Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 34169

 1                           Tuesday, 4 November 2008

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness entered court]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 2.19 p.m.

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, kindly call the

 7     case, please.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Thank you, Your Honour.  Good afternoon, Your

 9     Honours; good afternoon to everyone in and around the courtroom.  This is

10     case number IT-04-74-T, the Prosecutor versus Jadranko Prlic et al.,

11     thank you, Your Honour.

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, registrar.  Today is

13     Wednesday.  I would like to greet -- today is Tuesday.  I would like to

14     greet all the people present in the courtroom, Defence counsel, the

15     accused, Mr. Scott, and Mr. Kruger, as well as Mr. Tomic, of course, who

16     has been with us for a number of days now already.  And I would also like

17     to greet all those people who are assisting us.

18             I would first of all like to ask the registrar to move into

19     closed session for a few minutes, please.

20             THE REGISTRAR:  We're in private session, Your Honours.

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Trial Chamber, after

22     Mr. Scott's cross-examination, discovered that --

23             THE REGISTRAR:  There has been -- [Microphone not

24     activated].

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

Page 34170

 1                           [Private session]

 2     (redacted)

 3     (redacted)

 4     (redacted)

 5     (redacted)

 6     (redacted)

 7     (redacted)

 8     (redacted)

 9     (redacted)

10     (redacted)

11     (redacted)

12     (redacted)

13                           [Open session]

14             THE REGISTRAR:  We're back in open session, Your Honours.

15             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Oral decision relating to the

16     appearance of the expert witness of the Prlic Defence team Svetlana

17     Radovanovic.

18             On the 7th October 2008, the Prosecution filed a written

19     submission requesting the Trial Chamber, inter alia, for it to cancel the

20     testimony of expert witness Svetlana Radovanovic on the grounds that the

21     Defence -- the Prlic Defence team had not as yet disclosed the expert

22     report and the related exhibits.

23             On the 20th of October, 2008, the Prlic Defence filed the expert

24     report of Svetlana Radovanovic pursuant to Rule 94 bis of the Rules.

25             On 22nd of October, 2008, the Prosecution forwarded a letter to

Page 34171

 1     the Trial Chamber in which it informed it that it had read the report of

 2     Ms. Radovanovic but that the Prosecution was withdrawing its motion filed

 3     on the 7th of October, 2008.  In addition, the Prosecution informed the

 4     Trial Chamber that it would be able to cross-examine Svetlana Radovanovic

 5     possibly in the week of the 24th of November, 2004, as has been planned

 6     in the most recent witness list or schedule provided by the Prlic Defence

 7     team on the 22nd of September, 2008.

 8             The Trial Chamber therefore acknowledges that the Prosecution has

 9     withdrawn its motion filed on the 7th of October, 2008, and rules that

10     Svetlana Radovanovic will appear and come and testify as of the 20th of

11     November, 2008, onwards.

12             Mr. Scott, you have the floor for the rest of your

13     cross-examination.

14             MR. SCOTT:  Good afternoon, Mr. President, to all Your Honours.

15     Sorry, I was just distracted looking at the transcript and I think there

16     might be an issue so my apologies for being distracted.

17             Good afternoon, Mr. President, all counsel, everyone in the

18     courtroom who is helping us, each of Your Honours.

19             Your Honour, just now in terms of scheduling, you'd indicated at

20     one point that that there would be the possibility of the witness

21     testifying the week of the 24th of November, and then at least it came

22     out in translation that she would then be testifying on the 20th of

23     November.  So I'm not sure about the difference between the 24th and the

24     20th.  Or at least that's how it came out on the record.  Are you we

25     talking about the 20th of November or the 24th of November?  20th, I

Page 34172

 1     believe, is in fact a Thursday, I believe.

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, was it the 20th

 3     or the 24th?  If the 20th is a Monday, he's coming on Monday the 20th; is

 4     that right?  Or if the Monday is the 24th, then he would be coming on the

 5     24th.  I don't know.  I don't have a calendar in front of me.  You're the

 6     expert.

 7             MR. KARNAVAS:  Well, I'm not an expert on these matters, but it

 8     is the 24th, which would be a Monday, and it's a woman, it's a she.  We

 9     keep calling her a he, but ...

10             MR. SCOTT:  All right.

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So the 24th is a Monday.

12             MR. SCOTT:  Thank you very much, Your Honour.  Appreciate the

13     clarification.

14                           WITNESS:  NEVEN TOMIC [Resumed]

15                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

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

17        Q.   Good afternoon, Mr. Tomic.  Just one -- I think maybe one

18     question arising from our conversations yesterday before moving back to

19     where we left off.

20             When we were looking at the map of Mostar, as you will remember,

21     and we were marking a number of locations, I think if I heard you

22     correctly you said that at least for part of that time period when you

23     were living at location 1 and 2 that -- with Mr. Prlic that there were

24     two other persons who also lived at that same location, if you were

25     sharing a flat or what have you, but just so we have that, could you tell

Page 34173

 1     us who the other persons were who shared the residence with you and

 2     Mr. Prlic?

 3        A.   While staying in my flat at location number 1, my friends were

 4     there, my friend's vehicle, Slavko Bevanda and Vidan Raspudic.  And while

 5     staying at location number 2, the owner of the house, Mr. Dinko Slezak

 6     was there.

 7        Q.   All right.  So at location number 1 there were four of you living

 8     in the house or flat, whichever it was, and then location number --

 9     location number 2 there were the three of you, just to be very clear.

10        A.   Correct.

11        Q.   All right.  Thank you very much.  Sir, if we could then go back

12     to the topic where we left off yesterday, and we were talking about some

13     of the financial matters, and we were talking about the Bosnian dinar and

14     the Croatian dinar, and we came to the point where I was going to ask you

15     a couple of questions about the national bank of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

16             Now, if I'm wrong please correct me, but my understanding is that

17     the national bank, albeit in perhaps difficult circumstances, did

18     continue to exist and operate throughout the war.  Is that correct?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   And I think you were shown two documents, and if -- if we can

21     avoid looking at them it would maybe save everyone a bit of time and

22     effort.  You were shown two documents, 1D 01765 and 1D 01764, which were

23     documents submitted to the national bank of Bosnia-Herzegovina for the

24     purposes of obtaining permission, or I suppose one might call it a

25     charter to open a bank, a Croatian bank in Mostar.  Do you recall that?

Page 34174

 1        A.   Yes, I'm familiar with that document.

 2        Q.   And in fact, I think you testified that it was necessary in order

 3     for that bank to legally -- the Croatian bank in Mostar to legally exist

 4     or operate it had to have a legal document from the national bank of

 5     Bosnia-Herzegovina, and there was also documentation that was required in

 6     order for that bank to be I think you used the phrase acknowledged

 7     internationally.  Is that correct?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   And in fact, those permissions or that documentation was

10     forthcoming; was it not?  And based on that documentation a bank in

11     Mostar was established; is that correct?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   And just so we have it at this point in the record, as I said I'm

14     always talking about dates, this series of documentation was being

15     exchanged, if you will.  Can you confirm that that was in November 1992?

16        A.   Yes.  The decision was signed in November 1992.

17        Q.   Now, moving on the same topic but moving to June of 1993, I

18     believe you were also shown a document which was marked 1D 01928 which

19     was the application by the national bank of Bosnia-Herzegovina for a loan

20     from the Prvedna Bank Zagreb for 100.000 Deutschmarks.  Do you remember

21     that?

22        A.   I wasn't aware of the existence of that document but I can see

23     it.

24        Q.   Do you have it there in front of you now or at least on the

25     screen?  Is that what you're referring to?

Page 34175

 1        A.   Yes, I can see it.

 2        Q.   So just going back, sir, to where we were -- to what we confirmed

 3     a few moments ago, again you will agree -- you do agree, don't you, that

 4     the bank continued to exist and operate throughout the war?

 5        A.   Yes.  The bank was in Sarajevo.  However, the governor of the

 6     national bank was outside of Sarajevo.

 7        Q.   Well, I think if we go back and look at the documentation, sir,

 8     the correspondence from that official comes -- comes out of Sarajevo.

 9     You're saying that's not correct?

10        A.   The document says Sarajevo, but the national bank of Bosnia and

11     Herzegovina also had an office in Zagreb, and on and document in which

12     money is being sent from Celje, the document that accompanied the first

13     time that Bosnia and Herzegovina dinar was issued, in that document it

14     said the national bank of Bosnia and Herzegovina Zagreb.  So that was in

15     November.  As far as I know, Mr. Stijepo Andrijic, the then governor, did

16     not later return to Sarajevo.

17        Q.   Well -- all right.  Well, let's take a step at a time then just

18     to be clear.  So you're confirming that there was a national bank of

19     Bosnia-Herzegovina which had a location in Sarajevo throughout the war,

20     and you're saying that -- you're suggesting that there was also an

21     operation of that bank in Zagreb, an office.  Is that correct?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   All right.  And in terms of -- and in terms of the locations and

24     the documentation would you agree with me it would be best to look at

25     whatever the documents themselves indicate?  Or do you have a specific

Page 34176

 1     memory of those particular transactions?

 2        A.   I can remember what happened in November, but the document before

 3     me is one I have only just seen.  I can't comment on it.  It says

 4     Sarajevo there, but as to whether it was drafted in Sarajevo or Zagreb, I

 5     don't know.

 6        Q.   Now, going to -- back to the Bosnian dinar, I think that your

 7     testimony made it clear that the dinar continued to be used in various

 8     parts of Bosnia-Herzegovina throughout -- throughout the war, and there

 9     were also -- there were also times that it was used in the area claimed

10     to be part of Herceg-Bosna, and there were indeed times when the

11     Herceg-Bosna government or authorities sent or provided BH dinars to HVO

12     operations in Central Bosnia.  Do I understand that correct -- all of

13     that correctly?

14        A.   Well, the HVO HZ HB sent aid to Central Bosnia in the form of

15     Bosnian and Herzegovinian dinars.  That's what I was talking about.

16        Q.   So the question to my answer -- the answer to my questions,

17     excuse me, are yes, the dinar continued to be used in various parts of

18     Bosnia during the war.  It was also used in parts of Herzegovina or

19     Herceg-Bosna from time to time and the HVO authorities in fact sent BH

20     dinars into Central Bosnia.  That's my question.  All of that's true;

21     correct?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   So there again, just so there's no confusion, the BH dinar at no

24     point, at least during this time period, 1992, 1993, 1994, the BH dinar

25     did not cease to exist and there was nothing about it that was -- I'm

Page 34177

 1     going to use the phrase there was nothing about it that was inherently

 2     dysfunctional.  It may have been more widely used in some places than

 3     others, but it continued to exist and continued to be -- to be used in

 4     transactions in various parts of Bosnia throughout the war; correct?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   And, for example, we were just talking about and it may be worth

 7     looking at one document as one of the examples that you were just talking

 8     about, sending dinars to Central Bosnia.  Could you look, please, at

 9     1D 02127, which will be in the Defence binder.  1D 02127.

10             Now, that was a document, I believe, which showed that a number

11     of dinars were being sent in to -- sent to Central Bosnia.  Just a

12     moment, please.  Am I believe again -- I don't think there's anything

13     controversial about that.  You mentioned that the other day, and you

14     again confirm that that in fact took place; correct?

15        A.   That's correct.  This money was physically transported there as

16     assistant -- as assistance to the municipal HVOs in Central Bosnia.

17     There was no other way of doing it, no other financial transactions were

18     possible.

19        Q.   All right.  So just again on this point about the dinar before

20     moving to another topic.  You weren't, you being the HVO HZ HB, I mean,

21     you weren't sending your colleagues and friends in Central Bosnia, the

22     municipal HVOs in Central Bosnia, you weren't sending them worthless

23     money, were you?  You were sending them something that had value and that

24     they could use in conducting their affairs in that area; correct?

25        A.   In that part of Bosnia and Herzegovina it was possible to use

Page 34178

 1     that money.

 2        Q.   Now, let's turn next to the -- to the German mark a bit more.  If

 3     we can just agree on a few propositions I'll put to you, sir, and if --

 4     I'll be grateful if you can answer these yes or no, if you can.  I think

 5     they're all things you basically said, I think, in the course of your

 6     testimony before.

 7             The Deutschmark was widely used in Bosnia-Herzegovina as early as

 8     1991, 1992; correct?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   And I think according to a report prepared by Mr. Cvikl, the man

11     that I asked you about yesterday, in his report he cites you to support

12     the fact that in fact at that time the most widely used currency in

13     Herceg-Bosna was the Deutschmark.  Did he cite you correctly?

14        A.   Well, it depended on the period.  There were periods during which

15     the German mark was used the most.  That was at the very beginning.  And

16     then the Croatian dinar was more present, and then when there was an

17     absence of such money the German mark was used the most.  That's why it

18     was also used for official payment transactions.

19        Q.   All right.  Well, I'm going to need you to help us as much as you

20     can, please, with times and dates again as much -- as much as we can,

21     because you just broke the use of the mark into about three different

22     categories or times.

23             You said in the very beginning the German mark was used the most.

24     So when you say the very beginning, sir, can you give us approximately

25     the time you're talking about, at least by year, for example?

Page 34179

 1        A.   Well, I'm talking about the time when this financial system in

 2     Yugoslavia broke up and the Bosnian and Herzegovinian currency that was

 3     set up, that was the end of 1991, the beginning of 1992.

 4        Q.   I'm not --

 5             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's correction:  The Bosnian currency

 6     had not yet been introduced.

 7             MR. SCOTT:

 8        Q.   I'm not sure where that leaves us sir, to be honest.  I find it,

 9     at least as interpreted, a bit confused.

10             You said in the very beginning the German mark was used the most.

11     So are we talking about the period 1991, 1992?  Please give us -- help us

12     as much as you can.

13        A.   During that period of time the German mark was the currency that

14     citizens placed their faith in, and they tried to exchange the Yugoslav

15     dinars that they had into German marks.  That was why there was a black

16     market.

17        Q.   Sir, let's try to keep it as simple as possible.  All -- right

18     now I'm just trying to get times and dates from you, not what they wanted

19     to exchange on the black market, what this -- just dates.  That's all I'm

20     asking about.

21             The Deutschmark, you said in the very beginning, and I just asked

22     you, so are we talking -- excuse me.

23             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Perhaps I should just explain what's happening.

24     We are getting the files that we left in Courtroom III last night, which

25     normally are brought with us to other courtrooms.  This time it wasn't

Page 34180

 1     done, and that's what is happening here.  Nothing mysterious about it.

 2             MR. SCOTT:  I think it's best, Your Honour, if I just pause until

 3     it's done.

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, please proceed.

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

 6        Q.   Mr. Tomic, again please, what I'd like you to assist us with now

 7     is just strictly dates.  So when you said just a few minutes ago that

 8     this was in the very beginning, and I -- just if I can try to move us

 9     forward, that's what I'm trying to do, but also trying to give you an

10     opportunity to be as clear as possible.  I said were you talking about

11     1991/1992?  So the answer to that question is either yes or it was some

12     other time period, and if it was some other time period, please tell us

13     exactly when it was.

14        A.   I said that towards the end of 1991 and the beginning of 1992 the

15     German mark was something that people trusted, and that's why most of the

16     payments were carried out against German marks, but companies at the time

17     still operated with Yugoslav dinars.

18        Q.   Sir, I'm going to tell you now because as you've learned, our

19     time is limited, and I have to be unfortunately sometimes perhaps not as

20     courteous as I would like to be, and when you answer the question I need

21     to move on to another question.  So my question now was not what

22     companies did.  We're talking about dates.

23             Then you said there was a time when the Croatian dinar was used,

24     and then the third period of time you said was that there wasn't enough

25     currency or there were other issues involved and the Deutschmark once

Page 34181

 1     again became the dominant currency.

 2             So my question to you now is similar.  Give us the dates for

 3     that.  What was the time -- the dates for this third period when the

 4     Deutschmark once again became the dominant currency?  And that's

 5     specifically my question, the dates.

 6        A.   That was the beginning of 1993.  HZ HB regulations provided for

 7     the monies from non-resident accounts to be transferred onto the HZ HB

 8     accounts because the German mark became more present in all the

 9     transactions, and there was no need to convert German marks into Croatian

10     dinars in the accounts in Croatia.  You could receive monies and deposit

11     monies into your foreign currency accounts in the HZ HB, i.e., you could

12     deposit German marks.

13        Q.   And you testified last Tuesday also that in terms of value the

14     Deutschmark was the most important currency in circulation in

15     Herceg-Bosna; correct?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   The Deutschmark was certainly, would you agree with me, a more

18     valuable -- both a more valuable and a more stable currency than the

19     Croatian dinar?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   And fairly soon after the Croatian dinar began to be more widely

22     used in, I believe we just established roughly sometime in early 1992,

23     mid-1992, it very quickly became subject to rapid inflation or

24     devaluation; correct?

