Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 32677

 1                           Wednesday, 24 September 2008

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness entered court]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 2.16 p.m.

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, could you please

 7     call the case.

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

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

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

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

12             This is Wednesday, September 24, 2008, and I would like to

13     welcome our witness, the accused, the counsel for Defence, Mr. Stringer

14     and all his -- and his team, as well as our court reporter and everyone

15     helping us around in the courtroom.  We will continue with this

16     cross-examination, but first I need to give the floor to our registrar

17     because he has two IC numbers to give us.

18             THE REGISTRAR:  Thank you, Your Honour.  1D has tendered its

19     objection to documents tendered by the Prosecution through witness Puljic

20     Borislav.  This list shall be given Exhibit Number IC 00854.  The Prlic

21     Defence team has also tendered its response to the Prosecution's

22     objections to its documents tendered through Witness Borislav Puljic.

23     This response shall be given Exhibit Number IC 00855.  Thank you, Your

24     Honours.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Registrar.

Page 32678

 1             Mr. Scott, welcome, and you have the floor.

 2             MR. SCOTT:  Thank you, Mr. President.  Good afternoon, Your

 3     Honours, and all those in and around the courtroom, counsel.

 4                           WITNESS:  ILIJA KOZULJ [Resumed]

 5                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

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

 7        Q.   Mr. Kozulj, good afternoon.

 8        A.   Good afternoon.

 9        Q.   Sir, once again our time is limited and I apologise to you if you

10     were offended in any way yesterday that I had to sometimes intervene to

11     move us along, but as you've come to understand possibly since Monday our

12     time is limited and we have to work quite quickly sometimes.  So I hope

13     you'll just understand that, and in fact to pick up on that since we --

14     where we ended last night and to see perhaps where we need to start

15     today, we were looking at the end of the day at a binder of documents

16     concerning communications with Central Bosnia and Sarajevo, which for the

17     record was P 10633.  And based on the testimony and some discussions

18     among counsel toward the end of the day, I want to see where we are at

19     this point.

20             Do I understand correctly that the topic of your testimony on

21     this point, it relates to what we might call -- I was thinking about this

22     and sometimes we call these land-line civilian telephone service, so

23     that's what we primarily we've been talking about.  And in looking at the

24     documents in the binder, apart from issues concerning land-line civilian

25     telephone service between Herzegovina and Sarajevo, you do not dispute

Page 32679

 1     that there were other means of communication between Herzegovina and

 2     Sarajevo from 1992 to 1994; do I understand that correctly?

 3        A.   I'm sorry if I failed to make myself clear yesterday.  I would

 4     like to say that I'm an expert for civilian communications, and this is

 5     what I have been doing for most of my life.  Apart from my time at

 6     school - and that was a long, long time ago and communications at that

 7     time were a completely different thing - I never ever dealt with military

 8     communications.  So what I've been talking about before this Tribunal had

 9     to do with civilian communications used by telecom operators, not only in

10     Bosnia and Herzegovina but throughout the world.  Military communications

11     or any other special kind of communications -- well, I don't know enough

12     about that and I cannot testify about that and I cannot be clear about

13     technical details.

14             Surely during the war the situation regarding the civilian

15     telecommunications systems was the way I described them.  As far as

16     military communications are concerned, I know really little about that.

17     Naturally, during the war, Mr. Prosecutor, it was possible to communicate

18     it in a variety of ways.  It was possible for the international military

19     forces or international humanitarian organizations to secure special

20     telecommunications for some authorities if they wanted to do so because

21     they did have at their disposal the necessary equipment.  I know that I

22     sometimes saw military vehicles and vehicles used by various humanitarian

23     international organizations that had radio communications equipment, and

24     they did have in place a network in Bosnia and Herzegovina that they

25     could use for their communications.  Now, whether they placed any of that

Page 32680

 1     at the disposal of certain persons in Bosnia and Herzegovina who at that

 2     time were leading figures in the military or in politics, I don't know

 3     that and I cannot say anything about it.  If they wanted to do so, they

 4     were in a position to do it.

 5        Q.   All right.  Thank you, sir.

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, please, you just drew

 7     my attention on an issue that had escaped me so far.  You're talking

 8     about communication among international organizations.  To your

 9     knowledge, all these international organizations, there were many of them

10     on the field, so to your knowledge were they able to communicate among

11     themselves using their own instruments, their own devices?  I'm talking,

12     for example, about UNPROFOR.  Or did they have to use the PTT lines at

13     one point in time?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I know, the international

15     forces used their own communications system.  I know for a fact that the

16     relay station near Mostar, Planinica, that's its name, there's a radio-TV

17     transmitter there, it was used also to house the radio repeater equipment

18     used by the international forces because they had it under its control,

19     and they even maintained the road leading up to that station.

20             Of course, Mr. President, I don't know what kind of a network it

21     was, what its capacity or capabilities were, and so on, because even if I

22     had been interested in that nobody would have told me.

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Thank you.

24             MR. SCOTT:

25        Q.   Sir, just on one point of what you've just said, you remind me

Page 32681

 1     about something.  The Planinica location which was discussed yesterday,

 2     you've just said just now that the international forces during - to use

 3     your term - during this time-period were able to install a station there.

 4     Generally speaking, Planinica was a location that was under - we could

 5     call it - HVO control; correct?  I'm not saying the internationals

 6     weren't allowed to go there, but generally speaking it was on territory

 7     controlled by the HVO?

 8        A.   Planinica as the relay was under HVO control at all times, and I

 9     don't know who made the arrangements, but I know that it was used also by

10     the international armed forces.

11        Q.   All right.  All right.  Well, thank you for that.  Let me go back

12     to my first question and your answer, and -- which was helpful.  But let

13     me just focus on a couple of specific items just so we can be as clear as

14     possible.  You in particular focused a great deal of your testimony

15     yesterday on the -- the disruption, if you will, of the coaxial cable

16     between Mostar and Sarajevo, and that's what I was focusing on primarily

17     when I was using the terminology what we might call a land-line

18     communication.  Do you understand that?

19        A.   Yes, I do.

20        Q.   And so let me -- in light of that, in light of what you told us

21     just a moment ago, can we just be very clear again then that you do not

22     dispute that apart from such land-line PTT telephone service that

23     there -- you don't dispute that there were other means of communication

24     between Herzegovina and Sarajevo from 1992 to 1994.

25             THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Microphone not activated]

Page 32682

 1             MR. SCOTT:  Excuse me, that's not appropriate.  Mr. Praljak

 2     should be cautioned.  That's not appropriate behaviour in the courtroom.

 3        Q.   Sir --

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Praljak, please do not

 5     interrupt the Prosecutor while he's putting his questions.  I don't know

 6     what you wanted to say, I have no idea.

 7             MR. SCOTT:  Your Honour, there's a -- unless it's an objection,

 8     there is a question pending to the witness and I don't want the witness

 9     to be told, with all due respect, influenced by Mr. Praljak's speech.

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Absolutely.

11             Mr. Praljak, you are not supposed to intervene during a

12     question-and-answer session unless you notice that the question has not

13     been put correctly, but you suddenly interrupted the proceedings, we have

14     no idea why.

15             THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] I do apologise.  It's

16     clear.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

18             Please proceed, Mr. Scott.

19             MR. SCOTT:  [Microphone not activated]

20             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

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

22        Q.   Sir, can you please answer my question.

23        A.   Well, I've already said it, but now I'm forced to repeat it.

24     Mostar PTT, the Mostar telecom operator, was connected with Sarajevo via

25     a coaxial cable.  Mostar had two wireless radio relay stations linking it

Page 32683

 1     with Split and Podgorica, and then through those systems and other

 2     systems located in Serbia, Montenegro, and Croatia, and so on, it was

 3     connected, it had alternative connections with Sarajevo.  But the --

 4     there were only three major systems that connected Mostar with the rest

 5     of the world, so to speak, and if all three were down then Mostar was cut

 6     off from Sarajevo.  But please do understand what I'm saying.  I'm

 7     talking about the telecom operators, telecom operators do not deal with

 8     radio stations, unlike the military units; that's just not done, it

 9     doesn't exist.  Radio units were introduced with mobile telephones, and

10     at that time there was no mobile telephony in our area apart from using

11     analog systems from Croatia which could not reach Sarajevo.  This network

12     did not reach Sarajevo.  It reached some border areas in Bosnia and

13     Herzegovina, bordering with Dalmatia in Croatia or in Posavina, areas

14     that bordered to the north with Croatia.  As far as I know, Sarajevo was

15     too far away for this signal to reach it and for people to be able to

16     receive it and use it.  So as far as telecom operators are concerned, and

17     the only telecom operators in existence at that time were public

18     companies, there were no private telecom operators, it was not possible

19     at the time when the telecommunications centre in Mostar was destroyed

20     and when all those lines went down, it was impossible to get in touch

21     both with Sarajevo and with Central Bosnia.

22             Let me say this once again.  In order for those lines to be

23     established, first of all you have to have the equipment; second, you

24     have to have the technical solutions, you also have to have personnel,

25     freedom of movement, and the willingness for those communications to be

Page 32684

 1     established.  So we had excellent personnel, but equipment and freedom of

 2     movement, those were the areas where we encountered problems.

 3        Q.   All right.  Let's move on, please, but on the same topic

 4     generally.  If you can find your way in the Prosecution binder again, and

 5     I believe it is still in the first binder, binder number 1, Exhibit

 6     P 04699, P 04699.  And while you're doing that, sir, let me say for the

 7     record that this is a report on the activities of the HVO HZ HB for the

 8     period January to June 1993, so it's an HVO kind of six-month report.

 9     And if you find that, please -- for the English speakers I'm particularly

10     interested in page 15, page 15 and I'll see if we can possibly help you.

11     If you find the section in the document -- there are subsections of the

12     document and this one is in a section called:  "Military Police

13     Administration," and that's -- I'm just giving you that as a landmark.

14     If you find "Military Police Administration" and then go down several

15     pages until you finally -- you will find a paragraph that starts with:

16     "The situation with wire communications ..."

17             MR. SCOTT:  And if anyone else in the courtroom can assist us in

18     finding the Serbo-Croatian page reference, that will be helpful, in

19     e-court or otherwise.

20        Q.   Again, it's a paragraph that starts with the text:  "The

21     situation with wire communications ..."

22        A.   Excuse me, could you please direct me to the page that I should

23     be looking at.

24             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  [Microphone not activated]

25             MR. SCOTT:  Your Honour.

Page 32685

 1             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I guess it's page 24.

 2             MR. SCOTT:

 3        Q.   It appears to be page 20 -- perhaps page 24 of the Serbo-Croatian

 4     document --

 5             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  The second paragraph.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I found it.

 7             MR. SCOTT:  Thank you, Judge Trechsel, thank you.

 8        Q.   If you have that, sir, let me just -- and this is a general HVO

 9     report and it says this:  "The situation with wire communications is

10     mainly satisfactory.  All units, stations, and communication centres are

11     connected to the automatic telephone system as end users of the telephone

12     exchange in Split and local exchanges."

13             I note this in particular because of Judge Trechsel's question

14     yesterday.

15             "Telegraph communications are guaranteed at the level of military

16     police battalion administrations."

17             Now, looking at that information, sir, is that -- do you confirm

18     that information is consistent with what you knew of the status at that

19     time?  And again, this is a report for the period January-June 1993.

20        A.   This is in line with the situation as it was, it reflects the

21     situation as it was, but we're talking about territories under HVO

22     control.

23        Q.   All right.  And over on the top of that -- well, in the English

24     carrying over to page 16 and in the following paragraph in your -- in any

25     event in either version I suppose, the following paragraph.  I won't

Page 32686

 1     again read the same -- whole thing, but I notice at the end of that

 2     paragraph it mentions this same location, Planinica, and in general it

 3     says this system was "... providing good-quality communications links on

 4     70 per cent of the territory of the HZ HB."

 5             Do you see that?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   And again, that would be consistent with your knowledge at the

 8     time?

 9        A.   For the most part, yes.

10        Q.   All right.  If you can then -- all right.  I think we'll stop

11     with that for this document for purposes of the time-limits that we have.

12             MR. SCOTT:  Your Honour.

13             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute.

