.  It has to do with the theft of money, and also a few other

12     important things like attack against civilians of Bosniak ethnicity in

13     Mostar, a typical case.  And we've heard about such things in this

14     courtroom.

15             I would like to go through these documents because I believe that

16     would be in everyone's interest; and, finally, I don't mind having it

17     taken away from my time ultimately because all of this is moving far

18     slower than I thought it would.

19             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You had been granted 45 minutes

20     by a decision taken by the Trial Chamber by a majority.  You've used

21     these 45 minutes.  Now you may use additional time if you like, but it

22     will be deducted from your overall time.  So it's not a problem.

23             We'll have a 20-minute break because in any case the time had

24     come to take the break.

25                           --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.

Page 30545

 1                           --- On resuming at 10.50 a.m.

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] First of all, Mr. Registrar,

 3     let me give you the floor because you have two IC numbers for us.

 4             THE REGISTRAR:  Yes, Your Honour, actually it's a rectification

 5     of the two IC numbers that were given yesterday.

 6             The first map referring to the district of Mostar shall be given

 7     Exhibit Number IC 00825, and the second map referring to Livno shall be

 8     given Exhibit Number IC 00826, instead of 826 and 827, as referred to in

 9     the record yesterday.

10             Thank you, Your Honours.

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

12             Can we move into private session for a few moments.

13                           [Private session]

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 30546

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11                           [Open session]

12             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we're back in open session.

13             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

14             You may proceed, Counsel.

15             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

16             During the break, we produced two copies -- before the break, we

17     dealt with -- before the break, we dealt with two examples, and now I'd

18     like to call up 5D 04164.  The reason I'm asking for this document, apart

19     from comparing it with the register, is that it will answer the question

20     of the President concerning the abandonment of criminal proceedings.

21        Q.   Here, we have the document.  It's a criminal report of the crime

22     prevention department from the military police administration, Mostar

23     division, dated 22 July 1993, filed against Stanko Zelenika.  We see in

24     the personal details of this person that it was a member of the 2nd

25     Brigade.  He is charged with aggravated robbery, aggravated theft.  The

Page 30547

 1     report was filed under number KT 5/93.  Can you see it, sir?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Can I call up now

 4     5D 04179.

 5        Q.   This is a request to conduct an investigation filed to the

 6     district military court.  We see the same number, KT 588/93; and on the

 7     stamp of receipt of the military court, it was filed under KI 118/93.

 8             Can you agree that it's the same case?

 9        A.   What I see before me is a document under number KT 588/93.  I

10     don't think -- I'm not sure.  Is that the same document?  It's a request

11     to conduct an investigation, correct, but what I see on the screen is the

12     document of the district military prosecutor's office in Mostar on the

13     3rd August 1993 under number KT 588/93.

14        Q.   Correct, correct.  And then the second number that I mentioned of

15     the military court written in hand is on the stamp?

16        A.   Okay.  I see it.

17             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at the

18     third paragraph starting with the words:  "Perpetrated the criminal

19     offence from Article 150 ..."

20             And can we now look at the last page, it's also in the second

21     page, points 1, 2, and 3.  Under point 2, we see the names of persons who

22     need to be interviewed as witnesses in the case.  Turn to page 2 so that

23     the gentleman can see it.  We see the English, and now we see the

24     Croatian as well.

25        Q.   Tell me, the persons in item 2, Hadzo Brkic and Hidzad

Page 30548

 1     Hadziomerovic, are they Bosniaks?

 2        A.   Judging by the names, it is very likely that they are Bosniaks.

 3             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at

 4     5D 04178.  It's a decision to conduct an investigation from the district

 5     military court in Mostar.

 6        Q.   We have that number KI that was handwritten on the previous

 7     document, KI 118/93.  Can you confirm it's the same case?

 8        A.   Evidently, it is a document of the district military prosecutor's

 9     office.  It's a case in the phase of investigation, KI 118/93; and,

10     obviously, it is about the same person.

11             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at

12     5D 04175.  This is a document with the same number, KI 118/93, document

13     of the district military court in Mostar.

14        Q.   It's a decision, a ruling, terminating investigation against the

15     accused.  And the second paragraph after the word "ruling" is what my

16     colleague Ms. Nozica emphasized in response to the question by President

17     Antonetti.  It says:  "The injured party may within eight days of

18     receiving notification continue the criminal prosecution of the accused

19     by submitting a request doctor facial investigation or filing an

20     indictment."

21             And then we have a sentence stating that appeal is allowed before

22     the appeals chamber.  First of all, tell me, do you think it is about the

23     same case; and, second, is this an example of abandoning the charges?

24     That's the question asked earlier by the Trial Chamber.

25        A.   From the number of this file, KI 118/93, and from the text of

Page 30549

 1     this ruling, it is obvious that it is the same case.  That's the answer

 2     to your first question.  And, second, item 2 of this ruling indicates the

 3     legal right of the injured party that in case of termination of

 4     prosecution, he can continue the prosecution himself by submitting a

 5     request for additional investigation or by raising an indictment.  Those

 6     were the two legal possibilities at the disposal of the injured party.

 7     We see from the body of the ruling, I believe that it was taken according

 8     to the law prevailing then.

 9             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Can we scroll down a

10     little to see the bottom of the page.

11        Q.   In English, it's obviously on page 2; but in Croatian, you can

12     see in the left bottom corner, legal relief, legal recourse.

13        A.   I can see it.  It is the right that I just described, and the

14     appeal should be lodged with the chamber.

15             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] I thought Judge Trechsel

16     had a question.

17             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Yes, at least before you leave the document, but

18     I don't want to interrupt unnecessarily and prematurely.  Are you done?

19             Then I would like to refer to the last paragraph on the English

20     page which should be rolled down.  Up again a little bit or down.  Yes,

21     the last paragraph.

22             This is a paragraph giving the reasons for the decision not to

23     prosecute, and it is not a substantive reasoning given here but a

24     referral to the decision of the public prosecutor.  It was a public

25     prosecutor who decided not to proceed, and the judge seems to be

Page 30550

 1     rubber-stamping this, which may be perfectly all right, I'm not

 2     criticising.

 3             But, Mr. Buntic, somewhere are there reasons for the decision?

 4     Can the victim know why the decision not to prosecute was taken?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As you probably -- I mean, you

 6     probably know what I know.  To comment on the legality of a judicial

 7     decision is very difficult.  It's difficult to comment on the reasons.

 8     Its legality is hinged on the legal remedies, and the second-instance

 9     court decides on it.  If the higher instance finds that the statement of

10     reasons is not well explained or well grounded, then it would be a

11     violation of the appeals procedure.  Therefore, if the injured party

12     considers that the reasons given are not clear enough or that they are

13     contrary to the ruling, then it would be a violation of the criminal --

14     it would be a violation of the proceedings -- of due process.

15             And in that case, he would file an appeal and the appeal would be

16     decided by the appeals chamber, by a higher-instance court, composed of

17     three judges.  So the party does have a legal recourse, or take over the

18     prosecution himself or herself.

19             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  You have told us that.  I reiterate, I'm not

20     criticising.  I'm just trying to get all the facts, and let me put it in

21     another way or slightly different questions.  Did the victim in this case

22     normally have a copy of the decision of the public prosecutor's office

23     not to prosecute; and if so, would that decision contain a short summary

24     of what was attempted with the resultant reasons why no prospect is seen

25     in going on with the investigation?

Page 30551

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my opinion, that's how I read

 2     this statement of reasons, is that it does not deviate from standard

 3     statements of reason given in similar cases.

 4             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you.

 5             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation]

 6        Q.   If I may be of assistance to Judge Trechsel, can you tell me,

 7     sir, do you know if the injured party had to have the right to seek

 8     information from the prosecutor and be informed of the file?

 9        A.   Maybe I wasn't clear enough.  His legal recourse -- his right to

10     legal recourse starts only from the day when the ruling is made, and

11     there is a dead-line of three days from receipt of the ruling and that is

12     the time within which he had the right to file a request for additional

13     investigation or take the prosecution upon himself through a lawyer or

14     himself.  Those were the two possibilities.

15             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at image

16     1869, please.

17             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Maybe just a small point.  You have said or it

18     is recorded here that there was a dead-line of three days from receipt of

19     the ruling for further steps to be taken by the victim; whereas, in the

20     document before us, the second paragraph of the part entitled "Ruling"

21     speaks of a time-limit of "within eight days."

22             Was it a slip of the tongue of yours when you said three days?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.  It was not a slip of the

24     tongue.  He could lodge an appeal within three days, and within eight

25     days he could start a prosecution himself by bringing an indictment or

Page 30552

 1     filing a request for additional investigation.

 2             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you.

 3             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] I asked for image 1869.

 4     It's an extract from the KT register of the district military court in

 5     Mostar.

 6        Q.   We see somewhere towards the middle of the screen the name of the

 7     person.  In the second -- it's, in fact, the fourth column that the

 8     filing party is the administration in Mostar and the defendant is Stanko

 9     Zelenika.  Do you agree it's the same person we've discussed before?

10        A.   We see the information from the second and fourth columns.  From

11     the first column, we see that it's the administration of the military

12     police that files the report, and the defendant is, indeed, the same.

13             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] 5D 04194, please.  It's a

14     request to carry out an investigation from the district military

15     prosecutor's office in Mostar, number KT 1033/93, dated 22 August 1993.

16             5D 04196.  Here it is.

17        Q.   We see the name of the defendant under para 1 and para 2 on

18     page 1.  We see the names of the injured parties.  Are they Bosniaks?  We

19     see a few members of the Becirevic family and a few members of the Kajtaz

20     family.