25        A.   Yes, correct.

Page 34182

 1        Q.   And we might just -- we might just glance very quickly at

 2     Exhibit P 09255.  P 0 -- yes.  That will be in the second -- second

 3     binder.  P 09255.

 4             And, sir, this is -- the cover sheet, if you will, the cover page

 5     is a compilation of information that has been taken from the business

 6     publications or newspapers that are attached in terms of exchange rates,

 7     et cetera.  You'll see those behind, if anyone wants to look at those.

 8     But would you agree with me, and I certainly don't think you have this

 9     committed to memory, but would it seem to you about right that for

10     example in January 1992 one Croatian dinar equalled 55 -- no, excuse me.

11     My apologies.  It was 55 Croatian dinars to the mark, and by the 27th of

12     May, 1994, it was 3.716 Croatian dinar to the mark?  Is that correct?

13     Something like that.

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   I believe you said last Tuesday, and I think you maybe said it

16     again just a few minutes ago, that the Deutschmark was used for payments

17     between the government of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Herceg-Bosna during

18     that time, during this period 1992, 1993, 1994; is that correct?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   And I think you also testified last Tuesday that during the

21     conflict the international organisations, UNPROFOR, the humanitarian

22     organisations, most of the international organisations and

23     representatives who were on the ground in Bosnia-Herzegovina used the

24     Deutschmark; is that correct?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 34183

 1        Q.   And in fact, sir, isn't it correct that ultimately it was

 2     essentially the Deutschmark at the end of the war that was -- or after

 3     the war that was in fact accepted as the new currency of

 4     Bosnia-Herzegovina and ultimately became known as the convertible mark,

 5     or KM?  Is that correct?

 6        A.   Yes.  All the currencies that were present in Bosnia-Herzegovina

 7     were converted into the German mark first, and then the so-called

 8     convertible mark was introduced, and its rate of exchange was 1 to 1

 9     against the German mark, the Deutschmark.

10        Q.   So, sir, wouldn't it be fair to say throughout this period, from

11     1991 to its ultimate adoption, I believe it was in 1997 that the

12     convertible mark was introduced, throughout that time period from a

13     monetary perspective the Deutschmark always made more sense as a

14     currency?  It was more valuable.  It represented the most value in

15     transactions in the country.  It was use by the internationals.  It was

16     more stable, subject to less inflation.  It was by all measures superior

17     to the Croatian dinar or the Bosnian dinar; correct?

18        A.   Correct.

19        Q.   And I come back, sir, to the question I put to you yesterday.

20     Based on all that, would you agree with me that the selection or use of

21     the Croatian dinar by Herceg-Bosna was not a function, a monetary

22     analysis or monetary reasons, but it was essentially a political choice,

23     wasn't it?

24        A.   No, it was not a political choice.  It was just a reflection of

25     the reality, because the Croatian dinar had been present through the flow

Page 34184

 1     of goods and people from Croatia, and it penetrated all the way to

 2     Konjic, to Central Bosnia.  It had its value, which obviously in this

 3     period here experienced devaluation, but it is seen from this that during

 4     the period when the German mark was re-established as the most -- the

 5     more important currency and when the Croatian dinar devaluated then it

 6     was the German marks that was the legal tender or, rather, the most

 7     present tender in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

 8             The next problem was the issue of notes and currencies.  The

 9     smallest coin of one pfennig or five pfennigs did not exist, and that's

10     where the Croatian dinar had a role to play as a transitional tender that

11     was used in the territory of the HZ HB.  And as I say, it was used only

12     in one part of the HZ HB.

13        Q.   And the Republic of Croatia then adopted a currency called the

14     kuna in May of 1994; is that correct?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   And once again at that time Herceg-Bosna accepted the kuna as a

17     currency to be used in Herceg-Bosna; correct?

18        A.   Kuna replaced the Croatian dinar in monetary transactions.  It

19     looked differently and the name was different.

20        Q.   But once again, sir, you would agree with me, based on what

21     you've just said, it was -- it was the Croatian currency, whatever it

22     was, whether it was called the Croatian dinar, whether it was called the

23     kuna, whatever the Croatian currency was, that's the currency that

24     Herceg-Bosna wanted to use; correct?

25        A.   The Croatian currency was used in the territories of the HZ HB.

Page 34185

 1        Q.   All right.  I would like you next, please, look at -- it will be

 2     in the Defence binder, 1D 02148.  And as you're looking at that, let me

 3     just ask you some introductory questions, if you will.

 4             During 1993, or the latter part of 1992 and continuing into 1993

 5     since we see this document is dated the 2nd of February, 1993, how was

 6     Herceg-Bosna and the HVO meeting its needs for oil and petrol both for

 7     military and civilian purposes?

 8        A.   Oil and petrol were obtained from the Energopetrol company based

 9     in Sarajevo before the war.  It was in Sarajevo, and it had a business

10     centre in Mostar, and that business centre moved its office first to

11     Split, then to Ploce.  In Ploce there was also a warehouse from which the

12     area of the HZ HB was supplied.

13             Before the war Ina had a large number of gas stations in the

14     territory of the HZ HB, and Ina continued to supply these gas stations.

15        Q.   All right.

16        A.   And I already said that there were some private gas stations

17     which continued their business operations.

18        Q.   And I take it, sir, that apart from whatever deliveries were made

19     on the -- on the coast, be it at Split or wherever in terms of tanker --

20     oil tankers, oil and petrol would be distributed throughout

21     Bosnia-Herzegovina at that time primarily then by tanker trucks, lorries;

22     is that correct?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   Now, if you look at this document which is -- comes from

25     Mr. Prlic as president of the HVO HZ HB, this appears to be concerning an

Page 34186

 1     oil purchase, and I take it from the letter, and if you're looked at the

 2     letter, is it fair to say that this appears to be a transaction involving

 3     both the government of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Herceg-Bosna

 4     authorities?  Is that right, that somehow this oil is being split, or am

 5     I misunderstanding the document?

 6        A.   I've already said I was present at a meeting in Zagreb in the

 7     office of the government of Bosnia and Herzegovina together with the head

 8     of the department -- the department for economy, who expressed the need

 9     for one part of the oil and --

10        Q.   [Previous translation continues]... I apologise.  So the answer

11     to my question is yes.  Now -- and so was the oil divided between Bosnia

12     and Herzegovina and Herceg-Bosna in some fashion?  Yes or no?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   And then what I take this letter to be the further details to be

15     of the 50 per cent of the oil -- of the available -- it says of the

16     available quantity.  Fifty per cent of that was being distributed to the

17     department of defence of the HVO HZ HB, and then on down through the rest

18     of the numbers.  So this is how the Herceg-Bosna's share, if you will,

19     was then being apportioned out as reflected in the letter.  Is that

20     correct?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   And was this a unique transaction, or did you see or were you

23     aware of similar transactions in 1992, early 1993?

24        A.   I believe that the implementation of the Zagreb agreement is

25     reflected in this document, and I don't remember any other such

Page 34187

 1     transactions.

 2        Q.   This was a one-time deal.  Is that -- is that what you're telling

 3     us?

 4        A.   As far as I can remember, it was a one-off, just a one-time deal.

 5        Q.   Very well.  Now, sir, we saw a few moments ago, and you can --

 6     and you talked about it again last week, that we saw that the national

 7     bank of Bosnia-Herzegovina was involved in approving the establishment of

 8     the Croatian bank in Mostar.  We talked about that again already this

 9     afternoon.  You also testified last week that the HVO was able to obtain

10     the needed SDK software from the director of the SDK office in Sarajevo,

11     and now we've seen an example of a transaction being conducted with the

12     government of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and I put it to you, sir, that it

13     appears that whenever it suited the HVO they could have and did have

14     contact and dealings with the government of Bosnia-Herzegovina in

15     Sarajevo or elsewhere.  They could get the software.  They could get the

16     necessary approval to open a bank.  They could make arrangements to

17     purchase oil.  They could do all those things, but on the other hand,

18     when it suits you or when it suits others, were told that the BH army was

19     "cut off."

20             Now, was -- isn't that correct, sir?  Isn't this a moving target?

21     It's on one hand whenever it's convenient Sarajevo was cut off, the BiH

22     government is cut off, but on the other hand whenever you need it for

23     something, it's always there?

24        A.   One cannot really put it that way.  These were just individual

25     activities which did not represent the functioning of the system, i.e.,

Page 34188

 1     the government.  What this boils down to are decisions that were

 2     implemented individually by people who left Sarajevo or dealt with the

 3     issues of that sort in Zagreb.  In other words, there was no

 4     communication in the sense that institutions of the system could function

 5     like that.  The governor of the Central Bank would use a customary

 6     procedure according to which he should have received a request from the

 7     regional office of the Central Bank that existed in Mostar before the

 8     war.  However, there was no longer a regional office which would -- which

 9     could file a request, nor could that document be sent to Sarajevo.  It

10     should have complied with all the laws of Bosnia-Herzegovina and deliver

11     to -- delivered to the Central Bank governor who would then issue his

12     decision.

13             What we're talking about here are individual arrangements and

14     deals and not about the functioning of the government and the organs of

15     Bosnia and Herzegovina, and that's the context I would like to put this

16     in.

17        Q.   Individual transactions and deals add up to lots of individual

18     transactions and deals, sir.  And let me about on to communications.  Let

19     me put a similar question to you.

20             You've said that the communications with Central Bosnia were cut

21     off, but I have to tell you, sir, and I think it's fair for me to do so,

22     that this Chamber in the last two and a half years has seen or heard

23     about hundreds of communications between Mostar and Central Bosnia in

24     1992 and 1993.  Now, how does that fit in with your assertion that

25     communications with Central Bosnia were cut off?

Page 34189

 1        A.   I was talking about the financial sector which was my purview.

 2     We used telecommunications as the customary way of functioning in payment

 3     transactions and in the bankers' system.  However, that did not function.

 4     Those communications were interrupted.  There were only the type of

 5     communication of physical nature.

 6             A person could come from Central Bosnia and go somewhere, and

 7     that's what we did.  Central Bosnia functioned in payment transactions,

 8     as did Posavina.  That was isolated as an island.  And then we would do

 9     our accountancy between these two islands, and the physical difference in

10     the money was transferred from one part to another which largely depended

11     on the balance that had to be covered.

12             When I say communication, I mean the electronic communications

13     which are indispensable for the implementation and the functioning of

14     payment transactions and bankers' system.

15        Q.   I appreciate that, sir.  I'm talking to you now and I'm asking

16     you about the questions that I'm putting to you are not limited to

17     banking -- electronic banking transactions.  And I'm putting to you, sir,

18     that isn't it correct that your position on Central Bosnia being cut off

19     in terms of communications really a bit like your position on the

20     government of Bosnia-Herzegovina being cut off?  It's cut off when it

21     suits you and it's not cut off when this doesn't suit you.  Isn't that

22     correct?

23             MR. KARNAVAS:  I'm going to object to the form of the question.

24     How does one answer this question, Your Honours?  In which sense?  How

25     can the gentleman be allowed -- be asked to answer this question.  Look

Page 34190

 1     at the question as it's framed.  It's unfair to the witness, and it

 2     really gets us nowhere.

 3             MR. SCOTT:  Well, let me rephrase -- let me come at it

 4     differently then.

 5             MR. KARNAVAS:  Go for it.

 6             MR. SCOTT:  Let me come at a differently.  And I don't need any

 7     comments from counsel.  I'll try to do the best job I can.

 8        Q.   Let's come at it from the other way.  If Central Bosnia was cut

 9     off, sir, then I suppose that none of the territories that supposedly

10     belonged to Herceg-Bosna in Central Bosnia, Vitez, Busovaca, Kiseljak,

11     Vares, those were likewise really -- really they weren't part of

12     Herceg-Bosna, because they were cut off.  Correct?

13             MR. KARNAVAS:  Again I'm going to object to the form of the

14     question.  He was talking about cutting off in the sense from his

15     perspective dealing with finances.  He also talked about how money would

16     be transferred physically from one place to the other.  So this term "cut

17     off," the way it's being use by the Prosecution is -- is not properly

18     being used in the same way as the gentleman.

19             Also, look at the type of question that he's framing.  How does

20     one answer this question?  Again, it's vague, it's unclear, it's ill

21     phrased, and perhaps he may want to take another shot at it.

22             MR. SCOTT:  Excuse me --

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, it seems that when

24     you say "cut off," the witness seems to say something else and

25     understands something else than cut off.  So ask him whether according to

Page 34191

 1     him Central Bosnia was totally isolated from the rest in terms of

 2     telephone communication, transfer of -- financial transfer, goods

 3     transferred, so forth, so whether being isolated or cut off meant that

 4     there was no financial link between Central Bosnia and Mostar or Sarajevo

 5     but that on the other hand, circulation was possible.

 6             Try to get him to be more specific.  I believe that maybe we have

 7     an ambiguity between the -- what you understand and what the witness

 8     understands.

 9             MR. SCOTT:  Thank you, Mr. President.  I'll try.  I would just

10     like to just very briefly respond to the objection just so that the

11     record is clear and perhaps to the extent may assist the Judges.

12             Your Honour, I submit to the Chamber that in the last two and a

13     half years the Chamber has heard that term used extensively, including by

14     the Defence.  Sarajevo was cut off.  Central Bosnia was cut off.  And I

15     think everyone in the courtroom knows what that means.  It's not a term

16     that I just invented today.

17             Secondly, I was very clear in my question to the witness, and I

18     was trying to assist the witness to say that he may have been talking

19     about electronic banking transactions but that's not what I'm talking

20     about, and I'm asking the questions, with due respect.  So I'm asking the

21     witness.

22        Q.   Sir, I'm not talking about electronic banking transactions, I'm

23     talking about communications more broadly.  And if I could pick up on a

24     word the President just suggested, is it your position that Central

25     Bosnia was isolated in the sense of no dealings, no communications, not

Page 34192

 1     just electronic banking transactions, but it was isolated?  There wasn't

 2     exchange of people, there wasn't exchange of goods, there wasn't exchange

 3     of currency?  What was it?  Or not?  Or in fact, sir, isn't it a fact

 4     that it was not isolated, that it was not isolated in the way that some

 5     would like the Judges to believe.

 6        A.   There were moments and periods during which it was impossible to

 7     even physically go to Central Bosnia.  There were such moments when you

 8     could not even physically go there during the conflicts.

 9             I know that in order to carry out any financial transactions, to

10     execute payment orders, even HVO helicopters had to be used.

11        Q.   All right.  Let's go now to -- unless the Court has -- Judges

12     have questions, I'll change topics.

13             Sir, I'd like to talk to you now a bit about the customs system

14     and the border operations that you have testified about, and again I'd

15     like to see if I understand you correctly, and we can have a base on

16     which to go forward.  As I understand your testimony, sir, you agree that

17     Herceg-Bosna and the HVO authorities in 1992 and 1993, at least, perhaps

18     also thereafter but at least during that time, established a customs

19     system and conducted border operations primarily on the border with the

20     Republic of Croatia, and in doing so Herceg-Bosna collected various

21     revenues.

22             Are we in agreement on that?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   And I also understood you to say last week that you recognise

25     that such things as operating a customs system and conducting border

Page 34193

 1     operations, those are functions that we normally associate and that you,

 2     sir, would normally associate with being conducted by a state; is that

 3     correct?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   And I further understood your testimony to be that at least some,

 6     if not all of the customs and border-related revenues that were collected

 7     by Herceg-Bosna, some or all of that money should have been in fact sent

 8     to the government of Bosnia-Herzegovina as part of its general budget

 9     revenues and then to be reallocated and apportioned as part of the budget

10     process.  Is that correct?

11        A.   Yes.  That's what I said.  I mentioned that it was normal

12     procedure.  That's how the customs administration of a state functions.

13     Under normal circumstances the money goes to the budget, and then from

14     the republic's budget needs financed in accordance with the various items

15     on the budget.

16        Q.   And I understand that that didn't happen in the sense, and what I

17     mean by that is the revenues collected by Herceg-Bosna as a result of the

18     customs and border operations, those monies were not, during the period

19     1992, 1993, 1994, those monies were not in fact sent on to the government

20     of Bosnia and Herzegovina; correct?

21        A.   Well, the money from customs, from duty imposed on goods arriving

22     in the area of Herceg-Bosna was sent to the budget of the HZ HB, paid

23     into that budget.

24        Q.   So the answer to my question is no, the monies were not sent to

25     the BH government; correct?

Page 34194

 1        A.   Correct.

 2        Q.   And as I understand your testimony, the reason that you gave for

 3     that was -- I think we're back to this notion that there wasn't a means

 4     to do so.  Sarajevo was cut off or isolated, and the means didn't exist

 5     to make these payments which otherwise should have been made.  Is that

 6     your testimony?

