1 Wednesday, 21 January 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.00 a.m.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Would you please call the case.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning
7 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case number IT-04-74-T,
8 the Prosecutor versus Prlic et al.
9 Thank you, Your Honours.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Thank you very
11 much. Today is Wednesday, 21st of January, 2009. I'd like to say good
12 morning to all. The representatives of the Defence, the Office of the
13 Prosecution, and all of the people who work in the courtroom day after
14 day with great devotion.
15 I believe Mr. Scott has a question. Mr. Scott, go ahead.
16 MR. SCOTT: Good morning, Your Honours, Mr. President, each of
17 Your Honours. Judge Prandler, I apologise for the location of the pole
18 in the courtroom. Please forgive me. To counsel and all those in and
19 around the courtroom thank you very much.
20 Your Honour, I need to raise -- I need to take a bit of the
21 Chamber's time this morning I'm afraid to raise with the Chamber an issue
22 that needs -- because of the time it needs to be dealt with further, we
23 submit, Your Honour, and that has to do with the request -- the
24 Prosecution's pending request for a fully adequate summary for Mr. Bozic,
25 who comes next week.
1 Excuse me, Your Honour. I apologise.
2 Your Honour, let me just say that this is not an issue that's new
3 to the Chamber. The matter has been raised going all the way back, in
4 fact, to some of the Pre-Defence Conferences in April last year in which
5 the Chamber made its views quite clear as to what was required for these
6 summaries. And then there are a number of instances throughout the Prlic
7 case where the Prosecution raise its concerns, and on a number of
8 occasions, not every occasion, but on a number of occasions the Chamber
9 saw fit to order additional summaries to be provided.
10 Let me just stop and say briefly about the law, Your Honour.
11 There may be a number of areas of Tribunal law that for one reason or
12 another may remain not entirely clear. This is not one of them. The
13 Tribunal law on this topic has been well established, and it is -- I
14 think I can accurately summarise it as this: Rule 65 ter requires an
15 advance meaningful summary of what the evidence of the witness will
16 actually be. That is not simply a biographical background, he held these
17 positions through the years. It is not simply a list of topics. It is
18 meant to be a summary that both the Trial Chamber, the Judges, and the
19 Prosecution, and for that matter, the other parties, I should add, not
20 just the Prosecution but including the co-accused, can have a
21 meaningful -- can be on meaningful notice in order to meaningfully
22 prepare to meet the evidence of that witness.
23 It's very, very clear. Background and topics are not sufficient.
24 And I submit to the Chamber that when reading these summaries, one of the
25 ways -- frankly one of the buzzwords, if you will, or key words that
1 gives away the nature of the summary provided is when it repeatedly says:
2 "The witness will testify about." "The witness will testify about."
3 "The witness will testify about." What the summary -- what the law
4 requires is not what they will talk about the topic, in other words, the
5 subject matter, but what they will say. Topic A, the witness will say
6 that; topic B, the witness will say that. Not topics. The law is
7 absolutely clear on that from both other Trial Chambers and from the
8 Appeals Chamber, and this Chamber has had that law before on a number of
9 times between now and last spring, and I'm sure perhaps before.
10 Now, with that background in mind, Your Honour, with that
11 background in mind, Your Honour, let me just review a bit of procedural
12 history so the Chamber knows -- understands hopefully a bit more where
13 the Prosecution is coming from in this particular instance.
14 First of all, Your Honour, I start from my last comment. The law
15 is clear and if there is any question of the Defence being on notice as
16 to what is required of them, the law is clear; and it's been repeatedly
17 briefed and addressed in this courtroom on a number of occasions.
18 Nothing new.
19 Number two, the obligation to provide fully adequate summaries
20 was required and in complete force when the Defence filings were made on
21 the 31st of March, 2008. We're coming up not quite there but we're
22 coming up on that being a year ago. On the 31st of March, 2008, each of
23 the Defence teams were required to meet the obligations up Rule 65 ter.