14             Witness, I note that in this report on page 11 in the English

15     version there's a chapter on the CIS, the security and information

16     service.  So I have the following question to ask you.  The BiH -- I

17     mean, the ABiH, so in Mostar of the units who were under Arif Pasalic's

18     command, I'd like to know whether these units had to go through the

19     exchange, telephone exchange, controlled by the HVO when they wanted to

20     communicate.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At the time prior to the conflict

22     between the Croat and Muslim side, the communications went through the

23     Mostar PTT.  They used the same lines that we did and that all the others

24     did, the same communications.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But after the conflict started,

Page 32687

 1     what happened?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The lines went down.

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So which network were they

 4     using to communicate among themselves when they were using the telephone?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I know, before the

 6     conflict Arif Pasalic was in the western part of the town and

 7     communications with the units that were dispersed around the town for the

 8     most part in the eastern part of the town were used -- were using PTT

 9     cable network.  When the conflict broke out, Arif, Arif Pasalic, crossed

10     over to the eastern side and he was able to use the cable installations

11     in the eastern part of the town.  A certain number of people who worked

12     in the PTT went together with him, and they assisted in setting this up.

13     I assume that that's what they did because they certainly had the

14     capacity to do it.

15             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  I have another

16     question, a little question, but it's quite important for me.  Maybe you

17     won't really see the point of this question; however, when telephones are

18     tapped, the tapping is done in the PTT exchange, isn't it?  I'd like to

19     know whether you have the answer to this, yes or no; if you don't, it's

20     fine.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The only thing I know is that in

22     the former state all cables led to a special room, and there it was

23     possible to tap into all the telephone lines.  That's no longer the case,

24     but at any rate it was possible to do that.  But you can wire-tap

25     wherever you want to from point A to point B.  There are no limitations

Page 32688

 1     to that.  You can wire-tap in many places.

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But when you were heading this

 3     enterprise, did you -- were you aware of any tapping that would have been

 4     done within the HVO?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't know that and I don't

 6     think that PTT was used for that directly.

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Thank you.

 8             Mr. Scott.

 9             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I'm sorry, I have a follow-up question to the

10     previous question.  You have said, Mr. Kozulj, that Arif Pasalic after

11     the conflict broke out went to East Mostar and from there he could use

12     the cable communications.  Now, I wonder whether I understand correctly.

13     You have told us that the two bridges where the coaxial cable passed had

14     been destroyed and the cable had, therefore, been interrupted.  Are you

15     now saying that Mr. Pasalic on the east side had the possibility to hook

16     himself on the cable from there to anywhere and use it?  Or have I

17     misunderstood this?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Coaxial cables are cables that are

19     used for long -- over long distances, and in a town or in an inhabited

20     area you set up a large network using other cables.  Mostar, like any

21     other town, offers all kinds of possibilities in this respect, it is full

22     of cables.  So although the bridges were down, it was possible to

23     re-connect the cables on the western side of the town and also on the

24     eastern side of the town and to use the cables that were already in

25     place.  They could install an exchange and then use the cables.  They

Page 32689

 1     could also use --

 2             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you very much.  That's the answer to my

 3     question.

 4             Excuse me, Mr. Scott, please continue.

 5             MR. SCOTT:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 6        Q.   Sir, before we leave that document, I was able to find the

 7     reference in the B/C/S version to the other portion I did want to briefly

 8     mention to you.  It's English page 21, and in the Serbo-Croatian it is

 9     page 32, and I'm told that in e-court the B/C/S is on page 34.  So 21 in

10     the English, 32 in the B/C/S, page 34 in e-court for B/C/S.

11             And I will say for the record, this is in a part of the report

12     that comes under the section titled:  "Health Sector."  And on that

13     paragraph that I'd like you to look at, sir, it says:  "In the recent

14     period -- in the recent period, the Computer Technology and

15     Communications Department set up a communications system throughout the

16     HZ HB wherever such a service existed," listing a number then -- a number

17     of locations starting with Busovaca, Vitez, Konjic, et cetera.

18             At the end of that paragraph the last two sentences are:  "All

19     the problems of the medical services and hospitals were discussed through

20     this communication system.  All reports containing data on the wounded

21     and killed were filed in the computer of our service."

22             Did you have any knowledge around this time - again, this is a

23     report for the first six months of 1993 - that there was a computer

24     communications network operating in this fashion?

25        A.   Well, I'm not an expert in that field.  These are military

Page 32690

 1     communications that were installed wherever it was necessary to secure

 2     communication for the requirements of the HVO.  This is the system of

 3     packet communication in order to protect the information used by -- and

 4     they used the military radio communications network.  There is nothing in

 5     common that they have with the PTT communications.  I don't know how that

 6     network was built, what its capacity was, where its nodes were or

 7     switchboards or -- I really don't know.  I'm not trying to avoid

 8     anything.

 9             MS. TOMANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I may just

10     assist, if I may assist the witness and everyone in the courtroom.  This

11     document, this part of the document that Mr. Scott quoted, in the

12     Croatian version it does say "package communication."  In the English

13     it's translated as "the communications system," and perhaps this is where

14     the misunderstanding arises between the Prosecutor and the witness.

15             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Ms. Tomanovic.

16             MR. SCOTT:  [Microphone not activated]

17             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

18             MR. SCOTT:  Apologies.

19        Q.   If I can next ask you to look -- you should have another binder,

20     I'm afraid, which is P 10630, which -- I'll wait for the moment.  It

21     has -- it's communications related to Gornji Vakuf during the period

22     January 1993.  It's a completely separate binder.  If you look at the

23     beginning of the binder -- no, the whole binder is 10630.  There you go.

24             Sir, this is a compilation of documents.  I believe it's -- there

25     are about 72 communications for the period of January 1993, HVO

Page 32691

 1     communications related to Gornji Vakuf.  My intention is not to go

 2     through all the individual documents with you.  It's similar to the

 3     binder that we looked at yesterday afternoon concerning Central Bosnia

 4     and Sarajevo.  Sir, if I -- based on this documentation if I was to

 5     represent to you that these records indicate at least 72 HVO

 6     communications related to Gornji Vakuf during the period the 5th of

 7     January, 1993, to the 31st of January, 1993, would you agree that that

 8     appears to indicate a pretty good level of communication?

 9        A.   All -- well, the thing is I don't know what sort of

10     communications they were, whether they were packet communications or -- I

11     don't see that from here.

12        Q.   All right.

13        A.   As far as I know, Gornji Vakuf always was a territory under the

14     control of the HVO.

15        Q.   And by January of 1993 can you confirm that there was -- again,

16     the term I use today, there was land-line telephone communication between

17     the Mostar region and Gornji Vakuf as of January 1993?

18        A.   They were not supposed to exist between Mostar and Gornji Vakuf.

19     They could have existed between Gornji Vakuf and Prozor, and then Prozor

20     was linked via radio or some other way with the other territories.

21     Different options were used in order to link up the regions in the

22     territory under the control of the HVO.

23             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your

24     Honours.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Previous translation continues]...

Page 32692

 1             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Just very briefly, Your

 2     Honour, when you look at these documents that are in this binder relating

 3     to communications with Gornji Vakuf, just by looking at them, glancing at

 4     them, you can see that this is not exclusively about communications with

 5     Gornji Vakuf but also with communications about Gornji Vakuf.  So then we

 6     have documents of a communication at Ljubusko with a location within

 7     Mostar but Gornji Vakuf is also referred to.  So I guess that the

 8     intention of the Prosecutor is to introduce this number of documents as

 9     evidence that there was communication with Gornji Vakuf.  However, these

10     documents do not show that, not all of them do at least.  I don't have

11     the opportunity to look at all of them, but I already see from the chart

12     that some documents refer to internal office-to-office communications in

13     the building in Mostar, for example, or Ljubusko.  Thank you.

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, quite --

15             THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Your Honour --

16             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. --

17             THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] -- it would be a good idea

18     to get this in Croatian also so that we can follow this.  I think this is

19     a duty of the Prosecutor.

20             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  It's all in both languages in the binder, the

21     documents.

22             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Praljak, does your

23     lawyer have the documents?  Don't they have them?

24             MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with all due respect,

25     we received the binders yesterday from the Prosecutor, as is the habit

Page 32693

 1     here in this courtroom, immediately or shortly before the cross began,

 2     that is the practice.  But there are documents in the binder which have

 3     not been translated.  So it is a question of how far the Prosecutor will

 4     go with these documents.  If we're only talking about the binder or the

 5     list of documents that have been shown so far, there is no problem; but

 6     if we're going to be dealing with documents that have not been translated

 7     into B/C/S then we are going to put in an objection.

 8             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, but I don't think that the

 9     Prosecutor wants to go into detail or into contents.  He just wants to

10     show that there were means of communication.  You just need to look at

11     documents 1301, you can see a stamp on it showing that the document was

12     sent through the telegram number 501.  I suppose that that's what the

13     Prosecutor wants to show; he doesn't want to go to the contents of the

14     documents.  Only ask the witness based on these documents whether the

15     witness can confirm that there were various means of communication,

16     including telegrams, since we can see that this one was received by

17     telegram.

18             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Mr. Scott, perhaps this is a bit premature, but

19     I think you should in particular establish or at least allege which way

20     of communication was used.  One way that we have not yet mentioned here

21     but is used in -- or was until some time ago, at least by our army, are

22     pigeons, and they are not so vulnerable to shelling.  But perhaps you

23     will go into this.  Some seem Telex, some may be fax, but --

24             MR. SCOTT:  Thank you, Your Honours, to both Mr. President and

25     Judge Trechsel.  And let me start by saying that Judge Antonetti, the

Page 32694

 1     President, is correct that it was not our intention to go through the

 2     content of each of these documents.  We're not arguing at this point what

 3     a particular report says or doesn't say, except in one aspect which I'll

 4     come back to in a moment.  So it was not our intention to go through

 5     these documents, and of course it would take us more time than we have,

 6     to be perfectly transparent, if we were to try to go through all 72

 7     documents.

 8             To respond to counsel's observation, the documents -- all the

 9     documents in this binder purport to be either one of two things or both,

10     they either are communications with, to or from, at one end or the other,

11     if you will, the communication line with Gornji Vakuf; or they make

12     reference to information coming from Gornji Vakuf.  And the Prosecutor --

13     as to those particular documents, it's that kind of document the

14     Prosecutor would submit that if there are internal reports among the HVO

15     about what's happening in Gornji Vakuf on a day in January 1993, then

16     that information itself was communicated somehow, unless it was being

17     made up, which presumably was not the case.

18             So to answer those questions.

19             Judge Trechsel, I'm afraid that you're absolutely right, the

20     chart would be more helpful if we had indicated in each item the form of

21     communication.  Obviously we didn't.  Sorry for that.  But if we went

22     through each document, again we would see a variety of whether it was by

23     a fax, whether it was -- many of them will be by packet.  There are

24     different forms, Your Honour, but I do have to say in all honesty I

25     couldn't possibly go through each one now to put it on, but I understand

Page 32695

 1     in the future it would be helpful to have it on the table.

 2             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I say something?

 4             MR. SCOTT:

 5        Q.   Yes, please, go ahead.

 6        A.   It's not clear to me that what is being affirmed is that the HVO

 7     units, or let's say territories under the control of the HVO, had

 8     communications -- well, we tried with all our might to secure connections

 9     for both civilian and military forces in the territories where they were.

10     I don't see what is controversial about that.  The other thing is whether

11     they had connections with the others, with the Serb side, with the Muslim

12     side; this is another question altogether.

13        Q.   Well, let me be clear --

14             MR. SCOTT:  Sorry.  Go ahead.

15             MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I really don't want

16     to take up any more time, but I must admit that I'm a little bit confused

17     with this position.  My learned friend has explicitly just said that

18     these 72 documents were not -- well, that it was not the intention to go

19     through all 72 of them.  If the documents were given to us yesterday or

20     the plan of documents that are going to be used at the cross, we could

21     have for decency's sake been told not to have to go through all these 72

22     documents.  My team this morning invested about four or five hours -- I

23     mean, I didn't keep track of who did what, but four or five hours to go

24     through all of that.  So I must object.  This seems like a tactic to me.