 7        A.   Yes.  That's one of the reasons.

 8        Q.   We saw a document at one point that said that Herceg-Bosna, the

 9     HZ HB Presidency, was refusing to accept or, if I can say, take on board

10     any financial obligations or debt incurred by the government of

11     Bosnia-Herzegovina unless some way that debt was directly linked to

12     providing some benefit to Herceg-Bosna; is that correct?

13        A.   That was a decision according to which it would be accepted if

14     one-third was to be directed to the territory of the HZ HB.

15        Q.   All right.  And which actually leads me to my question.  Where

16     did the one-third come from, and what was that based on?

17        A.   I don't know.  It was a decision of the Presidency of the HZ HB.

18     I don't know.  I assume that it had to do with -- I don't know, in fact.

19        Q.   All right.  And can we agree, though, sir, if we apply that same

20     principle and if we're going to be objective and neutral about it and

21     we're going to apply that same principle, then two-thirds of all the

22     revenues and taxes and monies collected by Herceg-Bosna, the HVO, should

23     have been sent on to the government of Bosnia and Herzegovina; correct?

24        A.   No, that's not correct.  We're dealing with taking out loans with

25     the debts of the state, and representatives of the HZ HB didn't

Page 34195

 1     participate in this and they didn't know what the intention of these

 2     funds was.

 3        Q.   Sir, I'm applying the principle a bit more broadly because you

 4     said -- we established a few minutes ago and you said, you agreed with

 5     me, as you testified last week, that when Herceg-Bosna was conducting

 6     these customs operations and generating revenue, you agreed that that

 7     money should have gone to the government of Bosnia-Herzegovina.  And then

 8     we talked about this principle of one-third.  And I'm just saying if you

 9     apply that principle fairly, would you not have to say that any other

10     revenues and monies collected by Herceg-Bosna, be it taxes, be it levies,

11     be it fees, two-thirds of that money should go to the government of

12     Bosnia and Herzegovina; correct?

13             Or it was a one-way street, is that what you're telling the

14     Judges?  You could keep your money, Herceg-Bosna could keep its money,

15     but on top of that it expected to get money from the government of

16     Bosnia-Herzegovina?

17        A.   We're dealing with two types of revenue, and you cannot make such

18     analogy.

19        Q.   Let's go to 1D 02744 in the Defence binder.  Do you have 1D, sir,

20     02744?  Again, this is a document that we've already discussed about, so

21     I'm not showing you something you haven't seen before.  This concerned a

22     salt transaction, the purchase -- the purchase of salt in December 1992.

23     Excuse me a moment, please.  And I just wanted to understand a bit better

24     about, again, some of the things you talked about last week in terms of

25     some of the financial aspects.

Page 34196

 1             If we look at the second page under "Payment Method," or wherever

 2     you find that in the duty, sir.  The first method of payment apparently

 3     was the transfer, what appears to be a -- what we've been calling an

 4     electronic funds transfer to a bank account in Croatia at the Zagrebacka

 5     Banka denominated in Croatian dinars; is that correct?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   And can we -- based on what you were telling us last week, can we

 8     understand from that that somehow apparently there was the means for this

 9     purchaser, in paying for this transaction, to pay for the salt had the

10     means of making an electronic transfer involving a bank in Croatia?  Is

11     that right?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   And then the second method of payment we see is in Bosnian dinars

14     to go to giro account, and then there's a number at the Tuzla SDK, and I

15     believe you touched on that last week but I just wanted to see if I

16     understand.  So at some link in the chain of these transactions, and

17     we're going to talk about that for a moment, but somewhere in this link

18     of transactions, series of transactions, there was an electronic link or

19     what you've called an SDK link that was operating; is that correct?

20        A.   Here we have a typical contract, and it's true that 30 per cent

21     could be paid in Croatian dinars into a resident account.  Buyers also

22     had non-resident accounts and they could perform such transactions from

23     one account to another in Croatia.  Fifty per cent in BH dinars where it

24     says quite precisely through the SDK branch in Zenica or other branches

25     that deal with payment transactions with the SDK Tuzla branch.  So this

Page 34197

 1     shows that in Bosnia and Herzegovina the branches don't have anything to

 2     do with the branches in Tuzla.  It's Zenica that has a link to the Tuzla

 3     branch or other branches in the Tuzla area that communicated with Tuzla.

 4     That is why the second paragraph says that if the buyer had money in an

 5     account in Zenica he could pay in Tuzla.

 6        Q.   Sir, I'm just trying to confirm that that was -- I understand it

 7     correctly.  So there was an electronic transactions link between --

 8     apparently between Zenica and Tuzla.  We're clear on that; correct?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   And I take it then from what you've said over the last few

11     minutes that in order to get the money to Zenica before it could then be

12     transferred electronically on to Tuzla, the money would have to get to

13     Zenica some other way.  Do you know how money -- this money would have

14     been communicated to Zenica in December 1992?

15        A.   The money could only be physically transported, which wasn't a

16     good idea, given the way one had to travel.  So most of the payments were

17     made by paying sums of money into non-resident accounts abroad.  And here

18     we -- in this case cash was paid in by the UNHCR.

19             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, on looking at this

20     type of contract, you're saying that this is a standard contract.  Seen

21     from the outside, one has the feeling that three currencies are being

22     used, the Croatian dinar, the BH dinar, and the Deutschmark.  The three

23     currencies are used on the basis of 30 per cent, 50 per cent, and 20 per

24     cent.  That's a ratio.

25             So were these widely circulated contracts when such transactions

Page 34198

 1     were made?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, because -- well, part was paid

 3     in Croatian dinars, because the company would buy goods for that money

 4     because transport costs were at a minimum then.  It was for their

 5     workers.  Fifty per cent was in BH dinars so that workers in Tuzla could

 6     be paid their salaries and so that they could cover their expenses that

 7     were paid in dinars in the municipality of Tuzla.  As for German marks,

 8     these marks were used to obtain goods from outside Croatia, goods that

 9     they needed to operate.  So this is how companies tried to maintain the

10     value that they had.

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott.

12             MR. SCOTT:  Thank you, Mr. President.  And in fact, you finished

13     the remaining questions I had on that particular document.  So I'll move

14     on to another item unless the other Judges have questions.

15        Q.   Sir, in addition to that transaction, we also discussed last

16     week, and it actually was mentioned a few minutes ago or earlier today,

17     the transfer of Bosnian dinar to the central Bosnian municipal HVOs, and

18     we looked at I think in the course of last week several examples of that.

19     I think there was at least one in January of 1993 and at least another

20     one in March of 1993.  And I don't know that we really need to look at

21     the documents, to take the time to do that.

22             In one instance, for example, there were 3 billion dinars.  There

23     was the approval by the HVO HZ HB to convey or provide 3 billion BH

24     dinars to the Central Bosnia HVO.  And how would this -- how were the

25     dinars then transported to the Central Bosnia HVOs, or provided I guess.

Page 34199

 1     To say transported perhaps gives the answer, but how were they going to

 2     be provided and put in the hands, if you will, of the municipal HVOs in

 3     Central Bosnia?

 4        A.   Authorised officials from municipal HVOs would come under escort,

 5     a police escort usually, and take over from the treasuries of the SDK in

 6     Posusje or Siroki Brijeg the money in question.  They would then

 7     transport that money to Central Bosnia.

 8        Q.   And let me next direct your attention to similar situations where

 9     Croatian dinars were provided to locations in Central Bosnia.  Again I'm

10     not going to take the time to go to the particular documents, but we

11     looked at two instances -- we saw two instances of that last week at

12     least.

13             For the record, one was reflected in 1D 02114.  Another one was

14     reflected in Exhibit 1D 02137.

15             I think in the first one there was a transfer of 5 million dinars

16     to the HVO Sarajevo.  And my question to you, sir, is the same.  In what

17     way were 5 million Croatian dinars put in the hands of the HVO Sarajevo

18     in March 1993?

19        A.   The Sarajevo HVO -- or, rather, the authorised officials

20     physically received that money.  They received that money themselves,

21     then made use of it.

22        Q.   Again going back to one of our themes for the day, if Sarajevo

23     was cut off or isolated, how did you get the 3 million Croatian --

24     5 million Croatian dinar to the people in Sarajevo?

25        A.   Usually the money was used to buy goods, and this is how the

Page 34200

 1     population of Sarajevo was assisted.  The goods were then transported by

 2     convoy in the same way that other goods entered Sarajevo, because

 3     Croatian dinars couldn't be used in Sarajevo to buy anything.

 4        Q.   Well, sir, it appears from the documents, and it may, if it

 5     assists us, we made need to look at the document, but it appears from

 6     1D 02114 this was the approval to send 5 million Croatian dinars to HVO

 7     Sarajevo.  This is the decision on monetary assistance to be granted to

 8     the HVO municipality.  And at least on the face of the document, sir, it

 9     appears that it is currency, it is money, it is dinars that is being

10     provided.

11             Now, do you know for a fact that was not the case?

12        A.   I apologise, but I haven't understood your question.  The 5

13     million, that was a decision taken, and that money was handed over to the

14     HVO representatives of Sarajevo municipality in person, because it was

15     impossible to forward that money electronically.

16        Q.   How did these people get from Sarajevo to pick up and collect the

17     5 million Croatian dinar?

18        A.   Well, some of the official representatives -- one official

19     representative managed to leave Sarajevo, and this official picked up the

20     money and then had that money at his disposal.

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Tomic, there's something I

22     don't understand.  If somebody comes from Sarajevo to pick up these

23     5 million Croatian dinars and goes back to Sarajevo with these

24     dinars - we are now talking about March, 1993 - you said a few moments

25     ago that one could not use this money in Sarajevo because it was not the

Page 34201

 1     legal currency, so to speak.  What is the point of bringing in money

 2     which cannot be used?  That's what I'm trying to figure out.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, you haven't fully

 4     understood me.  They received 5 million Croatian dinars, and they used

 5     this money to buy goods.  They turned the money into goods.  It was

 6     possible to go to Sarajevo through the tunnel or over the airport strip

 7     and in such cases they joined convoys and entered Sarajevo with goods,

 8     not with Croatian dinars.

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In other words, if I have

10     understood you correctly, those's 5 million Croatian dinars were used to

11     pay for goods that entered Sarajevo either through the tunnel or through

12     another route.  Is that what you're saying?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

14             MR. SCOTT:  A few more minutes?

15        Q.   Very well, sir.  And let me turn to another topic which actually

16     relates -- well, maybe it does.  We'll see.

17             We've been told at various points in the trial that the

18     government of Bosnia-Herzegovina had certain logistics offices or in fact

19     that the government had certain offices in Zagreb.  Is that correct?  Are

20     you aware of that as well?

21        A.   Correct.

22        Q.   And I take it these logistics offices in Zagreb were for the

23     purpose, at least for a time, of again buying -- buying materials,

24     whatever they were, and getting those materials in some fashion to

25     Bosnia-Herzegovina.  Is that correct?

Page 34202

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   And do you know where these offices located in Zagreb and perhaps

 3     other parts of Croatia, where did they get the funds in order to conduct

 4     their business to pay for these transactions, to pay for goods?

 5        A.   The office of the government of the Republic of Bosnia and

 6     Herzegovina was in Senoje street in Zagreb.  At least when I was at the

 7     meeting it was located in that street.

 8             As to how they were financed, well, that was an issue for the

 9     then government of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina which used

10     accounts in Croatia and other countries in order to buy goods and in

11     order to cover the expenses of their operations.

12        Q.   And the banks that Herceg-Bosna used also had both, I take it,

13     electronic and physical means of communication with Zagreb; is that

14     correct?  Banks in Split, banks on the border between, for example,

15     Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia, these are all banks that had banking

16     relationships or the ability to conduct banking transactions in Zagreb

17     and elsewhere?

18        A.   The banks in Croatia are included in the network, and it was

19     possible for them to make payments to Zagreb.

20        Q.   Which brings us back, sir, to this point, and that is if in fact,

21     as you've told us, Herceg-Bosna was collecting this customs revenue and

22     border-related revenue and collected it, and if, as you say, you

23     recognised that was a state function, and if, as you say, that money

24     should have been paid to the Bosnia-Herzegovina but according to you,

25     there was no means to do so, couldn't it have been transferred to these

Page 34203

 1     banks in Zagreb where both the bank of Bosnia-Herzegovina -- the

 2     government of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the government accounts or

 3     Herceg-Bosna accounts and which that money could have been transferred if

 4     Herceg-Bosna had really wanted to pay that money?

 5        A.   Well, technically speaking, yes.

 6        Q.   So the fact that the money wasn't paid wasn't due to a lack of

 7     means, sir, it was due to a political decision.  Herceg-Bosna was not

 8     about to send that money on to the government of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and

 9     it had nothing to do with the lack of means to do so; correct?

10        A.   No.

11        Q.   You've just told us that there were ways of conducting

12     transactions between Croatia, between Herceg-Bosna --

13             MR. KARNAVAS:  I object.  The gentleman was about to explain his

14     answer, now he's entitled to explain, even under cross-examination,

15     even -- if the answer requires an explanation, he's entitled to do so.

16     Look at the question.  Look at the answer.

17             MR. SCOTT:  I won't intervene further, Your Honour, except I

18     think it was Mr. Karnavas who said I don't know how many umpteen times

19     yes, no, I don't know, was the appropriate answer.

20        Q.   But in any event, go ahead he, sir.  Go ahead and tell us why it

21     is, why it is you -- Herceg-Bosna and the HVO authorities couldn't make

22     payments, couldn't transfer money to accounts or representatives of the

23     government of Bosnia and Herzegovina if they had wanted to.

24        A.   At the time that this was happening, at the time this financial

25     system was being set up, it was a key issue in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Page 34204

 1     The key issue was the issue of defence, and the HVO was a part of the

 2     armed forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and this money was used for

 3     defence.  And at a meeting that we had with Mr. Izetbegovic in Mostar

 4     towards the end of 1992, this issue wasn't even openly discussed.  We

 5     explained that we had to establish supervision over the goods entering

 6     Bosnia and Herzegovina, establish borders, et cetera.  We said we were

 7     following republican instructions and applying them to the extent it was

 8     possible in the area of the HZ HB.  We said this was a matter of

 9     priority.

10        Q.   All right, sir.

11             MR. SCOTT:  And I note, Your Honours, before the break we can

12     finish on this point, I hope.

13        Q.   All that being as it may, sir, what we've come to -- would you

14     agree with me that the conclusion that we've come -- the point we've come

15     to is that the non-payment of these fees, the fact that Herceg-Bosna did

16     not pay or send on this money to the government of Bosnia and Herzegovina

17     had nothing to do with the lack of means to do so?  Correct?

18        A.   I would agree with you only partly.  At that time we did not

19     receive any information from Sarajevo about any accounts, where they

20     were, what accounts belonged to the budget, what accounts belonged to the

21     customs, tax authorities, and others.  Those were the accounts that were

22     mostly used for assistance and the procurement of goods and defence

23     supplies by the government in Sarajevo, and we were not in a position to

24     know what accounts those were, and there was no way for us to be able to

25     pay any money into those accounts.  We learned about these accounts much

Page 34205

 1     more through the transactions that you have just shown me.

 2        Q.   You didn't -- you didn't think to ask some of these

 3     representatives of Bosnia-Herzegovina, "Oh, by the way, where are your

 4     bank accounts and what are the account numbers?  We'd like to send you

 5     some money."  When you met with Izetbegovic in Zagreb, when you met with

 6     Izetbegovic in Geneva and other places and other representatives of the

 7     Bosnian government, did Mr. Boban or did Mr. Susak or Mr. Tudjman or

 8     anyone say, "By the way, we'd like to send you some money because we owe

 9     it to you.  Where should we send it?"  Or you were just --  you were

10     happy to just keep the money and not say anything more about it?  Is that

11     what you're telling us?

12        A.   First of all, let me tell you that I never participated in any

13     political negotiations or meetings except for the meeting with

14     Mr. Izetbegovic when he came to Mostar.  I've told you that the contact

15     that we had with the government or the office of the government in Zagreb

16     is another one, and no account numbers were given to me.  We were not

17     given any possibility to pay money.  We were only talking about using the

18     external aid that arrived in Bosnia and Herzegovina.  That's all that we

19     talked about.

20             MR. SCOTT:  Thank you, Your Honour.

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It's a quarter to 4.00, and we

22     will have a 20-minute break.

23                           --- Recess taken at 3.49 p.m.

24                           --- On resuming at 4.14 p.m.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott.

