1 Wednesday, 14 January 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.16 p.m.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, kindly call the
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours, good afternoon
8 all in the courtroom. This is case number IT-04-74-T, the Prosecutor
9 versus Prlic et al. Thank you, Your Honours.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
11 Today is Wednesday 14th of January, 2009. Good afternoon to everyone, in
12 particular to the accused, the Defence counsel, the OTP representatives,
13 and all the people assisting us. Before the witness is brought in, the
14 Trial Chamber is going to hand down an oral decision following the
15 discussion we had yesterday following Mr. Kovacic's submissions and the
16 request by Mr. Praljak to ask questions.
17 I'm going to read slowly. Oral decision on the possibility for
18 Mr. Kovacic to submit an application for review. At the hearing on the
19 13th of January, 2009, the accused Praljak through his counsel asked to
20 cross-examine in person the expert witness on economic matters, Mr. Milan
21 Cvikl. The Trial Chamber heard the submissions by Mr. Kovacic on this
22 issue, and dismissed the application.
23 After deliberation and after rereading the transcript, the Trial
24 Chamber decides that there is no reason to grant the application by
25 Mr. Kovacic to submit arguments for the Trial Chamber to review its
1 decision denying accused Praljak the right to cross-examine in person the
3 The Trial Chamber, therefore, upholds its decision dismissing the
4 issue handed down at the hearing of 13th of January, 2009 further to
5 guide-line number 1 of the decision of the 24th of April, 2008. And
6 further to the Appeals Chamber decision of 11th September, 2008, related
7 to the appeal against the decision on examination of witnesses by
8 Slobodan Praljak, a decision that had been issued by the Trial Chamber on
9 the 26th of June, 2008.
10 Therefore, Mr. Kovacic is not allowed to file an application for
12 Therefore, Ms. Nozica, you will have 15 minutes for your
13 questions to the witness as part of the cross-examination. Let's have
14 the witness brought in.
15 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, if I could make one remark while
16 the witness is being brought in. As I've been preparing for the
17 cross-examination, it's my colleague Mr. Kruger who was prepared to make
18 any Prosecution submissions on the question of the matter that's just
19 been decided by the Trial Chamber, so with the Court's permission could
20 we ask that Mr. Kruger be allowed to leave the courtroom so that he can
21 go back to work.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, of course, of course. I
23 thought you wanted him to be able to speak, but of course he is allowed
24 to leave the courtroom. I was happy to see him because I hadn't seen him
25 in a long time, but of course he is free to leave the courtroom, I'm sure
1 that he will be back in it soon.
2 [The witness entered court]
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Cvikl.
4 Sorry for this slight delay of a few minutes, and Ms. Nozica is about to
5 ask questions of you as part of the cross-examination. She may proceed.
6 MS. NOZICA: Good afternoon Your Honours.
7 WITNESS: MILAN CVIKL [Resumed]
8 Cross-examination by Ms. Nozica:
9 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Cvikl. I hoped that you have received my
10 binder with the pink documents. If not I'll ask the usher to provide you
11 with a copy. And let me say at the outset that you'll see out of the
12 list of documents - and don't take fright because they're lengthy
13 documents but I'm not going if go into them in detail, and you've already
14 seen them - but here is the reason for my cross-examination.
15 During yesterday's examination and if you look at page 81 of
16 yesterday's transcript, I'd like to draw your attention to a question
17 that Judge Antonetti asked you from line 18 onwards, on page 81 where
18 Judge Antonetti noted that on the screen in front of you you had document
19 9551, and we can look at it now, page 42 of the English. And Judge
20 Antonetti asked you, well he saw that there was a sum of 171 million
21 which was the revenue of the minister of defence and he asked you whether
22 of that 171 million was that used for the procurement of weapons and
23 ammunition, and what about the worker's salaries, was that financed from
24 the local budget as well. A question to that effect.
25 Now, your answer is why I would like to cross-examine you today,
1 because your answer was no. You say no. And that is 1993 you say and
2 most of the costs, the ministry of defence from its revenues spent on
3 financing units, and I think you say that the units which at that time
4 were developed within the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, that those
5 were the units and that the ministry did that taking care that the
6 greatest part of those monies were spent on salaries, went to meet the
7 salaries of the soldiers, expenses, and expenditure on weapons, but you
8 said that you actually don't have any information about that. Do you
9 remember that answer of yours? I assume you do.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Now, we have the document before us, and it is P 9551, and we
12 have the right page in front of us as well, and we see the sum within the
13 budget, the budget revenue, page 42; right? Just a moment for me to
14 check. Yes. Expenses, budget revenue and so on. Now, I'd like to ask
15 you whether you conclude on the basis of the documents that you have seen
16 that in 1993 they ceased to -- the municipalities ceased to finance
17 defence or the local communes, whichever you like in, HZ HB. Is that
18 what your answer means? That's how I understood. That's my
19 interpretation of your answer, am I right?
20 A. Is this the question?
21 Q. [In English] Yes.
22 A. Well, I have said that I analysed the developments, economic
23 developments in 1991, 1994 period by presenting three phases. Phase 1 in
24 which the local communities were obviously the one which has the most of
25 the power. And then period phase number 2 where already we have at the
1 level of the region what we have seen for the 1992 a much more serious
2 budget than let's say there was one in 1992 because in 1992 we have we
3 see very small revenues as collected at the level of the region. And
4 then in 1994 we have seen a much more developed interim -- a much more
5 developed interim budget for the first half of 1994.
6 At the same time, one could see that still in 1992 and 1993,
7 there were still invalid [sic] some revenue collections measures at the
8 level of local communities. So I cannot assume that in the 1993 the
9 local communities stopped financing what I would assume were the
10 logistics to the defence, but obviously the expenditure presented on this
11 page, 43 of 83, certainly show that quite substantial amount of
12 region-wide revenues collected at the level of the whole Croatian
13 Community of Herceg-Bosna went for the financing of the ministry of
14 defence. What was exact activity at the level of local communities and
15 what were exact budget expenditures at the level of local community, I
16 cannot comment on that.
17 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Excuse me, in the transcript, witness, and I
18 have understood you in that sense, on page 5, line 5, it is said there
19 were still invalid some revenue measures. I think you wanted to say "in
20 force" and not "invalid," that means void and non-existent.
21 THE WITNESS: Still in force, yes.
22 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Still in force, thank you.
23 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour, for that.
24 Q. Now, we have a clear-cut answer on your part which is the answer
25 I understood it to be because from the document we can see how throughout
1 1993 the local budgets were -- well, the municipalities took part in the
2 financing of defence. Now, Mr. Cvikl, I assume you don't challenge that
3 this figure of 169 million, that these are sums expressed in Croatian
4 dinars; right?
5 A. I understood that this document has been prepared with total
6 expenditures and there are a debate about it in some other pages like
7 page 38 out of 83, that it talks about HR D, which are the Croatian
8 dinars which were at that time one of the parallel currencies in the
9 Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna. So I have assumed that there are
10 some information in Deutschemark but that this lines are actually
11 millions, actually hundreds of thousands of millions, which actually the
12 billions of Croatian dinar at that time because in that very period the
13 inflation was still extremely very high, so it must be in hundreds of
14 millions of Croatian dinars.
15 Q. I'm very grateful to you for that, but I would like to hurry you
16 up by nodding my head because I have little time and a lot to get
17 through. But just to be quite sure and to avoid any dilemmas in the
18 courtroom, look at page 57 in English, and it is 00405251 ERN number in
19 the Croatian version. And it is a report about social welfare and social
20 benefits to families, and we see that expenditure there was 6215000 and
21 in their financial report and page 57 in actual fact we see that and then
22 on to the next page, page 58, and on page 58 paragraph 1 it says that for
23 the previous year, including the 31st of December 1993, the Ministry of
24 Labour Social Welfare and Family of the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna
25 has 6.045.000 Croatian dinars expenditures. So when we compare this
1 financial report with the financial report of the ministry of finance,
2 which is to be found on page 42, then we see that first of all we're
3 dealing with Croatian Dinars, am I right there? And secondly there's
4 slight discrepancy in the sum, it is 6 million [as interpreted] 045 in
5 the one and --
6 JUDGE TRECHSEL: It is 6 billion. 6 billion. Not 6 million.
7 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Yes, thank you, Judge Trechsel, you
8 are quite right. That's what I wanted to say. It isn't 169 or 170
9 million, it is in fact -- well for the ministry of defence, but billions
10 in Croatian dinars of course. So we see that we are dealing with
11 Croatian dinars, that's the first point. And the second point that's
12 important for me was what we just established. So within the frameworks
13 of this report from the ministry for social welfare and family affairs,
14 they say that they spent -- that their expenditures were 6 billion 045
15 million, and in the expenditures and the report by the ministry of
16 finance the figure is slightly higher.
17 Q. Now, Mr. Cvikl, as an economist yourself, I'm sure you can
18 explain that and it's clear to everyone that they don't have to be the
19 same sums, the sums don't have to coincide exactly because each ministry
20 has its own financial plan and keeps its records but the ministry of
21 finance has exact data as to expenditures from the revenues coming in
22 from the HVO, HZ HB am I right?
23 A. I would assume that a small difference on page 58 compared to the
24 one on page 43, which is something like 150 million must be some of
25 the -- what we call in budgetary expenditure appropriation, that may be
1 wages of the employees of the ministry where they are really explaining
2 what this money on the page 58 had been spent for. And the most
3 important is, of course, that here they are indicating that they were
4 spending money to provide aid to socially deprived persons and, of
5 course, they transferred the most of this 6 billion dollars the amount of
6 5.1 billion dollars they transferred to pension insurance, pension
7 disability insurance, which means that ministry of labour has -- has to
8 finance the pension disability insurance.
9 Q. Very well. Thank you. Now, in this document, the one that we
10 have in front of us, and you've already commented on that, it is the
11 report of the HVO HZ HB, at the beginning and later on, the government of
12 the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna there is no financial report of the
13 defence department. You didn't find it, right? There is no separate
14 financial report of the defence department. We have the department of
15 defence first, parts of it, and at the end there is no financial report,
16 am I right there?
17 A. There is a general description of what the minister of defence
18 was doing but no details.
19 Q. Yes. Now, in your answer, in your response to --
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment. I have a follow-up
21 question, Mr. Cvikl. Yesterday we saw documents showing at least that a
22 budget had been established. As to whether this was an interim or an
23 operational budget, I don't have an answer based on examining the
24 documents, but if we assume that this was a budget with items for various
25 activities, ministry of defence, social ministry, ministry for education,
1 so we have certain amounts earmarked by ministry. And Ms. Nozica is
2 telling us that with regard to the defence department, there were no
3 documents showing how the budget was implemented, but you know this
4 budgetary system. Therefore, can you tell us whether you found any
5 indication showing that within the main budgetary items there could be
6 credit transfers, that a certain amount would have been given to a
7 ministry initially but then for some reason it was decided to use part of
8 that money in another ministry? Is that something that could be done at
9 the time, was it possible to have credit transfer in spite of the initial
10 budget allocations to various ministries?
11 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, the information which we have in front
12 of us is the information on actual expenditures. We don't here see what
13 would be a usual normal presentation of the budget where there would be
14 initial allocation, changes in a year, and then the final outcomes and
15 final outlays as when the year is over.
16 So I can't comment what were the changes between the initial
17 allocation and actual final utilisation of the allocated funds. We can't
18 see that from the pages in front of us. We just see the final end of
19 year account of the budget.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I'm satisfied with
21 your answer. If there is a budget of course, there are expenditures,
22 that's what you've just said, and income. And normally a budget should
23 be balanced.
24 THE WITNESS: Yes.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But, I see, and I'm very
1 surprised to see that, please look at page 62 of the latest document.
2 Page 62. You know it's always dangerous when you present a document
3 because if you have a judge who is inquisitive he might find grounds for
4 asking questions. Page 62, what do I see, there are donors and they are
5 mentioned by name, UNICEF, ADRA, ERC, Red Cross, et cetera, Caritas.
6 That's page 62, so I suppose these donors donated funds which should be
7 registered as income, shouldn't they?
8 THE WITNESS: Well, it depends. If the funds are in cash, then
9 usually that would be legally and included in the budget. But here I see
10 that these were 2.160 tonnes of the quantity of received aid, and I don't
11 know whether and page 42 out of 83, under item 4, donation and other
12 revenues the figure which is there 57 -- 57 billion dinars is the value
13 of these funds calculated.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation]
15 Okay. But let's assume that Caritas donated a given amount of
16 money which would be regarded as income or revenue and with a budgetary
17 system that a Caritas money could have been used to buy -- to purchase
18 weapons because you don't itemize the budget expenditures Caritas.
19 THE WITNESS: Well, usually the donors -- I mean, that would be
20 the normal system, also request what the money should be spent for, and
21 usually there's an obligation --
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Indeed.
23 THE WITNESS: [Previous translation continues] ... of the
24 donation and a donor where the recipient to the donation should prove
25 what money was spent for. So I don't believe that the Caritas, if there
1 was cash a transaction would be allowing buying of weaponry. But I don't
2 have, you know, information what was the actual cash, cash monies
3 received from Caritas and what it was spent in what kind. I would assume
4 given the information on page 62 that most of it was aid, which means
5 really providing funds needed for the survival of the population.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Agreed, but in case the
7 donations would have been cash donations through swift transfer or in
8 cash, nothing in budget terms prevents that money to be used otherwise,
9 because there's no itemisation of the expenditures. It's just a
10 theoretical hypothesis that I'm expressing here.
11 THE WITNESS: Well, on hypothetical questions I have very
12 difficult to answer, but if one does follow good public expenditures
13 management practice, that would not be possible because as I have said, a
14 donor would usually request and define the purpose of a particular
15 donation. So even, you know, once in 1995, 1996 the World Bank was start
16 giving loans, it was very clear we would give loan for either financing
17 of the repair of the courthouse or as a what we call a general government
18 or budget support. But donors like the one mentioned on page 62, UNICEF,
19 et cetera, they would usually have actual material goods that they would
20 provide to the population, and usually the contribution by the local
21 communities or the Croatian community would be providing the logistical
22 support of transfer of those things. But as I say, I cannot comment
23 whether cash from Caritas was eventually used for the buying of weaponry.
24 I would -- I would -- I don't assume that, but I can't you know, of
25 course clearly answer to your question because I don't have information
1 on that.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Ms. Nozica.
3 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
4 Q. But just to correct what we've just been discussing, I have been
5 asking you questions and so has His Honour Judge Antonetti about the
6 expenditures, the spending of the funds that the minister of defence had,
7 and then His Honour Judge Antonetti showed you page 62. But I would like
8 us to look at page 60 of this document. Let us look at whose
9 expenditures or revenues we are talking about. This is the sector for
10 social welfare and family. And the donations that are discussed here are
11 under the heading of the service for the gathering and distribution of
12 humanitarian aid.
13 Mr. Cvikl, it's not controversial that this sector and this
14 service could not have been a part of the department of defence. I don't
15 have enough time to go through the whole structure but it does appear to
16 be quite logical to me. It is a completely different sector which is
17 part of a completely different ministry that is now showing the funds
18 that it received. Could you please confirm that.
19 A. Sorry, I didn't understand your question.
20 Q. I asked you to look at page 60. That's in the English version.
21 We are talking about the humanitarian aid that His Honour Judge Antonetti
22 was talking about. We can see here on page 60 and forward to page 62
23 that it all relates to report of the centre for social welfare and
24 family, and the humanitarian aid listed at page 62 is part of the report
25 that is filed by the service for the collection and distribution of
1 humanitarian aid. Now, my question to you is these funds were collected
2 within another ministry, not the ministry of defence am I right?
3 A. We not here discuss the ministry of defence expenditure. That is
5 Q. Now, I would like to ask you, we do have a document, it's a
6 report -- it's a financial report of the defence department and the
7 ministry of defence because this is for the whole of 1993. That's
8 P 8118. I can see that you found it. And in this document, let me
9 remind the Chamber, that as regards the revenues of the department in
10 1993 and the expenditures through all the items in the budget were
11 discussed with witness Miroslav Rupcic who testified before this Tribunal
12 between the 7th of October, 2007 and the 10th of October, 2007
13 Unfortunately I don't have enough time to go through the whole document,
14 but I would like to ask you this: The first question, in drafting your
15 report did you consult this document?
16 A. I have not seen all details of that document, and I believe that
17 this document with all these details, I see it now more or less for the
18 first time because I was not able, you know, to have it. I mean, I don't
19 recall this document. And it seems to be a very detailed financial
20 expenditures what would usually be done at the level of the ministries
21 where the other report which I was citing is the overall report of the
22 whole HVO.
23 Q. That's correct. If we are talking about the financing of the
24 municipalities, and I would like to pursue this topic, please look at
25 page 4 in the English version of this report. I think that page 7 has
1 been marked for your convenience, but could you please just leaf
2 backwards to page 4. We see the introductory remarks here and then we
3 see the fifth passage here where it says in the previous period, the
4 system of logistic support or MFP was established within the following
5 restricting circumstances. Have you found it? All I'm interested in is
6 item 2. You can see that it is listed under number 2, the self-financing
7 of the HVO units through municipal bodies.
8 So in this financial report, it is indicated that throughout
9 1993, the financing continued. Let me now refer you to page 7 briefly,
10 that is the structure of the revenues, we don't have time to go through
11 all of it, and we can see that in the structure of the revenues, the
12 total was 148 billion, out of that --
13 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's remark: Could the counsel please
14 repeat the figures that she was referring to.