21        A.   On the basis of these last names, I can say with a high degree of

22     probability that they are Muslims, Bosniaks.  As for the name and surname

23     of the person against whom this request was filed, I can also say with a

24     great degree of probability that it is an ethnic Croat.

25             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Could we please display

Page 30553

 1     page 2 now, and could we all pay attention to the paragraph above the

 2     words:  "I propose."

 3        Q.   We see here that it has to do with a crime of murder and the

 4     crime of rape.  Do you see that, sir?

 5        A.   I do.

 6             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Could we please move on

 7     to the next document now, 5D 04215.

 8        Q.   This is a document of the district military court in Mostar.  The

 9     number is KI 122/93, dated the 23rd of August, 1993.  This is a decision

10     to open an investigation.  As we look at this document, sir, can we agree

11     that it is a decision that was made on the basis of the request that was

12     the previous document?

13        A.   I can confirm that on the basis of the number of the file and the

14     names of the persons that this decision pertains to.  It is obvious that

15     it is the same case.

16        Q.   I think that this is going to be an answer to His Honour Judge

17     Trechsel's question.

18             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Could we please look at

19     5D 0461 -- 4160, please.

20        Q.   This is a document of the district military prosecutor's office,

21     and it is dated the 15th of October, 1993, and the KT number is 1033/93,

22     and it is entitled "Official Note."

23             In the first sentence of this document, it is stated that:  "Upon

24     completing the investigation against Vedran Bijuk, the decision is made

25     not to pursue the matter further due to lack of evidence."

Page 30554

 1             In the next two paragraphs, the reasons for this are stated; and

 2     in the last sentence it is stated, I quote:  "Because of the above, I

 3     have decided not to proceed with criminal prosecution of the accused

 4     Vedran Bijuk."

 5             Can we agree that it is the same case, and the same proceedings,

 6     the same names that we showed in the previous documents?

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment.  There is a small

 8     problem.  This is a public document.  The name of an individual is

 9     mentioned therein.  Maybe this person was a victim of a crime.  I'm going

10     to ask the registrar to redact this part of the document.

11                           [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So, yes, it's not been

13     broadcast outside this courtroom.  That's fine.

14             Please proceed.

15             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation]

16        Q.   I repeat the question.  Do you agree with me that it is one and

17     the same case in relation to the previous documents that we showed about

18     the investigation?

19        A.   On the basis of the name of the person against whom this

20     investigation was initiated and also in respect of the injured parties'

21     names, obviously it's the same.

22             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] 1957, please.  Again,

23     this is an extract from the Mostar office.  Let us just have this

24     enlarged.  Here it is.

25        Q.   The third one from the top, we see again it is the military

Page 30555

 1     police administration.  Bijuk Vedran, nickname Splico, that's the name of

 2     the accused.  Can we agree that it is precisely the records of the case

 3     that we have just discussed?

 4        A.   Obviously, it's one and the same case.

 5             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Could we please now move

 6     on to document 5D 0 --

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment.  I have a technical

 8     question.  Regarding this case, Bijuk, I noted that in the original

 9     document for the criminal report we have his name, it is indicated that

10     he is from the Republic of Croatia.  But curiously enough his military

11     unit is not mentioned; however, it is the military prosecutor that is now

12     here prosecuting.  Normally he prosecutes somebody who is a military, a

13     serviceman; otherwise, it would be a civilian prosecutor.

14             Why is the military unit not mentioned?  Do you have an

15     explanation for that in case you know?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Like here, the court or the

17     prosecutor, when initiating proceedings, takes personal details.  And I

18     think that we saw from the previous documents that the name and surname

19     and date of birth are registered, as well as the address and nationality

20     of the persons involved.  In everyday court practice, the name of the

21     unit was recorded as well.  Since this is a military court and the

22     district military prosecutor, I think that the name of the unit should

23     have been referred to as well, the name of the unit that he belonged to.

24     However, I see that it is not designated.  I cannot go into the reasons

25     for that.  I would engage in speculation, or rather, guess-work which I

Page 30556

 1     think would not -- would not be good.

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

 3             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Could we please call up

 4     in e-court 5D 04248.  This is a criminal report.

 5             I do apologise, but I'm afraid that the honourable President of

 6     the Trial Chamber hasn't switched off his microphone.  Now it is fine.  I

 7     heard it in my headphones.

 8             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'm so sorry.  I had turned it

 9     off.  I'm not the culprit this time.

10             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   We have a criminal report of the crime prevention department of

12     the military police administration Mostar section.  The 19th of August,

13     1993, is the date.  It was submitted to the military -- district military

14     prosecutor in Mostar.  We have the delivery stamp that it was received;

15     that is, KT 1116/93 is there as the number.  We also see the date.  We

16     see that the criminal report was filed against a person by the name of

17     Milenko Kordic, a member of the HVO, and the crime involved is murder.

18             I would like us to look at page 3 of this document.  This is an

19     attachment accompanying this criminal report, and it has to do with a

20     statement of a person in relation to this case.  Could we please remember

21     this.  I have a reason for showing this.

22             In the second paragraph, this person says that the suspect told

23     her that he took some Muslims out, killed them, and threw them into the

24     Neretva River.  Please remember this sentence before we move on to the

25     next document.

Page 30557

 1             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Now I'd like to call up

 2     document 5D 04255.

 3        Q.   Again, this is a documents of the military police administration

 4     sent to the district military court in Mostar.  It's dated the 24th of

 5     August, 1993, and we see the stamp showing that it was received and we

 6     see that an official note is being enclosed with the document.

 7             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] We will see the official

 8     note if we look at the next page, so could that be done, please.

 9        Q.   It says here that the military police officer in charge came to

10     realize that the suspect took out and killed a person of Muslim

11     ethnicity.  We see that from the text.

12             Sir, am I right if I conclude that in this case the military

13     police, after having handed over the case to the military prosecutor,

14     since it obtained new knowledge, they provided this additional knowledge

15     in terms of the possible crimes that this person had committed?

16        A.   From the text of this official note, it is obvious that this is

17     in addition to the already filed criminal report, after new knowledge was

18     gained after the criminal report had been filed.

19             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Could we now look at

20     document 5D 04247.

21        Q.   It is an indictment of the district prosecutor's office in

22     Mostar.  The KT number is 1116/93.  The date is the 27th of September,

23     1993.  We see in the upper right-hand corner the stamp of the district

24     military court in Mostar, showing that the document had been received.

25             On the basis of the name and the date, can we conclude that it is

Page 30558

 1     one and the same case and that it has to do with the documents that we

 2     have seen previously?

 3        A.   Yes.  The number of the file, both in the court and in the

 4     prosecutor's office, and the names of the persons involved or charged.

 5     It is obvious that it's the same case.

 6             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Could we now show 1965.

 7     Here it is.

 8        Q.   We can see somewhere around the middle of the screen, the

 9     military police administration is Milenko Kordic.  Do you agree with me

10     that that is a record of this case?

11        A.   I agree.

12             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Could we move on to the

13     next document, 5D 04181.

14        Q.   Again, it is a criminal report, this time of the Capljina

15     division; and the date is the 7th of September, 1993.  The criminal

16     complaint is being filed against Veselko Kozina.

17             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Could we all have a look

18     at the second page of this document.

19        Q.   We see here that the criminal complaint is filed against Veselko

20     Kozina; and in the statement of reasons, we see that the crime involved

21     relates to Article 226 and that is overstepping authority.  And we see

22     that in both cases it had to do with taking money away from detainees in

23     Dretelj, with the cooperation of a detainee named Trebinjac.

24             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] I highlight the name

25     because we heard the name several times during the Prosecution case, and

Page 30559

 1     I think that everyone in this courtroom is familiar with it.

 2             Could we now look at document 5D 04182.

 3        Q.   This is a request to carry out an investigation, and the number

 4     is KT 1556/93.  The date is the 24th of September, 1993, and this is

 5     being filed with the district military court in Mostar.

 6             Sir, as we look at this document, can you agree with me that it

 7     is one and the same case in terms of the previous document?

 8        A.   On the basis of the name of the person against whom the

 9     investigation is required, we see that it is the same case and it has

10     reached the second stage; namely, this is a request for investigation.

11             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Could we now see 2010.

12     We see it now, the name.  Can we scroll down a little because we need to

13     see that the filing party is the same.  So we need to see who it was

14     filed by, the military police of Capljina.

15        Q.   And when we look lower down, we see the name of the accused.  Do

16     we agree that this is the record of the case at the prosecutor's office?

17        A.   We see from the name of the person filing the report and the name

18     of the accused that it's the same case, and from the personal details.

19             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Can we now move to

20     5D 04183.

21        Q.   It's a document of the higher public prosecutor's office in

22     Mostar -- in fact, a document of the district military prosecutor's

23     office sent to the higher public prosecutor's office.  Number is

24     KT 2789/93, and the date is 9 December 1993.  We see the number under

25     which it was received, KT 57/93, received on the same day.

Page 30560

 1             Let us clarify this.  The higher public prosecutor's office is a

 2     civilian prosecution office?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   The suspect -- in fact, the accused is Bozidar Skobic and the

 5     crime is robbery.  And in paragraph 2, we see the reason why this case is

 6     deferred; namely, that the accused is relieved of compulsory military

 7     duty in view of his sickness.  Can you confirm that in this case the

 8     civilian court is competent?

 9        A.   From the statement of reasons, we see that this person is

10     relieved of military duty, which means demobilised, and turned into a

11     civilian.  So the military prosecutor's office and the district military

12     court are no longer in charge; it is the civilian courts and civilian

13     prosecutors who are in charge.