Page 34206

 1             MR. SCOTT:

 2        Q.   Mr. Tomic, staying on the topic of customs and border-related

 3     revenues, if we could go forward, didn't this same situation in fact

 4     exist in 19 -- even by 1995, where Herceg-Bosna was collecting this

 5     revenue and not providing any of it to the government of

 6     Bosnia-Herzegovina?

 7        A.   In 1995 an agreement was reached about the complete separation of

 8     revenues within the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina between the

 9     areas under the control of the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the

10     areas under the control of the HVO.  And this was done because of the

11     purposeful utilisation of the budget in the areas, and the key was in the

12     establishment of a federal budget and unique system of payment

13     transactions, and then the two budgets were merged and the revenues from

14     the customs duties collected were then channeled into the revenue of

15     Bosnia-Herzegovina.

16        Q.   If you please look at Exhibit P 10683 which should be in binder

17     number 3.  Binder 3, P 10683.

18             This is something called a VIP Daily News Report, and while there

19     is a date on the top -- for the top of the first page under the

20     letterhead, if you will, of October 17th, 2008, you'll see in the footer

21     of the document that the document is actually dated 23 January 1995.  If

22     I might just indicate that the October 17, 2008 date seems to be a

23     function of when it's accessed on the computer, on the internet.  But if

24     you look, sir, at the --it will be on the second page of the English

25     version, but there is a section that is -- gives a report about this

Page 34207

 1     issue of customs revenue in which it is reported that Neven Tomic said

 2     the federation's entire customs income would go only to Herceg-Bosna,

 3     although the federation parliament adopted a common customs law last week

 4     in Sarajevo.  It's also indicated in this article that Croat authorities

 5     were collecting 1 million Deutschmarks in customs duties every day at the

 6     Doljani border crossing from Croatia to Bosnia.

 7             Is all of that correct?

 8        A.   No.  A federal law was indeed passed.  However, no federal budget

 9     was passed, and it was never said how the institutions of the federation

10     of Bosnia-Herzegovina would be funded.  The biggest pressure was for the

11     revenues that were collected in the territory of the HZ HB to be

12     channeled into the budget in Sarajevo.  However, the federal army was

13     still not established.  The federal pension fund was still non-existent.

14     In other words, the beneficiaries of the budget had still not been

15     established, and by the agreement within the Minister of Finance

16     Mr. Kreso and myself, it was clearly defined that in the transitional

17     period before these institutions were established, the revenues that were

18     collected for which the end user was the importers in the HZ HB should

19     remain in the HZ HB.  As for the revenues that were channeled towards the

20     areas under the control of the BH army would then be channeled into the

21     budget of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

22        Q.   Is it correct, sir, that the Croat authorities, the Herceg-Bosna

23     authorities around this time were in fact collecting approximately 1

24     million Deutschmarks in customs duties every day at the Doljani border

25     crossing?

Page 34208

 1        A.   Not correct.  The Doljani border crossing was --

 2        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ... P 10685.

 3             MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honours.  My

 4     learned friend may wish to explain the document that we have just seen in

 5     front of us, the VIP Daily News Report.  The English and the Croatian

 6     versions were shown, but they're not one and the same text, and it's very

 7     hard to tell what the original is, whether the original is English

 8     translated into Croatian or vice versa.  Both bear the number 403.

 9     However, the dates are different.  23 January 1995 in Croatian and 18

10     October in English.  And when you look at the contents, you will see that

11     the two versions do not correspond to each other.  The sequence is

12     different, and not all the articles are in there.

13             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, in Kovacic found out

14     that the English text dates -- one text is January 23, 1995, whereas the

15     other one is 17 October 2008 depending on the language.  Could you shed

16     some light on this?

17             MR. SCOTT:  Yes, Your Honour.  I believe that the original

18     publication is an English publication.  I may be wrong on that.  At least

19     that's the -- well, I think that's the case.  I can't swear to that, to

20     be honest.  It looks to me like having seen translations for the past ten

21     years here, it appears that the document attached in the Croatian

22     language is a prepared translation.

23             As to the date, I thought I was trying to preempt that question

24     by explaining that this document was downloaded from the internet.

25     Perhaps other people in the courtroom have experienced that sometimes

Page 34209

 1     whenever you download something from the internet you get a date of

 2     download or date of printing as an electronic function.

 3             The footer of the article in the English version and in -- is

 4     January 23, 1995, and we submit that the date of the publication is that

 5     date, the 23rd of January, 1995.  It certainly wasn't a few weeks ago in

 6     2008.

 7             MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm grateful for this

 8     explanation.  However, I'm still confused.  In the translation, i.e., in

 9     the Croatian text, the title of the first article is the same as in the

10     English version, "Contact Group in Pale, in Sarajevo," which translates

11     into the same thing in Croatian.  However, when you read the article

12     itself, the contents do -- are different, as if the two sets of materials

13     have been mixed up.

14             In the English version there is no reference to Karadzic, Tomas

15     who are mentioned in here.  This is something I can't see in the English

16     version.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, there is.  Yes, there is.

18             MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] I apologise.  Maybe I have a wrong

19     copy.  Maybe my binders got mixed up.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott.

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

22        Q.   If we could go on to Exhibit 10685.  So this is another article

23     apparently from the Ljubljana Oslobodjenje dated the 20th of April, 1995.

24     So it's about four months, approximately four months later than the first

25     article.  And it appears in this article that in fact the same situation

Page 34210

 1     continues to exist.  Federal -- title "Federal Partners In Conflict Over

 2     Customs."  In the first paragraph:  "The decree on temporary measures for

 3     the importation and trade in products adopted by authorities operating on

 4     territory under the control of the HVO ... does not confirm to federal

 5     regulations and is causing consequences for the entire territory of the

 6     federation."

 7             Now, wasn't this same thing going on, sir, in -- in 1994, 1995?

 8     It might have been resolved at some point but for a substantial period of

 9     time Herceg-Bosna continued to collect and keep all the customs revenue;

10     correct?

11             MR. KARNAVAS:  Excuse me.  Before the gentleman answers the

12     question, we don't have the original version in the B/C/S.  I guess

13     Ljubljana must be a Slovenian-Croat version, or Slovenian-Yugoslav,

14     whatever.  So perhaps the gentleman should be given the opportunity to

15     look at the original version before he can comment on it.

16             MR. SCOTT:  If it's not in the binders, Your Honour, it may be --

17     if it's not in the binder, Your Honour, then there hasn't -- a

18     translation has not yet been obtained.  I can put -- I can certainly read

19     to Mr. Tomic any relevant portions of it.

20        Q.   The point, sir, is wasn't this an ongoing issue and what I just

21     said is true, whether you see it in this article, can you just confirm to

22     the Judges that during this period, 1994, 1995, Herceg-Bosna was

23     continuing to collect and keep all the customs revenue?

24        A.   This is a text from Oslobodjenje which was not a Slovenian paper.

25     Oslobodjenje was a Sarajevo-based newspaper which was printed during the

Page 34211

 1     war, and during that period of time it was printed in Ljubljana.

 2             Throughout all the period after the Washington Agreement of which

 3     I've already testified, the approach to the implementation of the

 4     Washington Agreement on the part of the Bosniak partners in the

 5     government was to simply have the institutions of Herceg-Bosna abolished

 6     and join the work of the republican institutions which had hitherto

 7     functioned in the territories under the control of the BH army.

 8             According to the Washington Agreement we were supposed to build

 9     new institutions.  In that period, the package of the laws to regulate

10     new institutions was not adopted.

11             Who were the beneficiaries of the budget?  This was not

12     established, and this was the subject of a major pressure exerted by the

13     Bosniak side through the Sarajevo media, and what they were saying was

14     not the truth.  The border crossing Doljani that I just mentioned a while

15     ago was the least-used border crossing which is reflected in the

16     budgetary revenues of the HZ HB, and as a result of this the situation

17     that we ended up with --

18        Q.   Sir, in the next-to-last paragraph of the article it says this,

19     and if you don't have it in your own -- I have the impression perhaps you

20     can read English, but be that as it may, it can be translate to you.  In

21     the article it says:  "Herceg-Bosna is constantly finding new forms of

22     financing that are not controllable."

23             Wasn't Herceg-Bosna and the HDZ throughout this period doing

24     everything possible to obstruct the establishment and the working of the

25     federation?

Page 34212

 1        A.   Incorrect.  We insisted on the establishment of new federal

 2     institutions, and that was the fundamental cause of the slowness in

 3     procedure and the functioning of the government and federation within the

 4     same package.  When the agreement was signed on the implementation of the

 5     federation before the Dayton in 1995, and when only the government of the

 6     federation was established and where -- and also the government of the

 7     republic as a separate government, then the functioning and the merger of

 8     the territories under the control of the BH army and the HVO respectively

 9     started because new institutions were being established and introduced.

10             MR. KARNAVAS:  I just -- just for a point of clarification, Your

11     Honours, this is a quoted part that was quoted in the question.  This is

12     from a Hasan Muratovic.  So it's not that the article is saying it.  This

13     is what this gentleman claims, at least in this particular article, which

14     I find rather interesting because it says Ljubljana not Sarajevo

15     Oslobodjenje.  And it also talks -- it says something about

16     Serbo-Croatian.  By this point the Muslims have their own language, which

17     is Bosniak or Bosnian, depending whether it's the federation or the

18     Dayton Accords.  So I find it rather interesting that they're going back

19     to Serbo-Croatian after all that bellyaching that they didn't have a

20     language.

21             So if this is in 1995, this is printed in some place other than

22     Sarajevo.  We don't have the original version.  I find this rather

23     suspect.  And now we're quoting from it and we're not saying we're

24     quoting from Dr. Hasan Muratovic, but rather, we're saying this is what

25     is in the article as if somebody did actual research.

Page 34213

 1             So I would suggest, Your Honours, given that there is a lack of

 2     foundation on this particular document that we just move on.

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, it's this Muratovic

 4     person who is talking in the paragraph starting with "Herceg-Bosna is

 5     constantly finding new forms."  This is Mr. Muratovic saying this, isn't

 6     it?

 7             MR. SCOTT:  It appears to be so, Your Honour.  It is quoted in

 8     the article, and I put that proposition to the witness, which he can

 9     agree with or disagree with.  Everybody in the courtroom certainly has

10     the document.  And the report itself, Your Honour, in terms of -- the

11     lack of translation is one issue and that will certainly have to be

12     corrected, but apart from that, this is absolutely no different from the

13     hundreds of other media articles that the Chamber has seen in the last

14     two and a half years.  So I think that that's the point of putting it to

15     the witness, to ask him if that was continued -- if these facts were

16     true.  He's expressed his disagreement with some of this, and the

17     Chamber's heard his testimony.  So --

18             MR. KARNAVAS:  Well, Your Honour, I would just ask --

19             MR. SCOTT:  I'm not sure what the problem is.

20             MR. KARNAVAS:  I would just ask my colleague to be a little more

21     careful.  He's not just -- he's not quoting the text.  He's quoting an

22     individual that's in the text.  And if you go back to the question, he

23     never gives notice to the gentleman that this is what Mr. Muratovic is

24     claiming.

25             I do think that it is fair to -- for the witness to know who it

Page 34214

 1     is that is making this accusation or assertion, and it's within that

 2     context that the answer can be given.

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, we've already

 4     mentioned this at length.  You know my answer very well.  You know that

 5     the media, when they quote someone, you know, they put it in quotes, and

 6     this sentence is in quotes.  And then we have Muratovic says or says

 7     Mr. Muratovic.  So we know it's a quote.  And Mr. Tomic seemingly was

 8     also interviewed, because he's also mentioned.

 9             MR. KARNAVAS:  But, Your Honour, he doesn't have the original

10     version.  That's -- that was my point.  Unless we're saying that some

11     witnesses, if they can plough through English, good or bad, they should

12     just look at the English text.

13             In this instance Mr. -- Mr. Scott indicated that he would read

14     from the text because we didn't have the original.  Fair enough.  But if

15     we go that route then at least we should go the extra step and say

16     so-and-so claims the following.  That's all I'm saying.  If he had the

17     original, fair enough.  Then he would obviously look at the original and

18     then he could say.  That's my point.  I'm not trying to obstruct or to

19     deny the gentleman the opportunity to pose the question.

20             MR. SCOTT:  Thank you, Mr. President.  I'm going on, anyway, and

21     on that point I understand Mr. Karnavas's point since the witness doesn't

22     have it in front of him.  If I had read the full passage he would have

23     had more information, so on that point I think there's some merit to

24     what's been said.  But in any event, I think the witness knows the issue.

25     He knows the situation.  He's able to address it and he has addressed it.

Page 34215

 1             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I believe that the witness

 2     wanted to answer.  You can answer.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise.  I've just looked at

 4     the whole text.  Look at the second paragraph on the same page starting

 5     with "Dr. Nikola Grabovac."  I would kindly ask you to read this

 6     paragraph, and you will see that this was the position that I held at the

 7     time and that I'm sharing with you now.  Mr. Grabovac quoted me because

 8     he was the only person there at the meeting that was being held.

 9             We were in favour of the functioning of the federation.  However,

10     we insisted on establishing institutions that would be treated as federal

11     institutions.  Every day Bosniak side would accuse us because they wanted

12     Herceg-Bosna to stop functioning and for us to be incorporated within the

13     system of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, which was contrary to the

14     Washington Agreement.

15             MR. SCOTT:

16        Q.   Sir, during the time that you were the Minister of Finance of the

17     Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna and, as you've told us, the Finance

18     Minister for the federation and, if I understand correctly, at least for

19     a time Finance Minister of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, did you

20     consider that you owed any sort of allegiance or duty to the Republic of

21     Croatia during that time in any of those positions?

22        A.   I was the Minister of Finance in the government of the Federation

23     of Bosnia and Herzegovina where I represented the Croats from Bosnia and

24     Herzegovina.  That was my duty.  And our task was to establish federal

25     institutions and the implementation of the Washington Agreement.

Page 34216

 1        Q.   Were you --

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute.  Witness, I've

 3     listen to you carefully.  You were Minister of Finance of the federation.

 4     I thought that you were the Ministry of Finance -- Minister of Finance,

 5     because you're extremely competent in this area and you were appointed to

 6     this position, but you have added that you represented the Croats.  So I

 7     can't really understand this.  A person is Minister of Finance because

 8     he's competent, be it whether he's a Croat, a Serb, or a Muslim, or are

 9     we Minister of Finance because we represent the Croats here?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the distribution of functions in

11     the government after the Washington Agreement the position of the Finance

12     Minister was given to a Croat, i.e., a person of Croatian origin.  Of

13     course that person had to be competent, but he also had to be Croat.

14     That was the political agreement of the signatories of the Washington

15     Agreement.

16             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Very well.

17             MR. SCOTT:

18        Q.   Sir, if you can turn in your binder to -- I'll tell you the

19     number in just -- the binder in a moment.  P 08818.  It should be in

20     binder number 2.  P 08818.  And this is a record of a meeting with

21     President Tudjman on the 7th of February, 1998.  And can you tell us as

22     we begin looking at this document what, if any, position Mr. Prlic held

23     in any part of the government of Bosnia-Herzegovina or the federation at

24     that time?

25        A.   I believe that at the time he was the Minister of Foreign Affairs

Page 34217

 1     of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

 2        Q.   All right.  Now, if you turn to page 11, please, of this

 3     transcript.  There's one part that I would like to ask you about.

 4             Starting at about the middle -- above the middle of page 11,

 5     continuing over to the top of page 12, we have this statement attributed

 6     to Mr. Prlic, and I'll start with the third paragraph.

 7        A.   I apologise.  These pages are missing from the Croatian version.

 8     I have 7 and then I have 14, nothing in between.

 9        Q.   Perhaps we can assist you if that's the case.

10             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  The same here, Mr. Scott.  We have --

11             MR. SCOTT:  Thank you, Your Honour.

12             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  15 -- no, 8 and then 15.

13             MR. SCOTT:  Well, obviously, Your Honour, my apologies, if

14     there's been an error.  If we can work in the e-court then.

15        Q.   And, sir, it should be available to you.  You should be able to

16     see it on the screen in both English or certainly Croatian in a moment.

17     If you go back to page 11, please.  Okay.  Thanks very much.

18             Mr. Prlic says in the third paragraph under his intervention:

19     "Mr. President, last year the surplus between Croatia and us was 400

20     million marks."  I note that we're still talking in German marks.  "It is

21     an enormous amount; goods that cannot be sold in any other market, only

22     Croatia starts off without the custom duty.  For a year and a half they

23     were trying to put an end to it.  Only thanks to Tomic and me has it not

24     been stopped yet.

25              "In a couple of days the united customs zone will start

Page 34218

 1     functioning in Bosnia and Herzegovina ... control, and we will not be

 2     able to oppose that.  We are facing a threat, because if the Republika

 3     Srpska is inside, it means that Yugoslavia is inside as well.

 4              "In that regard, I think that this matter is not discussed here

 5     enough.  As regards to the economy, it is extremely important; 400

 6     million marks of surplus are very important to Croatia."