25     We cannot be given a binder before the cross as the material to be used

Page 32696

 1     at the cross, and then to be told during the cross that we did not have

 2     the intention in the first place to go through all of these documents.

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] With all due respect,

 4     Mr. Kovacic, I discovered only a few minutes ago this binder bearing the

 5     number Exhibit 10630, and it took me only a few minutes to realize what

 6     the Prosecutor was endeavouring to demonstrate.  It didn't take me three

 7     hours to understand; I understood in a matter of seconds and I understood

 8     that the Prosecutor wanted to use these documents to try and demonstrate

 9     that there were various systems of communication that were working with

10     regard to Gornji Vakuf.  From what the Prosecutor says, there are 70

11     documents showing that.  He said he was not going to go into each of the

12     72 documents, so based on that he was going to tell the witness, I have a

13     binder with 72 documents about Gornji Vakuf.  These are military-type

14     documents.  Since they are sent to operational zones and there are stamps

15     showing that the documents were recorded or sent by radio telegram or

16     Telex, et cetera, and he was going to ask whether the witness could

17     confirm that that was the way it was working at military level.  And the

18     witness was to answer, and he answered already in that way, he said that

19     he was specialised in civil matters, not in military matters.

20             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Let me add, Mr. Kovacic, I'm a bit surprised at

21     this intervention.  Yesterday, we had a file thicker than this one,

22     Exhibit 10633, it looks exactly like this.  The Prosecutor dealt with it

23     exactly the way he deals with this one, and I find it difficult to

24     understand that this could be misunderstood.  I do not think that any

25     blame falls on the Prosecution in this respect.

Page 32697

 1             Mr. Scott, you may continue.

 2             MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] With all due respect, Your Honours,

 3     the problem lies in the fact that we were given one information and that

 4     we, using the minimum standards of work required of us, had to go through

 5     those documents.  Of course we understood what the purpose was, but we

 6     cannot foresee how far the Prosecutor will go with each of the examples.

 7     We did understand that he was providing examples, but we cannot

 8     anticipate how far he will take these examples.  So we're automatically

 9     trying to find other documents which confirm this, provide some detailed

10     information, explain things, because based on some documents you really

11     cannot see what it's all about -- I mean, you cannot even see what sort

12     of communication is being discussed.  I don't want to take any more of

13     your time on this matter, but I still do believe that it is quite

14     unrealistic to provide the other parties in the courtroom, to the Defence

15     and to yourselves, after all, with 72 documents on the table and say,

16     Well, here are the examples.  They could have taken out or extracted

17     those two or three examples and use them.

18             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But I think that Mr. Scott

19     might take four or five examples, I'm not sure.  He -- you took the floor

20     before he even started so -- or finished, so maybe that was -- maybe he

21     was planning -- what are you planning to do, Mr. Scott?

22             MR. SCOTT:  Thank you, Your Honour.  I must -- let me just say

23     this.  I mean, I thought that the Prosecution frankly was going out of

24     its way to be as helpful as possible, albeit for the column on the manner

25     of communication which Judge Trechsel's rightly pointed out would be

Page 32698

 1     helpful, I would be happy to supplement the charts and provide that

 2     information in the future.

 3             I could have stood up, I suppose, and put to the witness --

 4     simply made the good-faith representation that the Prosecution had at

 5     least 72 documented instances of communications with Gornji Vakuf in

 6     January 1993, and as a person who's expert, at least generally in various

 7     forms of communication, what that means -- what that says to him about

 8     communications.  I simply could have done that with that one single piece

 9     of paper.  I thought it might be more helpful to everyone in the

10     courtroom and to the witness to have not only the table, but, if you

11     will, the supporting material.  And so we were trying to be helpful, not

12     unhelpful, in doing it this way.

13        Q.   My original question to you, sir, was -- and I realize you may

14     not be an expert in every aspect of military communications, but you've

15     talked an awful lot about a lot of things since Monday.  And let me go

16     back to my original question, sir.  Doesn't this indicate to you in

17     general that there were, in fact, fairly extensive communications going

18     on between -- either to or about Gornji Vakuf in January 1993?

19        A.   You're talking about information that you have information --

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, if you want to

21     interrupt the witness in his answer, no; but if it's for something

22     else -- what do you want to say?

23             THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, regardless of

24     the anger of His Honour Judge Trechsel, what is being said in this court

25     is imprecise.  The question says significant communication, important

Page 32699

 1     communication, but three times it is repeated that 72 times there was

 2     communication with Gornji Vakuf down.  This document does not show that.

 3     This is not a correct number, so I'm surprised that neither the lawyers

 4     or Their Honours are reacting.  This documentation shows or it enumerates

 5     the communications in Mostar, Mostar and Ljubusko, and then the

 6     elementary preciseness of each engineer is not to use the number 72.  How

 7     broad something is -- and if we're talking about numbers, we need to

 8     quote the number, is it 13?  Is it 500?  But 72 is used three times after

 9     Ms. Kuzmanovic [as interpreted] said that it's not 72.  And if you're

10     insisting on preciseness or precision, let's stick to it then.  Thank

11     you.

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Praljak -- well, my

13     colleague doesn't want you to comment; I'm not of his view.  So there is

14     some disagreement or total disagreement within the Trial Chamber.

15             As to this figure, the Prosecutor said that there were 72

16     documents, but of course throughout that period there must have been many

17     more communications with various zones.  We see Kordic, Stojic, HVO Main

18     Staff, et cetera, Boban, there must be many more documents and I guess

19     the Prosecutor made a selection using his research engine or software and

20     found 70 documents bearing the name or with the name of Gornji Vakuf.

21     And based on the 72 documents, he's trying to demonstrate that there must

22     have been various ways of communication.  Is this your purpose?  So

23     there's not just 72 documents, there are many more, but your services

24     have selected these after doing some research.  Is that right?

25             MR. SCOTT:  That's correct, Your Honour.  I would say it

Page 32700

 1     wasn't -- just so the record is clear, it wasn't simply, of course, a

 2     matter - and I'm sure the Chamber knows this - it wasn't simply a matter

 3     of pushing a particular button on Gornji Vakuf, but also a substantial

 4     amount of human -- if you will, human review and confirmation that all of

 5     these documents did indicate -- have to do either constituting

 6     communications themselves, which -- as will be indicated on the document,

 7     or evidencing, being evidence of a fact of communications going on at

 8     that time, one or the other, as I indicated earlier.  And again, Your

 9     Honour, I certainly don't want to debate with the witness the content of

10     any particular document, what was or was not happening on a particular

11     day.  But the fact of the communications that were going on.

12             MR. STEWART:  Yes, Your Honour, may we just make an observation

13     here.

14             Mr. Scott at page 22, line 13, said:  "I realize you may not be

15     an expert in every aspect of military communications, but you've talked

16     an awful lot about a lot of things since Monday ..."

17             Not quite sure where the second half of that sentence gets

18     anybody.  We all talk about a lot of things.  It doesn't make us an

19     expert on anything.  But this witness has said, and I can't claim to be

20     giving the precise words, but this witness has said in the course -- just

21     of today, and he's said it previously in his evidence, first of all, he's

22     had very little dealings with military communications.  He's also said

23     something very close, he really doesn't know very much at all about it.

24     So the question still arises:  On what basis is all this stuff being put

25     to this witness anyway?  Because if the witness does not have the

Page 32701

 1     knowledge to speak directly to these matters, then what's being done?

 2     And this is objectionable, Your Honour.  What's being done is a whole lot

 3     of material is being artificially fed through this witness -- no

 4     disrespect to the witness, he's just some sort of channel, some sort of

 5     conveyer belt, and that's not the right way of doing it -- because if the

 6     witness is being asked -- and I'm not absolutely sure, because it's not

 7     clear precisely what the Prosecution are doing here and what they intend,

 8     but if the Prosecution are saying to him:  Do you draw the conclusion

 9     from these documents that, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, given that he

10     doesn't have the expertise, then the witness has no role here at all

11     because those are conclusions which Your Honours should be being invited

12     to draw if the Prosecution say you can draw them, but then that leads us

13     back to a basic point which is:  On what basis are the Prosecution

14     permitted to be putting this material before the Court anyway so far as

15     it's not already been admitted into evidence?  There are quite a lot of

16     questions there, Your Honour, but they are all pertinent questions and

17     they are all linked.  And they're all very much at the heart of the way

18     in which cross-examination should be properly conducted in relation to a

19     witness of this type.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, Mr. Stewart reminds

21     us, but I'd say that already.  The witness said on several occasions that

22     he was not competent in military matters.  All the documents submitted to

23     him are military documents.  He may have some limited competence, I don't

24     know, but this is what Mr. Stewart was pointing out to you.

25             MR. SCOTT:  Thank you, Your Honour.  I won't go into all the -- I

Page 32702

 1     won't respond to all of Mr. Stewart's comments.  I think it is -- at

 2     least in what we think we're trying to accomplish.  Maybe it's -- others

 3     think differently, but what we thought we were trying to accomplish, we

 4     thought we were going about it properly and in a way that was, as I said

 5     earlier, as helpful as possible with the exception of the additional bit

 6     of information mentioned by Judge Trechsel.  Here's the -- let's go right

 7     to the root of this the way this has evolved, and actually this ties

 8     together a number of interesting issues.  The Prosecution has raised on a

 9     number of occasions the importance of the information in the disclosure

10     and the summary provided for this witness.  It's all that the Prosecution

11     has to prepare.  We're not provided any prior statements in most

12     instances or at all.

13             So let me remind the Chamber, this is the summary, this is the

14     Rule 65 ter summary that we are provided by the Defence for this witness

15     and what it says in the middle of the -- page 21:  "He will testify in

16     general about the telecommunications set-up in BiH and how because of the

17     war conditions all," and I emphasize the word all, "communications,"

18     without qualification as to type, sort, et cetera, "all communications

19     with Central Bosnia were cut off."

20             Now, that is the evidence -- that is the information the

21     Prosecution was given to prepare to meet the evidence of this witness.

22     Now, if the Prosecution was misled on the scope of this witness's

23     testimony, then, you know, that's -- does -- that does not lie at the

24     feet of the Prosecution.  If what we're being told is -- and -- and I

25     must say, not only was it in the summary but on the first day of the

Page 32703

 1     testimony the witness himself also made such broad statements.  At page

 2     20, 21 of the first day of his testimony when talking about the

 3     disruption of communication between Sarajevo and Mostar, the witness said

 4     "all communications."  It was cut off.  There was no way of

 5     communicating.  Now we're finding as the days go by and as we get to

 6     Wednesday, well that's not really so much the case, and that really isn't

 7     the scope of this witness's knowledge or expertise.

 8             So the Prosecution has prepared on the basis of the information

 9     provided to it, including the 65 ter summary, and now it's a little bit

10     like, Well, now the situation has been changed.  So, Your Honour,

11     that's -- that's what brings us here and I just wanted to make it very --

12     this is the reason -- this is one of the reasons why the Prosecution has

13     said since April the importance of receiving fair summaries of what a

14     witness is going to come and say because it says "all communications"

15     with Central Bosnia were cut off and that's what we're preparing --

16     that's what we're responding.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This challenges the Prlic

18     Defence.

19             MS. TOMANOVIC: [Interpretation] [Previous translation

20     continues]...  too much of your time, but I have to respond to what the

21     Prosecutor has said since we prepared those summaries for them together,

22     Mr. Karnavas and myself.  The witness is saying the same thing that he

23     told us at the proofing sessions earlier this year, and that is that all

24     communications with Sarajevo were down when the war broke out.  The

25     witness did not recant this.  He is still saying that.  He has said this

Page 32704

 1     ten times today.

 2             Likewise, on Tuesday, yesterday, the witness said at least 20

 3     times to the Prosecutor that he had no knowledge of military

 4     communications.  If that was not sufficient for the Prosecutor to prompt

 5     him not to pursue this line of questioning, then I don't know what is

 6     enough.

 7             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if I may, I'm very

 8     unhappy that we still have to discuss whether a locality is in Central

 9     Bosnia or somewhere else, in some other region.  I would like to stress

10     that Gornji Vakuf is not in Central Bosnia.  We have seen a number of

11     documents indicating quite clearly that Gornji Vakuf is in north-western

12     Herzegovina, in a completely different operational zone.  So what the

13     Prlic Defence indicated in their summary for this witness is not

14     corrected by the contents of his testimony.