15 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]
16 Q. We can see that the total was 204 billion and the total revenue
17 was 185 billion. We saw in the document of the financing for the HVO for
18 1993 that the revenues totalled 170 billion. And Mr. Cvikl, since you
19 don't have enough time to deal with all this, is it possible, could you
20 please tell us whether it is possible at all according to you as an
21 expert in economics that the revenues that individual ministries are
22 showing can differ from the revenues shown by the ministry of finance
23 because probably in the circumstances the records were kept in a
24 different way?
25 A. This is clearly possible. As I have said, and I think that your
1 additional information provide, confirm what I was saying about the types
2 of expenditures that were done at the level of the minister of defence,
3 and that is on page 10 where it's obvious that are payment of gross
4 calculated revenues and compensations for the soldiers, and then other
5 material expenses and services linked with the minister of defence.
6 It is possible clearly as we have seen also in previously
7 ministry of work and social services that there are differences between
8 what would be a financial information on financial support from 1st of
9 January to 31st of December, 1993, that difference could be for two
10 reasons. One, the budget expenditures and the budget revenues are
11 usually provided on cash basis, while for a particular ministry, this may
12 be even important what they were getting in kind or what they were
13 getting as a credit so there could be a difference between the two
14 figures. But for what I believe is the most important, that the
15 region-wide expenditures that were collected provided for not just the
16 ministry of the defence but all other ministries, funds need so they have
17 undertaken region-wide social and state measures as they would have
18 been -- as they should have been provided by the central authorities but
19 they have not.
20 And in that context, my analysis goes that the fact that we have
21 a serious budget revenues and budget expenditures presented for the 1993
22 at the level of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna is that they have
23 undertaken measures that would be otherwise need to be undertaken by the
24 central government authority which of course hadn't happened.
25 Q. I fully agree, I did not go into that part of the examination
1 because I do believe that you did explain this quite well, but let me now
2 go back to a number of documents and then I will be asking you my
3 questions. But these are documents that should show whether the local
4 authorities and to what extent in 1993 financed the defence of the HVO HZ
5 HB. It's a small binder. Let us forget about the big documents and let
6 us now move through it quickly. These are all the documents that you saw
7 in the course of your proofing, I assume, if not, please tell us so. I
8 will go through all those documents very quickly. The first is 1D 310.
9 It's a decision on the financing of the HVO Livno and of the sanctioning
10 of persons subject to military obligation. The decision dated the 26th
11 of March, 1993.
12 The next document is 1D 00307. It's a decision allocating
13 financial aid to the Bruno Busic HVO regiment, and it was issued by the
14 municipal HVO of Livno. The date is the 24th of April, 1993.
15 So those documents are sequential. There's one document for each
16 month or maybe two months. The next document is 1D 00302. The date is
17 the 13th of May, 1993. Again it is a decision of the Livno municipal HVO
18 about financing of the defence of the Livno municipality HVO by farmers
19 and cattle breeders.
20 The next document is 1D 00299. Again, it is the Livno municipal
21 HVO. This is a decision to grant financial assistance, compensation to
22 members of the Luka Josic 2nd Military Police Light Assault Battalion who
23 had arrived from Bugojno. Just two more documents and we'll be done.
24 The next document is 1D 00295. It's a decision about the setting of
25 salaries for the village commanders, again it's the Livno municipal HVO.
1 The date is the 23rd of November 1993.
2 And finally, Mr. Cvikl, I think that this is really the most
3 important document enabling us to determine who financed whom in 1993.
4 That's document 1D 3036. Let me just briefly tell you that this is a
5 document signed by the head of the HVO of the Tomislavgrad municipality.
6 The date is the 15th of January, 1994. The memo was sent to the Ministry
7 of Finance to the attention of the minister of the Croatian Republic
8 Herceg-Bosna. It deals with the import of cigarettes, and in the first
9 paragraph the drafter explains why he actually sends this memo to the
10 minister. I will be reading this and please follow.
11 "In our previous response to your serious accusations again
12 Mr. Philip Andric, we stated that we support work order, legality, and a
13 unified system both in financial terms and in any other way in the area
14 of the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna, but due to the sloppiness of
15 the public administration it is not possible to draw the line between
16 financial and every other chaos on the one hand, and the order and
17 legality in the financial area and in other areas on the other hand. And
18 this is now the key issue.
19 This line according to you, according to the minister should
20 commence with the date of the session of the House of Representatives of
21 the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna
22 opinion that it was your responsibility to inform all the municipal HVOs
23 through an appropriate document about the exact date when the different
24 method of financing of the needs of the army was to commence, and to also
25 inform all the military units so that they would not approach by force of
1 habit the municipal HVOs for the funds they need to meet their needs, but
2 would rather contact operational zones of the Main Staff of the HVO. It
3 would also have been necessary to anticipate what to do if the logistics
4 of the operational zone and of the Main Staff were not able to meet even
5 the most basic needs of the military units as has been the case in most
6 cases. Since as of December the 8th of 1993 such a document had not been
8 This is sufficient for my question. So my question is this,
9 Mr. Cvikl: First of all, have you had an opportunity to look at those
10 documents and to read them.
11 A. I saw these documents in preparation as I have said, still in
12 1993 while there was on one side a budget had been established. At the
13 level of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, there was continuation
14 of activity because there were either new matters or old matter still
15 valid. I could not say at what points in time was a line set.
16 Q. I asked you whether you have had an opportunity to look at the
17 previous documents, the previous four or five decisions from the
19 A. [Previous translation continues] ... specially this assistant to
20 the Bruno Busic and to contributions for the Livno people are not
21 reporting. I've seen those documents, yeah.
22 Q. Yes, I know that you quote them in your report, but I for the
23 purpose of this specific question to put them to you. Finally,
24 Mr. Cvikl, from the last document signed by the president of the
25 Tomislavgrad HVO, does it not follow that not only throughout 1993 but
1 also into 1994, the defence was for the most part financed from the
2 municipal budgets, because here it is stated quite clearly when we talk
3 to the Main Staff they are unable to meet our demands and this is how it
4 has been for the most part. So on the basis of all those documents and I
5 do not want to discount the efforts that you took to explain that the
6 Croatian government of -- the government of the Croatian Republic
7 Herceg-Bosna and before that the executive body of the HZ HB, did
8 they put in an effort to pool all the resources in one place and then
9 distribute, that this did not happen throughout 1993. Could you please
10 confirm that?
11 A. I understand that there were major disputes between local
12 communities and of course Croatian Defence Council mainly for two
13 reasons. In 1992 you have a situation where local communities have
14 established their own economy and those that were better off did not want
15 to give up their quote revenues. But -- and that's why it was very
16 difficult for the Croatian Defence Council as a temporary executive
17 authority to undertake those measures. I also understood that there were
18 dispute, you know, why you are reactivating Social Accounting Office if
19 Social Accounting Office is taking money from us. But that does not mean
20 that it was not appropriate that HVO, Croatian Defence Council, has been
21 undertaking those measures because that was the only way how down the
22 line you would have only one region-wide budget because it would be
23 illogical to have, quote, 18 ministers of defence or 20 ministers of
24 defence on the local communities. On the other side, according to the
25 existing, you know, central government legislation, especially the one on
1 the covering the social needs, financing of the defence was a top level
2 priority. For all of the -- for all the communities being local
3 communities or region-wide communities.
4 So this letter which you are presenting here is very similar to
5 many letters that are between the ministries and local communities even
6 to today in Slovenia
7 what, when. And so I would, I cannot say that because this is the belief
8 of the head of the option of Tomislavgrad that in the 1993, the majority
9 of the funds were financed from the local communities. One would have to
10 do a very deep analysis, what was the overall expenditures, what were the
11 actual expenditures, what were those expenditures that were authorised,
12 because one has to be careful on, you know, what were the activities that
13 were financed and that were actually undertaken by the defence units.
14 Were those all as instructed by the Main Staff.
15 So you know, one cannot say on the basis of just one letter, and
16 there is obviously a dispute between the ministry of finance and the
17 local communities that, you know, for these very reason local communities
18 were the only one financing the defence needs. But they were of course
19 contributing what they could. And frankly speaking, if they were not, if
20 they were not as one could also see sending to the region-wide budget all
21 the funds collected, they should be doing this. They should be financing
22 the defence as the first priority because that has been said by many
23 document and that was obviously the most important need.
24 Q. Mr. Cvikl, you were not asked whether the municipalities for the
25 most part, I only asked whether they participated in the financing, not
1 whether they did it for the most part, but as regards let me just ask you
2 a very brief question. As regards what you just told us that we should
3 look at the revenues and expenditures, we do have a report from the
4 defence department where both expenditures and revenues are shown. And I
5 have a hypothetical question for you, that's going to be my last
6 question, I allow myself the right to ask you that because in the course
7 of yesterday you were asked this.
8 Well, on the basis of your experience in Slovenia, can you assume
9 that the municipalities did have this opinion about the financing
10 throughout this time because self-financing afforded them a possibility
11 to have political and any other influence over the units that they were
12 financing? Can you confirm that this segment was quite significant and
13 relevant on the basis of your experience, if you can, if you cannot, well
14 you were asked something about that yesterday?
15 A. [Previous translation continues]... I would like to really
16 understand what are you asking me.
17 Q. I'm asking you whether the efforts of the municipalities to
18 directly finance the defence in their own areas, the units that are
19 located in their areas, whether their effort to do that as we can see
20 throughout 1993 as well, whether this followed from their wish to control
21 the units that they were financing, political control over those units
22 over the defence of their area, in other words?
23 A. I would disagree with this view. I think that the main reason
24 why local municipalities would object to finance, to put all the revenues
25 collected on their own territories they sent to the region-wide budget is
1 mainly dealt with the fear that on the apportionment through the budget
2 they would not be receiving back what they believe they should. And
3 that's always -- in the budget preparation there's always dispute between
4 the one who is "collecting" or used to collect very important funds at
5 the - let's say - custom checkpoint and he -- and they believe that they
6 still shall be receiving so much funds. I can give you many examples in
7 this public expenditure management where there are disputes about this,
8 but I would not assume that they wanted to finance the defence unit in
9 order to politically control them.
10 I mean, I have not been looking into that, but from my public
11 expenditures management experience the disputes between the higher level
12 and the lower level of the government is also this difference of opinion
13 what is the particular budget should really give to a particular either
14 smaller unit being -- ministry or local municipality. We see in the
15 budgetary debate a lot of discussion on this and that's why it's always
16 very good if the budget adopted by parliament, by the house of
17 representatives. And the once the House of Representatives adopted it,
18 it's obligable for everyone, or in that very case it was adopted I
19 believe by the HVO which was appointed by the presidency of the Croatian
20 Community of Herceg-Bosna and the presidency of the Croatian Community
21 of Herceg-Bosna of course consisted of many -- of all representatives of
22 local municipalities and that's -- that's -- that was, you know, a kind
23 of a political fight at the level of presidency what should be financed.
24 Q. Finally, to conclude, Mr. Cvikl, you say -- you answered to my
25 question that this could not have been the intention, could it have been
1 a consequence, because now you say that you don't know what size the
2 units were at the local level. I don't want to go into that. I think
3 that we have evidence to that effect. I'm asking you whether this could
4 have been a consequence of precisely this fact, that the local level,
5 regardless of the size of the units, was actually financing it. Let us
6 assume, hypothetically, for the most part in 1993 it financed the units
7 in its local area. Could have it have been a consequence of the
8 possibility of exerting some other kind of control political military?
9 A. [Previous translation continues] ... of economic measures and
10 activities within the overall economic environment. I had not looked
11 into what was happening in the area of defence finance. I mean, I was in
12 Yugoslav Army but I was not asked to look into it, so I can't comment on
14 But again, the analysis of the economic measures from the
15 economic point of view where there were appropriate measures to undertake
16 at the level of the region expenditures that would not be undertaken by
17 the local communities themselves. And that is the -- that is what am I
18 seeing in this phase 2 and phase 3. We could have three years just phase
19 1 if they would not be activities at the region-wide measures and then,
20 you know, kids would not go to school and the roads would not be
21 repaired, et cetera.
22 Q. Very well. Thank you very much, Mr. Cvikl, you finally gave us
23 your answer, you did not conduct this kind of analysis and I take your
24 previous answer in that light. So you did not make an analysis of the
25 effect that it had on the financing of the army and you did not have any
1 documents that would lead you to be able to give an answer to that
2 question. Did I understand you correctly?
3 A. [Previous translation continues] ... economic issues. And I
4 looked into the budgetary expenditures for the defence in the point of
5 the budget of a wide region.
6 MS. NOZICA: Thank you very much. Mr. Cvikl, this completes my
7 cross-examination. Thank you very much, Your Honours.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, we will now begin
9 the cross-examination by the Prosecution. That must be ready because it
10 has been waiting for this for several months.
11 MR. STRINGER: Thank you Mr. President, and good afternoon to you
12 and to Your Honours and to everyone else.
13 Cross-examination by Mr. Stringer:
14 Q. Good afternoon Mr. Cvikl. My name is Douglas Stringer. I'll be
15 asking you questions on behalf of the Prosecution, and we've got binders
16 to distribute and we've got documents to show you. While that's being
17 done, just let me ask you to go back to the pink folder that you were
18 shown by counsel for Mr. Stojic. I'll just ask you one question there
19 before I get into my own outline. If you could turn to the Exhibit
20 P 09551, page 62.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak is standing up.
22 Yes, Mr. Praljak, what do you wish to say.
23 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK:
24 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, I had hoped that you would change
25 your opinion and that is why I didn't discuss the matter with
1 Mr. Kovacic, but as you didn't reconsider well I don't want to go into
2 that now, but anyway, before we take a break, may I ask through -- ask
3 Mr. Kovacic to ask the witness two questions.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, you'd like your
5 counsel to put two questions. Well, in that case, there's no problem.
6 Mr. Kovacic, there are two questions. You have the floor. In the
7 meantime, we will assemble the bulky folders of the Prosecution.
8 MR. KOVACIC: Your Honour, if I may request a short break of 5
9 minutes to see exactly what because yesterday Mr. Praljak mentioned but
10 now he summarized --
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, very well. The best
13 thing would be for us to have the break now that we planned to have a
14 little later on. So for 5 minutes you can talk to Mr. Praljak which will
15 allow you to put the two questions and the Registrar will have given us
16 all the -- overburdened us with all the binders, kilos and kilos, and we
17 the Judges will have 20 minutes to prepare for the next part. So we now
18 have the 20 minute break.
19 --- Recess taken at 3.17 p.m.
20 --- On resuming at 3.40 p.m.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
22 MR. KARNAVAS: Good afternoon, Your Honours, just a brief
23 observation. During the break I was approached, I won't say by whom, but
24 I was approached just to caution everybody that it would be wonderful if
25 the witness could slow down a little bit, enunciate more, and if there
1 could be a pause between question and answer, it would be facilitate
2 everybody. And so I would most appreciate it, and again, I apologise for
3 having to make this observation.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, point taken. So
5 please do try to slow down, Witness. Well, I'm telling this to the
6 counsel as well who are faster than lightening.
7 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.
8 Cross-examination by Mr. Kovacic:
9 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Good afternoon, witness. My name is Bozidar Kovacic and I'm
11 Defence counsel for General Praljak, one of the accused in this case, and
12 I'm going to ask you a few questions to see if we can expand some of your
13 observations. Your Honours -- Their Honours and you have received 3D
14 02653, that particular document, you have the English version and you
15 have the Croatian version. So you can choose. I think that the Croatian
16 version is more legible but it's up to you. If you choose the Croatian,
17 then it will be page 152 and 153. For the rest looking at the English,
18 it is page 1 of the English translation, and I'm going to start off by
19 asking something around line 30, with a sentence that begins:
20 "The truth was that the assembly of the SMBH..." et cetera --
21 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Excuse me, Mr. Kovacic, I think it would be
22 quite helpful if you told the Chamber what this is, because --
23 MR. KOVACIC: I will, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.
25 MR. KOVACIC: I just wanted to --
1 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you, indeed.
2 MR. KOVACIC: -- put your attention to the appropriate portion,
3 then I will.
4 Q. [Interpretation] It is in e-court. It is an excerpt, or rather
5 several pages from a book by Mohammed Filipovic, and the book is
6 entitled, "I was Alija's Diplomat." And the author of the book, Mr.
7 Filipovic, was ambassador of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina to
9 material time.
10 Now, witness, the highlighted portion states the following, let's
11 go straight to the crux of the matter, and then we'll go back to discuss
12 other points perhaps.
13 This is what he says, as I say, it's around line 13 in English.
14 "The truth was that the assembly of Bosnia-Herzegovina following
15 a proposal from the government adopted a law making it the responsibility
16 of all our citizens working abroad to pay a certain percentage (5
17 percent) of their net income as a so-called war tax for financing the war
18 and post-war reconstruction of the country."
19 Let's pause there. My question is the following: You found
20 examples during your testimony about this war tax, and I think you used
21 the example of two or three municipalities. Did you ever hear that the
22 same step was taken by the government of Bosnia-Herzegovina itself,
23 because here we learn, although we don't have that decision, that the
24 government too wanted to impose a special tax on migrant workers of this
25 type. And then we see that this referred to the people who happened to
1 be working in Switzerland
2 a document as well to bear it out.
3 A. I saw documents on local municipality imposing a war tax on
4 people that were mobilised. And in order for them not to be mobilised,
5 not to report to the duty station, they could instead of that pay 200,
6 300 Deutschemark of a monthly contribution which I found as in a kind of
7 exemption from them being mobilised. On this very event which you are
8 mentioning here, that they also -- the Assembly of the Bosnia-Herzegovina
9 upon proposal of the government, I have not seen such a document.
10 Q. [In English] Have you heard anything about that that Sarajevo
11 government also tried to enact some taxes related to the war?