 7             Sir, when Mr. Prlic and you were acting in your official

 8     positions on behalf of the federation and the Republic of Bosnia and

 9     Herzegovina, did you consider that you were supposed to be acting in

10     their best interests or in the best interests of the Republic of Croatia?

11        A.   We were supposed to protect the interests of Bosnia and

12     Herzegovina, of course.

13        Q.   And Mr. Prlic says here that in terms of this favourable

14     treatment Croatia was receiving, he says:  "For a year and a half they

15     were trying to put an end to it.  Only thanks to Tomic and me has it not

16     been stopped yet."

17             It was the other authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina were

18     trying to put a stop to this arrangement; correct?

19        A.   No.  The Bosniak side tried to stop that unilaterally, without

20     passing documents that had been envisaged by the Washington Agreement.

21             According to the Washington Agreement, the documents of the then

22     existing administrative arrangements of Herceg-Bosna would be in effect

23     until the moment either federal or the republican documents were passed.

24     Since we wanted new institutions and new agreements to be established,

25     the result was as Mr. Prlic put it.

Page 34219

 1             We did not fight for Croatia.  We fought for the Washington

 2     Agreement to be implemented in the form in which it was signed.

 3        Q.   Sir, I put it to you again that Herceg-Bosna and the HDZ

 4     throughout this time period was doing everything possible to obstruct the

 5     Washington Agreement, weren't they?

 6        A.   No.

 7        Q.   Now, if we can go to -- sir, if we can go to the question of the

 8     use of the term "Bosnia and Herzegovina" in fact on various documents or

 9     insignia.

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, Mr. Scott.  The

11     witness answered your question, which is an important question since you

12     say that he was obstructing the Washington Agreements.  The witness says

13     no, and then you move on to something else.  It might have been

14     interesting to hear the witness on this point, why he wasn't standing in

15     the way of the Washington agreements.

16             MR. SCOTT:  I leave the witness in your hands.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] After the signing of the Washington

18     Agreement, we went to Sarajevo with other colleagues.  We risked our

19     lives on Igman, and when passing -- and we passed through the tunnel to

20     get into Sarajevo.  War was still raging there.

21             This isn't obstruction.  This demonstrates one's intention to do

22     one's job as specified in the Washington Agreement, namely the

23     construction of new institutions from the Central Bank to new customs

24     administration of the federation, to the federation budget.  We insisted

25     on this.

Page 34220

 1             At that time the media in Sarajevo circulated a story according

 2     to which we were acting in an obstructive way, because it was impossible

 3     to perform our duties as ministers in the government of the federation of

 4     the republic because we were in Sarajevo and we had no authority in the

 5     territory under the control of the HVO.  Well, we stated that as a

 6     precondition for our future work it would be necessary in that

 7     transitional period to have people who were in Sarajevo who were

 8     ministers in Herceg-Bosna.  We were again appointed as ministers in

 9     Herceg-Bosna, but why?  So that the process of implementing the

10     Washington Agreement and of creating institutions could be carried out in

11     a competent way by those who were familiar with the situation on the

12     ground.

13             The problem is that the media and those in favour of the

14     government, as stated in these documents, and that meant pro-Bosniak at

15     the time, the problem was that they kept circulating a story according to

16     which we were seizing revenue in the territory of Herceg-Bosna.  Duty was

17     never imposed on goods and were being sent to territory under the control

18     of the ABiH.  And there was a continual conflict of this kind, continual

19     clash, but it wasn't possible for us to clarify the situation through the

20     media, to explain what was at stake.  And for this reason and other for

21     reasons I claim that we didn't obstruct anything.  We tried to implement

22     what had been stated in the documents.

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] With this in mind, why didn't

24     you say that all the custom duties levied by the -- by the Herceg-Bosna

25     would be paid into the government of the federation?  Why was this never

Page 34221

 1     said?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, look, the agreement between

 3     the minister who was in the government of the republic and myself, and at

 4     the time I was a deputy in Herceg-Bosna, this was after Washington, the

 5     agreement was during the transitional period and up until the time

 6     federal institutions were established, new institutions, these were new

 7     institutions, there was no budget I could pay money into, this was the

 8     budget of that BH republic whose new constitution hadn't yet taken force.

 9     So we can't pay money that is the federation's money into the budget

10     republic -- the republican budget.  It was a game and there was pressure

11     for us to pay this money into the republic's budget.

12             The federation shouldn't even have to be established, because --

13     as I have already said in the course of my testimony.  The Bosniak side

14     accepted all solutions as transitional solutions until a final state

15     solution.  It wanted to keep things in its hands until this issue was

16     dealt with.  We wanted part of -- we wanted a role in the power in

17     accordance with the Washington Agreement.  And that's why we had the

18     agreement on bringing to life the federation, and this was before Dayton.

19     In this agreement the government of the federation was separated from the

20     government of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and this is when the process

21     actually took off.

22             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott.

23             MR. SCOTT:

24        Q.   Sir, didn't -- and continuing the same issue, didn't the

25     international community and a number of non-governmental organisations

Page 34222

 1     throughout this period repeatedly, repeatedly find the HVO, the HDZ,

 2     Herceg-Bosna being complete obstructionists to both Washington and

 3     Dayton?  You do remember that?  You certainty were aware that report

 4     after report was coming out at the time saying these things.

 5        A.   There were reports.  The question is who discussed these reports

 6     with those people.  The people who spoke to me never conveyed such a

 7     position in any reports.  I had contact with people from the World Bank,

 8     from the IMF, from the European bank, and finally under their supervision

 9     we -- we established those federal institutions, as I said.  There was a

10     group of 10 or 12 of us in Sarajevo at the time.  We didn't have

11     infrastructure of our own.  We had no communications, and we were being

12     supervised by Sarajevo departments.

13             Well, in such a situation what could we have done?  How could we

14     have explained to someone what was being done when people from ministries

15     said that they were from federal ministries, which was not at all the

16     case?

17        Q.   Let me ask you please --

18        A.   And I sa that --

19        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ... P 10279.  P 10279.  That's

20     the third binder, first document in the third -- binder number 3.  And

21     this is a document that's previously been admitted.  In line with what

22     you've said in the last few moments, I'd like to show it to you.

23             Sir, this is part of a report that was issued in April 2000 by

24     the International Crisis Group, which I believe is an extremely reputable

25     international organisation.

Page 34223

 1             If you look at the first page, page 1, I will read it -- some of

 2     the passages to you.  It starts out the introduction:  "Mostar is a city

 3     divided."  Going to the end of that first paragraph:  "Since the war, the

 4     Bosnian Croat HDZ, Croatian democratic party, has actively opposed all

 5     efforts, both figurative and literal, at bridge building."

 6             Skipping to the third paragraph:  "In terms of achieving,

 7     actually achieving reunification, international community and EU efforts

 8     have failed.  After six years of international community assistance and

 9     supervision the administration, economy, infrastructure, education,

10     police, and legal systems of Mostar remain sharply divided along ethnic

11     lines.  The only real achievement to date in Mostar has been freedom of

12     movement.  The greatest indication of the international community's

13     failure today has been the persistent and largely unchallenged

14     obstruction by the HDZ implementing property laws and refugee return."

15             Going to the next paragraph:  "Since 1994, the HDZ leadership, in

16     cooperation with the HDIDRDA, which the Chamber heard about several weeks

17     ago from another witness, and powerful Herzegovinian economic interest

18     has repeatedly blocked not only international community efforts to

19     reunite Mostar but also the implementation of the federation agreement

20     and the Dayton peace agreement."

21             Going over to page 2, section A, HDZ Obstruction:  "Since signing

22     the first agreement in Geneva in 1994, the ruling Croat political party,

23     the HDZ, has prevented all progress by blatantly obstructing over 30

24     subsequent agreements ...  the HDZ has carried out a policy of

25     maintaining a divided city, canton and federation, obstructing all

Page 34224

 1     agreements at various official levels and at different times, engaging in

 2     a continuous game of good cop-bad cop with the international community."

 3             Now, I don't think I need to read more.

 4             That was the common consensus among the international community

 5     throughout this time period, was it not, leading in fact to various

 6     actions being taken by the office of High Representative against the

 7     senior leadership of the HDZ?

 8             MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have an objection.

 9     The Prosecutor has said that this is the assessment of the international

10     community.  We don't know what the ECG group is.  First of all we should

11     know what ECG means.  We can't just say that it's the international

12     community.  This is very abstract.

13             Secondly, it's a document from the April 2002.  As far as I can

14     remember, the witness was a mayor in Mostar, if I remember correctly, but

15     this line of questioning that has been pursued for over an hour, half an

16     hour now, well, as far as I know, and I think I do know, the time-frame

17     of the indictment is until the Dayton agreement -- the Washington

18     Agreement.  I apologise.  So why are we now dealing with events in Bosnia

19     and Herzegovina after the signing of the Washington Agreement -- or,

20     rather, after the time-frame covered by the indictment?

21             And thirdly, if this is what we're dealing with, well, then we

22     have to deal with this up to this very day, because some of these

23     problems, as far as I know, given the supervision law that we have about

24     it, well, some of these problems are still present today.  So this line

25     of questioning is not relevant.

Page 34225

 1             Thank you very much.

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, do you wish to

 3     respond?  But you have responded a few weeks ago when you said that as

 4     far as you were concerned, the JCE still prevailed after the Washington

 5     agreement.  Isn't that what you said?

 6             MR. SCOTT:  Yes, Your Honour, in this sense, and that is that

 7     we -- what the Prosecution's case is and the Chamber may ultimately agree

 8     or disagree, but it's the Prosecution case that Herceg-Bosna represented

 9     a long-term project that did not end with Washington or Dayton, and the

10     reason that's relevant is because among -- among other things is because

11     the Defence has repeatedly said it was temporary, it was provisional, it

12     wouldn't last after the war, and this witness -- the further answer is

13     this witness himself has this afternoon said everything that the Bosnian

14     Croats and the HDZ was trying to do to implement the Washington Agreement

15     and everything that was being done and they were holding out because they

16     didn't want to organise this institution or they didn't want to do this

17     or they couldn't pay the customs revenue in to them yet because of some

18     reason.  So he's made all of this, Your Honour, directly relevant, and

19     I'm challenging his testimony on that point.  And I do submit that this

20     is only one document, but again we have a very educated man in front us

21     who has been a senior government official.  He must have known.  I assume

22     he was reading the newspapers at the time.  He was meeting with senior

23     government officials.  He must have known.  He must have known that these

24     were issues and allegations that were being brought against the HDZ

25     almost every day.

Page 34226

 1             Now, if he wasn't aware of that and he wasn't following, watching

 2     the news, watching the television or reading the newspaper or watching

 3     CNN, then maybe he didn't know but I submit to you that he did, and he --

 4     he has every capable means of responding to my questions that I put to

 5     him several times this afternoon, "Sir, isn't it true that the H -- the

 6     Herceg-Bosna that continued to exist and the HDZ were doing everything

 7     possible to obstruct the Washington Agreement?"  And several times he

 8     said no.  This exhibit is directly relevant to that.

 9             MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with your leave I

10     would like to respond.  Unless I misheard something, but I think I heard

11     this correctly and I've been following the transcript, the Prosecution is

12     now claiming before this Tribunal that joint criminal enterprise, and we

13     know what we're talking about, the enterprise covered in the indictment,

14     was a long-term project and did not come to an end with the Washington or

15     Dayton agreement.  I can't understand this in any other way.  I can only

16     take it to be an amendment to the indictment.

17             I have already raised this objection, and you, the Chamber, tried

18     to persuade me that the Prosecution wasn't amending the indictment.  But

19     if the Prosecution is making such a claim when this comes to

20     investigating the circumstances and events, and this is outside the scope

21     of the indictment, well, in such a case the only possible explanation is

22     that the Prosecution is thereby amending or changing the indictment.

23             And one other thing I would like to add, I didn't mention it

24     because I wanted to be brief, the Prosecution is again being given a

25     certain right.  The Prosecution is not asking whether it could put

Page 34227

 1     questions outside the scope of examination-in-chief.

 2             I'd like to remind you of Rule 19(H)(i), you can go beyond the

 3     scope, but one has to explain why.  If the explanation is that one wants

 4     to go beyond the scope of examination-in-chief because the claim that --

 5     because of the claim that the joint criminal enterprise is a long-term

 6     project, well, then the Prosecution has to say that and say why this is

 7     his opinion and also say whether he is amending the amendment.  The Prlic

 8     Defence case is coming to its end.  Five other Defence teams have to

 9     start their cases.  We can't define the limits of our defence case if in

10     a certain sense, the implication is that the time-frame of the indictment

11     is being broadened.  That is my objection and I would like it to be dealt

12     with.

13             MR. KARNAVAS:  Based on -- based on what I heard, it would appear

14     now that it is an expanded indictment, and I certainly would ask at least

15     with the conclusion of this witness's testimony that we be given

16     additional time to, one, do further investigation and, two, additional

17     time to put on a case.

18             Recently I just read comments made by the supervisor in Brcko

19     district, who happens to be an American ambassador who talks about the

20     Bosniaks continuing their project for a unitary state, the Serbs

21     wanting -- Republika Srpska wanting to break away because in part of this

22     unitary project where the Croats are still interested in having a third

23     entity in BiH.

24             Now, if we are going to allow the Prosecutor to talk about 2000

25     and thereafter, then we must be given an opportunity to now discuss what

Page 34228

 1     is going on in Bosnia-Herzegovina even today while there are discussions

 2     on amending the constitution, because one of -- one of the abusers of the

 3     Dayton Peace Accord has been indeed the international community, none

 4     other than the office of the High Representative where they're imposing

 5     laws, violating the letter and spirit of the Dayton Accords and the

 6     annexes which are the constitution of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the

 7     constitution of the federation, the constitution of the Republika Srpska,

 8     and even the final award which created the Brcko district.

 9             So if we're going to go into this area and if you're going to

10     allow this kind of questioning, then it is an acknowledgement by the

11     Bench that it is indeed going to consider this information and this

12     evidence, that it is allowing the Prosecution even at this late stage of

13     the game to expand the indictment, and therefore we need to take certain

14     actions on our part.  We need to defend against this.  And I -- as I take

15     it based on the question that you posed, Mr. President, and the answer

16     that we got, that indeed the indictment has been amended to include all

17     these other things.

18             So I do think that maybe this is not the time to argue this, but

19     we need to have a session to figure out what is it are we supposed to

20     defend against?  Is it the indictment, the four corners of this -- of

21     this mega document, or are we going to go beyond?  We need to know.

22     Especially I need to know because if I knew that I was going to go into

23     post-Dayton implementation 2000 plus, then obviously be would be prepared

24     for that to put on a case, but I have been limited and my time has been

25     limited based on the indictment.

Page 34229

 1             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, I don't have the

 2     indictment before me but if I remember correctly from memory, in the

 3     indictment it is stated that there is a JCE was started before, comma,

 4     from such a day to such a date and afterwards.  We have the words

 5     "before" and "after."  This is in the indictment, so read the indictment

 6     again.  There is a date that is mentioned as a start date and an end

 7     date -- it has a start date.  You have the words "before" and "after."

 8     So read the indictment again.  I don't have it before me.

 9             Mr. Scott has already said this, and the Trial Chamber has said

10     that it would assess this time period in light of the material adduced.

11             Mr. Praljak.

12             THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Your Honours --

13             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment.  Before I give the

14     floor to Mr. Praljak, I would like to read [no interpretation ...

15     approximately and after -- various people, so on and so forth.

16             Let me read it again.  This hasn't been recorded on the

17     transcript.  Paragraph 15:  "From on or before the 18th of November,

18     1991, to about April 1994 and thereafter," comma, so we are talking about

19     the period before the 18th of November, 1991, and April, 1994.  What we

20     talk about from on or before and about April 1994.

21             THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] I'd like a brief break so

22     that I can consult my lawyer.  I didn't believe I would have to listen to

23     an indictment of a political nature again, which is what I had to do in

24     Communist Yugoslavia from the middle ages to the present day, lasts from

25     the middle ages to the present day.  If the HZ HB obstructed anything

Page 34230

 1     after the Dayton agreement, then you have to ask yourselves why the

 2     Americans created Republika Srpska after everything it had done, so what

 3     is at stake here is that the political right of those who are powerful is

 4     transformed into someone's right at court.  This is just a display of the

 5     imperial power of the Prosecutor who isn't even acting in accordance with

 6     the laws of this Tribunal.

 7             I am requesting that we have a break so that I can examine how I

 8     proceed.  Thank you very much.