15             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, it seems that there is a

16     misunderstanding.  In the Defence's summary it said all communications,

17     and the Prosecution interpreted this as being all military and civilian

18     communications.  This is why he is submitting documents to show that at

19     least military communications were up and running.  I think we've all

20     understood the point now.  Let's not waste any time on this.

21             Mr. Scott, you might be -- move to something else -- unless Judge

22     Prandler would like to say something.

23             JUDGE PRANDLER:  I do not want to use too much time on this

24     matter.  I believe that it is probably due to the issue that the

25     summaries should be really more carefully drafted and prepared.  It was

Page 32705

 1     mentioned by the Defence that the summaries are relating only to Central

 2     Bosnia, which is true because if I read it I may quote "he," that is,

 3     Mr. Kozulj, "will also testify in general about the telecommunications

 4     set up in BiH, telecommunications set up in BiH," in this case it is not

 5     only Central Bosnia, "and how because of the war conditions all

 6     communications with Central Bosnia were cut off."

 7             And it continues that "Mostar had been an important

 8     communications centre before the war and when Mostar was cut off the

 9     whole system collapsed, that is, Montenegro, Croatia, Serbia, Croatia,"

10     et cetera.  So therefore -- it is end of quotation.

11             So therefore, I believe it is a kind of lesson for every one of

12     us here that the summaries are to be prepared and submitted as -- in a

13     way as broadly and as punctually as possible.  Thank you.

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott.

15             MR. SCOTT:  Thank you, Your Honour.

16             I would like to make it clear -- well, a couple of things.  I'm

17     not sure that -- in fairness to the Prosecution and to the Chamber, I'm

18     not sure that the impression that would not have been left with the

19     Chamber on Monday, at the end of the day on Monday, would not have been

20     that the scope of Mr. Kozulj's testimony was in fact a much broader --

21     and if the testimony had ended on that day, the Chamber might well have

22     been led to believe and might have been -- the Defence might well have

23     been expected to argue in the future, that this witness had, in fact,

24     indicated or confirmed that there was no communication, that all

25     communications had been cut off.  With the greatest respect, I submit

Page 32706

 1     that that was the impression that the Chamber was left with.

 2             Now, I want the record now to be very, very clear as to what the

 3     evidence of this witness is and is not, and I think it's clear now that

 4     what we're saying is that this witness has only talked about what we

 5     might call and can establish that as of June 199 -- May 1992 through

 6     April of 1994, is what he's told us, that there were no land-line PTT

 7     civilian communications between Mostar and Sarajevo.  That is his core

 8     position.  And beyond that, the witness has told us nothing else about

 9     the scope of the communications available and used by the HVO during that

10     period.  And the Chamber should understand that and there should be no

11     dispute.

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, I don't really agree

13     with you.  Monday I myself put the question to the witness.  I asked him

14     about military communications.  It was my own question, because another

15     question had been put and I decided to ask a question on military issues,

16     and the witness -- you can look at the transcript, but the witness -- on

17     Monday, as of Monday already the witness told us that he was not

18     competent when it came to military communications, but I mentioned the

19     issue on Monday.  So I couldn't be led -- misled at any moment because I

20     did -- I knew that there were communication -- that communications were

21     both civilian and military so I put the question to him.  Of course

22     answered, but he did tell us that there were some elements of regarding

23     military communications that he had no idea about.  And then yesterday

24     early in the afternoon I went back at it to talk about wire-tapping and

25     telephone tapping, and there again he limited his answer, saying that he

Page 32707

 1     didn't know much about it.

 2             So the Trial Chamber could not be misled here.  I don't agree

 3     with this.  And as of now we know that as far as civilian communications

 4     is concerned, this witness is well-versed in that; but when it comes to

 5     military communications, he's much less competent.  That's what he said.

 6             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Mr. Scott, I think we should come to an end with

 7     this discussion, and I'm afraid that it has perhaps gone a bit astray.

 8     What is the issue?  We have a bunch of documents that indicate there was

 9     a communication between Gornji Vakuf and other towns, Mostar, or which

10     indicate that there had been such communications.  Most of them, it is

11     true, are military and that is not something where technically the

12     witness can say much about.  But that, I don't think, is not really so

13     essential.  Not all of them are military.  If you look at number 13, for

14     instance, or at number 31, these are communications which I think it's

15     difficult to classify as military.  Number 13 is a decision of Mr. Prlic

16     and Article -- number 31 is a letter of Mr. Boban to Mr. Izetbegovic.

17     There are others.  I think that the document itself speaks for itself to

18     a large extent, that at least marginally I think that the witness is

19     capable to saying that he does not -- he does not see anything here which

20     would invalidate the conclusions the document leads to.  So I think the

21     Prosecution could go on.

22             MR. SCOTT:  Thank you, Judge Trechsel.  And again, that brings

23     us -- you're absolutely right, that brings us back to the original

24     purpose and intention of the Prosecution proceeding this way.

25        Q.   Sir, the question that I've put to you several times -- and I'm

Page 32708

 1     not asking you to comment on any particular military means, whether a

 2     particular communication may have been encrypted, whether a military code

 3     might have been used.  I'm just simply indicating to you that on the

 4     basis of at least 72 documents, and we're talking about a specific period

 5     of time, about 20 days in January or 25 days in January 1993 - which the

 6     Chamber will understand as a time relevant to the indictment - that there

 7     was this extent of communications.  And as someone who at least generally

 8     knows about communications systems, does that not indicate to you, sir,

 9     that there was substantial what we might call real-time communication

10     going on about Gornji Vakuf in the HVO?

11        A.   Well, I would like to be allowed to answer.  First of all, Gornji

12     Vakuf, as far as I know, is linked with Herzegovina the way that Madam

13     Defence Counsel explained.  It was always linked with the free territory,

14     HVO-controlled territory, in Herzegovina.  I don't know the details, but

15     the HVO units had the capability of communicating with each other, either

16     using civilian PTT lines or military lines.  But this number, 82, over a

17     certain period, well that's -- wouldn't be too much even if it were over

18     an hour.  It's a small number.  If we're talking about any kind of

19     communications, a one-page message takes a minute to be transmitted.  So

20     we're not talking about a huge volume that would be -- that I would find

21     impressive.  That's certainly not impressive from my point of view.  It's

22     a very low volume of communications, if that's what you're driving at.

23             Secondly, at the beginning of my testimony I said that all the

24     lines were down and I described the lines that were down.  Nobody asked

25     me then:  What about military communications?  I indicated what lines I

Page 32709

 1     meant when I said that lines of communication with Sarajevo were down.

 2        Q.   All right.  Sir, if we can -- in the spirit of all this that

 3     we've hopefully clarified in the past 15 or 20 minutes, if I can ask you

 4     to next go to Exhibit P 10632, which should be in binder number 2 of the

 5     general -- what you might call the general Prosecution -- no, I'm

 6     sorry -- it may be separate.  It may indeed be separate, my apologies,

 7     but it's Exhibit 10632, it's sort of the identical format and type of

 8     document as the one we were just looking at.  These happen to relate to

 9     another -- the courtroom will know an important time-period and an

10     important location, mid-April 1993, I believe Vitez and Ahmici are indeed

11     in Central Bosnia.  And by these records, sir, I will explain further in

12     a moment, this document would indicate that there were at least 38 HVO

13     communications related to these locations between the days, the 13th of

14     April and the 25th of April, 1993, and in particular in this instance --

15     the reason I say there's only -- I think there's only -- I think there's

16     only 12 documents but I say there's 38 communications, if I can direct

17     your attention and the courtroom's attention in particular to item number

18     4 which is tabbed in that set of materials as 00463 is the third document

19     in the binder -- no, excuse me, it's the fourth overall document in the

20     binder -- well, use the tab numbers.  I'm sorry.  It may be -- P 00463.

21             Sir, this is a -- these are two pages out of the HVO headquarters

22     communication log.  This was the log kept at the HVO headquarters in

23     Mostar.  And if you look down the page, on the 16th of April, 1993, you

24     will see the time and a description of the communication.  For example,

25     if you look at -- if you look at, for example, at 16th of April, 1993, at

Page 32710

 1     0145 hours, it refers to a cable number 2028 from the Vitez Vitezovi

 2     special-purposes unit sent to Bruno Stojic, Milivoj Petkovic, Ivan

 3     Primorac.  Do you see that as one example?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   And can you see -- if you just scan down the page and the

 6     references, in particular the ones that refer to Vitez, for example --

 7     another example, 2032, number 2032, 16 April, 1993, at 0230 hours, cable

 8     number 2032, sent by Vitez to Mate Boban, Franjo Tudjman, Bruno Stojic,

 9     and Milivoj Petkovic.  Now, do you see the nature -- you see the way this

10     log-book is laid out; correct?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   And my question to you about this binder, sir, is:  Again, does

13     that not indicate to you a significant amount of real-time communication

14     among the HVO about the Vitez-Ahmici area in mid-April 1993?

15        A.   If this document is accurate, then there was some kind of

16     communication.  I don't know how it proceeded, what equipment was used.

17     It would appear from this that it was packet radio communication, but I'm

18     not familiar with this protocol, with this type of record.

19             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, this is a military

20     document, obviously it's extremely accurate, and it's just an excerpt.

21     It would have been maybe useful to have the entire register or log-book.

22     But we note that on April 16, 1993, at 1.00 in the morning, 1.00 a.m., a

23     document is sent.  I also note, and I'm sure everyone noted also, that

24     all these messages have a number, an order number.  On April 16 the

25     document in the log-book is number 2024, which means probably that from

Page 32711

 1     January 1st, 1993, to April 16, 1993, there were probably 2.000 cables

 2     sent or 2.000 documents or messages sent and recorded in this log-book.

 3     And if we have 2.000 of them, that means that there was quite some

 4     communications going on.

 5             What can you say about this, Witness?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, you can see from this

 7     overview, first of all, that this is packet communications that used a

 8     radio system used by the HVO.  That's what I think.  I can't be certain.

 9     And secondly, that this would be a normal flow of information at a normal

10     pace.

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

12             Mr. Scott.

13             MR. SCOTT:  [Microphone not activated]

14             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

15             MR. SCOTT:  My apology.

16        Q.   Sir, if we can deal with the final bundle of a similar nature,

17     which is -- again it will be a separate -- I believe it will be a

18     separate binder next to you P 01 -- my apology, P 10631, P 10631, and

19     this is a series of documents about communications related to Vares and

20     Stupni Do during the time-period the 19th through the 27th of October of

21     1993.  And in this particular instance I believe there's documentation

22     here reflecting a total of -- well, there's 56 documents here.

23             MR. SCOTT:  I have to clarify to the Chamber that there was an

24     error.  When the -- if you look at the last a page of the document you'll

25     see that it's been numbered 55 so one would -- one would think that

Page 32712

 1     there's 55 items.  Unfortunately, if you look back at the first page, the

 2     last two items on the first page for whatever reason didn't get numbered.

 3     So the real number is 55 plus two, which is 57.  And the reason I said

 4     "56," is because item 55 is actually out of the time-period I just

 5     indicated but was included because it was a report prepared by Ivica

 6     Rajic on Stupni Do, specifically in response to one of the earlier

 7     communications.  So we did add that one document outside the time-period

 8     because it was directly responsive to one of the documents that were

 9     included.

10             So there were 56 documents related to communications related to

11     Stupni Do during the period 19 to the 27th of October, 1993.

12        Q.   Sir, my question to you is the same.  Does that not indicate to

13     you, once again, a substantial amount of effective or real-time

14     communication in the HVO about events happening in Vares and Stupni Do in

15     the latter part of October 1993?

16             MS. TOMANOVIC: [Interpretation] I would just like to object to

17     the form of this question.  The Prosecutor mentions events that happened

18     in Vares and Stupni Do.  The witness does not have time to read through

19     all those documents and he doesn't have to know about the events that are

20     discussed here, and we have to go back to the same issue, communications.

21     Again, we have 50 or 50-odd military communications and the witness is

22     going to give us the same answer.  I don't know where this leads and I

23     don't know why we're wasting our time with it.