14             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Can we look at page 3

15     both in English and this Croatian.

16        Q.   In the description of the offence, we see the name of one more

17     person.  Do you agree it is a Bosniak person who is the injured party?

18        A.   With a high degree of probability.

19             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at

20     image 1223.  It is, again, the register of the district military

21     prosecutor's office, report filed by the military police, and the name of

22     the person is Bozidar Skobic.

23        Q.   Can you identify this as the same case?

24        A.   Obviously, yes.  We can see that from the name of the person and

25     his personal details.

Page 30561

 1        Q.   We'll now deal with the last example regarding the register.

 2             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Excuse me.

 3             Mr. Buntic, you have said that one of the persons mentioned on

 4     page 3 of this document was of Muslim ethnicity, or religion, rather,

 5     actually.  Could you identify which name you meant?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said with a high degree of

 7     probability.  It's impossible to be 100 per cent sure.  But judging by

 8     the name of the person that I saw on the screen --

 9             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Which name?  Which name, please?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I no longer see it on the

11     screen.  I can't remember.

12             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Can we turn to the

13     previous page, 5D 04183.  There are three names.  You had the third page

14     a moment ago.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think the name was Sadi.

16             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation].

17        Q.   Is that the name in line 4?

18        A.   Yes.  I think what is written here as "Saji" is wrong; it's

19     probably "Sadi."  I think Saji could be wrong possibly.  But in both

20     cases, whichever it is, Saji, Sadi, I said with a high degree of

21     probability it's a Bosniak.  It's not advisable to state something with a

22     hundred per cent certainty.

23             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Would that also be deduced from the family name?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, not the family name.

25             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you.

Page 30562

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Saji could be also Saja.  The

 2     family name does not sound Bosniak, but the first name could be.

 3             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at

 4     P 07846.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before we proceed, let me tell

 6     you that you've already used 30 additional minutes on top of the 45

 7     minutes initially granted.

 8             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

 9     I'm aware of that.  But I believe this is important, and I don't mind if

10     it is deducted from my time later.  I think we are actually saving time

11     by dealing with this.

12             Let's move on to the next document regarding registers, P 07846.

13     We have it on the screen.

14        Q.   It's a criminal report of the 1st Military Police Battalion,

15     crime prevention military police, sent to the military state prosecutor

16     in Mostar concerning a person named Zeljko Silic.

17             What is of interest to me in this document is on page 2.  We have

18     the legal qualification of criminal acts charged at this person:  The

19     crime of causing public danger.  We see that the accused had entered the

20     apartment of the injured party, Tidza Hadrovic, and set certain items on

21     fire.

22             Do you agree that this is again a Bosniak injured party?

23        A.   Again, I would have to state that it is so with a high degree of

24     probability, judging by both the first and last names.

25        Q.   The second crime is racial and other discrimination.  We see that

Page 30563

 1     it is governed by Article 154 in the penal code of the former Socialist

 2     Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.  We see the name of the street, that the

 3     used mistreated occupants of the residential building in that street,

 4     driven them out from their apartments, addressed slurs to them, insulted

 5     them, and threatened.  When you spoke about this article of the penal

 6     code of the SFRY, did you mean this crime as well?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   The third crime is security breach pursuant to Article 55 of the

 9     law of -- of the penal code of Bosnia and Herzegovina.  The same accused

10     threatening the life and limb of a Muslim citizen caused great and

11     serious unrest among the citizens.  And the fourth crime is the violation

12     of the integrity of an apartment, Article 56, the name of the street is

13     the same, everything happened in the same street.  The person -- the

14     accused kicked in doors and entered apartments.

15             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] And regarding this

16     document, can we look at image 1264.

17        Q.   It's the same register.  We see the name of the person.  Report

18     filed by the 1st Military Police Battalion.

19             Can we agree that this is the record of this file?

20        A.   Yes, I can confirm that.

21        Q.   I'd like to ask you two or three questions in conclusion.

22             Sir, on the basis of the registers and the documents we've seen,

23     it is evident that the crimes, although committed during the war and

24     although they may have been qualified as crimes against humanity and a

25     war crime, were actually qualified as regular crimes, rape, robbery,

Page 30564

 1     et cetera.  Do you know the reason for that?

 2        A.   From the documents we've seen, each one of them specifies the

 3     crime for which proceedings are instituted.  It is clearly specified in

 4     each case.  Why proceedings were not instituted for war crimes, well

 5     that's mostly up to the prosecutor because it is the prosecutor who

 6     assigns a legal qualification to each offence.  We see that in most cases

 7     the criminal report was filed by the military police, describing the

 8     reasons why the report is filed, and it is up to the prosecutor to

 9     qualify the crime.  It is within his powers.

10             In my opinion of the examples we've seen - and I repeat - we

11     should not even go into why the prosecutor chose the particular

12     qualifications that he did.  It is his privilege.  He has the right to

13     qualify the crime in such a way as to have all the elements necessary for

14     that conversation.  I haven't commented and don't want to comment on why

15     the prosecutor selected the particular qualifications.

16             But as we've seen from the documents and as the penal code

17     stipulates, both the federal and the republic penal code, injured parties

18     had various options and legal remedies.  In any case, a dissatisfied

19     party could take various legal recourse:  Appeal or start their own

20     prosecution.  All the legal recourse that existed in peacetime existed

21     also in wartime and in the state of immediate threat of war.

22             So nobody was derived of their legal recourse.  Legal recourse

23     existed throughout the state of war and the state of immediate threat of

24     war.

25        Q.   Mr. Buntic, over the past few days, we've discussed this subject

Page 30565

 1     and you presented us with a whole series of problems that the prosecution

 2     and the judiciary faced in their work.  I would like to ask you something

 3     more.

 4             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] But, first, we should

 5     look at 1D 02006 [Realtime transcript read in error "1D 02016"].

 6        Q.   I'd like to ask you some more about the judiciary and the

 7     prosecution.  It's a document that Branko Kvesic, the chief of the

 8     department on internal affairs, sends to the Capljina municipal HVO, and

 9     the subject is some important --

10             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] I asked for document

11     1D 02006.

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes.  There was an error in the

13     transcript.

14             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] 2006.  There it is.  It's

15     a report on the engagement of civilian police in carrying out combat

16     tasks and the possibility of troop rotation.

17             I'd like to see page 2 in both English and Croatian, the last

18     paragraph but one, the second sentence.

19        Q.   "It is common knowledge that in our area, the state of public law

20     and order and the incidence of crime is very complex indeed," and then

21     various crimes are enumerated, and it says it all false within the

22     jurisdiction of the civilian police.

23             We can skip one sentence, and it says:  "With this report, we

24     only wish to draw attention to the fact that so many of our policemen are

25     currently engaged on other tasks that we do not have enough strength to

Page 30566

 1     undertake any serious work in the sphere of security."

 2             And the last sentence says:  "All the above observations

 3     represent serious difficulties in our work, and we believe that they

 4     should be considered more seriously so that solutions be found in the

 5     most responsible manner."

 6             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] I'd like to show one more

 7     document and then ask my final question.  P 05471.

 8        Q.   It's from the chief of the military police department of the

 9     29th September 1993.  The subject is the same as in the previous

10     document, and it says:  "Request to reconsider the engagement of the

11     military police units on front lines."

12             The first paragraph states that due to the intensive and

13     continuous engagement of military police units on front lines, the

14     military police is unable to perform its regular work.  And on page 2,

15     there is a reference to increased incidence of terror and crime, and it

16     is said that after being assigned the front lines, the military police

17     are no longer able to perform even their regular work, let alone more

18     complex interventions.

19             Tell me, sir, were you familiar with this problem of the military

20     and civilian police forces, that they were engaged on front lines and

21     that that prevented them from their regular law enforcement work?

22        A.   I know that this was sometimes discussed even at the sessions of

23     the Croatian Defence Council.  This burden and workload brought on by the

24     war in terms of assigning military and civilian policemen to the front

25     line caused fatigue, exhaustion.  They were engaged first in the war with

Page 30567

 1     the Yugoslav People's Army and, later, with the Bosniak Muslim side.  All

 2     this required the engagement of policemen on the battle-field, and it was

 3     often discussed how justified it was.  And how possible it was to spare

 4     them from this, I don't know.

 5             So I don't think it's a question that I could give you a

 6     qualified or precise answer to, apart from saying that I know that the

 7     military police, and a little less frequently the civilian police, were

 8     assigned, indeed, to certain front lines.

 9        Q.   And my final question.  We have seen all these documents that I

10     showed you, and I showed them to you just by way of illustration because

11     unfortunately we don't have enough time to show each and every case file

12     from the prosecutor's office, either civilian or the military.

13             And when we look at all the problems that you've been discussing

14     over the past few days and in terms of the knowledge you had at the time,

15     can you tell me whether there was an intention that you were aware of,

16     either among the prosecution offices or the judiciary organs, to evade

17     prosecution of crimes committed against ethnic Bosniaks and punishment of

18     such crimes?

19        A.   On the basis of what I know, both the civilian and the military

20     police took measures to the best of their ability under the circumstances

21     that they were in then, in order to discover who the perpetrators of

22     crimes were and to file criminal complaints against them.  We saw on the

23     basis of these illustrations presented in court today that efforts were

24     made to that end, and that ethnic Croats were charged for committing

25     crimes against Bosniak or Muslim persons.

Page 30568

 1             It is, obvious on the basis of the examples shown.  Also, in the

 2     proceedings before the prosecutor's offices and the courts of the HZ HB,

 3     it is obvious that there were proceedings of this kind with different

 4     outcomes.  There were different outcomes, and there were decisions taken

 5     by courts.