 9             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  This is an important issue that we've had

10     before, and maybe it would be good if -- if the Chamber sat on it and

11     answered the questions that have been raised on both sides.

12             My suggestion is that we postpone this for at least next week,

13     because we have this witness who is an important witness, as the Defence

14     rightly has argued, and whom we cannot keep into tomorrow, and I think we

15     should really use the time now to take advantage of everything this

16     witness can tell us.

17             I wonder whether my colleagues agree.

18             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, Mr. Scott showed you

19     this document, which is a document prepared by the ECJ.  According to

20     Mr. Scott this international crisis group is a well -- very well-known

21     group.  I had never heard about it before.  And the International Crisis

22     Group talks about a number of issues.  What is your answer to this?

23             Mr. Kovacic, please sit down.  My colleague has said that this

24     issue will be discussed next week, but for the time being the witness

25     needs to finish his testimony.

Page 34231

 1             MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] [Previous translation continues]...

 2     agree.  I don't really want to take the floor but I think my client has

 3     the right to ask for a brief pause to consult his Defence regardless of

 4     Mr. Trechsel's suggestion and I personally except the suggestion.  I

 5     believe that the Chamber should take a decision, it would be good for the

 6     Chamber to take a decision.  Perhaps you can give us a short break nor or

 7     perhaps later.  It's for you to decide, naturally.

 8                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 9             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone for the Presiding Judge, please.

10             MR. KHAN:  Microphone, Your Honour.

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You will be able to talk to

12     Mr. Praljak during the break.  The Bench would like to say that when the

13     court is back in session this question will not be addressed.  However,

14     the witness will have to respond and provide an answer in light of the

15     document that's been shown to him by the Prosecution.

16                           --- Recess taken at 5.13 p.m.

17                           --- On resuming at 5.32 p.m.

18             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It is half past 5.00.

19     Mr. Scott, you have used up five hours and four minutes so far.  How much

20     longer do you need?

21             MR. SCOTT:  Your Honour, I hope to use less than my allotted

22     time, but I'm certainly not counting on doing substantially less than the

23     eight hours and seven minutes that Mr. Karnavas has used.  I may do

24     better, but I may not.  I can't commit to doing better than that,

25     although I hope to.  But Mr. Karnavas -- well, I mean that quite

Page 34232

 1     sincerely, Your Honour.  I spent a considerable matter of time since

 2     yesterday cutting my outline substantially, but at the same time

 3     Mr. Karnavas got his time, and I expect to use the same amount of time.

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, I'm putting to

 5     question to you, because you know that there is no hearing schedule

 6     tomorrow because the Krajisnik case is going to sit all day.  There might

 7     be an another problem.  But that means that this witness may have to come

 8     back another time.

 9             Let me ask Mr. Tomic a question.  Is there a possibility for you

10     to come back, to return at some point in time?  We still have an hour and

11     a half to go, but he will not have -- the Prosecutor will not have been

12     finished with his eight hours, and Mr. Karnavas might have additional

13     questions.  He's suggesting that he will probably need two hours, two

14     additional hours.  So you will have to return at one point in time.

15     There's no other way around.  So it's up to you, Mr. Witness.  We might

16     have a spot -- a slot for you for your return.  There will be a couple

17     weeks where we have nothing, notably the first week in December.  I'm

18     talking out of memory.  So maybe you could return for the first week of

19     December, or the second week of December.

20             Mr. Karnavas.

21             MR. KARNAVAS:  Yes, Mr. President.  Next week we have a witness,

22     but the following week, the 17th, we don't.  We don't have any witnesses.

23     So that would be the 17th of November.

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very good.  There's an

25     additional slot that just opened up, November 17th.  So you could come

Page 34233

 1     back on November 17th.  It might take two days at most, I mean, at most,

 2     worst case scenario.  There's no other way around.

 3             I know that you are having a company.  This creates great

 4     problems for you.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I also have some family

 6     commitments, so I wouldn't be able to tell you off-the-cuff which slots

 7     are available to me because I have some family travel planned, also some

 8     business travel planned.  There are some things pending.

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, we have scheduled this

10     for November 17th.  Next week we have a witness scheduled, and then we

11     have an open slot, November 17th.  That could be very -- that could be

12     possible for you.  So check with your wife, see maybe how to manage this,

13     but rest assured, now we have an hour and 15 minutes left for today.

14     Mr. Scott will thus have two more hours to finish his cross-examination.

15             Mr. Karnavas needs two additional hours for redirect, but that

16     four hours means two days, so that's Monday to Tuesday at most.

17             Mr. Scott, let's waste no additional time and please proceed.

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

19             MR. KOVACIC:  Ken, if you -- [Interpretation] Your Honours, I

20     don't wish to take any more of your time.  However, I've looked at the

21     record, and I'm not sure about your decision.  His Honour Judge Trechsel

22     proposed that this very important issue be put on a -- on the agenda of a

23     special session perhaps next week, to have a discussion, because

24     obviously we are hard pressed for time.  The witness is here.  I don't

25     want to take the witness's time or the Court's valuable time.  However, I

Page 34234

 1     believe that the temporal framework of the indictment has to be discussed

 2     and the Trial Chamber has to give us their opinion, otherwise we are in

 3     the dark.

 4             If this is your decision according to what Mr. -- His Honour

 5     Judge Trechsel said that we will have a special date dedicated to that,

 6     then we will agree to that.  Otherwise, this kind of a cross-examination

 7     will be considered a pure politicising and --

 8             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We will discuss this among

 9     ourselves, and we'll keep you informed on Monday at 2.15.  We'll tell you

10     whether there will be a special hearing just on this case -- on this

11     problem that will be organised or not.

12             MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

13             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott.

14             MR. SCOTT:

15        Q.   Sir, some -- some minutes ago now we -- I was asking you -- going

16     to the question of during your direct examination, and again this arises

17     in particular in connection with customs and borders, border controls,

18     and there was some questioning about what was on the badge, I think, and

19     what was on the identity card use by the officers, and I think there was

20     something to the effect saying that there was something of the words

21     "Bosnia-Herzegovina" at least on some of those items, whether it was on

22     the identity card or the badge or something, but I do note that you

23     testified about this last Tuesday.

24             Sir, isn't it correct that those such words as "Republic of

25     Bosnia-Herzegovina" were on Herceg-Bosna stationary and on various

Page 34235

 1     documentation really primarily for appearance's sake?  It's what the

 2     Judges have heard in this case as the two-track policy.  On one hand you

 3     profess allegiance and loyalty to Bosnia-Herzegovina.  On the other hand,

 4     on the second track, there's actually a different agenda.  And that was

 5     the nature of that language in such items, wasn't it?  It was for

 6     appearance's sake.

 7        A.   No.  We adopted republican decrees.  Our stamp featured the title

 8     of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.  Our headings, the logo of our

 9     letters featured that as well.

10        Q.   Sir, isn't it correct that again those words and things like that

11     were added to this documentation for political reasons and in fact

12     because that was the guidance given to the HVO from Zagreb?

13        A.   I am not aware of that guideline.  I know that the first

14     documents that I drafted featured the name of the Republic of Bosnia and

15     Herzegovina in the territory of the HZ HB during the war and under the

16     immediate threat of war temporary nature.  This was my starting

17     guideline, and this is the principle that guided me when I establish the

18     system of finance as a part of the HZ HB system.

19        Q.   If you will please turn in the Defence binder to 2D 01262.  It

20     will be again in the smaller fourth, or Defence, binder, so to speak.

21     2D 01262.

22             Sir, this is the record that -- I think we've looked at it

23     earlier in the course of your testimony, but it's the record of a meeting

24     of the of HZ HB Presidency on the 17th of October of 1992.  Apparently

25     the meeting was presided over by Dario Kordic, and we see a number of the

Page 34236

 1     people who were found to be present, including Bozo Rajic, president of

 2     the HVO HZ HB Jadranko Prlic, Department For Finances Neven Tomic, excuse

 3     me, department for justice and administration Zoran Buntic, et cetera.

 4             Now, if I can please direct your attention to the record of this

 5     meeting, and it will be page 14 of the English version.  And if you can

 6     find it, sir.  It will be under -- you will find on the page there are

 7     some markings 11 -- 9, 10, 11.  And if you find one that's for item

 8     number 11, "Proposition of the directive on administrative taxes."

 9     That's not what I'm going to direct you to, but I'm just -- I'm trying to

10     assist you in terms of finding your way through the document.

11             Do you see that?  Agenda item 11, "Proposition of the directive

12     on administrative taxes."

13             After that is:  "Neven Tomic - Head of Department for Finances,"

14     if that again helps you find it.

15             Do you have it?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   Now, if you'll go above the item 11 about four or five paragraphs

18     you will find a paragraph that starts with these words:  "President Mate

19     Boban posed a question why RBiH appears in all HZ HB acts, and Mr. Buntic

20     gave explanation to this question by emphasizing that this was necessary

21     from political reasons and because Zagreb insisted on this in given

22     moment."

23             And that was the case; correct?

24             MR. KARNAVAS:  I'm going to object at this point, Your Honour.

25     Mr. Buntic was here.  The opportunity to have raised this issue in

Page 34237

 1     putting the case to the witness would have been at that point in time,

 2     not to this particular witness.  He's now being asked to validate or

 3     speculate as to another witness's testimony.  So there's a clear rule

 4     that you have to put to -- your case to the witness, and that's exactly

 5     the reason why we have this rule.  We don't have it in the States, but it

 6     is something that we've inherited in this -- in this Tribunal from the

 7     British and the Australian system.

 8             MR. SCOTT:  Sir, this witness -- Your Honours, this witness

 9     was -- this witness was at the meeting.  We just saw that.  And the -- he

10     has made in particular this particular section relevant by his direct

11     testimony in which he talked about -- he was asked and he gave answers to

12     what was on the documentation, what -- what was on the badges, et cetera,

13     et cetera.  So it's directly relevant to the testimony of this witness.

14     And he was at the meeting.

15             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The witness attended the

16     meeting, so we can all -- we can at least ask the witness what he thinks

17     of someone else's answer, an answer given by someone else in this

18     meeting.

19             But it is true, Mr. Karnavas, this question should have been put

20     to Mr. Buntic directly.  You're also right.

21             MR. SCOTT:

22        Q.   Sir, wasn't that the advice that was put forward at the meeting

23     on the 19th of October, that the reason all these -- the reason this was

24     being done was for the reasons -- excuse me, the 17th of October, for the

25     reasons stated here?

Page 34238

 1        A.   The way I understood political reasons was the Republic of

 2     Bosnia-Herzegovina.  We were just a temporary solution within the

 3     Republic of Bosnia and HerzegovinaZagreb insisted on that because it

 4     had recognised the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.  That's the way I

 5     understood the situation, and I continued drafting my documents in the

 6     way I did in the month of September.

 7        Q.   Sir, I would like to go to the topic of the language of the

 8     referendum in February -- or, yes, in February 1992.  You were asked some

 9     questions about what your -- what the Croat desired position was in terms

10     of the organisation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.  Last Thursday you

11     testified if that was your position essentially that Bosnia and

12     Herzegovina should be organised in the manner of having three ethnic

13     units.  Mr. Tomic said yes.  When asked whether BiH should have been set

14     up "comprising several constituent units and each of these constituent

15     units should have been set up in such a way that criteria ethnicity was

16     taken into account."  And you talked about that in reference to the

17     referendum language.

18             And isn't it not correct, sir, that the actual language desired

19     by the -- a majority of the HDZ was a very different question than the

20     one that was actually on the referendum?  You remember that, don't you?

21        A.   I remember the referendum question.  The Croatian side adopted

22     the referendum, adopted Bosnia-Herzegovina.  It was outlined at that

23     moment that the organisation of the State of Bosnia-Herzegovina should be

24     organised in a different way for which the Croats believed that it could

25     protect their own possession in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Page 34239

 1        Q.   If you can please go to Exhibit P 00117, which will be in the

 2     first binder.  P 00117.

 3             In this record of another -- a meeting of the HDZ Central Board,

 4     HZ BiH central board on February 9, 1992, and under conclusions if you

 5     will find the item number 3, a referendum on a sovereign independent

 6     Bosnia and Herzegovina.

 7             Do you recall, sir, that the HDZ leadership or some of them at

 8     least were unhappy with the formulation of the referendum question as it

 9     was to be about on the ballot a few weeks later?  That existing language

10     says something to this effect, and we can see it further below on that

11     same page:  "Are you in favour of a sovereign and independent Bosnia and

12     Herzegovina, a state of equal citizens and peoples, Croats, Muslims,

13     Serbs, and other peoples who live in it?"

14             And if you look above that, sir, do you recall that the language

15     desired by the HD -- the alternative language desired by the HDZ was:

16     "Are you in favour of a sovereign and independent Bosnia and Herzegovina,

17     a joint state of the constitutive and sovereign Croatian, Muslim, and

18     Serbian peoples in their ethnic areas (cantons)?"

19             That was the question -- that was the form of the referendum that

20     the HDZ leadership wanted; correct?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   And as stated there would that -- would you have agreed?  Was

23     that also your position at that time?  Bosnia and Herzegovina should be

24     set up on the basis of three ethnic units?

25        A.   Bosnia and Herzegovina is a state inhabited by three equal

Page 34240

 1     peoples, and the organisation of the state should have been such to make

 2     sure that all the three peoples are able to exercise their rights.  At

 3     that moment one couldn't speak about the final model, and that is why the

 4     referendum question did not include the addition that had been proposed

 5     by the HDZ.

 6        Q.   And continuing on with your testimony, was it -- you essentially,

 7     as I take it, and I understand your testimony and you can correct me, you

 8     were essentially against an integrated society in the former Yugoslavia

 9     in the sense that the notion -- in any sense that the notion of persons

10     who were Croats, Serbs, or Muslims would go away or become less

11     significant.  You were against that, weren't you?

12        A.   I'm afraid I didn't understand your question.

13        Q.   Well, you testified last week on Thursday.  You said it was your

14     personal opinion that in the Communist system over a long period of time

15     had tried to build an artificial nation, an artificial nation, the

16     Yugoslav nation, and eliminating other nations or ethnic groups in the

17     process.  In other words, the number of Croats, Serbs, and Muslims would

18     decrease at the expense of the Yugoslavs, whose numbers would rise.  And

19     you were against that, weren't you?

20        A.   I've explained the situation, for example, in Mostar and how it

21     transpired.  I didn't say whether I was in favour or against.  I just

22     explained the situation as it prevailed at the moment after the elections

23     in Mostar, and I hope that that's been recorded properly.  I did not

24     voice my opinion on any of the variants because that was not a question

25     that I was supposed to answer.

Page 34241

 1        Q.   Well, I'm doing asking you now, sir.  Is that your view, and was

 2     that the view that you endorsed at the time in 1993?

 3             MR. KARNAVAS:  Excuse me, what view, Your Honours?  You have

 4     constituent peoples that live in Yugoslavia.  So if you are a Slovenian

 5     or a Croatian or a Serbian.  Now, is the question is that they should

 6     abandon their heritage to become Yugoslavs?  Is that the question?

 7             The question is unclear as is stated, and perhaps my learned

 8     friend doesn't understand what a constituent person is.

 9             MR. SCOTT:  Perhaps I -- perhaps I do, Mr. Karnavas.  Perhaps I

10     do.

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, could you

12     reformulate your question, please --

13             MR. SCOTT:  Well --

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] -- so that it is clear?  The

15     witness said that the question was not put to him that way.  So please

16     reformulate your question, and if he can answer he will answer, and if he

17     can't, he won't.

18             MR. SCOTT:  Yes, Your Honour.  I was simply quoting the witness's

19     testimony back to him as a basis for my question.  Last Thursday he

20     testified as follows:  "My personal opinion is that the Communist system

21     over a long period of time tried to build an artificial nation, the

22     Yugoslav nation, and eliminating, eliminating, other nations or ethnic

23     groups in the process.  In other words, the number of Croats, Serbs, and

24     Muslims would decrease at the expense of the Yugoslavs whose numbers

25     would rise."  And based on that testimony under oath I asked him did that

Page 34242

 1     reflect his view, and he was -- to the extent that he was against an

 2     integrated society, to the extent that those notions, those ethnic

 3     notions would become less significant and people might think of

 4     themselves as -- excuse me.

 5             MR. KARNAVAS:  And, Your Honours, and I think this is the problem

 6     that's causing some concern here, is that the question he's asking -- the

 7     question he's asking, whether he is willing to abandon his national

 8     heritage in order -- that's what it is, Judge Trechsel.  I mean, if --

 9             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Could you point to the text precisely where

10     that --

11             MR. KARNAVAS:  Based on that --

12             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  -- abandonment of national heritage is referred

13     to?