24             MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] I have to say that I fully support

25     my colleague's objection.  It appears to me that this is yet another

Page 32713

 1     tactical attempt on the part of the Prosecution to reach -- to get to the

 2     topic of Stupni Do through cross-examination regardless of the fact that

 3     this was not discussed in direct examination.  In other words, to bypass

 4     your decision regarding whether in the cross-examination they can or

 5     cannot deal with topics that were not dealt in direct during the

 6     cross-examination.  And the same thing happened a little while ago with

 7     Ahmici.

 8             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kovacic, I don't think that

 9     Mr. Scott intends to deal with this topic of Vares and Stupni Do.  We've

10     spent hundreds of hours on it already.  I believe that what he intends to

11     do, what he wants to do, is to demonstrate that during this period, from

12     October 19 to 27, there were some -- so much -- so many communications

13     going on, that were exchanged.

14             Am I right, Mr. Scott, is that what you want to demonstrate I

15     assume?

16             MR. SCOTT:  Yes, Your Honour, I don't know how I can be more

17     transparent than this.  Again, we received a summary from the witness

18     that said no communications with Central Bosnia.  I met with my people

19     that I work with and we said what are some of the key events that the

20     Chamber might be interested in, and we can look at the communications

21     around those time-periods and those locations.  I'm not going to talk

22     about what happened at Stupni Do on the 23rd and 24th of October, but

23     these are communications on that topic at that time.  I thought the

24     Chamber might be interested to know that in the scope of this witness

25     given the representations made about testimony.

Page 32714

 1             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if you'll allow me

 2     just a few sentences.  As far as I was able to see, those documents are

 3     either fully or for the most part already admitted into evidence as

 4     exhibits in this trial, and we've discussed them with witnesses who were

 5     either in Vares or in Kiseljak.  None of the Defence teams ever contested

 6     the claim that the communications that are described in those documents

 7     actually occurred, and we had witnesses who explained to us how package

 8     radio system works and how some notifications were sent from Kiseljak to

 9     Mostar and the other way around, and I really think that it is

10     superfluous to keep asking this witness, who has told us so many times

11     he's not familiar with military communications, about things that we

12     heard in this courtroom -- we heard that it was distributed over military

13     package radio communications.

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, let's not start from

15     scratch again.  Please put your question to the witness and go to the

16     heart of the matter.

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

18        Q.   My question is the same one that I did put I believe a few

19     moments ago before counsels' interventions.  Sir, the question I'm

20     putting to you now is the same question I put to you about the earlier

21     bundles or binders and that is:  Does this not indicate, sir, a - what

22     word do I use?  - a significant amount, a significant number -- volume of

23     communications among the HVO about a particular location, Stupni Do and

24     Vares, at a particular time-period, the 27th of October -- excuse me, I'm

25     sorry, the 19th -- I lost my note on that -- during this time in October

Page 32715

 1     1993.  Does it not indicate that to you, sir?

 2             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, objection to the

 3     imprecision in the question because of the use of the term "significant."

 4     We really don't know what the term "significant" actually means.

 5             MR. SCOTT:  I'll let the witness -- if the witness wants to give

 6     an answer, Your Honour, I'll accept for these purposes his interpretation

 7     of what's "significant" as opposed to "insignificant" or "trivial."

 8             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please answer, Witness.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, leaving aside the documents,

10     because to tell you the truth I didn't have any time to look at them,

11     I've just received them.  Let me first of all say this:  We're talking

12     about the time-period from the 19th until the 27th October, 1993, and I

13     was saying that in Mostar the communication lines were down in mid-May

14     1992 and that from that time on we started with our effort to

15     re-establish and repair the communications.  So this is more than a year.

16     We were not just sitting there idle.  We were working, we were setting up

17     communication lines.  So at that time there were enough sufficient

18     civilian lines in place and I assume also military lines.

19             Secondly, let us look at document number 10315, if that's the

20     number.  I'm looking at the text in Croatian.  It's a letter that is

21     signed.  This could have been sent by post, by courier, by helicopter, I

22     don't know.  So it doesn't follow -- well, of course it could have been

23     faxed.  I can't see the markings that are usual on fax transmissions, but

24     we don't know what this is.  It's a time-period that is substantially

25     after the time-period when the telecommunications centre in Mostar was

Page 32716

 1     destroyed, and we did a lot of work to establish those communications.  I

 2     don't know what was done at what point in time, but quite a lot of those

 3     lines were up.  So you can't say that I said that lines were down in May

 4     1992 and then say -- if you're talking about October 1993, Well, you said

 5     that the lines were down.  That's really quite incomprehensible.  I can't

 6     accept it, no matter who is trying to put it to me.

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott.

 8             MR. SCOTT:  [Microphone not activated]

 9             THE ACCUSED PETKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can I ask for one moment

10     how the communication was actually affected?

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, we're going to have to

12     have a break soon.  Let's break for 20 minutes.

13                           --- Recess taken at 3.46 p.m.

14                           --- On resuming at 4.12 p.m.

15             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Court is back in session.

16     According to our calculation, you have 22 minutes left, Mr. Scott.  I

17     thought you had less than that, but I was told 22 minutes.

18             MR. SCOTT:  Thank you, Your Honour.

19             Just before we begin so I don't forget at the end of the day,

20     please, we owe -- the Prosecution owes a response to the 1D objection --

21     I guess the Prlic Defence objections concerning Mr. Puljic, which I think

22     is otherwise due today.  I would be most grateful if the Chamber would

23     allow us to file that tomorrow instead of today.

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let me consult.

25                           [Trial Chamber confers]

Page 32717

 1             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Trial Chamber grants you

 2     your motion.

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

 4        Q.   Sir, staying on the topic of Stupni Do, and again my purpose is

 5     not to go into the substance of what did or did not happen at Stupni Do

 6     but as a matter of -- related to the topic of communications, can I ask

 7     you to next look, please, at P 10620 in binder 2 of the general, so to

 8     speak, Prosecution binder, binder number 2, 10620.

 9             And, sir, while you're looking at that I'll say for the record

10     this is a compilation of, I believe, nine media articles either from

11     Bosnia-Herzegovina media or Croatian, Zagreb, media concerning the events

12     that occurred in Stupni Do.  The first is from Oslobodjenje, the 25th of

13     October; the second one is from Vjesnik, which is a Zagreb newspaper; the

14     third is from Slobodna Dalmacija, a Croatian newspaper, 27 October.  And

15     I'm not going to go through them all, but they are a series of news

16     articles starting on the 25th of October and the last one being I believe

17     the 31st -- yes, the 31st of October, again in Vjesnik titled:  "Republic

18     of Croatia condemns all crimes."

19             And my point again, sir, in showing this to you is:  Did you

20     consider or would you consider in terms of the topic of communication

21     that in Croatia at the time, in Bosnia-Herzegovina at the time, media and

22     media reporting was another means of communication of information?

23        A.   Correct.

24        Q.   And if we have the time again to go through all these articles,

25     they -- you would agree with me, wouldn't you, that these all indicate --

Page 32718

 1     these all involve reports or flows of information from somewhere, since

 2     some of these reporters are in Mostar, some of them are in other places,

 3     Zagreb, reference to Zagreb, HINA, the Croatian news agency, the Slobodna

 4     Dalmacija being published from Zagreb, that itself would represent a flow

 5     of information or a communication of information concerning the events in

 6     Stupni Do at that time; correct?

 7        A.   Correct.  Journalists of newspaper publishing companies and the

 8     television and radio stations have their teams that follow the domestic

 9     and international media, and that is where they get their information

10     from.  That's how I understood it, or they have journalists at the scene.

11        Q.   All right.  And following on the topic of media coverage, could I

12     ask you next, please, to go to -- it should be close by, I hope, in the

13     same binder, P 10627, P 10627.  Sir, this appears to be a report dated

14     the 27th of September, 1993, titled:  "Information about the performance

15     of work and tasks regarding the establishment and functioning of the

16     Croatian Radio of Herceg-Bosna."

17             Did you have any knowledge at the time that during 1993 at least

18     efforts were being made by Herceg-Bosna to establish something called

19     Croatian Radio of Herceg-Bosna?

20             MS. TOMANOVIC: [Interpretation] I would just like to correct the

21     Prosecutor in his version of the name of the name of this company, and in

22     the upper right-hand corner we have the public company of the Croatian

23     Republic of Herceg-Bosna.  This radio is not called Herceg-Bosna.

24             MR. SCOTT:  I'm referring -- well --

25             MS. TOMANOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, the translation was

Page 32719

 1     incorrect.  I apologise.  The translation's not correct.  I'm going to

 2     repeat.  In the upper left-hand corner there is the name of the radio,

 3     public company - radio of the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna.

 4             MR. SCOTT:  All right.  Thank you, counsel.  I accept that

 5     clarification.

 6        Q.   Sir, were you generally aware of this -- around this time when an

 7     effort was being made to establish a radio station or radio network of

 8     the sort that is described in this document?

 9        A.   Yes, I was.

10        Q.   And if I can direct your attention in particular to item number 4

11     in the actual body of the report, item number 4, which does indicate, it

12     appears, it says:  "The radio's own professional organizational unit for

13     the transmission equipment" et cetera "has been established ..."

14             And continuing to the end of that number, paragraph 4:  "...  to

15     the extent that it has achieved a stable signal, a wide aware of service,

16     and corresponding technical stability of the system (consistent with the

17     war-time conditions)."

18             Can you confirm, sir, that as of mid-1993 that radio station or

19     network was in fact up and running?

20        A.   I can confirm that the network was functioning and it is

21     functioning still today.

22        Q.   And if I can ask you to go a little -- it's not a numbered

23     paragraph, I don't believe, but if you go past number 6 --

24             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I'm sorry.

25             MR. SCOTT:  Yes, sir.

Page 32720

 1             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Perhaps in fairness it would be justified to

 2     point out the name of the radio station.

 3             Witness, could you read in this number 4 the name of that radio

 4     station.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The name is Croatian Radio of

 6     Herceg-Bosna.  It is a public company, radio of the Croatian Republic of

 7     Herceg-Bosna, and it was called Radio Herceg-Bosna or Croatian Radio

 8     Herceg-Bosna.  But the official name is what is written at the beginning

 9     of the document.

10             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I'm sorry, I'm a bit surprised.  Why do you say

11     that in this official document the name in number 4 is not the official

12     name?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would like to repeat.  When you

14     establish a public company it receives its official name and it is being

15     registered under that name in the register of companies at the

16     appropriate court.  In practice you could use different abbreviations, or

17     usually nobody talked about that whole story public company and so on and

18     so forth, they would just shorten it in their own way.

19             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation

20     continues]...

21             MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise, I just

22     wanted to immediately warn about a mistake in the translation I don't --

23     or in the transcript, I don't know where it is, page 43, line 8, the

24     witness as recorded in the transcript said literally:  [In English] "...

25     that the network was functioning and it is functioning still today."

Page 32721

 1             [Interpretation] In the original Croatian I heard that the

 2     witness said that the measure -- the radio network mostly functioned and

 3     functions to this day.  In the transcript the word "mostly" is not

 4     recorded and from what the witness -- and from that one can conclude that

 5     it functioned all the time.

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, did you add that it

 7     was working most of the time?  Because Mr. Kovacic heard that, that it

 8     was working most of the time.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that is what I said because

10     for stations like this you would need electricity, an electricity supply,

11     it was in the hills.  Often they would be without power or there would be

12     some kind of malfunction that needed to be repaired.  It was hard to get

13     parts, so it did not continuously function but it did mostly.

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

15             Mr. Scott.

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

17        Q.   Before we move on to another part of the document could we just

18     go back for information's sake to the first page under the first full

19     paragraph -- well, it would be the second paragraph of the document under

20     the first heading.  Since I'm always one for dates, sir, do you see in

21     the second paragraph that this indicates that the broadcast of this radio

22     began on the 14th of May, 1993?

23        A.   I do.

24        Q.   All right.  Now, if I can ask you, please, where we were a moment

25     ago that -- if you can go beyond item 6 you will come to a point where

Page 32722

 1     there is a paragraph that starts as follows, and I'll just read slowly

 2     and hopefully you'll see it.