12 A. No. When we were discussing with authorities in 1994, 1995 we
13 were aware there were different attempts to, you know, collect, but I
14 have not in my analysis being analysing in details what the central
15 government authorities were doing in 1993, 1994. I was focusing on the
16 developments of the level of the local municipalities and region-wide
17 measures, and I looked into the overall budget of the 1992 Republic of
18 Bosnia-Herzegovina where I could see that there were no support provided
19 down to the local municipalities. So I found it completely logical that
20 they went ahead with the measures given the fact that they were
21 authorised to do that by a decree law on the financing of social needs as
22 issued in the summer of 1992 by then the presidency of Republic of
24 Q. Okay. [Interpretation] While you were there as you say in 1994,
25 1995, in that IMF mission, did you happen to come across any traces of
1 any money coming in as revenue to the state from some -- well, let's call
2 it war tax regardless of what it was actually called since you had the
3 basic information?
4 MR. STRINGER: Your Honour, on this question we would object.
5 It's beyond the scope of the expert report. Again, the witness is here
6 based on what is in his expert report, and I don't think it's fair to the
7 Prosecution to now go into information and in a detailed way that he may
8 have gathered 1994, 1995 which is not really the subject of this report.
9 MR. KOVACIC: Your Honour, I don't agree with that position. In
10 fact the witness was talking about being there as a member of IMF and
11 having some knowledge about the situation also from that opportunity.
12 And now I'm merely asking whether while doing that he saw or learned
13 about any result of this which we were talking. Any result in the budget
14 of taxation of migrant workers taxation. It's a simple question, it's
15 yes or no and it is certainly within the scope.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Stringer, I believe
17 that it is difficult to understand your objection because the expert is
18 an economist, he has looked into budgets, into the budget of Herceg-Bosna
19 with revenues and expenditures. So the question was, looking at all the
20 documents, whether as part of the World Bank or the IMF, whether he
21 realised whether there were revenues arising from contributions made by
22 people working abroad. As was indicated -- as seems to be indicated for
23 the Muslim side this document. It seems to be logical to me.
24 MR. STRINGER: I understand and I certainly accept the Trial
25 Chamber's ruling. I think the point I'm trying to make, Your Honour, is
1 that Mr. Cvikl in his report has very specifically laid out what were the
2 scope of the items. He relied on -- relied upon the documents provided
3 by counsel, he relied upon the interviews of the people he spoke with,
4 he -- and so the scope of the universe of things that he has relied on to
5 support his opinions are set out there. And I could be wrong, but I
6 don't think that he has relied to any significant degree on information
7 he obtained by having dealings with people in Warsaw in 1994, 1995.
8 Certainly he has not indicated that that forms a part of his opinions as
9 indicated in his report. But I won't make any more objections on this,
10 Mr. President, it's clearly the Trial Chamber's decision.
11 MR. KOVACIC: I do not agree with that argument, but you have
12 decided and there is no need to respond.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Put your question.
14 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. From this the following question emerges, the legality of taxes
16 of that type. And in this specific case, in this case, judging by this
17 piece of information, the government of the Republic of
18 Bosnia-Herzegovina has set a tax as an obligation, let's call it the war
19 tax, it impose this is tax on its citizens who are legal residents in
21 country, and now you as a financial expert probably have knowledge in
22 this area too, tell us whether it is permissible for a government to
23 impose taxes on citizens living in another country?
24 A. Well, it all depends what is the tax, where this particular
25 citizen have a tax residence. But as I've said, when I was looking into
1 the local municipality decisions and whether the decision by the Republic
2 of Bosnia-Herzegovina was of a similar nature, these people that were
3 supposed to pay taxes were people with a permanent residence on the
4 territory of the local municipalities. And as we the permanent
5 residence, they were obliged to report on the mobilisation. However,
6 some of the local municipalities decided not to or excused them from
7 reporting on the mobilisation, and they were saying that they could not
8 report on their duty for mobilisation if they are paying a special -- a
9 contribution special tax. So in that very case I say that possible.
10 In general whether Bosnia-Herzegovina would be able to tax
11 citizens that are gastarbeiters, gas workers in Switzerland, and to what
12 extent, that depends on two issues. Where particular citizens have a tax
13 residence and what is an agreement between the two countries or what was
14 agreement at that time between the two, I guess Switzerland in that very
15 case and at that time I guess Yugoslavia
16 Bosnia-Herzegovina. But, I would like to also say that the recent
17 economic development report of the IMF, which I'm citing in the report,
18 on page 100 it explains that there are some so-called non-tax revenues in
19 Bosniak majority area in 1994 and 1995 and that could be enough, that
20 this could be, you know, items that you put in the budget as a non-tax
21 revenue if it's coming from abroad. But this is, you know, one would
22 have to do a much deeper analysis and we were not - neither the World
23 Bank, neither IMF - at that time concerned what happened in the past, we
24 were looking how to make the system for the future.
25 Q. Okay. Well, in actual fact from the writings of Mr. Filipovic in
1 this book of his, we see a little lower down, and I mark that too. We
2 see two things firstly, that the Swiss government launched a protest and
3 sent a demarche to the embassy saying that this was impermissible; and
4 secondly, as we can see from this text, the author says the following:
5 The truth was that the Assembly of Bosnia-Herzegovina following a
6 proposal from the government adopted a law et cetera, et cetera, we've
7 already read that bit out. And then it goes on to say that at a meeting
8 of all our ambassadors and diplomatic consular representatives abroad
9 held in early 1994 in Vienna
10 state did not have the right to make it the responsibility of people
11 working in foreign countries and subject to the laws of those countries,
12 i.e., under their full jurisdiction, to pay a tax to our country.
13 It was particularly impossible to ask these citizens to pay a tax
14 on their net income. And to cut this story short, that this wasn't
15 discussed and it was refused. So there were different opinions set out,
16 but briefly, it seem that is you agree that it was possible that the
17 government of Bosnia-Herzegovina did try to impose this tax, whether it
18 did or did not ultimately, you find traces of that or possible traces of
19 that in the budget; is that right?
20 A. Well, from the reading of what you have read to us, there seems
21 to be obviously such an attempt, but whether it was legally correct or
22 not, it's for me difficult to judge. If the gastarbeiters in Switzerland
23 were also tax residents of Switzerland
24 correct that these this fellow, Mr. Filipovic, objected to that at that
25 meeting. And I also read that later on he changed his obligation into
1 kind of a voluntary contribution. I have not been looking into this 1994
2 what was happening in this various situation. When I was looking into
3 there what local municipalities were doing, would like to point again,
4 people were to be mobilised.
5 Q. [In English] Witness, we don't have the time, we understand that
6 and instead they were paying taxes. But here we saw that similar attempt
7 was done by the government of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Sarajevo-based
8 government; right?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Thank you. [Interpretation] It's not in 3D that's just the
11 source. Anyway an introductory question first. Witness, I'm sure you
12 know Stijepo Andrejevic, a doctor of science, the governor -- Andric I'm
13 told, yes, Andric is his name -- Andrijic, that's what it says here,
14 Andrijic. Stijepo Andrijic. He was the governor of the national bank of
15 Bosnia-Herzegovina and as far as I know highly reputable economist. Do
16 you know him?
17 A. Yes, I know him, yes.
18 Q. Okay. We have an excerpt here from his book, the book is by
19 Stijepo Andrijic. He deals with several topics and I'm just going to
20 read two observations of his. Let me lay the foundations first. You
21 said that certain municipalities, not only in the area of HZ HB but
22 elsewhere too, prescribed -- well, the German Mark, introduced the German
23 Mark or the Croatian dinar as legal tender, as the currency, in order to
24 effect payments through the SDK or social accounting service, or the
25 system that substituted the former SDK. Similar information exists here
1 so I'd like to hear your comments. The first thing that he says --
2 MR. STRINGER: Sorry for the interruption. Am I missing
3 something. I don't -- do I have --
4 MR. KOVACIC: You don't. It's just for my purpose I will read.
5 MR. STRINGER: You are just going to read it.
6 MR. KOVACIC: I will not ask that -- it to be admitted as the
7 evidence, I simply read it as well I can read my notes, whatever, and the
8 witness does not have that.
9 Q. [Interpretation] The author says as follows --
10 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters note they do not have the text
12 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. "It is important to emphasize the fact that in Tuzla and Zenica,
14 those areas at the end of 1992 already, the political and military
15 portions, which means the state bodies, reached a decision on the use of
16 the German Mark as the legal tender of the country. And there were
17 separate coupons printed in German Marks, you also testified about that,
18 for the requirements of the payment system. And this brings me to the
19 portion we are interested in. This fact -- there was no official
20 reaction to this fact from the state organs in Sarajevo. In the autumn
21 of 1993 he goes on to say - and that was after I was replaced as
22 governor - the new government in Sarajevo passed a regulation by which it
23 introduced the German Mark as legal tender. As the official currency of
24 the country.
25 "And on the basis of that regulation and the institutions dealing
1 with payments, all legal persons were duty-bound to open giro accounts in
2 German Marks and they had to effect payments in that way. Those accounts
3 were in use and the German Mark became legal tender right up until the
4 formation of the central bank of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the introduction
5 of a new currency, that is to say the convertible Mark."
6 So the governor of the national bank of Croatia in his book -- I
7 meant to say Bosnia-Herzegovina, that was a slip of the tongue, he writes
8 in this official book of his, that the government in Sarajevo proclaimed
9 the German Mark legal tender. And in your expert report and working on
10 your expert report you found proof that this was done in other
11 municipalities as well and you explained the importance of that step.
12 Now, have you ever heard of the fact that this was done in
14 then-governor of the national bank says?
15 A. Well, I do agree with what the former governor of the national
16 bank of Bosnia-Herzegovina says because this was a situation which I
17 already have said yesterday, 1992, 1993 there were extremely high,
18 hundreds of thousands percentage high inflation and even if the Bosnian
19 dinars were printing usually in such circumstance, you know, the printing
20 machines do not work fast enough. And so it's logical that not
21 Deutschemark as the only legal tender but Deutschemark as a para-legal
22 tender could have been introduced. And I was mostly interested, that was
23 my task, to look was happening at the level of local communities and I
24 found that they are quite logical. And I'm not surprised that that
25 happened up to the point that convertible mark had been established also
1 at the level of the country.
2 Q. Thank you. And all that remains is one thing, that he also
3 states here: Shortly after the domestic currency was introduced, it was
4 devalued. You spoke about that, too. So I don't want to read his entire
5 explanation as to why that happened, but he does point out one more thing
6 and that is that the national bank at the same time did not have the
7 possibility of printing additional paper money for three reasons;
8 technical feasibilities or lack of them, it did not have any foreign
9 exchange for paying for the printing of a new currency, and third, the
10 costs of printing would exceed the nominal value of the coupons. It took
11 longer to print the money, the money devalued faster than it took to
12 print the money. So under this hyperinflation which is contained in
13 these assertions, was it possible at all to issue proper money?
14 A. The proper money would be possible to be issued only if the
15 fiscal revenues collected at the level of the whole country would be
16 sufficient enough to finance expenditures which was not the case. And I
17 have mentioned in comparing what was happening in at the level of the
18 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina what was happening at the level of
19 Croatian Community of the Herceg-Bosna and what we have seen in comparing
20 the inflation rates in different parts, that obviously the republican
21 issued money was more prone to devaluation and that's why it's logical
22 that sometimes 1992, 1993 they simply actually were not able to print it
23 enough, and that's why the Deutschemark became a para-legal tender. It's
24 just a logical reaction.
25 Q. And if I may summarise in a question, for the same reasons,
1 objective reasons, where the citizens used the money that it had in order
2 to exchange money for goods, would that be right? Is that what happened?
3 A. [Previous translation continues]... the para-legal tenders to buy
4 and sell goods.
5 Q. Okay. [In English] Just one question by the way.
6 [Interpretation] During your testimony, among other things, you used the
7 International Monetary Fund report dated August 1996, 1D 02959. So just
8 a short question about that.
9 After the IMF compiled that report in the summer of 1996, was it
10 accessible to public institutions? For example, the United Nations, the
11 European Union, and other interested organs and parties? Or let me be
12 more specific, for example, the Prosecution of this Tribunal, could it
13 ask the IMF about the monetary and economic situation in
14 Bosnia-Herzegovina, for instance, what the IMF knows about that, and
15 would the IMF respond and provide them with that information? You were
16 there, you worked within the system. What would you say to that, what is
17 what's your opinion?
18 A. Well, the document, the recent economic development report which
19 was issued and became publicly available at least to the, you know, UN
20 related institutions and International Monetary Fund is a UN-related
21 institution should -- be could be made available to anyone requesting it.
22 There were also joint press releases ordered in the November of 1995 for
23 this economic situation was described, so I would be looking to this
24 documents before making any opinion. And that's why I have said. For me
25 the IMF report and the World Bank reports, these two reports were also
1 the, you know, basis. I have of course contributed to Croatian, at least
2 the World Bank report were also the basis of kind of getting the big
3 picture and then looking into details. I did on the basis of looking at
4 the document which I collected through the help of the Defence team.
5 Q. But just looking at those two reports, by a third party, somebody
6 who has a general level of educational knowledge, that would be enough
7 for them to learn a great deal about the economic and monetary problems
8 of the situation in general in Bosnia-Herzegovina during 1992, 1993, 1994
9 would that be correct? Just yes or no, please.
10 A. That would be correct.
11 MR. KOVACIC: Thank you so much, sir. [Interpretation] Your
12 Honour, that completes my cross-examination. Thank you.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stringer, you may proceed.
14 MR. STRINGER: Thank you Mr. President.
15 Q. And good afternoon again, Mr. Cvikl.
16 A. Good afternoon.
17 Q. Let's start if we may. I just wanted to preliminarily take you
18 to one of the exhibits that my learned friends Ms. Nozica showed you.
19 It's in the pink folder, Exhibit P 09551. If you could turn to page 62
20 of the English. This actually was in relation to a question from the
21 president with regard to any funds or aid coming from humanitarian
22 organisations. The President asked you whether to what extent based on
23 your knowledge it may have been possible to actually trace where any
24 funding from such organisations actually ultimately went. Do you recall
25 that question?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Okay. Just looking -- I went ahead and looked at the next
3 paragraph, and there were references to tonnes of humanitarian aid here.
4 Would you agree with me, sir, that for example, according to this report,
5 which is sort of a year-end report of the various activities of the HVO,
6 of the various departments of the HVO. This indicates that of 2.160
7 tonnes of humanitarian aid that had been obtained or received from these
8 organisations, 520 tonnes appears to have been distributed to HVO units.
9 Do you see that?
10 A. I see that.
11 Q. And then secondly an additional 240 tonnes of aid had been
12 distributed to government institutions and organs, do you see that?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. I think I know the answer clearly, but just for the record, you
15 didn't consider in any of your analyses, the extent to which goods in
16 kind figured as part of the budget or of the resources of the HVO; is
17 that correct?
18 A. That is correct. We have not seen a detailed -- we have seen
19 some nominal figures. How these figures were calculated, whether these
20 were estimates of the funds collected, how was that then distributed, I
21 did not venture into that analysis.
22 Q. You can set that aside, I've finished with that document now.
23 Just a couple of preliminary questions about your report,
24 Mr. Cvikl. Can you tell us when you were first contacted by the Prlic
25 Defence team to begin working on this project, if you recall.
1 A. That was sometime in 2007.
2 Q. The report was finalized in October of 2008; correct?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. And then working backwards, you made the field trip to
5 Bosnia-Herzegovina in December of 2007 where you conducted the
7 A. Mm-hmm.
8 Q. And if I understand correctly from your report, the field trip
9 and the interviews occurred after you had reviewed the various
10 documentation that you refer to in your report; is that correct in
12 A. That's correct. I first collect the information. I add to this
13 information which I had received from the Defence team, you know, I trace
14 back the IMF report, I trace back the World Bank report which I have in
15 my own files since I was working on it. I looked into the -- you know,
16 again these 2004 World Bank book on the collapse of Yugoslavia, I read
17 over some other documents. And then when I was reading that I actually
18 identify a need to, you know, to visit --
19 Q. Sure?
20 A. -- again Bosnia-Herzegovina in this very -- in this very
22 Q. Okay. Before your field trip and before the interviews, did you
23 also review the documents provided by Mr. Karnavas, the Defence team, the
24 various decrees, the Official Gazette, those sorts of basic documents as
1 A. Yeah. I went on a field trip but didn't really do interviews but
2 I was kind of discussing with the people the content of those documents,
3 yes. So I had these documents, some of them with me, yes.
4 Q. All right. So the field trip was in December of 2007. Then
5 working backward from that, can you give us a rough idea of when you
6 actually began working then on this project?
7 A. Well, that I was a member of parliament, so most of my work and
8 kind of, you know, reading the documents was in the late summer, fall of
9 2007. And then just before actually preparing for that field trip, I was
10 kind of, you know, collect the document and from the document also
11 identify okay, which of the people that I would like to see. I at that
12 time had suggested to go to Zagreb
14 Q. We'll actually talk more about the interviews in a little bit.
15 Sort of focusing on the documents and also the time-frame or the
17 As you've indicated you were a member of parliament, the
18 Slovenian parliament at the time that you were working on this report; is
19 that correct.
20 A. Yeah. I was at that time 2004, 2008, I was a member of
21 parliament and I have worked on that report and some other books under
22 the authority which is given to a politician, and he can do what we call
23 an expert work or work as a, you know, professor university up to
24 one-fifth of his time.
25 Q. Do you expect that the report that you've made for this case will
1 ultimately be published and be available more widely than it already is?
2 A. That is not -- that's not yet decided. I mean, this is up to
3 the -- you know, I have prepared the report for this very case. It is
4 certainly I believe a document which provides a kind of a wide picture on
5 what was actually happening. Would there be -- would there be at one
6 point in time a need, I don't know. But certainly, I would not be -- I
7 have not prepared this report to have a book on that.