14             MR. KARNAVAS:  Yes, because -- because in order to become a

15     Yugoslav, you have to stop being a Croat or a Serb.

16             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  You are interpreting this.

17             MR. KARNAVAS:  No.  But that's what it says here.

18             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  You're interpreting it here.

19             MR. KARNAVAS:  I'm not.

20             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Where does it speak of the heritage and of --

21             MR. KARNAVAS:  Okay.

22             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  It's a general view of a political development

23     and the witness can say whether he approved of such a development or

24     whether he rejected it.  It is not even laden with any value judgement.

25     One might then say he was right this way or he might even be equally

Page 34243

 1     right.  It's just his opinion.  I for one am not quite sure what the

 2     relevance of the answer is.

 3             MR. KARNAVAS:  Well, that's my question.

 4             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  There -- there maybe we can agree, but I think

 5     there is no harm done if he simply answers the question as it was put.

 6             MR. KARNAVAS:  Very well, very well.

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, this question gives

 8     rise to some passion, as you have noticed.

 9             Mr. Coric is on his feet.  Mr. Coric.

10             THE ACCUSED CORIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the Prosecutor

11     tried to accuse this witness here, because he opted to be against

12     eliminating three nations, the Serbs, Muslims, and the Croats in the

13     former Yugoslavia and to have them become Yugoslavs at one point in time

14     in a given year, and he also draws a parallel and says that this witness

15     is against the multi-ethnic life of these peoples.

16             If one continues to pursue this route, well, the elimination of

17     three peoples is tantamount to pure and simple Fascism.  This is pure and

18     simple Fascism in the Tribunal here and the Prosecution is giving us a

19     subdued version of this from day to day, from hour to hour.  And what I

20     wanted to say -- and Judge Trechsel, you can interrupt me as much as you

21     like.

22             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] No, Mr. Coric.  I don't think

23     that the Prosecutor wishes to put his question in a Fascist light, that

24     there is a Fascist connotation to his question.

25             Before you step in, I think it would be better to listen to what

Page 34244

 1     the witness is about to say because the question is put to him.  If he is

 2     outraged, he will say what you have just said, but maybe he understood

 3     the question differently.

 4             I'm trying to understand the question, and I'm waiting for the

 5     answer.  Mr. Coric, wait for him to answer, and if necessary you can take

 6     the floor again afterwards.

 7             Witness, you have understood what the Prosecutor told you.  You

 8     have heard what Mr. Coric has just said, what Mr. Karnavas has said, what

 9     Mr. Praljak, who is on his feet, also might have to say.  Do you wish to

10     answer or would you like the Prosecutor to phrase his question again?

11     Either you haven't understood the question, or maybe you understood it

12     too well.  I don't know.

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will try to answer the question.

14     This question was in response to a Defence question in which I was asked

15     about my opinion relating to the situation that prevailed in Yugoslavia

16     and relating to the break-up and so on and so forth.  I expressed my

17     opinion with regard to that matter, and I didn't state what my position

18     is.  I said I personally think that this happened for such-and-such a

19     reason.

20             I was a Croat at the time of Yugoslavia, and I performed my

21     duties as a Croat, and I had nothing against Serbs or Muslims, or

22     Yugoslavs for that matter.  That was a matter for people to decide about,

23     a matter of their personal opinion.  But I was discussing the process and

24     how it ended.  That's what I did when I was discussing assemblies in

25     Mostar for electoral purposes and when I said that SDS, HDZ, and SDA

Page 34245

 1     groupings and the two parties that gathered Yugoslavs, I said that they

 2     were viewed by an equal amount of people, but at the elections one noted

 3     that people made their decisions on national lines.  The Yugoslavs either

 4     decided not to be Yugoslavs anymore or forgot that they were Yugoslavs.

 5     And to this very day I believe that if someone still believes that he or

 6     she is a Yugoslav, well, that's a matter of their personal opinion.  But

 7     I was saying that in my opinion this is one the reasons for which

 8     Yugoslavia broke up, because it is obvious that the policies pursued in

 9     this respect were not fruitful.  The policies were not fruitful because

10     the Yugoslav nation did not become an element allowing one to implement

11     what the policies advocated at the time.

12             If I have understood the question correctly, that would be my

13     answer to the question.

14             JUDGE PRANDLER:  Mr. President, thank you.  I would only like to

15     make the following comment:  As far as I know, and of course I stand to

16     be corrected, the issue of being a Yugoslav or not had been included

17     in -- on two occasions in -- actually when the statistics had been drawn

18     up, if I am not quite -- if I am sure.  Then I would say that in 1990

19     last time, and before probably around 1980 when the issue of being

20     Yugoslav had come up.  Now as far as also I know, there had been mainly

21     people of -- with mixed marriages, and being Hungarian I also heard that

22     vote in Vojvodina and other places some people had chosen being Yugoslav

23     because of probably thinking that it might help them to get along with

24     the majority nations, et cetera.

25             So therefore I was a bit surprised when Mr. Coric mentioned that

Page 34246

 1     it was a Fascist thing, pure Fascism to ask the question.  So as far as I

 2     know, in 1990 there was an increase among the people who had chosen as

 3     being Yugoslavs.  Of course after this whole issue had been removed from

 4     the -- from these questions.  And I heard very recently even in Bosnia

 5     and Herzegovina, lastly they have rejected to organise -- organise again

 6     a kind of statistical possibilities to -- probably because they do not

 7     want to go into any clashes or conflicts concerning the nationality

 8     issues.

 9             So that is why I believe that we have to calm down and to look

10     into this issue as -- as it was raised during those decades and years and

11     not to -- not to emphasise the -- in a way some kind of Fascist or

12     whatever -- whatever kind of names for it, because I believe that it was

13     not the situation.  Thank you.

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, the witness has

15     answered your question in line with what he'd said previously.  So this

16     is very precise.

17             I shall give you the floor back now.

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

19        Q.   Sir, so then having referred back to your testimony from last

20     week and then looking at the language from the HDZ meeting in February

21     1992, I just want -- it brings us back full circle, and if you didn't say

22     it before, I may ask you to say it again.

23             Was it your position, your personal view in 1992 and 1993 that

24     Bosnia and Herzegovina should be -- should be established and set up on

25     the basis of three separate ethnic units?  Whatever you want to call

Page 34247

 1     them, entities, republics, cantons.  Was that your view or position?

 2        A.   If you put the question in that way, my answer is no.

 3        Q.   All right.  Let me ask you to look at Exhibit P 10698, which will

 4     be in the third binder.  P 10698.

 5             Sir, this is a -- while people are still looking, let me say for

 6     the record this is a Reuters news article dated the 28th of October,

 7     1992, and about the middle of that page there is a reference to

 8     Mr. Prlic.  Above that it says:  "In an attempt -- in an attempt to head

 9     off a carve-up of Bosnia by Serbs and Croats at the expense of the

10     Muslims, Vance and Owen proposed a state with a bare minimum central

11     government and some autonomous -- excuse me, some ten autonomous regions.

12             "But Jadranko Prlic, president of the republic declared by Croats

13     in the area of Bosnia they control told Reuters that the only way to

14     achieve a stable solution was to have three national units whose parts

15     need not be physically connected."

16             Now, that sounds to me like three national units, national, I

17     take it being here, national being Serb, Croat, and Muslim.  So I asked

18     you a question a few moments ago and your answer to me was, when I put it

19     that way, your answer was no.  Did you share the view stated here and

20     attributed to Mr. Prlic, the only way to achieve a stable solution was to

21     have three national units?

22        A.   My opinion is that that is not the only way.

23        Q.   Well, I didn't really ask you that, sir.  I said did you -- do

24     you agree what -- let me restate it then.  Given what we've looked at in

25     the last half hour or so, the statement of the referendum in which the

Page 34248

 1     Central Board of the HDZ voted in favour of a referendum formulation

 2     which called for the ethnic groups in their separate ethnic areas, I've

 3     now shown you this article giving comments concerning Mr. Prlic, and I

 4     think, sir, in all fairness, I made it pretty clear to you and there

 5     shouldn't be any basis for confusion.  Was it your position in 1993 that

 6     the way that Bosnia-Herzegovina should be arranged was on the basis of

 7     three separate ethnic units?

 8             Now, you -- it's quite clear, my question and the documents I've

 9     shown you, sir.  Was that your view?

10        A.   Well, any solution that put an end to the Croats' fear and

11     ensured that they had an equal footing in Bosnia and Herzegovina, any

12     such solution would be an acceptable one, whether the solution amounted

13     to having cantons or regions or republics.  Any structure, the

14     functioning of which would ensure that the three peoples would have a

15     constituent status would be for me an acceptable structure, an acceptable

16     solution.

17        Q.   The notion of the three separate units that's reflected in the

18     HDZ formulation of the referendum and in the article that we looked at a

19     moment ago, that was based on a view at the time, was it not, it was okay

20     or better or ethnic groups to live in proximity to one another but not,

21     as some might say, not on top of each other.  Do you remember that kind

22     of language and discussion being in the public dialogue at the time?  "We

23     can live next to each other but not on top of each other?"

24        A.   In public life in Bosnia and Herzegovina it was also possible to

25     hear such statements.

Page 34249

 1        Q.   If you can turn, please, in your binder, it should be in the

 2     first binder, Exhibit P 00108.

 3             Sir, this is a record of a meeting in the presidential offices in

 4     Zagreb on the 8th of January, 1992, which I believe the Chamber has seen

 5     before.  If I can direct your attention -- and this is a meeting

 6     involving, among others, President Tudjman, the Croat from

 7     Bosnia-Herzegovina named Franjo Boras and a Bosnian Serb named Nikola

 8     Koljevic, and others, but if I can direct your attention, please, to page

 9     number 3 in that record where Mr. Koljevic starts talking, and he says:

10     "Thank you, Mr. Boras.  I think that we can somehow name - we all know

11     what is involved - that we can somehow name the most general

12     pacifications of Serbo-Croatian relations and the attempt at our

13     agreement on a political solution in Bosnia-Herzegovina.  I have several

14     things written down, but that would be a general common point."

15             Let me skip to some of that language -- over some of that

16     language, and if you can go over to page 4.  And the page numbers should

17     be the same in both the English and the Croatian versions of the

18     document, so it should be on page 4.

19             First when Mr. Boras says -- excuse me, Mr. Koljevic says:

20     "First, allow me to say, turning to this political crisis of ours, that

21     the people in the Serbian Democratic Party have nothing either against

22     the creation of a Croatian state, or against Croatian political

23     organising in the form in which it suits the Croatian people in Bosnia

24     and Herzegovina.  Had there been a little more historical luck and more

25     communication, I think this could have happened earlier."

Page 34250

 1             If I can direct your attention to page number 7.  Page number 7,

 2     the last paragraph beginning on that page.

 3              "We essentially proposed a tripartite community, essentially

 4     considering that these institutions which ought to be separate should be

 5     separate, and that common ones would be found.  We thought that the three

 6     national communities should recognise that fact and not falsify it.

 7     Because three national communities exist and they should normally, if we

 8     wish to speak democratically, have all opportunities for normal national

 9     development and for normal neighbourly development, because what we say,

10     we have the custom of saying nowadays - to live next to each other.  But

11     not on top of one another."

12             Then if I can direct your attention, please, to page 42.

13     President Tudjman comes back into the conversation on the top of page 42

14     and says:  "Wherever national problems so conceived emerged as they did

15     with us, that was resolved from World War I and World War II, that was

16     brought to a conclusion by exchanges ..."

17             "Koljevic:  I just wanted to say that I think what you have said

18     about the ultimate goal, that this would be the way."

19             And Mr. Tudjman goes on to say:  "I agree, but we have to know

20     that the serious world -- that the serious world that is not involved in

21     petty politics, I'm thinking of the international factor ..." et cetera.

22             In the next paragraph it says, I'm just trying to save a couple

23     of moments:  "If what Mr. Koljevic just said exists, if such agreement

24     exists on the level of the Serbian party -- or part, then there will

25     be - I must say that in the initial talks before this terrible war,

Page 34251

 1     Milosevic was very inclined towards such a solution.  He told the leaders

 2     in Bosnia, the leaders of this Serbian policy in Bosnia, that we can

 3     count on having such partners, and then this terrible war broke out."

 4             That was the sentiment that was being expressed at the time not

 5     only in the presidential offices of President Tudjman between Franjo

 6     Boras and Mr. Koljevic and others, that was the sentiment expressed in

 7     the leadership of Herceg-Bosna and the HVO; correct?

 8             MR. KARNAVAS:  I'm going to object to the form of the question.

 9     First of all, we have skipped over some 40 pages.  The gentleman has not

10     been given an opportunity to look at the entire exchange.  We have cherry

11     picked here and there, highlighted certain portions, and now we're

12     putting a global question to the gentleman without giving him a fair

13     opportunity under the rule of completeness to look at all of it and then

14     if he wishes to pose that question or any other question, then it may be

15     fair game.  But to simply cherry pick and take out of context why was

16     Boras there with Koljevic, how did he get there?  Perhaps we should allow

17     the gentleman to also hear Mr. Boras's testimony about this particular

18     exchange and how it was that they went there at Mr. Koljevic's insistence

19     that he had a proposal for Mr. Tudjman.

20             So if we're going to do this, let's do it properly.  I object to

21     this line of questioning.  I object to the form of the question.  I think

22     it's highly improper and it's highly unfair.  The gentleman cannot be

23     asked to opine on something without seeing the entire exchange.

24             MR. SCOTT:  Your Honour, this is -- this is the way that the

25     Chamber has proceeded and the trial has proceeded for the last two and a

Page 34252

 1     half --

 2                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 3             MR. SCOTT:  Mr. President, this is the way that the case has

 4     proceeded and the trial has been conducted for the past two and a half

 5     years, and the Chamber well knows that excerpts of documents have been

 6     used and various bits and pieces of documents have been used, in fact, at

 7     the Chamber's direction.  And we don't go through every document.  We

 8     don't tender the entire document sometimes and that's what the Chamber

 9     has told us to do.

10             Now, if the Chamber wants to follow a different procedure at this

11     point and would like to take a recess and give Mr. Tomic the time to read

12     the entire transcript, then that's certainly within the Court's power,

13     but this is no different than the way that the Chamber's conducted this

14     trial for the last two and a half years.

15             You know, Mr. Karnavas always says -- talks about cherry picking,

16     but there is no way -- the entire courtroom knows that there would be no

17     way that we would ever finish this trial if every time there was a

18     40-page document we read the entire 42 pages in the courtroom.

19             So I think I proceeded properly.  It arises from the -- excuse

20     me.  That's really not appropriate when there's commentary coming from

21     the other side.  They may disagree with me and I don't expect them to

22     always agree with me but there should not be personal commentary being

23     expressed.

24             MR. KHAN:  Your Honour, for what little it may add, for my part,

25     I don't see a problem with the question put forward by my learned friend.

Page 34253

 1     It can't be possible that every time a document is put to a witness the

 2     entirety of the document is read by the witness.  I mean, if a volume of

 3     the Encyclopedia Britannica is referred to it couldn't be right to expect

 4     the witness to go through all of those pages.  Ordinarily, of course, any

 5     ambiguity or unfairness to one of the parties can be cured by

 6     re-examination and in my respectful submission the real thrust of the

 7     objection is not so much focused or premised on the question but the fact

 8     that because of the constraints of time areas that could be otherwise

 9     clarified in re-examination are somewhat curtailed because a party may

10     not feel they have enough time to go into areas that have arisen in the

11     course of cross-examination.  So, Your Honours, I don't see for my part

12     any objection with what my learned friend Mr. Scott is doing.  I do think

13     that there are sometimes issues about the time given for re-examination

14     to clarify certain parts of documents that are put in in their entirety.

15     Your Honours, I don't know if that assists but it's my observation.

16             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you, Mr. Khan.  I think there might be a

17     reasonable intermediate way.  When parts of the document are skipped, and

18     these documents of course are very well known to the Defence, if there is

19     a point that was skipped that would have been relevant and the Defence

20     puts that out and shows that there are -- is a passage which could change

21     the assessment, I think then really a case has been made, but to blindly

22     say that everything should be put, I agree with Mr. Khan.  It really is

23     not practicable and it doesn't make much sense either.

24             MR. KARNAVAS:  Well, I would agree on a very limited point and I

25     will take exception with Mr. Khan, because this is a highly complex

Page 34254

 1     issue.