 3             "The total programme orientation, editorial policy, and programme

 4     scheme are defined by the basic documents of the Croatian Republic of

 5     Herceg-Bosna, with an emphasis on presenting the survey of the activities

 6     of the official bodies," I won't list them all, "HVO Main Staff," et

 7     cetera.  "Special attention is dedicated to the situation on the front

 8     lines, so that daily events are reported on in the audio reports from all

 9     theatres of operation - from Stolac to Brcko.  One can state that the

10     defence of the area of Herceg-Bosna is very much present in the programme

11     of the Croatian Radio of Herceg-Bosna through the statements issued by

12     the Main Staff (which have recently been very timely and up-to-date), and

13     a large number of reports coming from the Radio's own sources, as well as

14     through other sections and programme units."

15             And would it surprise you at all that the radio station was being

16     used for these purposes in receiving information from, among other

17     sources, press statements, if you will, issued by the HVO Main Staff?

18        A.   I'm not surprised.  Why would I be surprised?  This was of the

19     highest interest to all the people who lived in that area which was

20     caught up in the war.  At that time we were following all the possible

21     media.  The only media that informed the public about the situation and

22     the problems were the radio stations, so we listened to any radio station

23     we could receive, and of course just like all media, all radio stations

24     in the world, they were trying to report from the front.  I don't see

25     anything strange in that.

Page 32723

 1        Q.   Very well, sir.

 2        A.   Many journalists were killed at the front in attempts to inform

 3     their listeners and their viewers about the situation at the front.

 4        Q.   Yes.  I agree with you, sir.  Can we look very quickly, please,

 5     at P 05551 for two brief points.  This would be in the first -- I believe

 6     the first Prosecution binder, P 05551.

 7             Sir, this is a -- while you're looking at that, let me just

 8     introduce it for purposes of the record.  This is the minutes -- or

 9     excuse me, I apologise, not the minutes.  It's the call for a meeting, if

10     you will, call to convene the 52nd Session of the Government of the

11     Republic of Herceg-Bosna on 4 October, the English has been

12     mistranslated, I apologise, it should be 4 October 1993, and stating an

13     agenda.  And just two quick items.  On number 6 approval of the tariff of

14     the PTT, that would be the body of which you were president of the

15     managing board; is that correct?

16        A.   Correct.

17        Q.   And would that be the type of business that would come before the

18     government concerning the PTT during this period from time to time?

19        A.   The government as the founder of the PTT Herceg-Bosna public

20     company was obliged to review plans of the companies -- of the company

21     and occasionally the report of the company and the government adopted the

22     statute of the company and the tariffs under which they operate.  That

23     was the practice in Bosnia and Herzegovina, was and still is.

24             MR. SCOTT:  Sorry, I see that there may be -- can I assist the

25     Chamber?

Page 32724

 1             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Yes, Mr. Scott, you're talking about the 4th of

 2     October?

 3             MR. SCOTT:  Yes, Your Honour.

 4             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  In our binder document 05551 --

 5             MR. SCOTT:  Yes.

 6             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  -- is dated 1st March, 1993.

 7             MR. SCOTT:  Yes, Your Honour --

 8             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  And I do not find the date of October in it.

 9             MR. SCOTT:  It was a mistranslation, Your Honour.  The -- I

10     think, hopefully my colleagues on the other side who speak the language

11     can confirm that -- I believe that the proper date should be October.

12     Maybe they can assist.

13             MS. TOMANOVIC:  [Microphone not activated]

14             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

15             MS. TOMANOVIC:  I had microphone.

16             [Interpretation] The 1st of October is the original date.

17             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you.

18             MR. SCOTT:  [Microphone not activated]

19             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

20             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Our B/C/S is not good enough.

21             MR. SCOTT:  It is not.

22        Q.   Sir, again, very quickly, please.  Can I just ask you to confirm

23     that item number 9 is an examination of their report of the performance

24     of work and tasks, which appears to be the document that we were looking

25     at a few moments ago?

Page 32725

 1        A.   Yes, the full name of the company is not given here, but it's

 2     probably that document or a similar document.

 3        Q.   Thank you, sir.  If we can turn to I believe the last two

 4     exhibits, unless there's a question --

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, let's stay with

 6     this first document.  So there was a meeting scheduled for the government

 7     in Stolac at noon on the 4th of October and the invitation was drafted on

 8     the 1st of October.  I suppose that this invitation is sent to all those

 9     due to take part in the meeting.  You may have been one of the

10     participants to this meeting.

11             I'd like to know the following.  When the government would meet,

12     were there proper invitations convening the members thereof, as is seen

13     here; and if so, how was the invitation sent?  Was it sent by courier or

14     by fax, by letter?  If there was an urgent, not-expected need to convene,

15     how were the people informed?  By telephone?  By fax?  By radio?  As far

16     as you can remember, how was it done?  Can you answer this?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At the time that we are talking

18     about, the postal traffic wholly functioned in the town of Mostar.

19     Telephone connections functioned, although at a reduced volume.  These

20     documents which were just not letters but were usually accompanied by

21     material or documents for each item on the agenda, this is something that

22     we would receive either through the mail or by messenger because mostly

23     all the ministers, all the government members, had their offices in

24     Mostar.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

Page 32726

 1             MR. SCOTT:  [Microphone not activated]

 2             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

 3             MR. SCOTT:

 4        Q.   If we can turn to what I believe will likely be the last two

 5     exhibits.  Can you please go, first of all, to P 10630, it should be in

 6     binder number 2.

 7             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  [Microphone not activated]

 8             MR. SCOTT:  10630.

 9             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  It's the same one we had this afternoon.

10             MR. SCOTT:  Then I may have put the wrong number on it.

11             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  A special binder.

12             MR. SCOTT:  My apologies, Your Honour, I may have put down the

13     wrong number.  Can I have one moment, please?

14                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

15             MR. SCOTT:  If we can have a moment.  Your Honour, it's going to

16     take more than a second.  Unfortunately -- I'm sure it's my fault for

17     having written the wrong number on the document.

18             10638, Your Honour.  My apologies to everyone in the courtroom.

19     10638.  On my copy I wrote down the wrong number; entirely my fault.

20        Q.   Sir, this is an article which actually is based upon -- if you

21     look in the -- several lines down from the top on a Croatian TV satellite

22     service report from the 24th of November, 1995, which has been picked up

23     and reported by the BBC.  This makes reference to a meeting, it says:

24     "President Tudjman in talks with Bosnian Croats on Dayton."

25             And in the text of the document it refers to a meeting involving

Page 32727

 1     a number of people in the first -- well, the second paragraph, including

 2     Mr. Granic, Mr. Susak, Mr. Pasalic.  And the third paragraph referencing

 3     the involvement of Mr. Prlic.  And in the last paragraph a substantial

 4     list of names, the delegation, Jadranko Prlic; Dario Kordic; Ivan Bender;

 5     Ante Jelavic; yourself, sir, Ilija Kozulj; Pero Markovic; Martin Ragus;

 6     Valentin Coric; Neven Tomic.

 7             Do you recall, sir, participating in that delegation -- in that

 8     meeting at the end of November 1995?

 9        A.   I do remember that meeting well.

10        Q.   And I would like you -- to take you, sir, to the -- next to the

11     Exhibit 8489, which again is -- I'm told it's the last exhibit in binder

12     number 1, 106 -- my apology.  08489.

13             Sir, this is a record of the transcript of that meeting that took

14     place involving this delegation on that day, and there's certain parts of

15     it that I'd like to review with you.  And I'm going to do it somewhat

16     topically so we might jump around a bit.  I'm not going to go just simply

17     straight through the document because I'm going to take it, as I said, by

18     topics.  I would like to direct your attention, first of all, and the

19     pages in English and the pages in Serbo-Croatian should be exactly the

20     same.  So if I tell you page 2, it will be page 2 for everyone.  And I'd

21     like to start there, with page 2.  And in that -- on that page it's

22     Mr. Susak speaking, carrying over from the previous page, and basically

23     is setting the scene, he says through that paragraph:  "...  I think it's

24     most important to inform you that every senior official of the Croat --

25     Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna is here down to the last man, apart

Page 32728

 1     from two who couldn't make it," and then he makes some additional

 2     introductions and says:  "That's the briefest outline.  I'll hand over to

 3     Prlic, who led the group as prime minister, to give you the conclusions

 4     from the meeting."

 5             And then you'll see that Mr. Prlic begins speaking, and if I can

 6     direct you to the second paragraph under Mr. Prlic's name.  Mr. Prlic

 7     reports:  "Like any new settlement, it has its implications on the ground

 8     and is provoking various reactions.  The assessment we arrived at

 9     together today was that this settlement represents the general interest

10     of the Croatian people in their entirety, and that's it is unequivocal

11     conclusion of everyone with who participated ..."

12             Carrying over to page 3.  It goes on in that paragraph to say:

13     "It's also provoked incredulity and a sense of desertion, especially in

14     areas that are not included in the Federation's territory on the maps,

15     yet are populated by Croats.  And as regards constitutional arrangements

16     with future canton boundaries, there is dissatisfaction in that respect

17     too."

18             Now, do you remember generally, sir, that there was a report by

19     Mr. Prlic about the outcome of the Dayton negotiations?

20        A.   I cannot remember every word right now of what was said.  I know

21     that Mr. Prlic did speak and that the goal of this meeting, as far as I

22     knew, as far as I understood it, was in some way to help us officials

23     living in Bosnia-Herzegovina and who were working in the Croatian

24     Republic of Herceg-Bosna at that time to go to Sarajevo and to help to

25     set up the Federation government and then later the Government of Bosnia

Page 32729

 1     and Herzegovina.  I think the goal was to help us to complete that task

 2     after the wartime events which were taking place.  I cannot answer?

 3        Q.   No, sir --

 4        A.   May I at least finish?

 5        Q.   Yes, sir, please do, but as you know again our time now is very

 6     limited.

 7             MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the question was put

 8     in such a way that it sought a kind of explanation.  I think the witness

 9     should be given the opportunity to explain and finish what he began.  A

10     cross is a cross, but this is how broadly the question was put.  And

11     another thing since I'm on my feet already.  I don't see the relevance of

12     this question in view of the time-frame of the events.  If the Prosecutor

13     has time at his disposal that he can spend on his cross, that does not

14     mean that he can go into irrelevant areas.

15             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What's the relevance, please?

16             MR. SCOTT:  Your Honour, toward the end of the direct examination

17     the witness, we went on to discuss the efforts to implement the

18     Washington Agreement and the various peace agreements.  Mr. Karnavas

19     showed the witness several documents - indeed Mr. Karnavas himself I'm

20     sure was being rushed at the end - about various documents to implement

21     the peace agreements and the witness began telling us about various

22     efforts to do so.  And I think this evidence is directly relevant, both

23     to that and to other aspects of the case, the continuity of the Croatian

24     policy toward Herceg-Bosna.

25             MS. TOMANOVIC: [Interpretation] Just one small correction.

Page 32730

 1     Mr. Karnavas in his direct examination asked Mr. Kozulj about the

 2     implementation of the Washington Agreement, not about the various other

 3     agreements, the Dayton Agreement or any other agreement.  That is all.

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well -- yes.

 5             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Just very briefly, Your

 6     Honour.  I am afraid that there might be a misunderstanding later and I'm

 7     afraid that Mr. Scott is confused here or mistaken here.  We're talking

 8     about document P 10638, it's a report by the BBC talking about the

 9     information about a meeting that took place on --

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] No, he's speaking about the

11     document that is P 08489.

12             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] [Previous translation

13     continues]...  but they continue on and this is where the confusion

14     arises.  The first document, the BBC report on the report at the

15     presidential palace, and now this is a different meeting of the 27th of

16     November and these are -- and then after that, at this meeting of the

17     27th of November, it says that the witness was present.  And then after

18     that we looked at the document that you referred to, the transcript, and

19     that is P 08489, but that is the transcript of the 24th of November and

20     that transcript does not indicate or refer to the name of this witness.