24 This is not an obligation that sprung into existence last week, a few
25 days ago, or two months ago. The obligation has been on the books. The
1 Tribunal law has been clear for years and since the first obligation on
2 the 31st of March, 2008, when the filings were made.
3 Further than that, Your Honour, we have -- this Chamber again as
4 I mentioned a moment ago, including Judge Antonetti, Your Honour, on the
5 21st of April, 2008, specifically said in reviewing the Defence filings
6 on the 31st of March, 2008, that a number of the summaries were deficient
7 and I can change the Chamber to those citations if necessary, but I can
8 tell the Court, Judge Antonetti, you were very clear; and, in fact, you
9 specifically said that a number of the Praljak summaries in particular
10 were deficient.
11 Further, trying to raise these issues in an ongoing way, the
12 Prosecution anticipating the beginning of the Stojic Defence case,
13 corresponded with counsel on several occasions, first on the 1st of
14 October, 2008, again on 23 October, 2008, asking again and reminding them
15 of the need to provide fully adequate summaries as required by Rule 65
17 On the 5th of January of this year, we sent another -- yet
18 another letter, at least the third letter, to the Stojic counsel again
19 raising the issue and specifically as to the witnesses, Bozic and Buljan
20 who are coming up in the near future. We afforded at that time, Your
21 Honour, if -- well, let me put it this way. We reminded the Defence of
22 the law's requirements and invited them to please provide an additional
23 fully adequate summary not later than the 12th of January. Why the 12th
24 of January? Because we need the time to prepare, number one. Number
25 two, to provide the opportunity to bring the matter before the Chamber if
1 the parties could not resolve it. So we were trying to find a creative
2 situation which could be resolved without bringing it before the Chamber.
3 Unfortunately, we did not receive any additional summary by the
4 12th of January, and as we indicated we would because of the pressure of
5 the timing of the trial, the next day we file our motion requesting the
6 fully adequate summary as required by Rule 65.
7 That's a brief history of that aspect of the -- or -- of the
8 procedure concerning this motion, Your Honour. We did receive, we did
9 receive, I want to be clear, in the last few days a filing by the
10 Defence, by the Stojic Defence, and a -- what is called an additional
11 summary. With great respect, Your Honour, I have to say that while we
12 appreciate in some sense the effort, it continues in the same
13 deficiencies. It's again a list of topics. In fact, what they've done
14 is add topics. They've expanded the number of topics that the witness
15 will talk about but have not said anything about what his evidence will
16 actually be.
17 So, Your Honour, we feel that this matter's been fully -- fully
18 ventilated. This is a matter that's not new to any of the parties in
19 this case. The Prosecution has raised the issue a number of times as has
20 the Chamber in general, as has the Chamber; and so we're back, Your
21 Honour, to once more being on the Wednesday before the appearance of a
22 witness without an adequate summary, and I would ask the Chamber before I
23 give the floor over or answer any questions Your Honours might have. It
24 is not adequate, and it is not what Rule 65 ter contemplates or requires
25 that what happens at the end of the day is that on the eve of the
1 witness's appearance, on the eve of the witness's appearance, the
2 Prosecution and the Judges get an additional late summary which in its
3 content may or may not be helpful. The Prosecution should have had these
4 fully adequate summaries not later than 31st of March. Of course we
5 understand the difficulties and the burdens involved in litigation. We
6 know that, and that's why we haven't pressed harder up until now, but
7 that's March 31st we're now in January 2009. We've raised the issue
8 through last fall. We raised the issue again in early January of this
10 So, Your Honour, that brings us to the point that since the
11 witness is scheduled and we were also hoping to take notice of the
12 timing - excuse me - to avoid unnecessary travel by the witness if
13 possible, and our position, Your Honour, and what the Prosecution
14 requests at this point, and I think there's just simply no other way than
15 to finally get the attention that these things have to be done, we ask
16 that the witness Bozic be postponed and not rescheduled unless and until
17 fully adequate summary is provided. It's only when I think, Your Honour,
18 with great respect when this message is clear and enforced that we can
19 all then look forward hopefully to fully adequate summaries in the
20 future. The Prosecution wants to raise this issue now at the very given,
21 if you will, of the Stojic case, so we can hopefully get off on the right
22 foot. So we raise it now, and I will have to say, Your Honour, if need
23 be, we will continue to raise it as the Chamber's seen in the past. The
24 Prosecution submits that we've been reasonable in this position. We've
25 tried to address it without bringing it before the Chamber, but now we
1 are where we are. I thank you for the Chamber's time.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Nozica, I will be giving
3 you the floor in a moment. Indeed we are aware of this motion dated the
4 13th of January. When we met on the 19th, we thought that this had been
5 solved between the Defence and the Office of the Prosecutor, and
6 therefore we did not think we had to mention it again because we thought
7 it had been solved; and I hear now that as of Monday the 19th of January
8 you sent a supplementary document but apparently this summary is not
9 satisfactory for the OTP. The OTP has now formally requested that we
10 postpone the appearance of that witness and you understand I'm sure the
11 risk involved.