 2             Now, this is a very lengthy document.  I don't have it -- I don't

 3     have the entirety before me.  You do make a very logical, sensible, and

 4     appropriate observation, Judge Trechsel.  However, when I'm only given

 5     parts of the document, how am I at this point to say point -- you know,

 6     this should be read and that should be read.  That is part of the

 7     problem.  If we had the entire transcript, then I could say, well, he

 8     should read this portion and that portion.  So I entirely agree with you,

 9     and I'm not suggesting that we read all 46 pages, but it has to be put

10     into some kind of context.  And there is such a thing as the rule of

11     completeness.  If there is a previous section or a latter section that

12     would be necessary for the witness to be aware of in order to give a

13     meaningful answer, then they should be entitled to look at it, but the

14     way this is -- the way Mr. Scott proceeded and the way the evidence I

15     have in front of me, this document, it's virtually impossible for me to

16     say he should also read page 11, page 22, section -- you know.  I think I

17     made my point.

18             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you, absolutely.  I think again a solution

19     might reside in that until the witness comes back, you look or you have

20     someone look at this and then you counter-cherry pick, as it were, and

21     present these cherries in redirect.  But I think for the time being you

22     should let Mr. Scott continue.

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, please proceed.

24             MR. SCOTT:  Thank you, Mr. President.  Your Honour, two just very

25     brief observations in response to the comments made and they'll be less

Page 34255

 1     than 30 seconds.  Everyone knows the time issue is a serious concern for

 2     everyone in the case, including the Prosecution, and there is a wealth of

 3     material and a wealth of questions I would like to put to this witness

 4     concerning his testimony that I will never have a chance to because I

 5     don't have time to cover them.  So the time issue is one that cuts in

 6     every direction.  I've had to be very, very selective about what I can

 7     put to the witness given the time limitations that exist.

 8             Secondly, Your Honour, I can only observe and I'm sure everyone

 9     can appreciate it, if we put every presidential transcript in its

10     entirety in the binders, instead of having four binders, you'd have about

11     eight and I've already in the course of the day heard about three people

12     dropped their binders.  I'm sorry for that.  It's an inconvenience for

13     everyone, for everyone, but that's where we are, and putting in excerpts

14     is just one practical way, unfortunately, of limiting the material.

15             The entire document certainly is available to Mr. Karnavas.  I

16     understand that he may not have it in the courtroom.  It's also available

17     in e-court.  And that's where we are.  I'm sorry, I think I went more

18     than 30 seconds.

19        Q.   Sir, I think the pending question to you some minutes ago was,

20     the views expressed -- I put it to you, I'm putting my case to you, you

21     may disagree, but the views expressed by Mr. Tudjman, Mr. Koljevic and

22     Mr. Boras in this record that I've just read to you in part, which we got

23     started on, if you remember I asked you -- do you remember hearing at the

24     time there was a certain phrase or view being expressed in the public

25     discourse at the time that, well, you know, we can live next to each

Page 34256

 1     other but not on top of each other, and indeed that was the very phrase

 2     that Mr. Koljevic used during this meeting?  Was that not the sentiment

 3     held by the leadership of Herceg-Bosna and the HVO at this time?

 4        A.   In my answer I said that in the territory of Bosnia and

 5     Herzegovina one could hear such positions even before you showed me this

 6     transcript.  This was a thesis that Serb representatives pointed out and

 7     emphasised, which is similar to what Mr. Koljevic was saying in here.

 8             During this period which is January 1999, the HVO HZ HB did not

 9     exist, and as -- from the beginning of the work of the HVO HZ HB, not for

10     a moment did such a concept exist in terms of ethnically pure units or

11     maybe functioning of the HVO HZ HB as a unit of Croats in Bosnia and

12     Herzegovina.  This was not foreseen by any of our documents.  The way we

13     tried to organise a life in the territories under the control of the HVO,

14     in the territory of the HZ HB, was different.

15        Q.   Did you ever become aware, sir, of such things as efforts of

16     persons going into the various HVO detention camps or facilities and

17     offering Muslim prisoners that they could be released if they signed

18     loyalty oaths to the HVO?

19        A.   I've not seen any such documents.

20        Q.   Wasn't it the case, sir, that various senior Herceg-Bosna HVO

21     officials said that the desired solution was indeed to have three

22     separate ethnic territories, again call them what you will, cantons,

23     units, republics, mini states, that three separate entities, ethnic

24     entities, but at the same time along for the possibility to have -- that

25     there were a few Muslims in government and business that served as a good

Page 34257

 1     window dressing to make things look -- at least look a little more

 2     multi-ethnic?  Wasn't that the view expressed by the HVO Herceg-Bosna

 3     leadership during this time period?

 4        A.   HVO HZ HB organised life in the territory of the HZ HB within the

 5     framework of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.  That was our

 6     primary task and goal.  There were no positions to the effect of

 7     separation or eliminating people.  In our work or at least to my

 8     knowledge, we did not implement any such thing.  The concept that I

 9     adopted and my firm belief was that Bosnia and Herzegovina should be

10     organised as agreed through the negotiations conducted under the auspices

11     of the international community, and that was one of the reasons why we

12     adopted the first agreement and we wanted to implement it immediately for

13     that precise reason and we also wanted implement the Washington Agreement

14     immediately.  However, as I've already told you, my observations were

15     what they were and I can corroborate my observations with a hundred of

16     situations that I myself went through and experienced.

17        Q.   Let's go please --

18             MR. KARNAVAS:  Excuse me, just a small intervention.  The

19     gentleman keeps using the word "area," and it keeps getting translated as

20     "territory."  Now, I know we've gone back and forth on this, but I just

21     want to make sure that it's -- at least my record is being recorded that

22     he's saying area as opposed to territory.  Now, how you all want to

23     interpret that, that's a decision I leave to -- to others.

24             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Okay.  It's on the record.

25             MR. SCOTT:

Page 34258

 1        Q.   Sir, if you could next turn to P 07876 which should be in the

 2     second binder.  P 07876.

 3             Sir, this is a decision dated the 16th of February, 1994, over

 4     the name of Mr. Mate Boban, and naming the presidential council at the

 5     time of the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna, and we see in Article II

 6     the members of that council, including such persons as Mr. Zubak,

 7     Mr. Bender, Mr. Markovic, number 6 Mr. Prlic, number 8 Mr. Coric, number

 8     9 Mr. Akmadzic, and others.

 9             Then in III it names as the secretary of the presidential council

10     a man named Vladislav Pogarcic.  Did you know Mr. Pogarcic?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   And prior to this time of being named as the secretary of the

13     presidential council, what positions or functions had he held in

14     Herceg-Bosna and/or the HVO?

15        A.   I know that Mr. Pogarcic had arrived from Sarajevo.  He was a

16     member of the HVO side and then he arrived in Grude, and he was with the

17     office of Mr. Boban.  I don't know what he was at that particular moment,

18     but I know that after the Washington he was the Deputy Minister of

19     Foreign Affairs.

20        Q.   During the time when he was with Mr. Boban, would it be fair to

21     characterise him as sometimes the term is used Chief of Staff or Chef de

22     Cabinet?  Was that Mr. Pogarcic's function for a time with Mr. Boban?

23        A.   I know that he was in his office, but I wouldn't be able to

24     remember what his exact position was.

25        Q.   Did you have any particular dealings with Mr. Pogarcic during the

Page 34259

 1     time that he held these various positions or functioned in the ways that

 2     have been mentioned in the last few minutes?

 3        A.   No, not particularly.

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, you are not in the

 5     list of the members of the council, the presidential council.  You are

 6     not mentioned, and I note that Mr. Prlic is just a member.  The president

 7     being Mr. Kresimir Zubak.

 8             In terms of domestic policy in the republic, the Croat Republic

 9     of Herceg-Bosna, how can you analyse this presidential council?  Why is

10     it that you're not a member?

11             And second question, what is this meaning of Mr. Prlic being just

12     a member and nothing more?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At that time I was -- let me just

14     see when this was.  Yes, it was in February.  I was the Deputy Minister

15     of Finance, and I was not appointed to that council.

16             And as for Mr. Prlic, he was appointed a member.  My personal

17     feeling is that Mr. Prlic was not -- let me put it this way, he did not

18     enjoy Mr. Boban's trust.  He was not a yes man, to put it that way.  And

19     the selection of Kresimir Zubak at that moment was just a way for

20     Mr. Prlic's position to be reduced in size.  That was on the part of

21     Mr. Boban.

22             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Which municipality did

23     Mr. Zubak come from?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Zubak came from the HVO Usora.

25     Before the war it was part of the Doboj municipality, and after the

Page 34260

 1     Washington Agreement it became a municipality, that municipality of

 2     Usora.

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

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

 5        Q.   This presidential council that was established in February 1994,

 6     in terms of the membership Mr. Prlic, although he was a member, listed

 7     only as a member of the presidential council, he continued to be prime

 8     minister; correct?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   And Mr. Jozo Martinovic was the Minister of Finance to whom you

11     were his deputy; correct?

12        A.   Correct.

13        Q.   And Mr. Coric by this time had taken what ministry position?

14     Ministry of Interior?

15        A.   I believe so.

16        Q.   All right.  It's correct, is it not, sir, that this presidential

17     council was formed at the time that Mr. Boban was in serious trouble with

18     the international community and was essentially on his way out, and this

19     presidential council was picked and approved in Zagreb; correct?

20        A.   I don't know who approved it.  I can only see that the document

21     was signed by Mr. Boban.

22        Q.   Mr. Martinovic, the Minister of Finance, is it correct that he

23     had been a senior finance official in the Croatian government before

24     coming to Herceg-Bosna and taking this position?

25        A.   Before he arrived in Herceg-Bosna he was an advisor in the

Page 34261

 1     Privredna Banka of Zagreb, the commercial bank of Zagreb.  And before

 2     that he was the Minister of Finance in the Republic of Croatia as well.

 3        Q.   When was he approximately the Minister of Finance in the Republic

 4     of Croatia?

 5        A.   I believe that he was a member of the first government in 1991,

 6     if my memory serves me right.  When I first met him he was already an

 7     advisor in Privredna Banka, and I met him in 1992.

 8        Q.   And how long did he remain the Minister of Finance of

 9     Herceg-Bosna before returning to Croatia?

10        A.   I can't remember.  I can't remember off-the-cuff.

11        Q.   Well, approximately 11 months later in January 1995 you took on

12     the position of Minister of Finance; correct?

13        A.   Yes, but I believe it was somebody else in the meantime, but I

14     wouldn't be able to tell you who exactly.

15        Q.   Now, going back to Mr. Pogarcic, if I can ask you, please, to go

16     to Exhibit P 08623, which will be in the second binder.  P 08623.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I believe that this document

18     was placed under seal, has been given a number but is under seal.  Is

19     that the case?  Rule 70 seems to apply.  We'll check this.  I will ask my

20     legal officer to check this, but please proceed.

21             MR. SCOTT:  Thank you, Your Honour.  I think that it's one of the

22     documents that has been Rule 70 at previous points in the Tribunal's life

23     but has not necessarily continued to have that status.  So it may be that

24     it's one of those documents that can be used in the courtroom but not

25     broadcast, provided outside the courtroom, if you will, whereas someone

Page 34262

 1     can come and collect it as has been the case with some other documents

 2     from other sources.

 3        Q.   Sir, this is an interview with Mr. Pogarcic given on the 9th of

 4     December, 1995, to Slobodna Dalmacija, titled "Deputy Foreign Minister

 5     Opposes Integral States."  "Interview with Vladislav Pogarcic, ethnic

 6     Croat deputy Foreign Minister of the republic and federation of

 7     Bosnia-Herzegovina.  An integral Bosnia is the least desirable solution

 8     for everybody.  If people want it, it will be divided."

 9             And if I can ask you to go to the second page, presume in the

10     translation as well, second page in the English version.  And if you can

11     find, sir, there's a point where the interviewer asks this question, if

12     it will assist you, the question put to Mr. Pogarcic is:  "Do you really

13     think that the peaceful division of Bosnia is possible?"  Do you have

14     that?  Do you have that passage, sir?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   And then Mr. Pogarcic responds -- it's a rather -- it's a bit of

17     a long text but I think an important one.  "Yes, in fact the possibility

18     is the only clear result of these four years of war.  Remember how Bosnia

19     was described at the beginning of the war as a 'leopard skin?'  Today,

20     however, it is a country of three ethnic communities each having its own

21     strictly delineated territory.  This might be thought to be ugly.  There

22     are people who are even disgusted by this.  But they should know that it

23     is the result of the will of the population itself.  The Serbs, Muslims,

24     and Croats have ethnically cleansed territories wherever they could.

25     Meanwhile, it must not be forgotten that the Pandora's box of ethnic

Page 34263

 1     cleansing was forced open by the Serbs, although the two other nations

 2     could not resist the temptation to take a look into it until they reduce

 3     the number -- the members of the other ethnic communities to 10 per cent

 4     or less of the total.  With 10 per cent or less of the total, one cannot

 5     threaten the political position of the majority while simultaneously the

 6     minority functions as an ornament and can even serve as proof of the will

 7     to create a 'multi-ethnic society.'"

 8             Now, that was Mr. Pogarcic's view at the time as stated in this

 9     article.  Was that view held by a number of the other people that we just

10     looked at a few moments ago who were members of the presidential council

11     and the other Herceg-Bosna HVO leadership at the time?

12        A.   This certainly wasn't the opinion of the other members.  I would

13     like to point out that Pogarcic actually said that he believed that the

14     Dayton Accords were acceptable for the Croats, and then he continued to

15     provide his own opinion with which I personally and some other people in

16     the council would certainly not agree.

17        Q.   Would you agree, sir, that with the statement in this document

18     that all three of the ethnic parties --

19             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Apologise.  Your

20     Honour -- Your Honours, I apologise.  I would like to react at this point

21     because the Prosecutor ties this statement -- we don't know whether this

22     is a statement or not.  We don't know how credible the article actually

23     is -- with Mr. Pogarcic's statement as a member of the presidential

24     council, and then he ties that to the opinions of the other members of

25     the presidential council, assuming that the opinion was the same as the

Page 34264

 1     opinion of their secretary.

 2             Mr. Pogarcic provided a statement as the deputy Minister of

 3     Foreign Affairs of the republic and federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

 4     Maybe it would be more correct to ask the witness whether the entire

 5     Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Bosnia-Herzegovina held the same opinion,

 6     because that was the gentleman's position at the time, which is clearly

 7     visible from the title of the article in the Croatian version.  And I

 8     can't even see the date.  I don't know when this was.  It was in December

 9     1995, which was much later than his appointment in the presidential

10     council.  It is even disputable whether he was still the secretary of

11     that council, whether that council was still operational at the time when

12     he provided this interview.

13             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Your observation is

14     on the transcript.  We have to finish in a few minutes and I have some

15     advice to give to the witness.  I would like the registrar to tell me

16     exactly how much time has been used up so far by the Prosecution.  The

17     Prosecution so far with all these objections only used five hours and 50

18     minutes.  It still has 2 hours and 10 minutes left.

19             Witness, you are the witness of justice now.  You have made the

20     solemn declaration.  You are under oath.  You can no longer contact

21     Mr. Karnavas throughout the entire time between your -- now and your new

22     testimony.  Mr. Karnavas must not call you.  If we hear about this, you

23     know, this would really create a big problem.  You are now almost

24     finished with the cross-examination.  Of course you're not supposed to

25     contact Mr. Scott either.  You can go back to your own business, but

Page 34265

 1     please do not mention your testimony so far.  Please make sure that with

 2     the -- to go to the -- to the witness section to ask them for a plane

 3     ticket so you can come back on November 17th.  The Prosecution will have

 4     two hours and ten minutes for the cross-examination so normally it should

 5     wrap up its cross-examination on the Monday when we resume with your

 6     testimony hoping that we won't run into any dramas or objections, lengthy

 7     objections.  The next day Mr. Karnavas told us that he would need at

 8     least two hours, maybe less, for additional questions and then that will

 9     be -- and then you will be done with your testimony.

10             You were one of the very important witnesses in this case not

11     only for the Prlic Defence, especially in terms of the time required for

12     your examination, so we will have the pleasure of seeing you again in a

13     few weeks.

14             We will now -- we'll be hearing the witness schedule for next

15     week.  You have set aside four hours for this witness, Mr. Karnavas, is

16     that it?

17             MR. KARNAVAS:  Yes, Mr. President, I did.  We will try to be --

18     to get it under four, but we've asked for four, but I do not suspect it's

19     going to go over four, but we are -- we are expecting the witness to come

20     in on time, and he was prepared last time.  We will have to re-prepare

21     again, but we'll try to be as efficient as possible.

22             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes.  It's true we've already

23     seen him, and this -- for this witness it will also be a second time.

24             It's almost 7.00.  I wish everyone a pleasant evening, and we

25     will meet again next Monday.

Page 34266

 1             I wish a safe return home to Mr. Tomic.  Just for a while,

 2     unfortunately, but we will be very happy to see you again.

 3             The hearing is adjourned.

 4                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.58 p.m.,

 5                           to be reconvened on Monday, the 10th day

 6                           of November, 2008, at 2.15 p.m.