8 Q. Okay. Have you been compensated for your preparation of this
10 A. Yeah, I was paid from the ICTY for this, whatever the amount was,
11 something like you know 150 hours by the hourly rate. But I must say I
12 spent more than 150 hours on that.
13 Q. Did you write the report entirely on your own?
14 A. Yes. The report has been written by myself. I got assistance
15 from the Defence team in this finalization of the report, you know, the
16 language, the -- you know, some editing, and then also they were helping
17 me in organising the report, especially the foot notes and, you know, how
18 properly putting this, you know, special numbers, you know, 1D numbers
19 and P numbers because I didn't understand the at beginning how that
20 correctly should be done.
21 Q. Many of us still don't.
22 A. I understand that D is for Defence and P is for Prosecution.
23 Q. So members of the Prlic Defence team then assisted you in doing
24 some editing and revising of the report, is that what I understand you to
25 be saying?
1 A. A bit more less, I would say editing it, editing. Because I
2 prepared the report in the, you know, early in the early version with all
3 the table of contents, et cetera. Initially there were literature at the
4 end, then we made some of these changes and, you know, put the things.
5 They helped me put in this finalization of the report, yes. But I -- the
6 report has been written by myself.
7 Q. Did you discuss any of the text of the report with them in a
8 substantive way as part of that revision or editing process?
9 A. Not really. Not really. Because I had been asked, you know, by
10 this letter of appointment, and so I decided myself how to structure it
11 and how much emphasis to put on that, on the background and how much to
12 put on the events. And my kind of -- I was sort of doing this from the
13 point of that will be read by of course people who are not looking into
14 these documents but who do not have a wider knowledge. And of course, as
15 I've said yesterday, I especially wanted honours, the Judges of the court
16 to have appreciation of the developments, the way I presented them
17 because they are based on the documents.
18 Q. Did you confer with Dr. Prlic himself during your preparation of
19 this report?
20 A. No I have not. I have not seen -- I have not met him over the
21 last couple of years, but I, you know, discussed with others. Those who
22 are listed there.
23 Q. Okay.
24 A. Mr. Tomic, Akmadzic, Backovic, Gotovusa, et cetera.
25 Q. You know Mr. -- or Dr. Prlic I should say, from your IMF days as
1 you've already indicated in your testimony when you were working
2 initially in Warsaw
4 A. These were actually my -- the World Bank days because I never
5 worked for the IMF.
6 Q. Sorry.
7 A. So that's the time when I met him. Actually, I think Mr. Tomic
8 introduced me to him in one of the first visits in Sarajevo because he
9 was at that time minister of foreign affairs, if I'm not mistaken, of the
10 Federation. So we were not dealing with the minister of foreign affairs
11 much, we were dealing mainly with the Ministry of Finance and Ministry of
12 Economy. So I was not dealing with him allot but I know of him, yes, and
13 I met him there.
14 Q. In your direct testimony, you actually drew our attention to a
15 page in that World Bank country study, and you can look at it if you
16 wish, it's the acknowledgement section on page Roman numeral vii in which
17 the World Bank was acknowledging with thanks various people who were
18 involved in the preparation of this report. Do you recall taking us to
19 that page?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And as you've indicated, Dr. Prlic is listed on that page, also
22 Neven Tomic, I believe you pointed that out. I noticed that one of the
23 other people whom you've later interviewed as part of this report for
24 this trial is Mr. Backovic, Enver --
25 A. Yes, yes.
1 Q. -- Backovic who was involved in the economic situation in
3 Did you -- apart from the interview of Neven Tomic, which you
4 indicate occurred on the 20th of October 2007, did you have any further
5 consultations or dealing with Mr. Tomic as part of your preparation of
6 this report?
7 A. Not really. Most of the discussion we had then that -- at that
8 very moment, but I read -- I read his testimony.
9 Q. All right. That was my next question. His testimony in this
11 A. Yeah.
12 Q. Just from last month?
13 A. I mean, I received some of the, you know, testimonies in
14 preparation for this one, so I, you know, went to see it more from the
15 point of view how does it look to be testifying -- for those who heard
16 Mr. Primorac testimony, so I read some of those testimonies in order to
17 kind of, you know, see, you know, okay --
18 Q. All right.
19 A. -- how does it look being here.
20 Q. So the Defence for Mr. Prlic made Mr. Tomic's testimony available
21 to you after he testified in this case?
22 A. The documents were provided to me by the Defence, yeah.
23 Q. Okay. Anyone else whose testimony -- well, actually that will
24 take me to my next question. I'm -- your report is dated from October of
25 2007, so that's for my understanding sort of the end point of any
1 testimony that you might have reviewed in making the report, and so now
2 can we understand that in addition, you reviewed the subsequent testimony
3 of Mr. Tomic which came after this report was finalise?
4 A. Well, October of 2008 is the date of when I finished the report.
5 Before the report, I looked into the testimony of one of the witnesses on
6 these sections, I looked into the Primorac testimony, I believe. And
7 yes, after that in preparation for my coming here, I was -- it was
8 suggested to me that I see and I read the Tomic testimony for my
9 preparation once the report was finalized and also especially because at
10 that time we were discussing how to prepare this PowerPoint presentation.
11 So the idea was to how to summarise what is in the report so that you
12 know, we could really in a short time present the most important findings
13 of the report.
14 Q. Okay. There are a couple of other witnesses whom you interviewed
15 as part of your preparation of the report who are also came and testified
16 in this case. One of those is Mile Akmadzic. Did you read Mr.
17 Akmadzic's testimony in this trial?
18 A. No I have not.
19 Q. Mr. Zelenika?
20 A. No I have not read Mr. Zelenika.
21 Q. Now, you indicate in your report that among - it was my
22 impression, you'll correct me if I'm wrong - some of the earlier initial
23 documentation you were provided was the testimony of Dr. Ciril Ribicic?
24 A. Not the testimony, but I read --
25 Q. Let me, if I could just take you through it step by step, I think
1 ultimately we'll get there. The testimony -- that was my question, you
2 said in your report you read his testimony. It wasn't clear to me
3 whether his testimony was from this case or another case.
4 A. Mm-hmm. Well, I read the testimony and also I met Mr. Ribicic
5 because, you know, he is a Slovenian and we know each other and
6 basically --
7 Q. Excuse me, maybe I didn't ask the question correctly. Which
8 testimony did you read or did you read both Dr. Ribicic's testimony from
9 this trial or was it from an earlier trial or do you recall?
10 A. I don't recall. It was so many different document. But Mr.
11 Ribicic what I think is -- certainly I am aware of his testimony because
12 we were discussing before and after his testimony both his book and his
14 Q. Okay. Now, if you've read his testimony from any cases, there
15 are only two in which he testified in this Tribunal, you are aware, sir,
16 that Dr. Ribicic prepared an expert report himself that was submitted as
17 part of these proceedings, do you know that?
18 A. Yes, I am aware of that book.
19 Q. Did you read the report? And I know there is a book that may or
20 may not conform exactly to the report, I don't know. So I'm more
21 interested in the report that Dr. Ribicic submitted as part of his
22 testimony. Did you read that?
23 A. Well, you know, I read all these languages, you know, so I read
24 certainly, you know, the book, you know, in which he is of course
25 referring to a lot of documents and somehow summarising the report. But
1 what exactly -- then I also read some English versions of different
2 documents. So was that a report or was that, you know, English
3 translation of the book, I don't know.
4 Q. Okay. The book that I believe you are referring to is English
5 title is "Genesis of One Misconception ." Is that the book you are
6 referring to?
7 A. Yes, "Genesis of One Misconception," [B/C/S spoken].
8 Q. Now, from reading the book and reading his testimony, I take it
9 you are familiar with or at least aware of the various opinions and
10 conclusions that Dr. Ribicic has reached based on his review of the
11 documentation, his consideration of the activities of Herceg-Bosna?
12 A. Well, when I was reading his book and when I was discussing with
13 him, I lacked documents. He is a lawyer and so he was looking at it from
14 a different angle than I did. I looked into the economic documents and I
15 looked into the events from the economic point of view. So clearly when
16 we were discussing, and he's, you know, a Slovenian constitutional
17 lawyer --
18 Q. Well, he's a Slovenian constitutional judge, isn't he?
19 A. Excuse me, yes. I --
20 Q. It's a small difference to those of us who are lawyers.
21 A. -- apologise. Yes. He is a judge at the Slovene Constitutional
22 Court. A court of constitution matters in Republic of Slovenia
23 whenever being an economist never discuss back home with lawyers, you
24 know, opinions, but I was just discussing with him, okay, how did -- how
25 did he prepare for that work, what kind of, you know, issues were that
1 involved. And you know, I read his book, but you know, I missed in
2 this -- I was actually surprised after reading his book and after being,
3 you know, presented with all these documents that he had been analysing
4 so little set of documents. Especially because when I --
5 Q. Excuse me. And I should -- I should just say at this stage which
6 is still rather early in the cross-examination, it's a cross-examination.
7 Mr. Karnavas very correctly allowed you to present to the Trial Chamber
8 your report that things that you thought should be emphasized, et cetera.
9 Cross-examination is a bit different, and under the time constraints that
10 I have to operate under, I have a number of topics and issues that I need
11 to raise with you. So if I cut you off, I hope you will accept that I'm
12 not intending any disrespect, but I am going to have to insist to try to
13 bring you back to the point that I'm hoping to get to. And I think
14 between -- if we both try to work together on that we'll get there. I
15 don't want to limit you to yes or no answers, but at the same time I am
16 going to try to keep you a little more focused on my own questions.
17 A. That's fine, but I would of course like to use the opportunity to
18 explain my opinion so that the honoured judges would be able to
19 understand my yes or no, yes with but or no with no, just.
20 Q. Sure. I totally accept that. You started to talk about what it
21 was that Dr. Ribicic reviewed and it struck me there were some
22 similarity. You had very viewed the legislation of Herceg-Bosna or at
23 least the legislation that relates to issues such as those that you've
24 testified about and Dr. Ribicic did the same; that is, if you recall from
25 his testimony, he read all of the legislation of the Narodni list, the
1 Official Gazette of Herceg-Bosna. So in that respect, the universe or
2 the scope of the documentation is the same. Correct?
3 A. No. Because certainly he did not read the two of the documents
4 which I had -- at least he was not aware of them, this is the World Bank
5 study and the IMF study.
6 Q. Okay. Now, I'm talking about the Narodni list, the Official
7 Gazette of Herceg-Bosna, if you'll just stick with me, that's something
8 that you each of you have read, correct?
9 A. Yes, but the Official Gazette usually with the particular law has
10 an explanation, and then it has also if you want the reasoning why
11 particular article has been appointed as it was, and usually there are
12 also then reports by the executive authority explaining what they were
13 doing under the particular issues. But for as I have said, when I was
14 discussing this with him - and this is -- I'm just explaining to you what
15 I was discussing with him during my -- even before my decision to accept
16 the job, I tried to of course from him to find actually two questions.
17 Was he just limiting himself to the Official Gazettes or did he, you
18 know, have actually been there or visited some of the people or whether
19 he was reading something what I personally had been involved in 1994,
20 1996 which I believe he was not.
21 Q. Okay.
22 MR. KARNAVAS: If I may just make a short interjection here.
23 Counsel is suggesting that this gentleman knows exactly what Dr. Ribicic
24 read, and I don't think that there is a basis for that. In fact we don't
25 know exactly what he read. If he wants -- if he wishes to point to the
1 transcript and we can see a list of the documents, but to suggest that
2 they both read the identical same thing is rather speculative.
3 MR. STRINGER: Well, Mr. President, I'm just suggesting that both
4 of them read the Narodni list decisions of Herceg-Bosna. I don't think
5 it's terribly controversial.
6 MR. KARNAVAS: My point is I don't know whether Dr. Ribicic read
7 all of what this gentleman read, and I think it was -- at one point there
8 was an exchange where I believe it was you, Judge Trechsel, that pointed
9 out that there was a lot of material that he didn't have to read all of
10 it. Of course, that exchange dealt with presidential transcripts. I
11 mean, I vividly recall of my cross-examination of the gentleman. But my
12 point is, to get this particular witness to vouch as far as what
13 Dr. Ribicic read is calling for speculation, that's all.
14 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, I can move on.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Continue.
16 MR. STRINGER:
17 Q. Another or a similarity if you will that struck me or appeared to
18 me from your report as well as the one prepared by Dr. Ribicic was that
19 both of you appear to have conducted your analysis in phases. You
20 indicated that - and you have repeatedly referred to the three phases if
21 I've got to correctly - in respect of Herceg-Bosna, the early sort of
22 local oriented or dominated phase, if I may put it that way, you'll
23 correct me, in which there was a presidency operating in Herceg-Bosna. A
24 second phase in which there was an executive authority, the HVO. And
25 then the third phase in the latter part of 1993 and beyond where there
1 was the Croatian republic with its House of Representatives. Are you
2 aware that Dr. Ribicic also conducted an analysis that distinguished
3 between those phases in the life the Herceg-Bosna?
4 A. Here I would like to -- of course when I talk about the first
5 phase in Herceg-Bosna -- this sector or phase which is also the first
6 phase in the post-war development in all local communities. And what I
8 in other local communities throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina and whether he
9 was looking into the some of the decisions at the level of the Republic
10 of Bosnia-Herzegovina such as decree law on covering the social needs.
11 Q. But my question was about the phases and the approach of the
12 phases within Herceg-Bosna. Would you agree with me that his approach
13 was -- or your approach was similar to the one that he used? Or do you
15 A. I don't know that. I mean I know -- I don't know how he
16 undertook his analysis, I only know from what he was saying to me that he
17 received a bunch of documents and then, you know, presented this book
18 which, you know, is his report.
19 Q. Very well. Now, of course a fundamental difference between your
20 work and the work of Dr. Ribicic and you've already alluded to it is the
21 fact that your perspective here is the economic sphere whereas
22 Dr. Ribicic's analysis is in a different sphere, that being the legal and
23 constitutional aspect. Would you agree that that is a fundamental
24 difference in your approach?
25 A. Yes. I was looking into the analysis of the economic measures.
1 In the context of the overall economic environment in Bosnia-Herzegovina,
2 and I was looking into the measures and activities as an economist from
3 the economic point of view. And as I have said, I looked it from the
4 point of view of the fact that that was war economy.
5 Q. And so in reviewing all of the documents from any of the
6 municipalities or areas, you -- is it correct to say you did not consider
7 the legality of any given decree or decision issued at a municipal level
8 or a regional level, rather you, if I can put it this way, took that for
9 granted or you didn't concern yourself with the legality of the
10 legislation, rather you were more interested in simply what were they
11 doing or what were they attempting to do?
12 A. No, I would disagree with you. I started with the Yugoslav
13 constitution and the constitution of Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina which
14 was at that time valid. And I also started to look whether in the basic
15 presidency decree with the function of the law issues like war budget,
16 issues like provision for being able to issue new fiscal regulation was
17 put in place. And I have seen that in 1992 that was actually allowed. I
18 even say in the report that when I then -- to my surprise actually
19 identified these presidency decree on the law -- presidency decree with
20 the powers of the law on the so-called districts, I have seen a lot of
21 basis for legally correct measures being undertaken by first local
22 communities, and then also region-wide authorities.
23 So I did not forget about legality. But I'm not a lawyer, I'm,
24 you know, an economist, but you know, I have in my previous work, I have
25 written a couple of laws, Bank of Slovenia Law, Banking Law, Law on
1 Procurement of Slovenia Public Finance, Act of Slovenia, so I know what
2 is the notion of having, you know, the primacy of the laws and how a
3 particular law decree shall be based upon. And that's why always very
4 detailed looked into the preamble and of the explanation of a particular
6 So yes, I was not looking solely from -- I did not look at in the
7 same manner as maybe he did it, but I certainly have taken into account
8 whether a particular measure which was undertaken at the level of local
9 communities and later at the level of the wider region, had an
10 appropriate legal backing. And --
11 Q. Well, okay I think you've given us a sufficient enough answer on
13 Let me put it to you more specifically. For example in reviewing
14 a decree or a decision issued by the HVO municipality, the municipal HVO,
15 did you consider whether or not the HVO, the municipal HVO in Mostar, was
16 the lawful body to issue such a decision under the laws of Bosnia
18 A. Could you be more specific, which decision you have in mind?
19 Q. Yeah, okay. We'll get to that. I've got a number to show you --
20 a number of those to show you.
21 You're aware, are you not, sir, that Dr. Ribicic, based on his
22 review of the Herceg-Bosna legislation drew a distinction between that
23 legislation and the laws and the constitution in Slovenia in respect of
24 the treatment of minorities?
25 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, I'm going to object to the line of
1 questioning. First of all, we are not here -- this gentleman was not
2 called here in order to either support or attack Dr. Ribicic's report,
3 which if we all recall relied extensively on one presidential transcript
4 of the 27th December 1991. Dr. Ribicic has nothing to do with this
5 particular report. And what he says about Slovenia or anything else is
6 irrelevant. And it's well beyond the scope of the direct examination or
7 the purpose of this particular report. So on the grounds of relevancy, I
8 would ask for a ruling at this point in time.
9 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, if I can respond, the witness --
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] On the relevance, what is your
12 MR. STRINGER: The witness has in his report and throughout his
13 testimony made reference to the constitutional role of municipalities in
14 Bosnia-Herzegovina under the constitution, in times of war, in times of
15 peace. Now, he has also obviously made a number of conclusions and
16 opinions based upon the activities of the municipalities. The relevance
17 of -- or the weight of those opinions is based not only on what he knows
18 and what he says, but also what he doesn't say and what he does not
19 consider. And it's our submission that the weight of this to be given
20 this report is effected significantly by the factor or the question
21 whether or not the witness considered the legality or the lawfulness of
22 the bodies that are issuing the various decrees. If they are unlawful
23 bodies that are issuing the various decrees, then that is a point that
24 bears upon ultimately the conclusions that he is reaching in this report.