 6             I do not wish to make any comments here in that respect because

 7     there is legal relief or legal recourse on the basis of the law, and no

 8     one was denied this kind of relief during the state of imminent threat of

 9     war or during the state of war.  That is to say, there were no

10     restrictions involved in terms of restricting human rights and the

11     instruments safe-guarding these rights; rather, all the instruments for

12     protecting human rights that existed in peacetime existed during the

13     state of war as well.

14             I'm not aware of any one of the prosecutors or judges being

15     negligent in their duties or carrying them out unconscientiously or

16     irresponsibly to the detriment of one of the peoples in

17     Bosnia-Herzegovina.  On the basis of the cases we saw today, we saw that

18     as prosecutors and as judges in these proceedings, prosecutors and judges

19     who were ethnic Croats and ethnic Bosniaks participated.  This is

20     tellingly demonstrated in the cases we saw today.

21        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Buntic.

22             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

23     This concludes my questions.

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I have a follow-up question,

25     Witness, with respect to this last document, 5D 25006 [as interpreted],

Page 30569

 1     from the 2nd of September, 1993.  It gives us an overview of the

 2     situation.  And according to this document, the 1st Company of the

 3     military police is made up of 120 men.  Apparently, 60 of these men are

 4     taking part in combat operations.  There appear to be 120 soldiers on the

 5     ground.  Out of these 120 soldiers, some of them must be on leave, sick,

 6     or others may be sleeping.  In other words, there are very view military

 7     police members on the ground, very few of them.

 8             In this document, we have no information about the number of

 9     civilian police members, but we find that they are in combat zone

10     operations as well.  Considering the crime rate that was rising - and

11     this has been demonstrated by all the documents shown by the Defence - we

12     saw that crimes were committed in some cases by service men.  As far as

13     you were concerned as part of your duties at your level, was this problem

14     considered, was it mentioned, and were measures taken; or was it

15     impossible to take any measures considering the circumstances,

16     considering the situation at the time?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the previous answer, perhaps I

18     did not say clearly enough that I did know that units of the military

19     police were used at war positions to a higher degree.  I also know that

20     civilian police units were used at the front line to a lesser degree;

21     that is to say, that this was not something that was unknown.  This was

22     frequently the case as far as the military police is concerned; and as I

23     already said, this question was discussed at HVO meetings several times

24     and requests were being made to use them as little as possible.

25             However, in view of the situation on the front line, or rather,

Page 30570

 1     during the war, it was such, and I imagine that the Court here did hear

 2     about the developments at the time.  So, if I were to go back to that, I

 3     can say that the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina in effect started in September

 4     1991; so not in April 1992, but rather on the 19th of September, 1991.

 5             So we had a situation in which individual municipalities would

 6     oppose perhaps the third- or fourth-largest military force in the world

 7     at the time.  It is probably clear to the Court that that situation went

 8     on sometime until the summer of 1992; that is to say, this period of

 9     intensive conflict.  Also, there was a lull from the summer of 1992 until

10     the spring of 1993, when the conflict broke out between the Croats and

11     the Bosniaks.

12             Throughout this time - I believe that the Court is aware of that

13     as well - the Croats in Central Bosnia were fully surrounded.  There was

14     a war breaking out throughout Herzegovina, if I can put it that way.  It

15     is certain that at that moment, it was more important - and I think

16     that's quite understandable to the Court and to the Prosecutor I hope as

17     well - to save human lives.  Many people were being killed on a daily

18     basis.

19             As this administrative work was carried out - as I said, they

20     were under the jurisdiction of the civilian and military police - the

21     filing of criminal complaints was considered to be something that was not

22     the primary or the most important objective at hand.  The rest was

23     considered to be more urgent and more important.  The former could not be

24     postponed; whereas, there was sufficient time for the latter; namely,

25     that criminal complaints could be filed after some time had elapsed.

Page 30571

 1     However, if the front line were to fall, then there would be no

 2     possibility of filing any kind of criminal charges.  So if the first

 3     thing had happened then the second could never have happened.

 4             Things were done the way they were done.  However, as combat

 5     intensity went down, as we can see here, the head of the military police,

 6     or the head of the interior, submitted requests or proposals to the HVO

 7     to have certain units or certain number of men withdrawn from the front

 8     line and be given the duty to carry out their other tasks; that is to say

 9     to find perpetrators of crimes, file criminal complaints, and collect all

10     possible information so that the prosecutor's offices could issue

11     indictments and investigating judges investigate.

12             At that point in time and now, I state that they carried out

13     their work conscientiously to the degree possible at the time.  There was

14     never an intention or objective not to file criminal complaints against

15     Croats, or rather, there were no intentional efforts made to jeopardize

16     the members of the other ethnic group in any way.

17             We see here that charges were being brought against Croats and

18     terms of crimes that were committed against ethnic Bosniaks.  There were

19     also examples of investigations carried out after that and indictments

20     issued.  We see that prosecutors and judges were Bosniaks as well.  I

21     would not comment on judgements.  They are judgements after all, and

22     there was relieve for the protection of human rights as regulated by the

23     then-legislation of Bosnia-Herzegovina that was not reduced in any way by

24     the decision made by the HZ HB.

25             Your Honours, I don't know whether I've answered the question,

Page 30572

 1     but that was my understanding of it.  I don't know whether it was put in

 2     this way, too.

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  We are now going to

 4     move on to another Defence team.  The Coric Defence has used 95 minutes

 5     in total.

 6             Next Defence team, Mr. Ibrisimovic.

 7             MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.  I

 8     won't have too many questions for this witness, and we are going to move

 9     within the time that you have granted to us.

10             Actually, I'd like to say hello to Mr. Buntic, and to say that

11     I'm going to deal with the subject that he dealt with Mr. Karnavas

12     yesterday; and Mr. Buntic and I discussed the same subject a few days

13     ago, if you remember, Mr. Buntic.

14             I would just like to use three documents that are already

15     exhibits.  So with your leave, I would like to have these documents given

16     to the witness as well as to the Trial Chamber.  I would kindly ask the

17     usher to assist me in this regard.

18             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  If I may use the time to put a question to you.

19     You said you've spoken about this with the witness.  Did you - as the

20     jargon of the court is - proof him?

21             MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, we can put it that way.

22     I informed Mr. Karnavas, Mr. Prlic's Defence, that I wished to see this

23     witness.  I thought that was my legitimate right.  I think that last

24     Thursday we had a brief meeting, about half an hour long, about some

25     topics that I was interested in.  The witness can confirm that, it's no

Page 30573

 1     secret, and this will be presented during the Defence case.

 2             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you.  This raises in me the question

 3     whether your interrogation will not be direct then, rather than typically

 4     cross-examination; would you agree?

 5             MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, I will agree in part

 6     because I am going to move within the framework of Mr. Karnavas's direct

 7     examination.  I'm not going beyond what happened in this courtroom over

 8     the past few days.

 9             MR. KARNAVAS:  If I may, if I may, Your Honour, because I'm going

10     to be going after the -- after we finish, we're going to be

11     cross-examining.  It's my understanding in our system, which is also

12     applied here, that neither party, neither party, is prevented from

13     meeting witnesses of the other party even prior to taking the stand.

14     Nothing prevented me from meeting with Prosecution witnesses.  In fact,

15     on one occasion, I met with their expert.  Of course, it was with their

16     knowledge.  And that didn't mean when I stood up I was doing direct

17     examination.  It has to go to the topic.

18             So I would not want to say we have a fast and hard rule that if

19     you meet with somebody else's witness, then that witness becomes your

20     witness, hence you must do direct examination.  So I just think that we

21     need to clarify this point, and I would be more than happy to hear from

22     the Prosecution.  But in the 25 years that I've been practicing, I've

23     often met with Prosecution witnesses and cross-examined them.  It goes to

24     the topic.

25             And I'm sure Mr. Khan will put it more eloquently than I have, as

Page 30574

 1     he normally does.

 2             MR. KHAN:  Your Honour, not at all, but, nevertheless, the

 3     gracious remarks received with the sincerity that no doubt they were

 4     meant.

 5             Your Honour, there's no property, of course, in a witness.

 6     That's the starting point in assessing this matter.  It's quite often the

 7     case that the -- it's quite often the case, as my learned friend

 8     Mr. Karnavas stated, that the Prosecution facilitate the Defence in

 9     various cases meeting with Prosecution witnesses prior to their

10     testimony.  Similarly, there's nothing to stop the Prosecution putting

11     forward a request through Defence counsel to meet Defence witnesses.

12             Of course, the matter for the -- the witness on both sides is

13     whether or not they agree and consent to such an approach.  But it

14     cannot -- the simple fact of meeting cannot be said to be definitive as

15     to whether or not questioning that follows is classed as

16     cross-examination or examination-in-chief.  Of course, the substance and

17     content of the questioning will determine that.

18             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I thank you very much.

19             MR. STEWART:  Your Honours, that's exactly the

20     Petkovic Defence --

21             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I had already thanked for the answer,

22     Mr. Stewart; I think we've heard it.

23             MR. STEWART:  But, Your Honour, all I wished to do was associate

24     the Petkovic Defence expressly with it, and we appreciate the thanks and

25     we will take those, then, as coming to us as well for associating

Page 30575

 1     ourselves.

 2             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Yes, you may do so.

 3             MR. STEWART:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 4             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I'm sorry.  But sometimes for us it's a bit

 5     trying on the patience when several counsel, more or less, practically

 6     repeat one after the other the same points, and that's why I said we take

 7     the point.  Thank you.

 8             MR. STEWART:  Your Honour, I repeated nothing.  When I do repeat

 9     things, Your Honour can then rebuke me.