12 What do you have to say here?
13 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, good morning. Good
14 morning to everybody in the courtroom. I would like to briefly say
15 something. This topic has taken the most time in the court in the
16 procedural sense.
17 I would like to say that we submitted our 65 ter list. The
18 Prosecutor today twice mentioned the date of March 2008. The OTP had no
19 objection to our list of summaries. So they didn't have objections.
20 We submitted, as Mr. Scott correctly said, a list of topics the
21 witness will be testifying about. We would like to remind the Chamber
22 that we also submitted the documents so that it may be clear which
23 documents would be shown to the witness.
24 Talking about Witness Bozic, I would like to remind the Chamber
25 that the witness gave a statement to the OTP as a -- as a suspect. Most
1 of these topics will be the subject of interrogation here in the
3 I understand the OTP to say, "Give us the statement." We are not
4 obliged to submit the statement. We are obliged to give information
5 about what the witness will be speaking and what the witness will
6 specifically say about any topic is in fact a statement.
7 As this issue will obviously be reappearing during the defence of
8 Mr. Stojic, I ask that the Chamber to give me instructions. Apart from
9 the summaries the Defence has submit and apart from the amendments we
10 will submit for every witness if the witness should, in testifying, go
11 beyond the topics mentioned in the summary, Mr. Bozic will come on Friday
12 so that on Saturday at the latest, we will give additional details when
13 this witness comes to be proofed, but what -- what was said about Mr. --
14 Witness Bozic, I repeat that Mr. Bozic was heard as a suspect is really
15 inappropriate. So we will provide additional information as instructed
16 by the Chamber.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Nozica, the Chamber will
18 discuss this, and we will re-examine the 65 ter documents. We will look
19 at the January 19th document, and we will inform you of our position.
20 Either we decide that the January 19th document is satisfactory or we
21 decide it isn't, but since I do not have it before me I cannot make that
22 decision just now. But you have just said that you want the Chamber to
23 give instructions as to how to proceed. Well, I cannot make a decision
24 on behalf of the Chamber at this point, but the Chamber has been very
25 clear thus far in the various decisions that we have handed down. We
1 have requested that the parties provide a maximum amount of information,
2 and I believe in fact in my opinion that it's in your very own interest
3 to prepare long detailed summaries in such a way that you inform the
4 Prosecution of the items, the points, the subjects you are going to be
5 discussing with the witness in order to deal with certain facts in order
6 to enable the Prosecution to prepare its cross-examination, and in that
7 way the Judges are inform of your strategy and will better understand
8 exactly what you are endeavouring to prove.
9 I must say that sometimes when a witness comes to testify, on the
10 basis of the resume, I really don't understand what you're trying to
11 prove. If you were to provide fuller, more detailed resumes where you
12 explain point by point exactly what you are trying to prove it would be
13 far easier for us to understand.
14 Now, I can understand from a strategic point of view that you
15 don't want to show all your cards, but at this stage in the presentation
16 of the evidence on the part of the Defence you do have to show your
17 cards. You can't keep them in hiding, so to speak, till the very end.