25 MR. KARNAVAS: If I may briefly reply, where is it in the
1 transcript or in the report where Dr. Ribicic looked at the constitution
2 and particularly to the provisions, to the provisions that this gentleman
3 cites in his report as a basis of what was happening all over in all the
4 municipalities, Muslim or Croat dominated municipalities in
5 Bosnia-Herzegovina. There's nothing. Now we are trying to bootstrap
6 somehow Dr. Ribicic, who was discredited in my opinion both as a scholar,
7 as a judge, or as a witness, in order to and to somehow support his
8 testimony by cross-examining an economist. It's nonsense.
9 MR. STRINGER: I'm not asking him to support or deny or to deny
10 the testimony. What I'm trying to do is to simply to draw the
11 distinction between what this witness has looked at and what Dr. Ribicic
12 has looked at and how their conclusions may then diverge on the basis of
13 their different roles.
14 MR. KARNAVAS: But there's -- Your Honour, it's not a dispute
15 that one was a constitutional quote unquote expert. Here we have an
16 economist. They have looked at it from two different angles. How can
17 you possibly have now cross-examination and say, Well, a constitutional
18 expert looked at it this way and you are not. That wasn't the purpose of
19 the report. So I don't see how you can mix apples and oranges.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stringer, the purpose of
21 the witness's report is a report based on economic considerations that
22 turned on the basis of what I understood that seek to demonstrate that in
23 place the players on the ground were faced with such a situation that
24 prompted them to take a series of measures via decrees, via text of law
25 that had consequences possibly political but at any rate human on the
1 fate of the inhabitants of these localities, and on that basis I'm given
2 to understand that the Defence counsel via this expert witness seeks to
3 demonstrate that contrary to your argument on the joint criminal
4 enterprise that there was another approach which the reasons of survival,
5 economic, et cetera, that's what the Defence seeks to bring out.
6 You are now cross-examining it and trying to -- via the Ribicic
7 expert to claim that this expert witness has reached conclusions without
8 taking account of constitutional, legal, or other data. You are both in
9 a different area; Defence in the economic sphere, now you are returning
10 to the legal sphere. Put your questions and the Judges will determine.
11 What counts, in my view, is what the witness will answer to your
12 questions as to know what is within or without the scope. We'll see that
13 at the end of the day. Please proceed.
14 MR. STRINGER: Well, I think I can -- I'll try to wrap this up
15 with one last question, which is this:
16 Q. As counsel has pointed out and as you've already indicated there
17 was a constitutional analysis done by Dr. Ribicic, one by you done in the
18 economic sphere. Are we to understand that in your view because of your
19 background, because of your focus, your report and your findings are
20 based strictly on the economic sphere, without regard to the
21 constitutional legal framework conducted by Dr. Ribicic?
22 MR. KARNAVAS: Objection to the form of the question. And how
23 can he possibly answer that question? What -- I mean, this is total
24 nonsense. Look -- Your Honours, read the question.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, your expert
1 witness is someone, and it's not the first time, who has held important
2 responsibilities. He is currently Chief of Staff to the government.
3 Well, as Chief of Staff, obviously has minimal constitutional and
4 political knowledge. So if the question is incomprehensible to him, well
5 the expert -- your expert witness will say, I can't answer that, but if
6 he can answer that please let him answer.
7 MR. KARNAVAS: The question is really, if I could use one of the
8 often phrases, how often do -- when did you stop beating your wife type
9 of a question, how can you possibly answer that question. Again, we are
10 mixing apples and oranges, we are not here to attack Dr. Ribicic. We
11 have done that already. We are not doing it through Mr. Cvikl. So I
12 don't understand the basis of this question. And Your Honour, with all
13 due respect, I'm not here for my good looks. Occasionally I'm called
14 upon to make an objection.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, I understand the
16 question. Perhaps the expert can't answer in which case he will say I
17 can't answer. If he can answer he'll answer, if not he won't answer.
18 THE WITNESS: Will you please repeat the question.
19 MR. STRINGER:
20 Q. Let me put it to you this way, I'll try to rephrase it in a way
21 that is perhaps is less controversial.
22 You are not a lawyer, you are not a constitutional lawyer. You
23 have no comment on Dr. Ribicic's report from a substantive point of view
24 in terms of the conclusions and opinions; is that correct.
25 A. No, I have my own view on that report.
1 Q. Okay.
2 A. But I have not been asked, I have not been asked by -- to do this
3 analysis to make a view on that report.
4 Q. Right. And that's because you are not qualified to do so;
6 A. I don't know why I was asked to present the economic measures and
7 developments and within that I looked into the legislation. And I looked
8 into in the legislation from the point of view of what local communities
9 were either authorised to do it or they have done that in the
10 circumstances prevailing.
11 Q. And you are not qualified to look into Dr. Ribicic's report;
13 A. I'm qualified to look into it because I was surprised, surprised
14 in his report, and his analysis to look into documents for which now I
15 will quote, he had said, Everything on the outside looks perfect, but
16 behind there were some agenda. And I have not seen that agenda. Because
17 I was looking into the report from an economic point of view. If there
18 would be an agenda, there would be no borders established.
19 Q. All right.
20 A. There would be no borders established on the southern border of
21 what at that time was the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna. And that's
22 why I have asked Mr. Ribicic when we were discussing that well before he
23 came here and well after his book was already published whether he had
24 looked in what the IMF and the World Bank were finding in the 1994, 1996
25 period, and did he not confirm that to me. So I was quite surprised that
1 he had not looked into these documents because those documents explain
2 that what we have seen in 1994 to 1996 period in these very --
3 Q. Excuse me, we know what you have seen --
4 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, I'm going to object. He is entitled
5 to the full answer of that question. It was open ended and he should be
6 aware of that. Now, he has asked about Dr. Ribicic, he is getting it
7 now. He is entitled to that entire answer.
8 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, I asked if he was qualified. He
9 thinks he's qualified. I'll take that answer.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Stringer.
11 Mr. Stringer, let the witness complete -- please let him complete his
13 THE WITNESS: Thank you. So I was quite surprised in discussing
14 with him that he had not looked into some of the documents that the World
15 Bank and the IMF prepared and he is describing that period. And that he
16 had not looked into the fact that the banking system, the financial
17 system, had been established there, and that he had not looked into the
18 fact what was happening particular areas under the authority of the local
19 municipality with the Bosniak majority. And that's all what I could say
20 about this book. This book has been for me a surprise. Even before I
21 was start looking into document because it did not recall what I've seen
22 when I visited this country in 1994, 1996. And what I've seen there,
23 I've seen three different economies. A vibrant economy in the
24 Herceg-Bosna, in Tuzla
25 of the central government authorities, those measures that I was part of
1 preparing when I was economist during the independence of time. And
2 Mr. Ribicic should be aware of this, that all of those measures that
3 were -- have been undertaken and should be undertaken were not undertaken
4 by the central government authorities of Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina
5 so they had this difficult economic situation.
6 And as I have explained yesterday to The Honours here, if a war
7 in Slovenia
8 or 9 months, and we would see in the eastern part of Slovenia free
9 territory, and the free territory would have to of course ensure economic
10 survival of the population in this very area, the type of the measures
11 would be very similar. And that would be of course completely valid
12 because according to the Slovene constitution, according to the Bosnia
13 constitution, according to the Yugoslav constitution, that's what a
14 socio-political community of Opstina were authorised to do this.
15 Q. Thank you. Now, Mr. Cvikl, in your report you indicated that the
16 purpose of the analysis is to hopefully provide the Judges with an
17 understanding appreciation of the HVO's efforts and intentions in the
18 economic sphere in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Now, in attempting to inform the
19 Judges of the HVO's efforts and intentions, it's true, is it not, first
20 of all, that you were not in Bosnia-Herzegovina during the war. You were
21 not there during 1991, 1992, or 1993; correct?
22 A. Well, with all due respect, when I was there in --
23 Q. Excuse me, I'm asking you, it's true, isn't it, that you were not
24 in Bosnia-Herzegovina during 1991, 1992 or 1993? That's a yes or no.
25 A. In 1991 to 1993 period I was not there, but I was in the region,
1 I was working with the World Bank on countries in the area, and I was
2 informed a lot of what was happening in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
3 Q. You were living in Washington DC
5 A. Yes, I lived in Washington DC
6 in the region.
7 Q. And you were in Bosnia-Herzegovina during 1991?
8 A. Early 1991, yes.
9 Q. Where?
10 A. Well, this was still part before the independence of Yugoslavia
11 and we were -- while we were trying to organise --
12 Q. I didn't ask you what you were doing, I just asked you where you
14 A. I believe it was Sarajevo
16 Q. What about 1992?
17 A. 1992 and 1993 I was not in -- physically in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
18 Q. Okay. And if I understand correctly, 1994 you were doing work in
20 yet safe to go into Bosnia-Herzegovina?
21 A. We were not able to travel in Bosnia-Herzegovina but we were
22 meeting authorities from Bosnia-Herzegovina coming to Warsaw Rezda
23 [phoen] mission with documents and presenting the situation in
25 Q. All right. So in 1992 and 1993 then, you were based or living in
1 Washington, DC
3 A. I was an economist with the World Bank. I was not hired
4 consultant, I was regular staff. I was elected in the generation 1991
5 young professionals, one of 32 among 5.000 candidates, so I was the what
6 is called regular staff of the World Bank and I was not one of the
7 consultants coming in and out, yes.
8 Q. You -- were you at this time studying, I saw in your CV that you
9 were studying or at one point in a PhD programme at Florida State
10 University, when was that?
11 A. That was 1989 [Realtime transcript read in error "1999"].
12 Q. Did you ever complete your studies or obtain your PhD?
13 A. Well, the system, the Yugoslav --
14 Q. Excuse me, that's a yes or no?
15 A. May I finish?
16 Q. Did you attain a PhD from Florida
17 studying for is my question?
18 A. My studies at the Florida State University
19 in agreement with between the National Bank of Yugoslavia and the Florida
20 State University
21 studies, the PhD studies, were the basis for me in the 1990 obtain what
22 is known in Slovene so-called Skony [phoen] system, the postgraduate
23 studies, the degree called Master of Science. Is that a PhD in American
24 standards or is this PhD in European Bologna, that is a dispute that goes
25 on for years. But yes, I took at the Florida State University
1 so-called doctor -- doctor studies at the so-called Department of Social
2 Science and Economics, and I was there preparing a model on the --
3 Q. Excuse me --
4 A. May I finish?
5 Q. No, I am sorry you can't finish. I asked you a simple question
6 about when you studied, when you obtained your PhD. I'm sorry, and with
7 all respect Mr. Cvikl, I don't have time and frankly we are not
8 interested in what you were working on when you were at Florida State
10 A. I'm trying -- I'm trying to explain to you that the six months --
11 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Mr. Cvikl.
12 THE WITNESS: Yes?
13 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry, I'm giving you a little speech which
14 I have given to numerous witness, and I apologise to all others in the
15 courtroom who have heard this many times. You are in an uncomfortable
16 situation. I have been in that situation once too, so I can really
17 sympathize. According to the rules in cross-examination counsel, in this
18 case for the Prosecution, can ask you questions which are pointed to a
19 yes or no answer. And you may feel the need and the desire to comment
20 rather than say yes or no. But Mr. Karnavas has, I don't know how many
21 times he repeated when he cross-examined that his questions had the
22 answer yes, no, I don't remember, I forgotten, something like that. I
23 don't know. And this is a rule of the game which is very tough on you.
24 But I am sure that you are a man of great knowledge and understanding and
25 I would invite you kindly to comply with this rule even if it is
1 sometimes disagreeable and you would like to explain more. Because as
2 Mr. Stringer says, his time indeed is limited.
3 MR. KARNAVAS: One clarification for the record, Your Honour, I
4 believe it should say on line 16 page 61, "1989" as opposed to "1999."
5 Unless I'm incorrect and perhaps that could be clarified as far as when
6 he attended. The transcript said 1999, I believe that's incorrect.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I have a follow-up
8 question. After Mr. Stringer's question on Washington, you were then in
9 the World Bank, you said that you went to the -- you spent 160 days in
10 the area but you were not there all the time, that you spent half of your
11 time in Washington
12 question, there is a more general one. Can one draft a report when one
13 has not been in situ? So based on that, those who work at the World
14 Bank, you did work at the World Bank, today somebody is working is based
15 in Washington
16 that person is not in Sudan
17 documents so that if he works on that country, the work he is about to do
18 for the World Bank should be faultless. Is that the way it works or not?
19 THE WITNESS: Yes, the way the things works in the World Bank you
20 are an economist for a particular country, you collect and you work all
21 the time on that particular country, either by travelling to country or
22 by following through the available information, information that should
23 be provided to you by authorities on that country. And that exactly what
24 I was doing from 1994 where I was appointed economist for
25 Bosnia-Herzegovina and actually is the first World Bank economist because
1 before we did not undertake any economic work on Bosnia-Herzegovina.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So as I understand it you were
3 the number one, the world expert on this because there was never anyone
4 before you and you were the first, is that the way things should be
6 THE WITNESS: Following the collapse of former Yugoslavia
7 were six new members that inherited the seat of Yugoslavia and I was
8 first. The first World Bank economist for the former Yugoslavia republic
9 of Macedonia
10 reports were prepared but most important the first economic recovery
11 loan, I was asked by then the head of the regional department, and he had
12 decided that among all economists that he had in his team, he would ask
13 me to be first World Bank economist for Bosnia-Herzegovina, most likely
14 for two reasons, for the good work which I did for Macedonia, from my
15 past experience in Slovenia
16 confer and read documents that others only need yet to be translated for
17 them, and that's how we started the work in 1994, 1996 period. And that
18 work I believe continued for the World Bank point of view successfully
19 and for that and other -- I also got the World Bank award for excellence.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, I hope that this question
21 shed some light on the issue.
22 MR. STRINGER: Actually, Mr. President it caused me to go back to
23 the World Bank report which is 1D 02967, the one dated June 1996.
24 Q. I asked you about this earlier, Mr. Cvikl, the acknowledgements.
25 Now, in respect of this report at least, first sentence indicates the
1 report, this is page Roman numeral vi on the World Bank report, 1D 02967.
2 Now, in respect of this report, sir, it appears to me that your capacity
3 here was as a consultant as opposed to a staff member of the World Bank;
4 is that correct?
5 A. No, it's not. The centre says the bank staff and consultants
6 included and then it goes by alphabetical orders, Sebnem Akkaya, she was
7 consultant; Emily Andrews, consultant; and Michael Borish, World Bank
8 staff; myself, World Bank staff; William Fox, I believe he was World Bank
9 staff; et cetera; and Sweder van Wijnbergen was World Bank staff, now he
10 was then the state secretary here in the Ministry of Finance of the
13 Q. You need to try to speak more slowly, especially when you are
15 A. I will do that.
16 Q. You can put that aside, Mr. Cvikl. Getting back to what I was
17 asking about before about -- you are not being present in the
18 Bosnia-Herzegovina or in the former Yugoslavia
19 A. No, it's not correct. I was in former Yugoslavia because I was
20 often travelling to the former Yugoslavian Republic
21 was at that time the territory --
22 Q. You're right.
23 A. -- of Yugoslavia
24 a lot to Croatia
25 Q. Your personal knowledge of the efforts and intentions of the HVO,
1 which is what you address here, in fact you have none, isn't that
2 correct? Everything that you know about the HVO, its efforts and
3 intentions as set out in your report is based upon the things you've
4 read, the things you've been told?
5 A. No, it's based on the visits to the region as well. In the 1995
6 and in the 1996 still practically, just before the Dayton agreement when
7 we were travelling there we were meeting authorities of HVO. I was
8 meeting -- sorry, I was meeting HVO Croatian Republic
9 customs officers all the way up to May -- sorry, March of 1996 at the
10 border crossings.
11 Q. Your knowledge about the efforts, intentions of the HVO during
12 1992 and 1993 is based upon things you read and things you were told by
13 others; correct?
14 A. Mostly that is based on the opinion which the team of the World
15 Bank and the IMF have been provided with in the 1994, 1996 period when we
16 were able to have direct meetings with the authorities, and on the basis
17 of the documents not just issued by the HVO, but also issued by the
18 central government authorities of Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina
19 local municipalities in the Muslim or Bosniak controls and the Croat
20 majority area and on the basis of interviews which I have had.
21 THE INTERPRETER: Could the microphones be brought -- put closer.
22 Thank you.
23 MR. STRINGER:
24 Q. So again, what you know about the efforts and intentions of the
25 HVO is based upon the things you read and the things you were told
1 because you weren't there; correct?
2 A. I would repeat again, in 1995, 1996 --
3 Q. Excuse me you don't need to repeat your answer if you are just
4 going to say again what you've already said. I tried to ask you a yes or
5 no question. Everything you know about the efforts and intentions of the
6 HVO from 1992 and 1993 is based upon the things you read and the things
7 you were told by others; correct?
8 A. And the things which I observed by myself during visits in the
10 Q. Very well. And the same holds true, does it not, for your
11 statements and your conclusions to the extent they are based on the fact
12 that the central government in Sarajevo
13 functioning? What you say about that and the extent to which the central
14 government was cut off, your knowledge of that is based again on things
15 you've read, things you've been told by others, because you were not
16 there and you don't know that personally based on your own experience?
17 A. No, it's not true. My personal experience of my first travel to
19 proof how difficult was to get in and out of Sarajevo.
20 Q. And the extent to which your report is based upon 1992, 1993,
21 that your conclusions there are again based upon what you've read and
22 what you've been told by others because you weren't there and you did not
23 experience that yourself; correct?