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I go to the essential thing, so

11     the essential things are the questions that are going to be asked.

12             MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

13                           Cross-examination by Mr. Ibrisimovic:

14        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Buntic, have you received the documents?

15        A.   I have them.

16        Q.   You know what they are about.  First of all, it's the

17     46th Session of the government of 19 July 1993.  At that session -

18     document P 03560 - we see you were there, and Mr. Tadic, Darinko Tadic

19     was there.

20        A.   Correct.

21        Q.   One of the issues at this cabinet session was initiated by this

22     HVO Capljina, item 7.

23        A.   Correct, I see it.

24        Q.   At that session, this working group was set up that was to visit

25     Capljina:  You, Mr. Tadic, and Mr. Pusic?

Page 30576

 1        A.   Correct.

 2        Q.   At that session, based on the minutes, Mr. Pusic did not attend?

 3        A.   I don't think that he was not even supposed to in view of his

 4     position.

 5        Q.   We can see from the introduction who was there, and his name is

 6     not included.

 7        A.   I can see that the attendees do not include Mr. Pusic.

 8        Q.   We also saw P 03565, the conclusions of the government about what

 9     this working group was to do and where it was to go.  They were supposed

10     to travel to Capljina?

11        A.   Correct.

12        Q.   Now I believe this trip - this may be a leading question - was on

13     the same day, 19 July, because we see that the section session was on the

14     20th July, the morning; can you remember?

15        A.   That's correct.  After this conclusion was adopted, Mr. Tadic,

16     Mr. Pusic, and I visited Capljina municipality.

17        Q.   I'd like to know when you reached Capljina, who did you meet?

18     Who did you talk to?

19        A.   On that day, we went to Capljina at the request of Capljina

20     municipality that was addressed to the HVO.  This group formed at this

21     government session, immediately visited Capljina municipality, and we

22     found there the deputy, I believe, of the president of Capljina

23     municipality, Mr. Kordic.  And he met us with the members of his office,

24     and they familiarized us with the difficulties they were experiencing in

25     making arrangements and providing accommodation for the large number of

Page 30577

 1     persons that found themselves in Capljina municipality, I believe from

 2     Gabela and Dretelj, and the very hard conditions there.  They asked for

 3     assistance.

 4             So, in the municipality building, we talked to the chief of

 5     Capljina municipality, Mr. Kordic, and his deputies and assistants.  I

 6     believe there were three or four deputies, each in charge of a specific

 7     area.  So they told us about the difficulties they had in these two

 8     locations with accommodating the large number of persons in those

 9     locations.  We spent an hour or perhaps two with them, and the very next

10     day we submitted a report to the government which I suppose you can see

11     from the minutes of the next session held the next day.  And we suggested

12     certain measures for that purpose; namely, that an urgent intervention is

13     required because as the situation in Capljina was described to us, it was

14     indeed very difficult.

15        Q.   P 03573 is the 47th Session of the 20th July?

16        A.   Yes.  I see that you attached this document as well.  It was

17     held, therefore, the next day, and we see that the very next day we

18     submitted a report.  I can even read this part.

19        Q.   No need.  Let me just ask you:  You attended that session, but I

20     don't see Mr. Pusic's name at the 47th Session?

21        A.   From the minutes, it seems to Mr. Pusic was not there, and I

22     cannot recall him there.  I believe he wasn't there; otherwise, he would

23     have been recorded as present.

24        Q.   Now we came to the point you made a moment ago.  This report, the

25     way you told it I understood that the source for your report was the

Page 30578

 1     briefing you had in Capljina from Mr. Kordic and his people?

 2        A.   Correct.  We did not go to Gabela or Dretelj ourselves because I

 3     refused to go to Gabela and Dretelj.  I did not believe myself competent

 4     to go there because, as we saw from the evidence presented yesterday,

 5     Dretelj was established as a municipal prison by virtue of a decision of

 6     the municipal council of Capljina municipality.

 7             And in keeping with the law on the enforcement of sentences, I as

 8     a representative of the department for justice and general

 9     administration, I had no powers or qualifications to enter such a

10     facility.  And at the end of the day, even if we said that I did have

11     some authority, I did not have any powers in that sense.  All that we

12     learned, therefore, was from Mr. Kordic and his assistants.

13        Q.   This trip that you made together, was it your first contact with

14     Mr. Pusic?

15        A.   Let me think for a moment.  It's possible.  It seems to me that I

16     met Mr. Pusic perhaps six months prior.  That was the first time we met

17     when we discussed some technical issues like telephone lines and

18     premises, and this was the second time.  I don't think there were any

19     more meetings between us in this period.

20        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Buntic.  I have no further questions.

21             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Mr. Buntic, I confess, I'm not quite satisfied

22     with the explanations you have given for not looking at the

23     accommodations, but maybe there is a linguistic problem.

24             I read the task assigned to your group at the HVO meeting, the

25     decision, to visit Capljina municipality and assess the condition of

Page 30579

 1     accommodation.

 2             Now, this was a task assigned to this group, and I find it

 3     difficult to accept an explanation which says "I was not competent to go

 4     and look at the accommodations."  Was this not a basis that would have

 5     given you the task of looking at the accommodations in Dretelj and

 6     Gabela?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] From the letter sent by Capljina

 8     municipality, as I said earlier, the HVO made its decision based on the

 9     letter from Capljina municipality.  The conclusion, as you see, of the

10     HVO is adopted in relation to that letter from Capljina municipality.  It

11     is true that from the conclusion adopted by the government, it could

12     arguably be understood what you understood.  But I insist still that by

13     going to a prison set up by the municipal council of Capljina with its

14     own decision - and we saw that decision yesterday - the prison was set up

15     as a municipal prison of Capljina municipality.  By entering that prison,

16     I would have perhaps led people to believe that I was in charge of what

17     was going on in there, and I wasn't in charge and none of the three of us

18     wanted to assume such responsibility.  So we had no legal grounds, and I

19     didn't want to take any action that could be understood that way.

20             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you.

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, far from me, the

22     thought of making it difficult for you, but I have in front of me

23     documents; and as a Judge, I am duty-bound to ask certain questions.  So

24     there was a meeting on the 19th of July, 1993, at 10.00 in Mostar.

25     Mr. Prlic presided over the meeting, and there are several participants

Page 30580

 1     including you.  The agenda has several items, and the meeting will, of

 2     course, is to discuss these various items on the agenda.  We can see the

 3     conclusions of the meeting.  And in these conclusions under item 1 of the

 4     conclusions, page 4 in English, straight away it is mentioned -- the

 5     Geneva Conventions related to the treatment of prisoners of war are

 6     mentioned and that they call for a scrutiny of the detention conditions,

 7     which appear to be not satisfactory.

 8             Then the head of the department of justice, you are the one in

 9     charge, in coordination with the defence department and the department of

10     the interior is supposed to inspect the new site and possibly envision

11     transferring prisoners of war.  A working group is set up.  It's decided

12     there, with you, Mr. Darinko Tadic and Mr. Pusic.  And it is said in

13     writing that you have to visit the Capljina municipality, and you have to

14     inspect the detention conditions in proposed measures; in other words, at

15     the 46th Session of the HVO of HZ HB, this problem was mentioned in

16     discussed.

17             Furthermore, it is also indicated under item 7 of the document

18     that the minister for foreign affairs of the Republic of Croatia will

19     have to be informed of all the problems, and that contacts will have to

20     be established with the UNHCR.  That means that the meeting looked into

21     the issue of the prisoners of war.

22             Earlier, you told us that you thought that Gabela and Dretelj

23     were not within your field of competence.  Would Gabela and Dretelj be

24     within the remit of the Capljina municipality?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

Page 30581

 1             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

 2             As far as you know, in Gabela and Dretelj, were there prisoners

 3     of war?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I know what was said

 5     that day when we visited Capljina municipality at a meeting attended by

 6     the head of the municipality and his various deputies who acquainted us

 7     with the difficulties they had.  That also was contained in the letter

 8     they had sent to the authorities of the Croatian Community of

 9     Herceg-Bosna.  They spoke about the overwhelming number of people.  They

10     sought assistance in food and in kind to be able to provide adequate

11     conditions for the people held in those facilities.

12             You correctly read the conclusions of the government and the

13     reasons why the group was set up.

14             Also, the same day this conclusion was adopted, we went to

15     Capljina and completed all of our mission, except for the part which says

16     to inspect in order to identify the conditions.  But I have already

17     stated my reasons for not going into those facilities, and I would do the

18     same today.  But we did collect all information from the head of

19     municipality and the heads of his various services.  We informed the

20     government the very next day and proposed that immediate measures be

21     taken so that at least half of the people in those facilities be

22     transferred [as interpreted].

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  If I understand

24     properly, you answered part of my question.  So based on the information

25     you received on the spot, you thought it was not necessarily to go and

Page 30582

 1     visit the facilities because there were problems; therefore, you informed

 2     the government of the problems.  Is that how to be understood?  Is that

 3     the way we have to understand why you did not go to see with -- for

 4     yourself what you were told of the situation?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, that's one of the

 6     explanations.  Because from the head of the municipality and his various

 7     deputies, we were able to get all the relevant information.  That's one

 8     of the reasons, and the other reason I've stated already.  The second is

 9     that I did not believe myself competent to enter those facilities.

10             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Sorry.  Still on these conclusions, the second

11     paragraph on page 4 in the English translation says that:  "If the

12     accommodation conditions are not satisfactory," which was actually your

13     conclusion, yourself, in coordination with the Ministry of the Interior

14     and the defence department, "shall designate new sites and transfer

15     prisoners of war."