18 When you're calling a witness, when it's your own witness, you have to
19 show your hand, and in presenting a full resume you would be doing just
20 that. You can understand that the Prosecutor prepares his cases in
21 advance as well. When you have 15 binders, he's going to have 20, and
22 therefore that's the case because he has to counter what you're -- what
23 you're stating. And we can understand, therefore, that he has a real
24 need to have a detailed resume.
25 This is an issue that we've discussed in the past. We have now
1 heard an oral request on the part of the Prosecutor, accompanied with a
2 written submission that we have just received this very moment, and we
3 will decide on the basis of the January 19th resume, and we will inform
4 you later in the day.
5 That's what I can say at this point. If the Chamber decides to
6 postpone the witness, we will tell you immediately to avoid that the
7 witness have to travel for no purpose. So we will give you the response
8 later. I will ask the legal counsel of the Chamber to inform you very
9 rapidly regarding the January 19th statement.
10 Can we call the witness, please.
11 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, that is exactly why
12 I -- I wanted to hear the position of the Chamber because it is obvious
13 that these demands will be repeated, and we know before the first -- or
14 the following witness the position of the OTP, and we don't want things
15 like this to be repeated.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I see that Mr. Karnavas is
17 ready and has been ready for several moments. His file is open.
18 Mr. Karnavas, I believe each of you has 30 minutes for your
19 examination. There are three of you who are speaking. That makes an
20 hour and a half for the three. So maybe you've shared out the time
21 differently. I don't know exactly.
22 MR. KARNAVAS: I believe you're correct, Mr. President. Good
23 morning, Mr. President; good morning, Your Honours. I hope to be 30
24 minutes or less.
25 [The witness entered court]
1 WITNESS: DAVOR MARIJAN [Resumed]
2 [Witness answered through interpreter]
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Marijan.
4 Sorry for keeping you waiting. We had a procedural matter to settle, and
5 therefore you have just come into the courtroom, and I'm going to call
6 upon Mr. Karnavas, who is going to proceed with the cross-examination.
7 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Mr. President. Again good morning to
8 everyone in and around the courtroom.
9 Cross-examination by Mr. Karnavas:
10 Q. And good morning, Mr. Marijan.
11 A. Good morning, Mr. Karnavas.
12 Q. Now, we have your report here. We heard your testimony, and I
13 want to pick up where we left off yesterday where you indicated to
14 counsel for Mr. Stojic that you stand by your report having made one
15 correction, and I thought that perhaps we could clarify a few matters.
16 If you could look at your report.
17 MR. KARNAVAS: Usher, do we have -- Mr. Usher, does the gentleman
18 have all the documents?
19 Q. I'm going to be referring to your report somewhat, only a few
21 MR. KARNAVAS: We'll begin by looking at paragraph number 13,
22 Your Honours. If you could get your report out.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, could you be a
24 bit closer to your microphone. It's a little difficult for the
25 interpreters to hear.
1 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well. I don't want to be shouting, Your
3 Q. Okay. Do you have your report, sir? At paragraph 13, in here
4 you state at the beginning of the paragraph that the heads of
5 departments -- the head of the Department of Defence was accountable for
6 his work to the HVO of the HZ HB, and further down in the same paragraph
7 you indicate that -- the HVO adopted reports and proposals of the
8 Department of Defence and gave instructions and guide-lines to the
9 Department of Defence, and I take it you stand by that -- that part of
10 your report; correct?
11 A. That is correct, sir.
12 Q. And just by way of an example just so we can show everyone, if we
13 were to look at -- you have my binder there. We're going to look at
14 P 03796. It should be towards -- towards the back. Okay. P 03796.
15 These are minutes of a meeting dated 29 July 1993.
16 If we look at the very first page in English at least where we
17 have the agenda, under number 14 it says "Other matters." And if we go
18 to the end of the report, almost at the very end, here we have, for
19 instance -- we see that:
20 "It is recommended that in the future the Department of Defence
21 should issue timely reports about the situation at the front line to the
22 public and to the members of leading bodies of the HVO HZ HB."