24 A. In 1992 and 1993 it is correct.
25 Q. Okay. You don't have any personal knowledge about the extent to
1 which that changed, say, from April of 1992 at the beginning of the war
2 in Bosnia-Herzegovina throughout the remainder of 1992 and throughout
3 1993? You don't know to what extent that Sarajevo's being cut off may
4 have changed or may have been altered based upon the various events that
5 were taking place; correct?
6 A. I don't understand your question.
7 Q. Your report is based upon the premise that the Sarajevo central
8 government had collapsed, was cut off from the rest of the country and
9 could not operate. Are we to understand that that premise remains in
10 effect throughout the entire period of time of your report, throughout
11 all of 1992 and 1993?
12 A. Even at the time of 1995 when we were first coming into
13 Bosnia-Herzegovina, we have not seen institutions up and running that
14 were important or that should be there and would enable the control to be
15 effective for effective implementation of the measures by the central
16 government. I have not seen in 1995 operational republican-wide Social
17 Accounting Office, banking institutions, insurance institutions, at the
18 central government level. We have only seen when we came there in 1995
19 situation where we could not even use Bosnian dinar in Sarajevo itself
20 but we had to use Deutschemark.
21 Q. All right.
22 A. We could not transfer funds into Sarajevo --
23 Q. Excuse me. I'm asking you about your knowledge of how cut off
24 central government was, I'll ask you about currency later.
25 A. I'm talking about -- well, the central government --
1 Q. Let me ask you another question. Based on what you've just said
2 then, is it your testimony, sir, that in your view, the central
3 government in Sarajevo
4 just as cut off from the rest of the country in 1995 as it was in 1992?
5 A. Well, I would from my experience up to the point that KFOR or
6 IFOR at that time.
7 Q. S4.
8 A. It was SFOR IFOR -- I believe it was IFOR.
9 MR. KARNAVAS: SFOR is later.
10 THE WITNESS: I believe that it was up to the time that IFOR
11 actually entered into Sarajevo
12 quite cut off, and I will explain this: That in February 1996, we could
13 not rely on the central government authority to assure protection of the
14 international donor's conference by the government. We had to ask IFOR
15 to undertake these measures. So effective government institutions were
16 not up and running. We could not travel. We are Hadzici [phoen] just
17 with the support of the central government authorities we had to ask
18 IFOR. So the institutions that were available to the republican
19 institutions as far as I'm concerned were even in the February 1996 were
20 not in control of the whole territory.
21 MR. STRINGER:
22 Q. All right and do you know to what extent that level of control
23 was different than was the situation in 1992?
24 A. Well, since I was looking into the economic issues, certainly the
25 payment system, the payment system, the social accounting office, the
1 collection of taxes, tax administration, the monetary system, the
2 banking, the financial system, and basis for operations of enterprises at
3 the -- throughout whole Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina
4 throughout the whole Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina at that time was
5 not possible in 1995. Of course, it must be better than it was 1992, but
6 this Federation-wide institutions were not yet there.
7 I would like to just tell that even the exchange of the funds
8 between the Social Accounting Offices was happening immediately by cash
9 and that was invention by the IMF economic team and by the World Bank
10 long after we came into the country.
11 Q. Okay.
12 A. So --
13 Q. Thank you. That is enough unless the Judges want to hear more.
14 Mr. Cvikl, do you know to what extent Sarajevo remained cut off
15 from Herceg-Bosna throughout 1992 and 1993?
16 A. From my understanding there was a possibility for the people, and
17 that's what was explained to me by the people that came out to -- out of
19 people going via tunnel and then later via Mount of Igman to the area
20 south of Sarajevo
21 actually brought documents, and I would just like here to explain a small
22 detail. They brought documents in rucksacks, in carry bags, and since
23 there was water in that tunnel, when we met them in Sarajevo, in Warsaw
24 they asked for iron in order to with iron get water out of the documents
25 because otherwise the documents were -- so there were difficulties for
1 central government authorities to even depart Sarajevo, and I don't know
2 how much they were really in control of Herceg-Bosna or the other way
4 Q. All right. So based on what you've said, your knowledge --
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let's go back to the 1992, 1993
7 period because the Prosecutor was asking you what your knowledge was of
8 that period. It is important also to know what you know exactly.
9 I confess that I did not know what was happening in
10 Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1992 and 1993, but unlike me, you, you were a
11 member of the former Yugoslavia
12 westerner who didn't know what was happening then. When you were in
14 former Yugoslavia
15 newspapers, were you interested in that or did that escape you
17 A. I was very much informed about that. As I have said, I have been
18 half a year, at least a half working days of the year outside Washington
19 mostly working in Macedonia
20 newspapers back from Slovenia
21 reports what is going on. Plus I was visiting Bosnia-Herzegovina
22 extensively before departing to Washington
23 to do in Slovenia
24 happened in two-weeks war and information on the military situation, and
25 these facts of, you know, how many of the country is occupied, et cetera,
1 were for me an indication that there is a war economy out there as
2 confirmed later by the documents which we had received on the energy
3 collapse, 90 percent drop of industrial production, et cetera.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] At the World Bank for the
5 people working, the experts working for the World Bank, do they have some
6 kind of press review or press releases from news agencies, AFB, or other
7 that is would be distributed to the offices and to the staff members so
8 that per region the staff members could read the information? Is that
9 the way it was working then?
10 THE WITNESS: That type of information I was getting -- some of
11 the information I was getting by myself through the newspaper which I was
12 receiving. Some of them I was getting via the Slovenian embassy. And
13 then there are a lot of different press releases by the, you know, press
14 office of the World Bank, plus we were all at that time very much reading
15 what was Oxford Analytica, doing Oxford Analytica doing on that. So we
16 were reading all this, you know, news from the region. And I being an
17 economist in the Europe
18 were responsible for the whole Yugoslavia
19 as they were developing and we knew that in 1992, 1993 situation was such
20 that we could not even start the economic work on Bosnia-Herzegovina
21 despite the fact that we knew that country was not paying dues on the
22 World Bank loans and that the problem for us is piling up.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One last question. You were
24 working in the section Europe C 2, did your head of service have
25 organised theme-related meetings on the relevant issues, for example, for
1 the former Yugoslavia
2 the situation be it the economic or military situation? Is that the way
3 you work at the World Bank?
4 THE WITNESS: Yes, that's the way we -- the team that work in
6 The team working on Croatia
7 team, and the team which works on Macedonia, we were working closely
8 together. And especially the team working on Croatia which was a kind of
9 working closely with us was of help when we started the work on
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, I have to stop asking
12 questions, we could go on but maybe there are other things to do.
13 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President, I'm told it's time for
14 the break. I can continue, it's as you wish.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] For 10 minutes, you know, once
16 we are right in full swing.
17 MR. STRINGER: Very well.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We've been working for close to
19 2 hours. I mean, time flies, I didn't notice. Maybe we should have a
20 break now for 20 minutes.
21 --- Recess taken at 5:22 p.m.
22 --- On resuming at 5.43 p.m.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We are back in session. Before
24 I ask Mr. Stringer to proceed, the Trial Chamber just learned a few
25 minutes ago that the Petkovic Defence has just filed a 12-page request
1 for review or alternatively a certification for appeal of our oral
2 decision of the 12th of January. The Trial Chamber therefore request the
3 parties to express their views by Friday. The Trial Chamber will hand
4 down an oral or written decision prior to the beginning of the
5 cross-examination of Mr. Davor Marijan. His
6 examination-in-chief is scheduled to start on Monday at 2.15. So please
7 do file your positions by Friday. We are going to continue now.
8 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President.
9 Q. Mr. Cvikl, I want to take you back to your testimony from
10 yesterday, the 13th of January, you were responding to a question from
11 Judge Antonetti, and you said, and this is on page 35260 starting at line
13 "I have said earlier, Your Honours, regarding the presidency
14 of Bosnia
15 Bosnia-Herzegovina decree on districts, we will get to it. Maybe it
16 would be appropriate to put in the preamble also that this decree, but
17 then of course that decree puts local communities together in a different
18 manner than was done by the Croatian community of Herceg-Bosna, and that
19 the way the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna local community were put
20 together was really depending on what was the -- you know, what were the
21 military activities took place."
22 And I want to ask you a couple of questions about your views in
23 terms of the selection or the establishment of the local communities of
24 the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, and what I'd like to do is I'm
25 going to show you a couple of documents, take you to some parts of them.
1 We won't talk about them, and then after we've looked at both documents,
2 then we'll be able to have our discussion.
3 So the first document I'd like to take you to, Mr. Cvikl, is
4 P 00070, and that is in -- it's in the separate documents you have there
5 in front of you. Now, 00070, this is the conclusions of a joint meeting
6 of the Herzegovina
7 It's dated the 12th of November 1991 at the end. You see it appears over
8 the names of Mate Boban and Daria Koric, and these are the conclusions of
9 the joint meeting of these two regional communities. It's rather early,
10 12 November 1991
11 A. No, this is the first time I see this document.
12 Q. Okay. You'll see under the conclusions, there's a first
13 paragraph, and this states that:
14 "These two regional communities remain of the opinion stated in
15 the conclusions adopted at earlier meetings that the Croatian people of
16 this region and all of Bosnia-Herzegovina still support the unanimously
17 accepted orientation and conclusions adopted in agreements with president
18 Franjo Tudjman in June of 1991 in Zagreb
19 And then it continues:
20 "On the basis of the conclusions of the above-mentioned meetings
21 and in agreement in Zagreb
22 see are referred to there.
23 "These two regional communities have unanimously decided that the
24 Croatian people in Bosnia and Herzegovina must finally embrace a
25 determined enact of policy which will realise our eternal dream, a common
1 Croatian state."
2 And then it continues:
3 "In order that historic goal may soon also be a reality, these
4 two regional communities ask that legal and political documents be
5 prepared and published proclaiming a Croatian banovina in
6 Bosnia-Herzegovina and a holding of a referendum on joining the Republic
7 of Croatia
9 The next document then - and we'll come back to both these to
10 talk about them - the next document is P 00302, and that is in binder
11 number 1.
12 While you were reaching for that Mr. Cvikl, I can just inform
13 you, this is a decision on establishing the Croatian Community of
14 Herceg-Bosna, and so --
15 A. P 00302.
16 Q. Correct. Yeah. And we've all seen this document. I take it
17 you've seen this document also?
18 A. Yes, I've seen the document.
19 Q. So are you familiar with that one, 302, are you familiar with
20 that or do we need to walk through it a little bit? I mean, you've
21 discussed it in your report. It's among the documents that were provided
22 to you?
23 A. Yes, I've seen this document, yeah.
24 Q. Okay. All right. Now, the third thing I want to take you to,
25 and then we'll talk about this. It's not a document, it's some
1 testimony, and I'm going to read it to you. It's a testimony of another
2 person who testified in this case, and his name was Zoran Buntic, and
3 Mr. Buntic was the head of the justice department of the Croatian
4 Community of Herceg-Bosna. And he testified in this trial and I'm going
5 to read you just a little excerpt from his testimony. It's on page 30870
6 of the transcript. And this is a question that I put to him:
7 "Given that the Croatian people in Bosnia-Herzegovina were a
8 constituent nation, given the demographic trends in which their numbers
9 were diminishing, is it your view that the Croatian people should have
10 had an area that they could govern themselves so that they wouldn't have
11 to be worried about being outvoted all the time by another group, by
12 another constituent nation?"
13 And his answer was:
14 "That's correct. I answered such questions in the course of my
15 evidence and I entirely stand" --
16 THE INTERPRETER: Thank you for slowing down.
17 MR. STRINGER:
18 Q. -- and he goes on to continue, he qualifies that as having been
19 his own personal opinion. But what we were talking about there was
20 reference or was languages that's found in 302, the decision establishing
21 Herceg-Bosna in the preamble or the reasons section in which they cite
22 the unacceptability of the unitary state model in multi-ethnic societies.
23 That's about halfway down the third paragraph on the section on reasons,
24 do you see that?
25 "Pursuant to the unacceptability of the unitary state model
1 in multi-ethnic societies."
2 All right. Now, based on that, this is what I have to ask you,
3 did you consider in your report, because as you've indicated, you were
4 attempting again from an economic point of view to determine what were
5 the efforts and the intentions of the HVO. My question is whether you
6 considered the possibility that the political leadership of Herceg-Bosna
7 actually had another objective, a political objective, which was to
8 create a territory within Bosnia-Herzegovina that it could attach to
10 which would be organised in a separate way, a different way than this
11 unitary state model that was in effect in Bosnia-Herzegovina at the time?
12 MR. KARNAVAS: Let me object to the question, at least at one
13 predicate. At that time Bosnia-Herzegovina was not a unitary state.
14 That was Alija Izetbegovic's dream, to make it a unitary state. It was
15 based on the constitution. You had three constituent nations as well as
16 other national minorities living in Bosnia-Herzegovina. So it was never
17 ever, ever a unitary state at that point in time. So if the question
18 could be rephrased, I have no objection. But that last part is a fact
19 that is not in evidence and is totally historically incorrect.
20 MR. KOVACIC: If I may, Your Honour, if I may.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment. Well, your
22 objection has been recorded, but what you say, Mr. Karnavas, is in the
23 text, so you are raising an objection on something that is enshrined in
24 the text. I mean, I don't mind objections.
25 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, Bosnia-Herzegovina was not a unitary
1 state. Alija Izetbegovic was trying to make it into one. The whole
2 point of the war was because all of the other republics did not want to
3 have a unitary state. I think the gentleman can answer the question, but
4 I think to suggest that at that point in time the constitution had
5 changed to the effect that the Croats from Bosnia-Herzegovina no longer
6 enjoyed a constituent status as well as the Serbs or the Muslims as they
7 were known back then or Bosniaks is incorrect. You had three constituent
8 nations in the constitution.
9 MR. STRINGER: This is a speech, Mr. President.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We've had this debate before.
11 All this has been recorded, the judges are aware of the problem. Let's
12 move ahead.
13 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Mr. Stringer, you ought to withdraw the words
14 that was in effect, because there you go beyond what's in the text here.
15 MR. STRINGER: All right.
16 MR. KOVACIC: Your Honour, if I may, there is another problem as
17 well. It is not that the question is somehow out of the frame of real
18 facts on the ground which Mr. Karnavas said. But it is also highly
19 speculative. It is -- the actually the witness is asked to speculate.
20 The question, the major parties or which might stay within
21 Bosnia-Herzegovina. He doesn't know that. He, as he testified, he was
22 looking at the document to see whether there is from the aspect of
23 economical and fiscal expert. So he is not interested in other possible
24 explanations. The Prosecutor should be interested in other possible
25 explanations of reasons, but that should have been done before the trial,
1 not now, before the indictment. I don't think that this witness is
2 expert --
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kovacic, if the witness
4 can't answer, he will say so, and if is he speculating he will say so as
5 well. So basically at first glance there's no reason to believe that the
6 witness would speculate. And if he does, we'll see that. The witness is
7 supposed to give exact answers to exact questions. If the question is
8 speculative, that may happen, then he will answer speculatively to a
9 speculative question. Go ahead, Mr. Stringer.
10 MR. STRINGER:
11 Q. You've heard all the objections and the comments, I'll try to
12 rephrase my question again.
13 I'll take you back to the testimony of Mr. Buntic. He agreed
14 that -- in his view the Croatian people should have an area that they
15 could govern themselves so they that wouldn't have to worry about being
16 outvoted by another group. The document from 12 November 1991 talks
17 about declaration of banovina area and joining that territory to Croatia
18 I'll ask the question again. Hypothetically, if those indeed were
19 political objectives of the leadership of Herceg-Bosna, you did not
20 consider that in performing your analysis; is that correct?
21 A. May I answer without interruption. First I would like of course
22 saying that the preamble in the decision on the establishment of the
23 Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, the way I read it is true. Pursuant
24 to the unacceptability of the unitarian state model in a multi-ethnic
25 society they have decided to do something. Here I would like of course
1 first to say that because of the unacceptability of the unitarian state
2 model that was supposed to be at the whole level of Yugoslavia the
3 country collapsed. That is number one.
4 Second, I would hypothetically speculate that if they really
5 wanted to do what you are suggesting, they should do nothing. They
6 should simply sit back and there should be no activity either by the
7 local communities or by the region-wide communities because there would
8 be no borders and there would be, as I've said yesterday, economically
9 the territory of the Croatian majority areas economically sooner or later
10 be economically part of the wider region so --
11 Q. I actually asked you a different question which was, if in fact
12 this was a political objective, you did not consider that possibility in
13 making your report; is that correct or am I mistaken?
14 A. Well, my report is analysis of the economic measures within the
15 economic environment that was at that time in place.
16 Q. Right.
17 A. I have seen that economically speaking there was 50 or 100 small
18 local economic areas were to be created. These recognition was a
19 recognition even by the presidency of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
20 that's why they issued this decree on the districts, and economically
21 there was a need to reconnect those independent economic areas for the
22 benefit of the population. And I have not been looking into the economic
23 measures from the point of view what would be then, if you want, ultimate
24 intention. But I would of course as an economist argue and also argue on
25 the basis of what were experienced in the region that if you want to
1 integrate this territory into the Republic of Croatia
2 do nothing but would let economic integration to take place. And that
3 would be easily done, it would be much more difficult and it was much
4 more difficult to do the opposite. To create borders, to create
5 schooling systems in the -- this territory, to create all these measures
6 that enable the survival of the people.
7 Q. Okay. So I have your answer, which is as you've indicated you
8 have not been looking into the economic measures from the point of view
9 that would be the ultimate intentions. So I got your answer on that?
10 A. I have looked at the economic measures from the point of view of
11 analysing the economic environment for the war economy.