21     So that I'm not sure if the witness or we in the courtroom know which

22     meeting he's talking about.  Is it the 27th that the BBC's talking about

23     or this one of the 24th, the transcript of which we do have, and I do

24     believe that this is important.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, I was wondering about that

Page 32731

 1     because there was a meeting in Zagreb presided over by President Tudjman.

 2             Did you attend the meeting?  Because we can see your name

 3     mentioned but I can't see any intervention by you.  Did you attend the

 4     meeting or are you mixing up with another meeting?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have to say that I did attend

 6     this meeting, the meeting that is referred to in the minutes from the

 7     24th of November, and this meeting dealt with the implementation of the

 8     Washington Agreement and in a way it was to give an impetus to the

 9     officials of the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna to participate in the

10     constitution of -- constituting the Government of the Federation of

11     Bosnia-Herzegovina, which was also the Government of the Republic of

12     Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the question was:  What kind of assistance do

13     you need in order to decide to go to Sarajevo?  At that time it was not

14     easy for us.  We were all victims of that war.  My family home was burnt

15     to the ground.  Two of my closest family members were killed in a

16     dastardly fashion in this war, and it is not easy after all those events

17     in the war to go to Sarajevo and to work there, but we agreed to do it

18     and we did go because it was in the interests -- it was in the interests

19     of our people and in the interests of Bosnia and Herzegovina.  So that

20     was the gist of that meeting.

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  So the purpose of

22     the meeting was to implement the Washington Agreement.  We understood

23     very well.

24             Mr. Scott, what was your question because we lost sight of it

25     after all this?  What was your initial question?

Page 32732

 1             MR. SCOTT:  I believe -- I think I probably lost a little bit of

 2     sight of it myself, Your Honour, at this point.  We were sitting at the

 3     meeting, Mr. Prlic had began talking, and I was about to ask -- well, the

 4     witness I think had confirmed that he attended and, yes, he remembered in

 5     general that Mr. Prlic gave a report.  My next question to him was,

 6     selected further down on the same page 3, if he could confirm to us that

 7     in fact he and Mr. Tomic were appointed to one of these, I'll call it,

 8     working group, on the implementation.  If he can see that reflected on

 9     page 3.  That's my question to the witness - and was that the case.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I can't confirm the accuracy

11     of this transcript in every little detail because I've never seen it

12     before, and you have to admit that it was a long time ago.  I know the

13     essence, the basic elements of this meeting, and I can't recall the

14     details.  What I do know is that before this meeting I had agreed to go

15     to Sarajevo to work there if necessary, and that's what I did after a

16     certain time.  I served as an official in the first government of Bosnia

17     and Herzegovina established after the Dayton Agreement.  And in the

18     meantime I did a number of jobs to help set up the Federation.  And let

19     me tell you that I was a member of the commission under annex 9 of the

20     Dayton Agreement that had to do with the establishment of public

21     corporations in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

22             MR. SCOTT:

23        Q.   All right.  So the answer is:  Yes, you do recall generally the

24     meeting and your involvement and becoming involved in the implementation

25     following this meeting.  Can I ask you to go over, please, to go over

Page 32733

 1     next to page 20 of the record.  Page 20, please.

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment before we move on to

 3     page 20.  Let's speak about this group of experts that was set up.

 4     Mr. Prlic said to Mr. Tudjman that there were four expert groups that

 5     were established.  The first one dealing with economic and financial

 6     matters.  We can see the assistant prime minister, Mr. Tomic, and you,

 7     Mr. Kozulj.  Hence my question:  Did you have any economic and financial

 8     expertise as well?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not have any financial

10     expertise.  I did have economic expertise because all the companies that

11     were set up in the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna to wit, the public

12     company for post and telecommunications, the public company for railways,

13     the public company for roads, the public company for Mostar airport, all

14     those public companies are in the sphere of economy, that's the way we

15     classify them and I monitor them.

16             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Thank you.

17             MR. SCOTT:  [Microphone not activated]

18             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

19             MR. SCOTT:

20        Q.   If we can go to page 20 now, sir, please.

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You have no time left, you have

22     to finish, Mr. Scott.

23             MR. SCOTT:  Your Honour, can I beg the Chamber for approximately

24     20 more minutes which will still put me an hour less than the total time

25     taken by Mr. Karnavas and Mr. Praljak?

Page 32734

 1             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] No.  The time -- and the

 2     objections were not counted.  Mr. Prlic had through his lawyers three

 3     hours, so the equality of arms demands that you have three hours.

 4     There's no reason to grant you more time.  I'm going to ask my

 5     colleagues.

 6                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, after deliberations,

 8     as you could see, and I -- as I said, you must have the same time as the

 9     time devoted to the examination-in-chief and as much as Mr. Prlic was

10     given three hours you have three hours as well.  It was up to you to make

11     sure that you had enough time to sort out the questions that you wanted

12     to put.  Well, three hours is a lot of time.

13             Well, ask your last question, please; no further than that.

14             MR. SCOTT:  [Microphone not activated]

15             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

16             MR. SCOTT:  Sorry, my apologies.

17        Q.   Do you remember from this meeting, sir, the discussion of the

18     continuing demographic problem that was presented in certain areas of the

19     Herceg-Bosna, the problem of there being insufficient Croats returning to

20     the areas and the encouragement by President Tudjman that Herceg-Bosna --

21     this did not mean an end to Herceg-Bosna, that in fact Herceg-Bosna would

22     continue on?  Do you remember President Tudjman giving you those

23     encouragements at this meeting on the 24th of November, 1995?

24        A.   I don't recall him giving us any encouragement that there would

25     be Herceg-Bosna.  I remember that he asked us to build, to implement the

Page 32735

 1     Washington Agreement that had been signed, and that he promised he would

 2     help us.  So in the Federation under the Washington Agreement as far as I

 3     know there is no Herceg-Bosna.  And could you please show me where is it

 4     said here that there would be Herceg-Bosna at this page that you referred

 5     me to, page 20?  I don't recall --

 6        Q.   Well, if the Chamber allows I would refer you to pages 13 and 14

 7     of the transcript of the record and pages 24 and 25 of the record, where

 8     those matters are discussed.  In terms of the demographic problem, I

 9     would direct your attention to page 6 to page 9, page 14, and what

10     President Tudjman says at pages 27 to 29.

11             MS. TOMANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, Mr. President, I

12     would like to object to the Prosecution's insistence on asking these

13     questions.  He got his last question and he used his right to the last

14     question.  I would like to remind you of my cross-examination when I had

15     20 minutes and when the 20 minutes elapsed you cut me short in the middle

16     of my sentence.  So I would really like to ask you to treat the

17     Prosecution in the same way as you treat the Defence.

18             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'm going to discuss this with

19     my fellow Judges, but ...

20                           [Trial Chamber confers]

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, the Trial Chamber is

22     of the view that the witness came to speak to technical problems,

23     electricity, telecommunications, and so on and so forth, and now you are

24     tackling a topic which is a meeting held in 1995 which is outside the

25     scope of the indictment and, furthermore, has nothing to do with

Page 32736

 1     telecommunications or electrical supply.  So you have to come to an end.

 2             MR. SCOTT:  Your Honour, I accept the Court's ruling on that.  I

 3     would disagree with some of the Chamber's -- with great respect, some of

 4     the Chamber's comments.  I do believe it's highly relevant to the case

 5     and relates to evidence that has been led by the Defence, but I accept

 6     the Chamber's ruling that the time has expanded.  There have been times,

 7     I'm sure the Chamber will recall, where parties on both sides have been

 8     granted additional time.  I think the Chamber can see that I have moved,

 9     I think, with some dispatch to the best of my ability, but I accept the

10     Chamber's ruling.  I was then further simply responding to the witness's

11     own question, that if he cared to look at the transcript that's where he

12     might find that information.  Thank you very much, Your Honour.

13             MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, my colleagues are

14     dissuading me, but I would like to ask you for one thing.  Please

15     consider my proposal, it will be my proposal, that in light of the last

16     20 minutes or so of the cross-examination and in light of the current

17     jurisprudence about the notification, or rather, the clear nature of the

18     indictment I would like you to instruct the Prosecution to get acquainted

19     with the issue whether going into events in 1995, and in particular the

20     implementation of the Washington and Dayton Agreement, whether the

21     Prosecution is de facto expanding the scope of the indictment.  We have

22     the right to be informed about the indictment, the charges, the details,

23     and based on this I can conclude that it is implied that this is also

24     relevant and that this becomes part of the indictment.  And bearing in

25     mind the views of the previous Trial Chambers and previous appeals,

Page 32737

 1     unfortunately I cannot give you the exact quotation, where the Appeals

 2     Chamber decided that it was enough to get notice during trial and that

 3     the Defence could gauge what was happening because the Prosecution was

 4     leading evidence on those events.  So I would like to be warned

 5     officially by the Prosecution within the next few days if they intend to

 6     expand the indictment; if that is not the case, I cannot see the

 7     relevance of the questioning over the past 20 minutes.

 8             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation

 9     continues]...  already dealt with several months ago through a question

10     that was outside the scope of the indictment.  I don't know whether it

11     was Mr. Scott or Mr. Mundis or Mr. Stringer, and they had raised to their

12     feet and said, No, it's not an extension of the indictment.  I believe

13     Mr. Scott is going to say the same.

14             MR. SCOTT:  Your Honour, these issues -- excuse me.  These issues

15     were thoroughly addressed by both sides and the Chamber made prior

16     rulings in connection with, particularly, the witness Nicholas Miller

17     about the continuation of Herceg-Bosna.  It is clearly part of the

18     Defence case, I'm not challenging that they can put that case, but it's

19     clearly part of the Defence case that this was all temporary,

20     provisional, et cetera.  The Prosecution thinks it's relevant for the

21     Chamber to know, and it's the Prosecution view that it was not temporary

22     and provisional, it had a long-term interest.  It survived way past

23     Washington and Dayton, and the Chamber previously understood the

24     relevance of that and confirmed the receipt of the evidence of Witness

25     Miller, and that's one particular instance.  It's highly relevant to the

Page 32738

 1     case.  The Chamber has heard evidence of this before.  With this

 2     particular witness on Monday and I don't have -- I'm speaking now without

 3     a note in front of me, but I believe at about page 88 of the transcript

 4     Mr. Karnavas got into these issues, and it's the last topic that I hope

 5     to cover with the witness in response to questions raised by Mr. Karnavas

 6     on the implementation of the peace agreements.  I think it's completely

 7     relevant.  It's not an extension of the indictment.  The Prosecution has

 8     always said that, but it is relevant to the case and the Chamber has

 9     previously so ruled.

10             MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I may, just one

11     word.  I thank you for your interpretation that you've given us.  You

12     told us no, this was not an attempt to expand the indictment.  That is

13     enough for me, but I have to say that after what my learned friend has

14     said I am again in doubt.  But I will abide by what you have said.  In

15     light of what he said, I don't know what the indictment is.  We will

16     fight the windmills, we will fight all the charges in the indictment.  We

17     might call for additions to 65 ter list until the Prosecution clearly

18     defines what is and what isn't.  I will now clearly comply with what you

19     said, no, this doesn't appear to be an expansion of the indictment, but

20     last time when this was discussed during Miller's testimony this is when

21     this first cropped up, this topic, and that is why I brought this up

22     today.  I don't know what the indictment is, whether there are any

23     addenda to the indictment, a post festum addendum as I call it.

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  We're soon going to

25     have re-direct, but I have just one question by way of an anecdote and

Page 32739

 1     it's really not so essential, but I thought of it as I was looking at the

 2     document mentioning this famous meeting of the 24th of November, 1995,

 3     there was several speakers at that meeting.  And at some point President

 4     Tudjman said to Mr. Kordic, Dario, go on.  So he calls him by -- on a

 5     first-name basis.  Was that something usual for Mr. Tudjman to use a

 6     first-name basis to speak to people, or is that something customary, you

 7     call people by their first names?  Or does this show that there is a more

 8     personal, a closer personal relationship between the two of them?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's not unusual to me at all,

10     Mr. President.  In our parts it is quite usual for people to be on a

11     first-name basis.

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This is what I wanted to know.

13     Thank you for your answer.

14             Now, does the Prlic Defence have any additional questions?

15             MS. TOMANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.  There

16     is no need for any re-examination of this witness.  Thank you very much.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

18             Witness, on behalf of the Trial Chamber and my own name, I want

19     to thank you for testifying as a Defence witness for the Prlic Defence.