16             Now, the first question is:  Did you do anything of that kind?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You will see at this session that

18     was held on the very next day that -- well, the document is P 3573, the

19     last document.

20             Under A, Jadranko Prlic is for the municipality of Siroki Brijeg;

21     B, Kresimir Zubak for the municipality of Grude and Posusje; C, Zoran

22     Buntic for the municipality of Citluk; and, D, Martin Raguz for the

23     municipality of Ljubuski.

24             MR. KARNAVAS:  Mr. President, Your Honour --

25             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you.

Page 30583

 1             Yes?

 2             MR. KARNAVAS:  Just a point of clarification.  On page 70,

 3     line 24, the gentleman indicated, according to Ms. Tomanovic, that the

 4     people in those facilities be let go, not transferred, as was translated.

 5     We're about to lose it right now.

 6             It's page 70, line 24, and perhaps we can pose the question again

 7     to Mr. Buntic because there is a major difference between half the people

 8     being let go versus them being transferred someplace else, which may have

 9     given rise to your question.

10             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, by your leave, in

11     relation to what my colleague Mr. Karnavas said, when I rose a few

12     moments ago before Judge Trechsel put his question, I wanted to say

13     precisely the very same thing in relation to the interpretation on

14     line 24, page 70.  So Mr. Karnavas's objection is fully correct.

15             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Well, I do not take it as an objection in the

16     sense that I have quoted from the paper of course, but that doesn't mean

17     that I was right because I cannot verify the translation of course.

18             I think you have been now referring to what is stated on page 70,

19     line 24?

20             MR. KARNAVAS:  That's correct.  It was just a matter of correct

21     translation, Your Honour, because the gentleman has indicated that he was

22     suggesting that they let go; half of them he let go, not transferred.

23     And, of course, it does make a -- it's a big distinction, at least in my

24     mind.  But we can pose the question to the gentleman, and he can answer

25     or he can verify.

Page 30584

 1             MR. STRINGER:  Mr. President, my suggestion would be to allow the

 2     witness to give his answer again and that we just take whatever

 3     interpretation that comes from the booth, recognising that there can be

 4     disagreements.  But I think the witness should say it again so that we

 5     can get it right.

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Indeed.

 7             Witness, can you please repeat your answer.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that the proposal of the

 9     group, this working group, was that due to the fact that there were too

10     many people at these localities, one half be released straight away, half

11     of these people, because there weren't proper conditions for keeping that

12     many people in that number of square metres; and that the other half be

13     moved to other localities, the remaining half, that is.

14             On the next day, the HVO gave this duty to other persons, as I

15     already mentioned a few moments ago, to have possibilities found in these

16     other localities or municipalities for accommodating the remaining half.

17             Your Honours, of course, I could not follow what the transcript

18     was recording, but I said what I said.

19             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Of course, that's all fine.

20             The question, then, would be:  Did you achieve anything in

21     Citluk?  Did you make efforts to find accommodations in Citluk which was

22     assigned to you, as you have very correctly pointed out?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I made an effort, and

24     I believe that all the other persons in charge made an effort, to find

25     certain accommodation facilities in that sense that would be appropriate

Page 30585

 1     for the stay of these persons and conditions that would be in line with

 2     the conditions prescribed by the Geneva Conventions.  However, none of

 3     the heads of the municipalities did not express a willingness to help the

 4     municipality of Capljina in that sense and to take a certain number of

 5     people in.

 6             It is correct, yes, I had these conversations and I believe that

 7     the others also talked to the representatives of other municipalities.

 8             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  So you have perhaps already answered my last

 9     question which went to the role of the municipalities.  Do I understand

10     you correctly that you were saying implicitly that it was for the

11     municipalities to agree or not to agree to offer a facility to

12     accommodate prisoners, detained persons; and if a municipality would say,

13     "We're not interested," that was it and the government had no possibility

14     of acting?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the areas of municipalities, the

16     government, or rather, the HVO did not have any property that they owned.

17     So if there was any property, it was owned by the municipalities.  We

18     have already said that in the territory of the other municipalities,

19     apart from Mostar and Capljina, there was not a single facility that had

20     earlier been owned by the SFRY or the Yugoslav Army so that the

21     government or the HVO could have it at its disposal afterwards.

22             The only facility of this nature -- or rather, the only

23     facilities of such nature existed in Mostar barracks, two or three; and

24     in Capljina where there were two barracks, one in Gabela and the other

25     one was Dretelj.  Well, you know, sometimes, sometimes, my mind seems to

Page 30586

 1     be blocked.  So this was in the territory of Capljina, these barracks,

 2     and they had previously been owned by the JNA.  In the territory of the

 3     other municipalities, there was no such facility under that kind of a

 4     regimen.

 5             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you.  I have also personal experience of

 6     blocking of the mind now and then.

 7             A last question:  Did the government have no possibility at all

 8     to expropriate property when it was needed for purposes of the whole of

 9     the HVO?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We discussed that issue as well,

11     but probably had we done that we would have been prosecuted even more

12     fiercely by the prosecutor.

13             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We are going to have a

14     20-minute break.

15                           --- Recess taken at 12.40 p.m.

16                           --- On resuming at 1.00 p.m.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We are back in session.  I

18     don't know who's the next counsel.

19             Ms. Nozica.

20             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours.  Good

21     afternoon to all in the courtroom.

22                           Cross-examination by Ms. Nozica:

23        Q.   [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Buntic.

24             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] The Prosecutor is showing that

25     little binder of mine for this cross-examination.  I asked the court

Page 30587

 1     deputy for it to be distributed to the Judges as soon as possible;

 2     however, I promise that I will finish with these documents within the

 3     time allotted to me.  I will just explain that this document contain --

 4     these binders contain documents that we will deal with today.

 5             There's also a big report that did not fit into the binder and

 6     another thing that will be useful to the Trial Chamber and to everyone in

 7     the courtroom is the Law on Criminal Procedure as a separate document,

 8     and I will be putting some questions to the witness about that.

 9             This Law on Criminal Procedure will be used by Ms. Alaburic after

10     me.  And I just wish to say that at the end of these subjects that are

11     dealt with in the binder, at the very end I'm going to put some questions

12     to the witness about some provisions of the Law on Criminal Procedure

13     that were referred to today in terms of the rights of injured parties, so

14     that we could see that, indeed, the Law on Criminal Procedure does say

15     all the things that the witness has told us; that is to say, the law that

16     was then applied at the HZ HB.  That is what I wish to say by way of

17     introduction.

18        Q.   Mr. Buntic, Witness, on the first day of your testimony, you

19     spoke about the situation in the area where you lived in 1991.  You

20     talked about the organization of the people to defend themselves from the

21     aggression started by the JNA against Bosnia-Herzegovina and that part of

22     the territory where you lived.  You said that you did not have any

23     weapons.  You said -- you, rather, spoke about the Territorial Defence,

24     and you said the JNA had taken away the weaponry of the Territorial

25     Defence.  And you mentioned that as for your first weapons for organizing

Page 30588

 1     the defence, that is to say, Croats and Muslims together in this area,

 2     you received these weapons from the Ministry of the Interior of the

 3     Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.  To be more specific, you mentioned

 4     Mr. Bruno Stojic and Mr. Alija Delimustafic.

 5             For the record, can we first say specifically what position was

 6     held at that time, to the best of your recollection, in the Ministry of

 7     the Interior of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina by Mr. Stojic?

 8        A.   As far as I can remember, Mr. Alija Delimustafic was minister of

 9     defence and his deputy was Mr. Bruno Stojic.  What is stated is correct.

10             I can only confirm that I said on the first day; namely, that

11     from the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina,

12     we received 400 semiautomatic rifles that were new and unpacked.

13     However, I remember that I did not say on the first day that later on,

14     upon instructions of the same two persons, Delimustafic and Stojic, that

15     is, we gave some of these weapons to the Bosniaks, the Muslims, for their

16     needs, specifically for the area of Podvelezje.  I think it involved 100

17     rifles.  Perhaps ten or 15 days after we received them we handed them

18     over.  I cannot remember the name, but I know that this person introduced

19     himself as the commander of the Crisis Staff for the area of Podvelezje.

20     That is to the north-east of Mostar on the border between the

21     municipalities of Mostar and Nevesinje.

22        Q.   I have to make short pauses between your answers and my

23     questions.  But, first of all, I would like us to correct two

24     imprecisions that you provided in your answer, and they're recorded on

25     page 77, lines 2, 3, and 4 -- or rather, 5 and 6.

Page 30589

 1             You said that Alija Delimustafic was minister of defence.  That's

 2     a mistake.  It's a slip of the tongue, isn't it?

 3        A.   Purely a slip of the tongue.

 4        Q.   Tell us, please, for the record, he was minister of what?  I

 5     don't want to speak in your name.

 6        A.   From the entire remainder of the text that I uttered, and on the

 7     basis of everything I said by way of testimony until now, it is obvious

 8     that, to the best of my recollection, Mr. Alija Delimustafic was minister

 9     of the interior and his deputy was Mr. Bruno Stojic.  Probably fatigue is

10     taking its toll so I do apologise.

11        Q.   I'm going to put a leading question to you, but I have the right

12     to do that.  If I tell you that Bruno Stojic was assistant minister for

13     material technical affairs, rather than deputy minister, would you agree

14     with me?  This is also stated in the indictment.  This is nothing new.

15        A.   Possibly.  As I've already said, to the best of my recollection,

16     but I do allow for that possibility.

17        Q.   Thank you.  Very briefly, we are going to go through some

18     documents that confirm what you said -- rather, it is the first document

19     in that black binder of mine, 2D 0033.  And these are goods that were

20     brought in and taken out.