12 Q. All right. So if the intensions or part of the intentions were
13 to establish some form of separate political entity in the territory of
14 Herceg-Bosna, right, wouldn't it be necessary to pass laws, enactments on
15 issues, such as finance, tax, customs, all of the things that you've
16 looked at?
17 A. For region-wide authorities to undertake economic-wide measures
18 which of course were needed because the situation in local communities
19 were of a different situation, undertaking those measures was necessary.
20 But that does not mean, right, that quote, that once they've done that,
21 what would be the next step. What I would like of course to say in this
22 respect is the following: I have seen and I was surprised of seeing the
23 decree on the district which was for --
24 Q. Excuse me, I'm going to respectfully cut you off there. I think
25 you've given a sufficient answer unless the Judges would like for you to
1 continue, and we'll be talking about the districts later in my
3 Isn't it possible that all of the legislation you looked at which
4 you concluded was necessary to fill in the void, if you will, caused by
5 the war in the situation, isn't it possible that such legislation is
6 equally necessary to the establishment, the political establishment or
7 the establishment of a separate political entity?
8 A. No, because to establish a separate political entity within the
9 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, right, the way it has been undertaken,
10 the way I see those measures, these were the measures that were
11 undertaken in the period of war and the imminent threat of war. I have
12 not seen these measures that would be based on, I don't know, Republic of
14 measures. I have seen those measures based upon the need to ensure the
15 survival of the population on the territory in the same manner as I have
16 seen those measures undertaken in the local communities of the Bosniaks
17 majority where they have undertaken similar measures.
18 Q. So you rule out the possibility that the legislation of
19 Herceg-Bosna could equally be intended to provide the legal framework for
20 the establishment of a separate political entity?
21 A. What is a separate political entity within the Republic of
22 Bosnia-Herzegovina would depend on what would be the constitutional
23 structure of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
24 Q. I'm asking you about an entity such as is envisioned by the
25 gentleman who wrote this -- the joint conclusions, for example, that we
1 looked at. In order to establish that state that would be linked
2 according to that to Croatia
3 laws if there's going to be a break; isn't that correct?
4 A. Which gentleman in which statement? Because you mentioned a
5 couple of them, so I would just want to be sure.
6 Q. This was the Exhibit P 00070. These are the joint --
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Right.
9 A. Can I comment?
10 Q. If we are going to have a policy which will realise a common
11 Croatian state, right?
12 A. Mm-hmm.
13 Q. Proclamation of a Croatian banovina in Bosnia-Herzegovina, isn't
14 it necessary to have legislation that would apply in such an area?
15 A. Well, the way I understand the document P 00070 --
16 Q. Well, that's -- I'm not asking if you understand the document,
17 I'm just asking you as a general matter, isn't it true that legislation,
18 some form of legislation would be necessary if we are going to create
19 some new sort of political entity?
20 A. For this, one would first need an agreement within the Republic
21 of Bosnia-Herzegovina that would be composed out of three areas that one
22 would call whatever, banovinas or cantons or whatever, but that has not
23 been agreed by that point in time.
24 Q. Okay. All right.
25 A. I did understand that all that was done still within the republic
1 of Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina
2 Bosnia-Herzegovina constitution had requested from the socio-economic
3 communities Republic, like Opstinas, to undertake measures necessary to
4 defend themselves.
5 Q. All right. Let's take the example of Slovenia, which you know
6 very well, Slovenia
7 war fortunately, and achieved its dependence, it achieved international
8 recognition, and as part of that process it was obviously necessary for
10 described, isn't that true?
11 A. Slovenia
12 of Yugoslavia
13 that's why Slovenia
14 Bosnia-Herzegovina was --
15 Q. Well, I'm not asking you to contrast the reasons why Slovenia
16 sought independence. I'm asking you, isn't it true that Slovenia had to
17 enact legislation on all of these financial customs, banking, all the
18 rest, as part of its independence from the former Yugoslavia?
19 A. And the same manner I was expecting the Republic of
20 Bosnia-Herzegovina would undertake such measures.
21 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: The counsel and the
22 witness are kindly asked to make pauses between questions and answers.
23 MR. STRINGER:
24 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... respective independence are
25 actually quite similar to the many measures taken --
1 JUDGE PRANDLER: Mr. Stringer, Mr. Stringer. I'm sorry, Mr.
2 Stringer, to interrupt you, but the interpreters ask you but you didn't
3 hear, that you have to slow down again and again and to pause between
4 questions and answers. Please do. Thank you.
5 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Judge Prandler, and I apologise to the
7 Q. Why don't you take Exhibit P 10767 which is in binder number 2.
8 This is an article that you wrote in April of 1993 about Slovenian
10 A. P 0?
11 Q. I'm sorry. P 10767. 10767.
12 A. The last document.
13 Q. The last document. Do you recognise this article?
14 A. Yes, I wrote this article jointly with Mr. Kraft and
15 Mr. Vodopivec.
16 Q. I'd like to direct your attention to page 12, English version.
17 This is section number 2, first economic experiences of independent
19 what you write:
20 "To assert its economic self-determination, independent
22 control proved easier because like other regions in former Yugoslavia
23 the fiscal system and policy had been for the most part under the control
24 of the Slovenian authorities since the constitutional reform of 1974. To
25 gain full control Slovenia
1 government and took over customs."
2 Mr. Cvikl, this is essentially the point I've been trying to
3 make. As part of its independence, Slovenia was necessarily required to
4 take measures, economic measures in order to gain control of its country,
5 and would you agree with me that would require it to enact legislation.
6 A. This is exactly what I said and that's exactly what I expected
7 from the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina to undertake, to stop paying
8 taxes to the federal government and took over customs, plus introduce
9 currency on the day it declared independence.
10 Q. Right. And in fact what we see in Herceg-Bosna is just that very
11 thing. Except for the introduction of a new currency, they stopped
12 paying tax, they took over customs, and they were enacting legislation;
13 isn't that correct?
14 A. No, it's not. First of all, they have not stopped paying taxes.
15 They introduced new taxes because they were authorised to do that by the
16 decree with the power of the law on the financing of the socio-economic
17 needs. Second, they have undertaken the customs controls and the
18 checking control points at the border because Republic of
19 Bosnia-Herzegovina have not undertaken that. And they have not
20 introduced new currency, but they have allowed a parallel currency to be
21 in place like in other local communities all over Bosnia-Herzegovina. So
22 the measures which they have undertaken are not the same as the measure
23 which were undertaken in Slovenia
25 Q. So that if I were to put it to you that someone looking in all
1 the activities and the legislation of Herceg-Bosna might conclude that
2 this territory actually had its own intentions, independence or
3 separateness, would you disagree with me? You reject that?
4 A. I would disagree with you.
5 Q. Okay.
6 A. For the following reason: They were authorised by the decree
7 issued by the presidency of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina to
8 undertake measures, and they've done that because the central government
9 authorities have not provided sources of funds for the functions of the
10 local communities. They have undertaken establishing the customs points
11 because Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina have not done that. And on the
12 monetary, on the banking system, they have not established the banking
13 system by themselves. The bank which operated down there got a licence
14 from national bank of Bosnia-Herzegovina, so they were undertaking
15 economic measures on the economic territory which was freed and in order
16 to reconnect local communities, and they have done the same measures
17 which were done in the absence of the measures not being undertaken by
18 the republican authorities by local communities all over
19 Bosnia-Herzegovina especially in the Bosniak's controlled areas. And I
20 don't know what was happening in the Republika Srpska.
21 Q. So then if I understand correctly what you are saying, then the
22 political leadership of Herceg-Bosna, based on your review, had in your
23 view no intentions in respect of independence or separateness in a
24 political sense from Bosnia-Herzegovina?
25 A. I was not asked to review that. I was asked to look into the
1 economic measures, to analyse economic measures, interview what was
2 happening in Bosnia-Herzegovina in the war situation, and I have seen
3 lack of measures not being undertaken by the central government
4 authorities, and I've seen that then there were measures in the first
5 phase undertaken by the local communities all over the place. And later
6 on for, in my view economic reasons, measures to ensure at the wider
7 region support to the state and social services for the benefits of the
9 Q. Could you please turn to page 31 of this exhibit, your article on
10 Slovenian independence. Halfway down the page you write:
12 entity that is wrecked by political instability may have economic
13 benefits. If local political autonomy provides the opportunity to
14 introduce a new currency and achieve macroeconomic stabilization,
15 separation can become economically attractive. However, this can only
16 work if the local political constellation is not controlled by
17 distributive coalitions bent on preserving the old redistributive system
18 and is not hampered by major political divisions that paralyze
19 decision-making. In short, cessation can be beneficial if the new state
20 is more homogenous in its composition and coherent in its functioning
21 than the old state was."
22 Now, did you consider the extent to which Herceg-Bosna became or
23 was ethnically homogenous in your assessment of its success or of its
24 ability to implement economic measures that you've cited.
25 A. Here I would like first to explain that this is the World Bank
1 study. This is economic study. And when we talk about the homogenicity,
2 here we think about the how economic system is homogenous, and here down
3 in the next light I am of course mentioning the Czech-Slovak break-up.
4 This was a study that was -- we were asked to write, Okay, what are the
5 benefits, what are the costs if a bigger country, former Soviet Union,
8 If as a result of independence Slovenia or Czech Republic would
9 be quicker in its place to undertake reforms, while reforms were before
10 in old Yugoslavia
11 right, this can only work if the political -- is not controlled by
12 distributive coalitions, these are the distributive coalitions that
13 were -- wanted to have a unitarian state within the Socialist Federative
14 Republic of Yugoslavia
15 these circumstances you have more economically homogenous country and you
16 have coherent in its functioning, and the coherence in its functioning
17 meaning that you have a more appropriate macroeconomic policies. And
18 that's why I correctly mention about it inflation was dropping and not as
19 it was in some other states. So it has nothing to do with the national
21 Q. Nothing to do with ethnic homogeneity?
22 A. No, because this is not a study for, you know, general political
23 science, this is a study of the World Bank on does it make sense for the
24 World Bank to support, this is a very early study and it was a study
25 which was also --
1 Q. Okay. With respect I think --
2 A. Am I --
3 Q. You've answer the question which was about the reference to
4 homogeneity. I think that we can move on unless the Trial Chamber wants
5 to hear more about that.
6 MR. KARNAVAS: Mr. President, I take it the implication then is
7 withdrawn by the Prosecution. The implication in the questioning that
8 is, or maybe I'm just being paranoid at this stage of the night.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I don't know.
10 MR. STRINGER: The question has been asked and it's been
11 answered, I'm ready to move on.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I'd like to return to
13 document P 00302 which is the declaration of the decision on the
14 establishment of the Croatian community that is in binder number 1. I
15 have -- this document is important for the Trial Chamber. I would even
16 go so far as to say it's fundamental because this document was taken the
17 18th of November 1991. 18th of November 1991 is the date according to
18 the Prosecution of the date of the joint criminal enterprise, so it's an
19 absolutely crucial document. You are not a lawyer, as you pointed out to
20 us, and we've all taken due note of that.
21 Notwithstanding that, I have a general question first of all, an
22 economic question. On the general question, regarding the reason for the
23 creation of this community. In paragraph 3 they explain why an
24 application of the constitution and of the principles of the modern world
25 with, of course, inalienable indivisible rights, non-transferrable,
1 inexhaustible rights to self-determination and sovereignty including the
2 right to association. Now, what I'd like to know is the right to
3 association, which is a legal concept but which is known by all citizens,
4 and in the former Yugoslavia
5 entities, were they entitled to association? Was this a right that was
6 recognised in former Yugoslavia
7 say so and you can't answer, but if you do know, please answer.
8 A. Well, the right to association was actually in the old Yugoslav
9 self-management system one of the rights which was actually quite well
10 practiced. It is the right to even the basic enterprise was called
11 associated organisation of labour, and those associated organisation of
12 labour then were merged into a bigger company. So if you ask me, the
13 so-called right on association was actually one of the elements why we
14 have this Self-Management Interest Communities where on one side you
15 associated the buyers and on the other side providers of the services.
16 So the right to association was there.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So on this model,
18 it would appear that the communities set out in Article 2 that the local
19 communities will associate. So that answers part of my question. But
20 look at Article 1, please, and just explain it to us slowly in economic
21 terms. When you read this article in economic terms, what does it mean?
22 THE WITNESS: Well, the way I read this first article reason, as
23 an economist, and that is of course it goes back to the story of the
24 collapse of Yugoslavia
25 to achieve independence as republics for Slovenia, for Croatia
3 the -- these three constitute peoples in Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina
4 and the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina
5 mini Yugoslavia
6 peoples. It of course, one would assume if one follows what was
7 happening in Slovenia
8 solve what was then solved with the Dayton agreement, is a kind of a
9 respecting these, you know, constituent right of the three constituent
10 peoples, with the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina, with these ten
11 Cantons, and Republika Srpska.
12 And in that context, I read this decision on establishment of the
13 Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna for the economic point of view as a
14 way how one, you know, somehow economically link these local
15 municipalities and tried to, of course, present that for them the unitary
16 state model is not acceptable. So somehow the -- if there would be a
17 peaceful solution and a respectful or economically viable peaceful
18 solution would be some kind of the, you know, quote within the Republic
19 of Bosnia-Herzegovina borders, some kind of three distinct economic
21 MS. ALABURIC: Your Honour, I apologise, but there seems to be a
22 mistake in the transcript and I think it's very important for
23 understanding what Mr. Cvikl just told us, and it's in line -- or rather
24 page 92, line 2, and what was recorded was the following: [In English]
25 [Microphone not activated] ... was perceived in old Yugoslavia as there
1 were three constituent peoples." The witness in fact said that in the
2 former Yugoslavia Bosnia-Herzegovina was considered Yugoslavia
3 miniature. A small Yugoslavia
4 basis could not survive, et cetera. So that is the substance of the
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In a nutshell regarding this
7 article which is a very basic article, economically speaking, I'm not
8 talking about politics or culture, you say that economically speaking
9 this article means that the municipalities mentioned in Article 2 wanted
10 to create an economic link among themselves, is that what you're saying?
11 THE WITNESS: I'm saying that the local communities which are
12 mentioned in Article 2 wanted in the circumstances were they were not
13 accepting the unitary state model in Bosnia-Herzegovina, assure economic
14 interconnection with them, and then utilized that if there would be a
15 serious discussion, this is the time, understand the time of the
16 independence of Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina
17 constitution of Republic Bosnia-Herzegovina look like. And if that
18 constitution should follow what was actually happening with the collapse
19 of Yugoslavia
20 state, there shall be some kind of smaller units within this Republic of
21 Bosnia-Herzegovina. That's why I have said what was then resulted at the
22 end in during the Dayton
23 Two entities and one entity the Federation with ten Cantons. But we are
24 not yet at that stage. At that stage we had only 109, 108 local
25 communities in Bosnia-Herzegovina. But of course, the way the
1 Bosnia-Herzegovina, Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina writes and all these
2 things were undertaken, that was still part of the Federation of
4 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, if I may, going back to your earlier
5 question, it may be of some assistance if you were to look at 1D 02994
6 which is the constitution of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the constitution of the
7 Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina article -- starting with Article
8 274 where it talks about cooperation in association by municipalities. I
9 draw that to your attention in light of the question that you did pose
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I'm now speaking to
12 the expert in economics. I understood what you said, you said that since
13 there was some kind of fear to which the unitary model, these communities
14 wanted to create a link among themselves. That is understandable. But
15 is this economic approach not in contradiction to the European models
16 here that you know very well, which is basically the integration of
17 economies in the European Union? You then have a unique or only one
18 economy into which all the countries will integrate, Belgium or Slovenia
19 So isn't this text contradictory to the overall project of European
21 THE WITNESS: No, I don't, because one should not look to
22 European Union as the United States of Europe of 27 countries now, but
23 one should look to the European Union as the federation of regions. And
24 when you look into particular European Union state, for example Slovakia
25 Economically speaking what is integrated in European Union is not
2 integration and the cohesion which we try to achieve within the European
4 among the level of the development of the regions in a particular
5 country, like, for example, Slovakia
6 actually also three regions, Netherlands
7 So the European Union for freedoms of movements, movements of
8 goods, people, et cetera, they are an instrument, how we assure cohesion,
9 but that is not a melting pot of United States of Europe. This is
10 European Union of 27 countries trying to achieve cohesion on a much lower
11 level, so-called regions. And what I would be expecting in Republic of
12 Bosnia-Herzegovina would be at least couple of regions where the fact
13 that there are three constituent people, there would be appropriate
14 cohesion of policies in these regions so that all three regions or four
15 or five or six would have meaningful equal level of development.
16 If you look to the neighbouring Republic of Croatia
17 zupanjas [phoen], there are seven regions, I believe seven, something
18 like that, where there is, you know, interconnections among the local
19 municipalities. So I do not see any of this what was happening as
20 opposed to the modern European Union.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This is extremely clear. Thank
23 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President.
24 Q. Mr. Cvikl, I'm going to take you back to something that you said
25 a few minutes ago, try to wrap this up. If I understand correctly, your
1 review of the decree establishing Herceg-Bosna from an economic point of
2 view would imply some kind of distinct economic area. I'll read the
3 words back to you. You were talking -- you said -- you made reference to
4 a respectful, viable, peaceful solution would be some kind of a "within
5 the border some kind of three distinct economic areas." That's what you
6 just said.
7 So I guess at a minimum from an economic point of view, is it
8 your testimony that this document implies the establishment of a distinct
9 economic area within Bosnia-Herzegovina?