20     You have our best wishes for a safe return and for further activities.

21     The usher is going to accompany you out of the courtroom.

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would like to thank you and I

23     wish you good health and happiness.

24                           [The witness withdrew]

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'm now turning to Mr. Prlic's

Page 32740

 1     lawyer, since Mr. Karnavas is not with us today.  With regard to next

 2     week, if I'm not mistaken, we're going to have Mr. Miroslav Palameta.

 3     He's scheduled to testify for three hours for the examination-in-chief.

 4     We shall be starting on Monday.  Tuesday is a UN holiday, so that we

 5     shall resume and continue on Wednesday and Thursday.  That's the schedule

 6     for next week, isn't it?

 7             MS. TOMANOVIC: [Interpretation] Precisely, Mr. President.  The

 8     witness is ready.  He will be here.  We don't expect any surprises.  I

 9     hope there won't be any, so that would be our schedule and our plan.

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But he hasn't arrived yet?

11     He's going to come for the proofing, isn't he?

12             MS. TOMANOVIC: [Interpretation] He will be here for the proofing

13     session on Friday.  All of our witnesses arrive before the weekend, but

14     according to my information his ticket is fine and he is ready to leave.

15             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Good news.

16             On the other hand, you, further to the Trial Chamber's ruling,

17     you have sent us a very thorough schedule.  I was trying to find the

18     paper, I can't find it, until November.  And I did some maths for the

19     number of hours, and it seems that you have scheduled 39 hours for all

20     the remaining witnesses.  Is that right?

21             MS. TOMANOVIC: [Interpretation] Precisely, Mr. President.  We

22     hope that we will be able to save maybe half an hour or an hour, but I do

23     believe that we will need 39 hours to complete the examination of all the

24     Defence witnesses.  As for the other witnesses, we decided to get their

25     evidence under Rule 92 bis in order to save some time for the direct

Page 32741

 1     examination of other Defence witnesses.

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So if I understood you

 3     properly, from memory, you had 43 and 24 minutes left.  Now you're

 4     scheduling 39 hours, in other words, you are keeping four hours as a

 5     reserve for the examination-in-chief of the other Defence witnesses.  But

 6     with regard to re-direct, you've kept no reserve at all.

 7             MS. TOMANOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, re-examinations are, as a

 8     rule, an exception.  That is why we do not anticipate spending any time

 9     on re-examination.

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One last technical question.

11     So we're going to have 92 bis statements when exactly?  When do you want

12     to present them to the Trial Chamber?  Because that represents a lot of

13     work, we have to look into them and all that.  So when are you going to

14     give us that, after you've had your last witness or is it in the few next

15     coming days?

16             MS. TOMANOVIC: [Interpretation] No.  The 92 bis motion is being

17     drafted.  I expect it to be completed within the next 10 or 15 days so

18     you will have it in front of you quite soon.

19             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] How many of them roughly?

20             MS. TOMANOVIC: [Interpretation] I think four 92 bis, four

21     transcripts, and two or three statements.

22             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you for the information.

23     We have an idea now and it's much clearer.

24             Before we come to an end, do you have anything to say,

25     Mr. Prosecutor?

Page 32742

 1             MR. SCOTT:  Thank you, Mr. President.  Just to note obviously

 2     that it goes without saying, I hope it does at least, that of course when

 3     the 92 bis motions are filed the Prosecution will have an opportunity to

 4     respond to that, and just as the Defence did the Prosecution may request

 5     that some of those witnesses come for cross-examination.  And of course

 6     we have not seen that material and it goes back to the old question of

 7     prior statements, and if there are statements and if we can get a head

 8     start on considering them, we would certainly be happy to get the

 9     statements as soon as possible.  Thank you.

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Well, there may be

11     a small technical problem.  You told us that there would be four 92 bis

12     and two or three statements, so altogether six or seven.  Let's assume

13     that the Prosecution would want to cross-examine, just like Defence

14     wanted to cross-examine 92 bis witnesses, and let's assume that the

15     Trial Chamber grants this motion.  Then your 92 bis witnesses have to

16     come here.  I assume that you ask questions to them, and if you run out

17     time what's going to happen then?  You see, you have to keep everything

18     in mind and that's what we do here at the Bench.

19             MS. TOMANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I didn't know that

20     in these situations, I didn't know that this time was counted in the time

21     that the Defence planned for their presentation of evidence.  That is

22     something that we did not count on.  We take statements and transcripts

23     in order to shorten the time left for the presentation of our case.  If

24     the Prosecutor calls, and you allow them to do that, then perhaps that

25     should be counted in the Chamber's time.

Page 32743

 1             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Chamber's time is also very

 2     precious and scarce, and I do regret that sometimes we don't have enough

 3     time.

 4             Mr. Praljak, I believe you want to take the floor regarding the

 5     92 bis witnesses.

 6             THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Correct, Your Honours.  I

 7     just keep having this technical question left that is unclear to me.  I

 8     or Mr. Kovacic, our Defence, will have a lot of witnesses like that and

 9     we did provide brief summaries, and of course it's open to the

10     Prosecution and to the Chamber to say we would still like to bring such

11     and such a person other than those who would be put forward by our

12     Defence, to be brought forward.  In view of the time available and in

13     view of the time that I'm going to testify for quite some time, I can

14     bring 15 witnesses and say good day, good day, are you such and such a

15     person or so and so, did you sign what you said, did you go over it, did

16     you sign every page?  Thank you very much.  I have nothing further.  And

17     that way I would use a minute and a half.  In that way, if I wish, I can

18     bring in 20 or 30 witnesses because -- and I can sit down because there

19     is in writing whatever the witness said.

20             So what sort of time will the Prosecutor then have?  I would like

21     to have everything explained in advance.  If the Prosecution asks for ten

22     witnesses to be called and I spent only enough time on the witness to

23     introduce his evidence a minute and a half, how will they then

24     cross-examine that witness and how will the others cross-examine the

25     witness, the others from the team of the Defence?

Page 32744

 1             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation

 2     continues]...  far the Trial Chamber has not deliberated on this and we

 3     cannot answer right away; however, I can tell you that it doesn't seem to

 4     be a problem that can be overcome.  The Prosecutor might cross-examine

 5     your witnesses, it all depends on your 92 bis witnesses.  Maybe there

 6     will be cross-examinations or not.  But according to the rule of the

 7     procedure, maybe there will be no reason to bring the witnesses into the

 8     courtroom after all.  But we have to take that into account because it

 9     might happen, and then the Trial Chamber will allocate time then.  But we

10     can't answer right off the blue like that.

11             We saw your submission and I noted that there's a lot of

12     witnesses that are supposed to be 92 bis witnesses, but we still have to

13     read their statements.  The Prosecutor has to put its point and give its

14     opinion.  If his opinion -- as of now, we're totally in the dark.

15             Is there any other housekeeping matter?  I saw Ms. Alaburic, she

16     wanted to take the floor.  Did you have something to add?

17             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, thank you.  I'm

18     going to be very brief.  If my records are correct, we saw today that the

19     Prosecutor showed us two documents which were not on his 65 ter list,

20     these are documents P 10638 and P 10627.  This is not the first time that

21     the Prosecutor in the middle of a cross-examination of a Defence witness

22     introduces new documents that were not presented to the parties and which

23     were not part of the Prosecutor's case, which actually was completed in

24     January 2008.  We believe that this practice brings us to an

25     exceptionally unfavourable condition or situation, first of all, because

Page 32745

 1     the other Defences do not have the right to cross the witness on these

 2     new documents, and in view of the nature of the indictment the majority

 3     of the documents refer to all of the accused.

 4             The second reason for our great concern is the fact that we have

 5     prepared the concept of our defence and we placed it in the list of

 6     exhibits and witnesses, and that is why we plan to submit a motion to the

 7     Trial Chamber proposing to agree on the ways to treat such documents.

 8     And we are going to put forward a proposal similar to that adopted in the

 9     Hadzihasanovic/Kubura case, and that is that the rule should be that the

10     Prosecution cannot introduce new documents and that there are exceptions,

11     that this can be done in case the documents shed doubt on the credibility

12     of the witness or if the witness needed to be reminded of some event.  If

13     such terms are not defined in this proceeding, we believe that the right

14     of our accused to a fair trial would be brought into question.

15             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, you're absolutely right

16     to remind us of all this, and notably a decision that I was involved in.

17     This is a topic that I know inside-out, not the only one, but I know this

18     inside-out.

19             Mr. Scott, you introduced documents that were not on the 65 ter

20     list.  And in doing so, when introducing documents that are not on the

21     list, you're supposed to request for these documents to be added and

22     according to the Hadzihasanovic/Kubura guide-line you know the -- we have

23     to see why it wasn't in the list in the first place, the Trial Chamber

24     checks that, tries to determine what the reasons might have been, then

25     also determines whether there is a reason, a relevance, in introducing

Page 32746

 1     this document.  It may be to refresh the memory of a witness, as

 2     Ms. Alaburic just said, justly said, or to challenge the credibility of a

 3     witness without this document being admitted in the end.

 4             So you have to be very specific and clear about this; if not,

 5     please refer to Mr. Mundis who he was in the Hadzihasanovic/Kubura case

 6     and knows exactly in which direction the decision was made.  You're also

 7     an excellent lawyer.  You also know this case as well as I do.

 8             So what can you answer?  What can you say to Ms. Alaburic?

 9             MR. SCOTT:  Well, thank you, Your Honour.  First of all, I think

10     it's a bit premature.  What I heard her say was that a motion would be

11     filed, so I find myself responding to a motion that hasn't been filed

12     yet, number one.  It might be more appropriate to wait until the motion

13     is filed.

14             Secondly, Your Honour, I have to say that in my 29 years of

15     trying cases, I've never come up against this rule either in my prior

16     experience or at the ICTY.  That was not the case in the -- that was not

17     the ruling in the Kordic case, that was not the ruling in the Tuta and

18     Stela case.  It may not be the ruling in this case because this Chamber

19     is not composed the same way that the Hadzihasanovic Chamber was

20     configured.  So as I understand it, this Chamber has not yet issued a

21     ruling, but we'll certainly address the motion when it's filed.

22             This is cross-examination.  The Defence brings witnesses.  The

23     witness is subject to cross-examination, and I would think the Chamber

24     would -- if there's relevant evidence that can come in from either side

25     when a party calls the witness, the Chamber would wish to receive that

Page 32747

 1     evidence.  And that's always been the practice in every case, and I

 2     emphasize the word, every case that I've tried in the last 29 years,

 3     including at the Tribunal.

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, but I see that there

 5     are -- there is some case law that you seem to neglect, and you should

 6     read this decision which was handed down.  But as of now no formal motion

 7     has been filed.  Maybe you could ask for documents to be tendered through

 8     IC numbers.  Maybe if you do that the Defence will submit its opinion and

 9     then the Trial Chamber will rule.

10             Ms. Alaburic.

11             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Just one sentence, Your Honours.

12     This is not just the practice in the Hadzihasanovic/Kubura case.  There

13     are also decisions by other Trial Chambers, and we're going to refer to

14     that in detail in our submission.  I just wanted to inform the

15     Trial Chamber about what I was thinking and also to prepare the grounds

16     for the motion that we are going to submit.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Previous translation continues]...

18             MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.  I

19     spoke with my colleague about this decision -- well, it's not just the

20     introduction of new documents.  The correspondence is such -- or the

21     jurisprudence is such that the Prosecutor cannot just now submit

22     documents that they might have had in their possession for ten years or

23     more.  They did have their chance over the past two years to present the

24     documents that they wish to present, and now that chance is over.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation

Page 32748

 1     continues]...  very well, we will look into this.

 2             Mr. Khan, you're very quiet.  Don't you want to take the floor?

 3             MR. KHAN:  Your Honour, I will spare you on this occasion.  Thank

 4     you.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you for that.

 6             So we will meet again next Monday at 2.15.  Thank you.

 7                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 5.28 p.m.,

 8                           to be reconvened on Monday, the 29th day of

 9                           September, 2008, at 2.15 p.m.