21             Would you briefly have a look at this, and I'm just going to

22     refer to what is important.  The date can be seen, the 20th of August,

23     1991.  The first document you can see that it is incoming/outgoing of the

24     republican secretariat of the interior.  The number of this outgoing

25     document states that this has to do with Hecklers, 15.000 of them.

Page 30590

 1             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I have been instructed that it is

 2     15 Hecklers, actually, and that these zeros are something that has to do

 3     with bookkeeping.

 4        Q.   So it is not 15.000, but it is 15 Hecklers.  However, we are

 5     going to call a witness who dealt with these matters from a technical

 6     point of view, so he can explain.

 7        A.   I think that it is obvious on the basis of the second item,

 8     because it would involve 400.000, but it was actually 400 semiautomatic

 9     rifles.  So as you said it was probably 15 Hecklers and 400 semiautomatic

10     rifles, as I've already said.  So as regards both items, these three

11     zeros are something that is a technical matter.

12        Q.   I would like to emphasize one more detail; namely, it's sent to

13     the centre of security services Mostar.  It was an organizational unit of

14     the Ministry of the Interior in Mostar; correct?

15        A.   Yes, that's correct.  We requested these rifles to arm the

16     reserve force of the police.  There was no other way to gets hold of

17     them.

18             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Excuse me.  I'm not an arms dealer.  I do not

19     know what Heckler & Koch actually is.  I suppose it's a pistol, but I may

20     be wrong.

21             Are they pistols, revolvers, the 9-millimetre weapon?  Heckler &

22     Koch 9-millimetre is the first item here.  Is it a pistol, a handgun?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This second abbreviation, "PAP,"

24     means semiautomatic rifle, so exactly what I said.  Heckler & Koch is a

25     sawn-off automatic rifle.  It's not a revolver, it's not a pistol.

Page 30591

 1             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you.

 2             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Judge Trechsel.  I was

 3     just about to ask the same question, but I was almost certain that all of

 4     us in the courtroom know that, because during the war, I, too, was in

 5     Sarajevo.  I understand these acronyms as well as all names.

 6        Q.   Would you look at the following document, please.  The following

 7     document is an instruction or order for P 400.  It's very precisely

 8     stated, 15 automatic rifles HK.  And can you confirm that this is the

 9     signature of Bruno Stojic?

10        A.   I believe it is Mr. Stojic's signature, and all the information

11     that we received tells us with a great degree of certainty that this is

12     correct.

13        Q.   We have one more document after that, and it's a new outgoing

14     record, another 15 Hecklers; and the fourth document also sent to the

15     security services centre Mostar.  The following document speaks of 200

16     semiautomatic rifles; rounds, 31.500 rounds; four semiautomatic rifles;

17     20 Scorpion pistols; and 2.000 rounds 7.65-millimetres also sent to the

18     security services centre Mostar.

19             And the last document, 23rd September 1991, 20 semiautomatic

20     rifles and 4.000 rounds.

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Nozica, the Chamber's Legal

22     Officer is telling me that, yes, you are showing us some documents, but

23     you need to give us the reference numbers.  I suppose you're going to ask

24     for document 2D 00033 to be tendered into evidence.  But as for the

25     individual documents, you need to give us their reference numbers.

Page 30592

 1             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this document on these

 2     four pages has been exhibited under the same number, 2D 0033 [as

 3     interpreted].  If you need page numbers, I see that apparently not.  The

 4     Legal Officer seems to shake her head.

 5        Q.   Mr. Buntic, can you confirm that in this period when both the

 6     Bosniak and Croat ethnic communities in the area where you lived in

 7     Herzegovina were both facing an aggression perpetrated by the JNA; and at

 8     the very outset, you were assisted specifically by Mr. Stojic, who was

 9     then-assistant minister in the Government of the Republic of Bosnia and

10     Herzegovina?

11        A.   Correct.  These documents attached here confirm all that I said

12     on the first day of my evidence, and this seems to be material proof of

13     what I said.  I had only forgotten to mention that we also got ammunition

14     together with these rifles.  Perhaps I omitted it as a minor detail, but

15     we did receive ammunition, 7.65.  And I also know that out of all these

16     weapons mentioned here, including the Scorpion pistol, five of these were

17     sent also to Citluk municipality.

18        Q.   So, according to your testimony, all this was done in cooperation

19     with the minister of the interior, Mr. Alija Delimustafic, who was a

20     Bosniak; and all this was distributed and given to both Croats and

21     Bosniaks; that is, to units including Bosniaks?

22        A.   Yes.  It was all done in cooperation with the Ministry of the

23     Interior of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.  I mentioned what was

24     done in Citluk, but it's obvious that from the documents that part of

25     what Mr. Delimustafic and what Mr. Stojic agreed to and sent to the

Page 30593

 1     centre for security services was sent both to Citluk and to Mostar.  It

 2     transpires from the document that the other 200 rifles probably ended up

 3     in Mostar, I suppose, for the requirements of the reserve force of the

 4     police.

 5        Q.   You also mentioned Podvelezje.  As far as that is concerned, you

 6     know for certain that one part of the weaponry was distributed in

 7     Podvelezje?

 8        A.   Yes, I know that for a fact.

 9        Q.   We will now broach a subject that was skimmed through in direct

10     examination, and that is the establishment of the central military prison

11     in Heliodrom, your participation and your knowledge about it.

12             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I put the documents in sequence as

13     how I shall call them, and I hope there will be no problems with that.

14             The first document is P 2 -- P 00292.  I see it.

15        Q.   Mr. Buntic, have you found the documents?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   This is a decree by Mr. Mate Boban, and I'll remind you in para 2

18     it governs the treatment of persons taken prisoner during armed conflict

19     in the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna.  The decree was adopted on the

20     3rd of July, 1992, and para 2 says:  "The Head of the Justice and

21     Administration Department..."

22             That is you; you occupied the position at the time?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   So:  "The Head of the Justice and Administration Department, in

25     cooperation with the Head of the Defence Department and the Head of the

Page 30594

 1     Department of the Interior, shall designate the locations where prisoners

 2     shall be kept, in accordance with the provisions of the aforementioned

 3     Convention," meaning the Geneva Convention.

 4             And in Article 3, we read:  "The Defence Department shall

 5     administrate the facilities stipulated in Article 2 of this decree."

 6             So it follows from this decree that when following the procedure

 7     prescribed the location is determined, this location is run by the

 8     defence department?

 9        A.   Yes.  But I believe that in asking your question, you confused

10     Article 2 and 3.  That is Article 3, in fact.

11        Q.   Thank you very much for this correction.

12             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Let us now look at P 00452.

13        Q.   This has been shown to you before.  This is from 3rd of

14     September, 1992, signed by Mr. Stojic.  And in the preamble, he invokes

15     the previous decree.  In Article 1, it says:  "The central military

16     prison is hereby established in the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna at

17     the Mostar-Jesenica location within the compound of the Heliodrom

18     barracks."

19             Mr. Mile Pusic is appointed warden; Mile Pusic from Krusevo,

20     Mostar.  I would like you to now tell us what you know about this.

21             "At the proposal of the head of department for justice and

22     administration of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, and in relation

23     to the demonstrated need to separate the military prison from the

24     district prison in Mostar, it having been established that the premises

25     mentioned in para 1 of the decision meet all the prescribed requirements,

Page 30595

 1     I decided as stated above."

 2             In the course of your testimony, you also -- you already started

 3     to tell us something about the reasons why this decision was made.  I'll

 4     just ask you to repeat this and expand, including those things that you

 5     did not have time to say.

 6        A.   Correct.  Towards the end of the first day, I did give some of

 7     the reasons.  A bit more was said on the subject yesterday; and as we can

 8     see from the statement of reasons, the statement of reasons confirms all

 9     that I said before.  So after my conversation with the president of the

10     higher court in Mostar about the state of affairs in the -- and the

11     condition of the district prison in Mostar, the only facility of its kind

12     in the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, the president of the court

13     informed me that in the district investigating prison -- investigative

14     prison in Mostar, in addition to convicted persons there are also

15     prisoners of war.

16             Immediately after, as we can see from the statement of reasons in

17     this decision, I addressed a letter to the head of the defence department

18     proposing a separation of prisoners of war from the convicts, so these

19     two categories that were held together at the time in what was then the

20     district investigative prison in Mostar.

21             Immediately after that letter, the activities in this affair were

22     managed by myself and - whether he was deputy of Mr. Stojic or an

23     assistant for civilian affairs - Mr. Slobodan Bozic.  Anyway, we

24     established contact, and the only possibility we saw at that time was the

25     Heliodrom barracks in Mostar.  Mr. Lovric informed me of that; and as far

Page 30596

 1     as I know, work immediately started to adapt one building within the

 2     compound of the Heliodrom to adjust it to the requirements that a prison

 3     must meet.  I'm not sure when the works were finished, but as you know

 4     they take time.  And I believe that this prison was phased into operation

 5     with the proviso that at the initial stage, it held persons who were only

 6     subjected to disciplinary measures.  After the building was fully

 7     adapted, already on the 3rd of December, this decision was passed.

 8             I'm saying maybe the body of the decision and the preamble are

 9     not entirely consistent.  Maybe you can raise the issue of discrepancy.

10     It is true that Mr. Bozic asked me concerning the warden whether I knew

11     Mr. Pusic and whether I would object to appointing Mr. Pusic.  I said I,

12     indeed, knew Mr. Pusic, and I do not object.  As far as I'm concerned,

13     after this decision was passed, the matter was closed, because before the

14     decision, the separation actually took place.  So, after this decision in

15     the district prison of Mostar, there remained only persons who were

16     there pursuant to final court decisions..