10 A. No. This document implies there will be a discussion on how
11 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina constitution will be further developed,
12 and clearly these 18 or however many local communities would have a
13 serious voice in this discussion. And I would even go further, the
15 distinctive economic areas being the fact that there are two economic
17 Q. Now, that last point you made is an interesting one in terms of
18 who has the serious voice in the discussion because you were talking
19 earlier about all of the 30 municipalities that joined the Croatian
20 Community of Herceg-Bosna. Now, have you considered or do you know the
21 legal process whereby those municipalities joined Herceg-Bosna?
22 A. Well, I understood that in the fall of 1991 there were elections
23 which means that -- and then under these elections there were elections
24 in free elections political leaders of particular local municipalities
25 and I believe that these were legal representative of people elected at
1 free elections.
2 Q. So your assumption is that each of these municipalities, the
3 lawfully elected leaders of the municipalities each on behalf of their
4 municipalities joined Herceg-Bosna?
5 A. Well --
6 Q. Or do you know? Are you just assuming that that is what took
8 A. I would -- I don't know what happened and how did decision came
9 to -- you know, how did this meeting took place, et cetera. I only know
10 that there were elections that people who represent the local communities
11 were elected at free elections.
12 Q. Now, are you aware, sir, that in September of 1992 the
13 constitutional court of Bosnia-Herzegovina annulled the decree on the
14 establishment of Herceg-Bosna and also annulled a number of other
15 fundamental pieces of legislation of the Croatian Community of
17 A. I don't know about it, but I only know that somewhere in June or
18 July of -- somewhat before that, the state of war was declared in -- on
19 the territory of Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina. So I'm not aware of
20 that, and I would be surprised if they had done that because --
21 Q. Okay.
22 A. May I finish?
23 Q. No. Sorry, I'm not asking you to speculate about whether you are
24 surprised as what the constitutional court did. I'm simply asking you as
25 a follow-up to other questions, did you know. Your answer is no, you did
1 not know about this decision.
2 My next question, then, is, if you had known about this decision,
3 would it affect your conclusions about the activities and the intentions
4 of Herceg-Bosna throughout 1992 and 1993 after this decision was issued?
5 A. No, because I would expect that the constitutional court to annul
6 at the same time the decision of the presidency of Republic of
7 Bosnia-Herzegovina on districts.
8 Q. Okay. Are you aware that in January of 1994, the constitutional
9 court of Bosnia-Herzegovina annulled the decision on the proclamation of
10 the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna
11 opinion in any way?
12 A. I would like, of course, to read the explanation of that very
13 decision by the constitutional court before I answer this question.
14 Q. The question was, are you aware of it? I can take you to it.
15 It's in the binder P 08060.
16 A. Binder 1?
17 Q. Binder number 1. 8060. 8060.
18 MR. KARNAVAS: Just one point of clarification, Your Honour,
19 before we have the answer. I assume Mr. Stringer is going to lay a
20 foundation to the effect that the constitutional court of
21 Bosnia-Herzegovina was then, as it was during the previous decision, duly
22 constituted and was legally functioning, as opposed to it being a rump, a
23 rump constitutional court representing only one of the people's in
25 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, speeches like that which feed and
1 suggest answers to witnesses are highly improper.
2 MR. KARNAVAS: They don't feed or suggest.
3 MR. STRINGER: That's highly improper.
4 MR. KARNAVAS: It has nothing to do with whether he understands
5 or knows it. I -- he is providing a particular decision, and I am saying
6 at some point --
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas --
8 MR. KARNAVAS: We need a foundation as to whether this decision
9 was lawful.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, you are an
11 excellent lawyer, you know better than anyone that this is a question
12 that has been dealt with in this courtroom numberless times so the trial
13 judges are perfectly aware of that decision and everything underlying it.
14 We know that. We know that. I could speak about it for hours. So we
15 are perfectly in the know of things.
16 Now, the interesting part is the witness's answer to the
17 Prosecutor's question. That's the thing that is of interest to us now.
18 I know that he is not a lawyer, but it could shed some light. Yes.
19 MR. KOVACIC: I also object on a different basis. The point is
20 that the Prosecutor is now asking the witness about what would be the
21 situation if he would have known that there was a constitutional court
22 decision which nullified the existence of Herceg-Bosna, HZ HB. This is
23 entirely out of scope of this report.
24 And by the way, Your Honour, my dear colleague on the Prosecution
25 desk has made exactly the same objection to my cross-examination even
1 though I asked the witness something which he testified while here in the
2 court. But the Prosecution then objected on the basis that this specific
3 subject matter was not raised by the expert report. So I'm repeating
4 that objection. It is not in the expert report. This is simply an
5 exercise what would have been if you would have known this. This is
6 speculative. This is no worse.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kovacic, in his report, in
8 the examination-in-chief, the expert explains why the local communities
9 wanted to set up links among themselves for various reasons. We know
10 that. As it were, he thinks that this was imposed by the situation. And
11 now the Prosecutor, and that is his basic right, he wants to submit a
12 document to the expert, a document that shows that the judges of a
13 constitutional court came to the opposite decision. The witness might
14 say well, the judges were right or they were wrong. Let's wait and see.
15 Mr. Stringer, once we were speaking, the witness must have read
16 the decision, so please put your question again and we'll see what his
17 answer will be.
18 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President. I'll just break it down
19 into a couple of short questions, maybe we can get short answers.
20 Q. Were you provided this decision or a copy of it as part of your
21 review and analysis, preparation of your report?
22 A. No, it's the first time I see this document.
23 Q. Secondly, were you otherwise aware of this document based on your
24 having been working in and around the region of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
25 A. I was not looking to the decision of the constitutional courts of
1 Bosnia-Herzegovina of January 20th, 1994.
2 Q. Okay. And then the last question is, now that you've seen the
3 decision and you are aware of it and you've had a chance to read it,
4 would it affect the conclusions and opinions, findings that you've made
5 in your report on the intentions and the efforts of the HVO, the
6 authorities of, in this case, the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna?
7 A. Well, I'm an economist so I'm reading this decision of the
8 constitution court as an economist and there is a statement that I
9 disagree with. The statement goes something like this, with this
10 decision -- I will do it in English though, just a second. The decision,
11 it says that -- I will read the Bosnian Croatian words so I will ask them
12 to be translated into English. The constitutional court says:
13 [Interpretation] "In this manner, in an unconstitutional
14 manner --
15 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Excuse me, the interpreters will want
16 assistance. This is a one-page document. Could you give precisely the
17 location where the interpreters find it, please.
18 THE WITNESS: Well, I'm reading the document provided by
19 Mr. Stringer.
20 MR. STRINGER:
21 Q. Where on the page can the interpreters go?
22 A. This is page 6 -- number 6, page 85 of the Bosnian version, and
23 that is the third paragraph -- first paragraph on the right-hand side.
24 And it says:
25 [Interpretation] "Thereby, in an unconstitutional manner, an
1 effort is made to disrupt the constitutionally enshrined integrity of the
2 territory of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the equal status of its
3 citizens ," and so on and so forth.
4 The measures undertaken by the region-wide authorities, I have
5 not seen that those measures would exclude or take out of Republic of
6 Bosnia-Herzegovina a particular area of the Croatian community or of the
7 later Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna. And that's why the -- my
8 analysis on the economic measures undertaken within the economic
9 environment in the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina if I would see that
10 before would not be changed.
11 Q. Isn't it possible that the scope of the analysis conducted by the
12 constitutional court was broader than just the economic sphere?
13 A. No, I would respond differently. I would expect that by this
14 what you have just said the Dayton
15 the constitutional court as unlawful, because the constitutional Dayton
16 talks about two entities and these two entities would be unlawful
17 according to the then Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina constitution. So
18 it's a kind of a chicken and egg, you know. Here we are talking about
19 what the constitutional court agreed on January 1994, where on February
20 1994, I believe there was the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina
21 politically established.
22 So as an economist, I'm reading this decision claiming that with
23 this decision the territory had been broken up. I have not seen that. I
24 have not seen on the administrative borders, or what was before the war,
25 borders of Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, I have seen those
1 borders being established. There would be borders established between
2 the border of local municipality of Jablanica
3 Hadzici which means within the borders, then I would take this for
4 granted, but it was not. The customs points and the checking points were
5 established in the outside borders of the Socialist Republic
6 Bosnia-Herzegovina. So for all economic reasoning whatever was happening
7 within the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna or the Croatian Republic
8 Herceg-Bosna was happening within the Republic of
9 Bosnia-Herzegovina economically and also, I believe, politically.
10 Q. So in your view, sir, the decision of the constitutional court of
11 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina here is an incorrect decision?
12 A. I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not judging what the constitutional
13 court is saying. You asked me whether my analysis would be different, my
14 analysis would not be different.
15 Q. Very good.
16 A. Because I looked into the economical part of it and I would also
17 assume that that was actually the reasoning why the World Bank team when
18 assisting to the economist rewriting Dayton constitution actually
19 supporting the Federation and Republika Srpska as economic entity to
21 Q. Thank you. I'd like to ask you some questions now about the part
22 of your report, and I suppose it relates to phase 1 in that it relates
23 primarily to the municipalities. In your report you refer to the
24 constitutional role, the enhanced role of the municipality within
25 Bosnia-Herzegovina, and actually in the former Yugoslavia in time of war.
1 And if you could take Exhibit 1D 02994, which is in binder 3.
2 You referred to this, this is the constitution --
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before you move on to that
4 document, I'd like to return to the decision of the constitutional court.
5 You are not a lawyer, but you do have some knowledge. You know that back
6 then -- or did you know that there were discussions on a peace conference
7 in Geneva
8 THE WITNESS: Yes, I -- we were aware of different versions of
9 these discussions in 1993, 1994 period because we in the World Bank were
10 waiting what would be the outcome of these different plans that were at
11 the time up and running.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The reason why I'm asking you
13 this is that in the last paragraph of the decision because the judges of
14 that court are judges after all, and sometimes judges can come up with
15 excellent decisions, and they say this: The decision to proclaim the
16 Croatian Republic
17 of the agreement of the Federation of the Republic of Bosnia
18 being discussed at the peace conference in Geneva, because the document
19 was not adopted by the assembly of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina
20 the only competent body to change the constitution.
21 In saying so, did the constitutional judges not open a door by
22 saying that we rule that it is not constitutional, but there are talks in
24 of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina that can change the constitution.
25 So was this a constitutional decision that was sort of without any hope,
1 or was a door left open?
2 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, I can't comment on that, but clearly
3 what the judges are here saying from what I understand at that time, of
4 course, is that of course the parliament of Republic of
5 Bosnia-Herzegovina could not meet. So there was the presidency, if any
6 one would want to go this way, then the presidency could eventually make
7 such a decision. What was then happening in the Geneva, and that is of
8 course it's quite different. Federation of the Republic of
9 Bosnia-Herzegovina was something that would be different than what later
10 came in in the Dayton
11 So we were at that time in the World Bank waiting what would be
12 the outcome, you know, because everybody wanted to have peace and wanted
13 to have going back to trying to solve economic problems in whatever will
14 be the constitutional environment. And I'm only saying that the ultimate
15 constitutional environment which resulted out of Dayton agreement would
16 be also taking and reading these decisions by the judges declared as
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] All right. We have five
19 minutes left, Mr. Stringer, sorry for returning to the document but we
20 talk a lot about this document. And you produced it, anyway. One more
21 reason to speak about it.
22 MR. STRINGER: I'm the guilty party.
23 Mr. President, I'm just about to enter into a different topic and
24 I would respectfully suggest it's a good time to break, and could I add
25 if I could have 30 seconds to address the Trial Chamber about another
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Okay. Yes, you can do that.
3 In terms of time, I'm a little worried. You have used 1 hour and 38
4 minutes. You have 2 hours and 22 minutes left. So I'll try not to ask
5 questions tomorrow and we'll try to let you use that time you have so
6 that the witness can leave this week. Can you speak about that subject
7 with the witness in the courtroom or not?
8 MR. STRINGER: Yes, Mr. President. Yes, it's no problem.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Go ahead.
10 MR. STRINGER: It's related actually. My first comment was to
11 express some concern about the timing. I know that Mr. Cvikl wants to
12 leave tomorrow or to complete his testimony tomorrow and not to come
13 back. And as you've pointed out, I'm mildly getting concerned about
14 that. I think based on where I am in my outline I will require the full
15 four hours.
16 In addition, Mr. President, we did want to at some point, and I
17 don't know whether it will be time tomorrow, just to mention the issue of
18 scheduling in respect to the following witness because based upon the
19 additional amounts of time that are -- have been sought by other Defence
20 teams in respect of the first witness, the expert witness for the Stojic
21 team, we think it appears quite likely that that witness could go well
22 into a second week. We also understand that the Stojic team will be
23 making an opening statement of some sort which would obviously require
24 time, and our only point right now, Mr. President, is to raise this, and
25 perhaps there's more time for us all to reflect on it, but certainly I
1 think we all need to consider the extent to which the trial calendar is
2 going to be changed based upon the witness next week and the opening
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you need four hours for this
5 witness. You have used 1 hour and 30 minutes, so you have 2 hours and 22
6 minutes left. So in theory, we should have four hours tomorrow so that
7 should be fine, enough time for you to wrap it up, no problem, I think.
8 Now, as for next week from memory because I don't have the papers
9 in front of me, I think that the Stojic Defence will require four hours
10 for examination-in-chief, the others will have three hours. So we have
11 one half-hours and one half-hours altogether is three hours. As to the
12 Prosecution, as far as I know they will have four hours. We might not be
13 able to finish the testimony in one week so Ms. Nozica's witness will
14 have to continue the following week.
15 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] And maybe we should add that we
16 have been seized of a request for additional time and that has not yet
17 been set or decided upon by the Trial Chamber.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Indeed, indeed, there's that
19 additional problem. But what I was saying that was before the filing of
20 the request for review by the Petkovic Defence, so it could well be that
21 that witness, the first for Ms. Nozica, will have to continue at least
22 until Tuesday or -- Monday or Tuesday of the following week.
23 MR. STRINGER: If I could just make one comment, Mr. President.
24 It's based upon the guide-lines. The supplemental -- any supplemental
25 time that goes beyond cross-examination of other teams, I think, would
1 then result in greater time being available to the Prosecution for
2 cross-examination, and so it may be that the Prosecution will be entitled
3 to or will require more than four hours. Obviously I don't know if that
4 will happen, but it's a possibility.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] All the more reason for you to
6 state your position by Friday. That is the reason why I asked for it.
7 Yes, Witness, well you are the main person concerned here?
8 THE WITNESS: I just would like to ask the Court if it's possible
9 in order to save on time tomorrow whether I can read these documents
10 overnight because I can't read them here. I just want to save sometime
11 otherwise tomorrow I would have to be familiarise myself with the
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You like to take the
14 Prosecution documents with you? Well, we have precedents and there was
15 no problem from the Trial Chamber's point of view.
16 Yes, Mr. Stringer.
17 MR. STRINGER: There have been rare occasions, Mr. President
18 however, if I can refer to the rules of the game invoked earlier by Judge
19 Trechsel, we would be opposed to the witness taking the documents with
20 him. I think that cross-examination from our view requires that he be
21 looking at the documents fresh as they are put in front of him.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Witness, you know in these
23 proceedings, typically Anglo-Saxon proceedings, and you know them because
24 you live in the United States, it's always the effect of surprise. The
25 one cross-examining would like to surprise or take the witness by
1 surprise. That's part of the tactics. And so that is why there's some
2 reluctance on the part of the Prosecutor, can you understand that?
3 THE WITNESS: I just was taking into account that they have a --
4 they are short on time and there's lot of documents, I would of course as
5 they would be shown to me I would have to look at them, that will go
6 against the time that the Prosecution has for questions, that's why I
7 asked. If they oppose, I will read something else in the evening.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, if the Prosecutor had
9 agreed, it would have been no problem, but he doesn't agree so you can't
10 take the documents with you anyway. You are so competent that even if
11 you see a document you will be able to react straightaway so you should
12 not be prejudiced.
13 Yes, Ms. Nozica, did you have anything to add?
14 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I merely
15 wanted to say quite briefly that Mr. Stojic's Defence will not be
16 presenting an opening statement, that means that if we complete the
17 testimony of this witness on Monday we will be able to call the expert
18 witness of the Defence. We understood the position of the Trial Chamber
19 regarding additional time. We will be filing a written submission, but
20 for the transcript, for the record, I would like to say that we would
21 like to express our concern that we would be in a position to seek
22 supplemental time for redirect because this is the way we planned our
23 time in accordance with the decision of the Chamber regarding the time
24 allotted to the Defence -- to the other Defences and the Prosecution for
25 the cross-examination, that's what I'm talking about, because any
1 increases of the time for the cross-examination would require an increase
2 in the time for the redirect, and since we have already made our plan and
3 since we have submitted it to the Chamber, leaving enough time for us
4 that we consider we need, if any requests made by the other parties for
5 an increase in the time allotted for the cross-examination, we would be
6 submitting our own requests to that effect. I would just like to make
7 that clear right at the outset to avoid any surprises.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] At any rate, of course you are
9 entitled to redirect, but that is time taken out of your overall time,
10 but you might not need to use that time if you don't have redirect.
11 I'm always surprised that a Defence team might think that there
12 would be contradictions arising from other Defence teams. In theory it's
13 possible, but it's rather rare. But admittedly if you want a time for
14 redirect no problem, you'll have it. As part of the overall time
15 allotted to you. He is your witness, so I suppose you sort of envisaged
16 all the problems with you. He will be aware of things, and if he is not
17 finished by next week he will come back. Sometimes you have witnesses
18 that come to testify for two, three, if not four weeks. We know that.
19 Sorry for the time -- for the extra time, but that had to be
20 done. I wish you all a good evening. We shall reconvene tomorrow at
22 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.05 p.m.
23 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 15th day of
24 January 2009, at 2.15 p.m.