17        Q.   Let's deal with this more specifically now.  At that time when

18     you talked about this separation, who were the prisoners of war, of what

19     ethnicity and from what war and from what conflict, what part of the

20     conflict?  And whose prisoners of war were they?

21        A.   It mainly had to do with prisoners of war who were members of the

22     Yugoslav People's Army, for the most part.

23        Q.   Tell me, were they taken prisoner in the conflict with the JNA

24     that the HVO and the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina took part in

25     together?  Can we conclude that these are prisoners that you had taken

Page 30597

 1     together, because that was the only location that you had in Mostar where

 2     they could be kept?

 3        A.   That is correct.  That is correct.  At that time, there was no

 4     other facility, no other possibility.  It is correct, and now I have to

 5     make a correction.  At that point in time, in Mostar, there was no Army

 6     of Bosnia and Herzegovina.  However, it is certain that, at the time, all

 7     the Muslims of Mostar operated within the HVO, or rather -- well, now,

 8     what was its name at the time?  Later on, it was called the 5th Corps,

 9     but I think -- I beg your pardon, the 4th Corps.

10             And, at that time, it was now -- was it a special independent

11     battalion or company?  I think it was called an independent battalion,

12     and it operated within the HVO; but I'm saying this conditionally, these

13     names.  As far as my memory serves me, it was an independent battalion or

14     something like that that operated within the HVO.

15        Q.   It's better for you to say that than me; although, it was

16     established that it was the 1st Independent Battalion that was

17     established beyond any doubt during the proceedings.  However, I just

18     wanted to set the record straight, and I think it is very important.

19             So these prisoners of war, as you say, predominantly members of

20     the JNA, were taken prisoner during the course of this conflict with the

21     JNA in which you and the Bosniaks participated together, regardless of

22     under whose command; is that right?

23        A.   That is correct, and, yes, regardless of the name under which

24     they operated.

25             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I have just been cautioned that Mile

Page 30598

 1     Pusic was the head.  Probably some other name was registered.  It says

 2     Pusic in the document.  I don't know.  There was this intervention.  I

 3     don't know what it pertains to, but at any rate I repeated it.

 4        Q.   Further on, now we defined who the prisoners of war were.  You

 5     said that it was necessary and that this was due to the need to separate

 6     the military prison in the district prison in Mostar.

 7             I'm interested in the following:  Who were these prisoners?  Were

 8     there civilians among them who were under the district prison, or rather,

 9     the regular courts and members of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina -- or

10     rather, I beg your pardon, members of the HVO who were under the military

11     judiciary?  And was everybody together at the time?  Was that separation

12     supposed to be carried out, too?

13        A.   That is correct.  Everything that -- or rather, everyone that had

14     been detained at that point in time was in that facility, as I already

15     mentioned.  I don't know whether it matters and whether it's relevant.

16     The director of this -- or rather, the warden of this prison was

17     appointed by the municipal HVO of Mostar.  The person remained in that

18     position for a considerable amount of time afterwards as well.

19        Q.   Could you just tell me what warden you're talking about of that

20     prison?

21        A.   Ricina Celovina.

22        Q.   Let's be specific, Ricina Celovina, because later on we're going

23     to be using it further.  So it's that prison, right?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   So, in your view, or rather, to the best of your knowledge

Page 30599

 1     because you participated, this decision was made in order to have a

 2     separation between civilian and military detainees and prisoners because

 3     at that time they were all in one location?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Now I would like to ask you to look

 6     at a document.  We'll probably move faster, P 00352.  The Court is aware

 7     of this document.  I'm not going to mention the name of this witness.  I

 8     know that it's a protected witness.

 9        Q.   But we started talking about when work on the reconstruction of

10     the facility had started.  Please look at this document -- or rather,

11     look at page 2 in the Croatian version and in the English version.

12             This is a diary.  I will tell you what is written there, the 1st

13     of July, 1992, page 2.  The notes pertain to the 1st of July, 1992.  Have

14     you found it?

15        A.   Yes.  Is it the handwritten document that I have?

16        Q.   Yes.  I'm going to read it out to you.  It says here:  "The

17     district prison in Mostar, Ricina number 27."  That is the prison that we

18     just talked about, right, that was supposed to be disburdened, or rather,

19     a separation was supposed to be carried out, right?

20        A.   That's right.  I mean, I see from the address that it pertains to

21     that.

22        Q.   It says:  "Morning briefing with the warden Pero Nikolic."  Was

23     Mr. Pero Nikolic the warden appointed by the municipal council that you

24     referred to?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 30600

 1        Q.   Very well.  Now we are going to look at bullet point 4.

 2             "The warden informed those present that before the war, I was in

 3     charge, or rather, I was head of Radobolja business units, and he is a

 4     construction engineer otherwise, so he will spend most of his time at

 5     Heliodrom and oversee construction work to build or adapt a building that

 6     will be used as a military afterwards."

 7             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] We're going to look at the next page

 8     briefly, where we see a sketch of what is supposed to be the central

 9     military prison later on.  We're going to look at the page after that

10     too.  I'm going to say for the record that I'm talking about ERN number

11     0354-0173 and page 0354-0174.

12        Q.   Mr. Buntic, do you remember whether on the 1st of July, as it

13     says here when the adaptation of this building was being discussed, so we

14     are talking about the 1st of July, 1993 [sic], Mr. Stojic was appointed

15     head of the justice [sic] department?

16             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  [Microphone not activated]

17             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] The year is 1992, yes.  Sorry, slip

18     of the tongue.  There is a mistake in the transcript.  I said 1992.

19             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  The speaker said "1993."

20             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I see the Judge is intervening.

21             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  You also said justice department, which is

22     surprising.

23             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I am going to start all over again.

24     I do apologise.  I'll start all over again.

25        Q.   Mr. Buntic, do you know whether Mr. Bruno Stojic on the 1st of

Page 30601

 1     July, 1992, became head of the defence department of the HVO, or did that

 2     happen later?

 3        A.   On the basis of what I know, it happened after this day.

 4        Q.   All right.  So we can conclude that the work on the

 5     reconstruction of this building that would later become the central

 6     military prison started before Mr. Bruno Stojic became head of the

 7     defence department?

 8        A.   I think we can say that.

 9        Q.   Mr. Buntic, do you know at the time when this construction was

10     taking place, did you know at all what the capacity of this area that was

11     supposed to be the central military prison?

12        A.   I can only talk about what I discussed at that point in time with

13     other people.  However, as far as I know, it had been envisaged, it was

14     being said at that time, that the capacity would be between 500 to a

15     maximum of 800 persons.  That is what I had been told.  I did not take

16     part in the design of this facility.  I'm not aware of any of that, and

17     these sketches are unfamiliar to me.  However, what was discussed was

18     that the capacity would involve 500 to 800 persons.

19        Q.   As far as you can remember from that period of time, was that

20     actually the approximate number of prisoners of war, the persons who were

21     supposed to be relocated at the time to that prison in Ricina, they were

22     supposed to be relocated?

23        A.   Well, I know that not all of them were in Ricina; but according

24     to some of the information that the HVO had at the time, at that point

25     there were about 500 prisoners of war.

Page 30602

 1        Q.   Very well.  Thank you.

 2             I would now like to ask you to look at the next document.

 3             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm going to finish

 4     with this document, so then I'm going to continue dealing with the topic

 5     on Monday because I see the hour.

 6             P 00420 is the number of the document.

 7        Q.   I will explain what this is about because it starts with page 29,

 8     this document.  This is a Prosecution document on the 65 -- or rather, I

 9     beg your pardon.  The bulletin of the military police numbers 2 and 3 for

10     July and August, that's what it's called on the Prosecution list, 1992.

11     The date is the 31st of August, 1992.

12             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I will only deal with page 59 in the

13     Croatian and English versions, and I'm going to ask only what I show to

14     the witness to be admitted into evidence.  I'm saying this, lest there be

15     any objections in relation to this.

16        Q.   On page 59, Mr. Buntic, we see exactly what we have been

17     discussing; that is to say, on the basis of this bulletin dated the 31st

18     of August, 1992, it says:  "Military investigative detention facilities

19     were formed out of necessity on premises unsuitable for taking in the

20     necessary number of prisoners of war, or rather, prisoners.  Also,

21     arrangements in the prison are such that it's very difficult to ensure a

22     continuous, professional, and high-quality investigative procedure.  For

23     that reason, the necessity of establishing a central military prison was

24     unavoidable, and this was done at the barracks in the Mostar Heliodrom.

25             "We believe that it must be made operational as soon as possible

Page 30603

 1     so that military and civilian prisons in Mostar would be separated and in

 2     order to redress the weaknesses mentioned.  In keeping with this, the

 3     military police administration and the management team of the Mostar

 4     prison are carrying out all necessary preparations for the central

 5     military prison to begin functioning.  It will be able to take in up to

 6     800 prisoners of war or military prisoners."

 7             Finally, Mr. Buntic, this document confirms what you said;

 8     namely, that the original intention was that the capacity should be up to

 9     800 persons at maximum and that the building was being adapted with that

10     in mind; is that right?

11        A.   On the basis of this document, what I stated earlier on is shown;

12     namely, that the planned capacity was between 500 and 800 persons.

13             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We have to end.  It's quarter

14     to 2.00.  There's another sitting.  I'm sitting also in another case.  As

15     you know, we shall re-convene on Monday.  You will start at 2.15.

16             Thank you.

17                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m.,

18                           to be reconvened on Monday, the 14th day of

19                           July, 2008, at 2.15 p.m.