23 Do you have that, sir? 3796. It's at the very last page. This
24 is just as an example of where, for instance, instructions or guide-lines
25 in this instance they're recommending to the Department of Defence to
1 provide timely reports about the front line. This would be one example
2 where you state, for instance, that the Department of Defence is being
3 given instructions by the HVO HZ HB; correct?
4 A. Yes, sir.
5 Q. All right. Now, the reason I want to point that out is because
6 if we go now to your report on paragraph 12, here you state:
7 "The deputy head and assistant head of the Department of Defence
8 were appointed by the president of the HVO, Jadranko Prlic."
9 And you mention Slobodan Bozic. Then again if we were to turn to
10 paragraph 19 of your report, we see again where you make reference that
11 Mr. Bozic was appointed by Jadranko Prlic, the president of the HVO. Do
12 you see that, sir?
13 A. Yes, I do.
14 Q. All right. These are not trick questions. We're very easy to
16 Now, is it your position, sir, and I want to be -- I guess I want
17 to lock you into a position; is it your position that it was Dr. Prlic
18 who actually made these appointments or that these appointments were made
19 by the HVO HZ HB as a collective body? Which of the two?
20 A. Mr. Karnavas, Your Honours, I would like to see those
21 appointments, but I believe that Mr. Prlic signed all these appointments.
22 Of course he signed on behalf of the HVO but also in his own name. I
23 actually don't quite understand what you want to ask.
24 Q. All right. Let me help you out here. P 01137, P 01137.
25 MR. KARNAVAS: And if we look at, Your Honours, item number 7 on
1 the first page which says "Personal matters" -- "Personnel matters," I'm
2 sorry, and if we go to -- it would be page number 5, Your Honours, in the
3 English version.
4 Q. And if you go to -- find that document, sir, and go to addendum
5 number 7. It would be page 3 for you, sir. And is says here --
6 A. I've found it, Mr. Karnavas.
7 Q. Great. Great. Super.
8 "At the proposal of the head of the Defence Department the HVO
9 HZ HB Slobodan Bozic is appointed deputy head of the Defence department
10 of the HVO HZ HB."
11 Do you see that sir?
12 A. I do.
13 Q. And I take it a member of the HVO HZ HB was none other than
14 Mr. Stojic. In other words, he was not only proposing, but one can also
15 assume that he would have voted had he been there, or someone would have
16 voted in his stead if somebody was there on behalf of the Department of
18 A. There's no doubt that Mr. Stojic was a member of the HVO because
19 he was head of department.
20 Q. All right. And we see that it's the HVO, do we not, that
21 actually makes the decision base on the proposal of Mr. Stojic; right?
22 A. You can draw that conclusion from this item.
23 Q. Okay. When you say "you," are you saying me personally, or
24 should we use the word "we," that we can draw that conclusion? Which of
25 the two? Because I've already drawn that conclusion, but I want you to
1 draw it as well.
2 A. My conclusion as I said in this specific case is the follows:
3 That the head of the Defence, Mr. Bozic was appoint as deputy head, and
4 that the HVO agreed to that, gave its agreement.
5 Q. All right. Then one more just to make sure that we finish with
6 this topic, at least with Mr. Bozic. If we look at P 006 --
7 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Excuse me, Mr. Karnavas.
8 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes.
9 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Mr. Marijan, I am a bit surprised. Perhaps
10 there was a problem in translation. You said that the HVO approved the
11 decision. The document, rather, suggests that the HVO takes the
12 decision, not someone else took actually the decision and made the
13 appointment, and the HVO just sort of rubber stamped or approved, nihil
14 obstat, but they took the decision. It's their decision. That's how I
15 read the document. Do you have a different opinion?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, well, I have the
17 impression that that's what I said too.
18 JUDGE TRECHSEL: It may be a problem of translation. It would
19 not be the first one. Thank you.
20 MR. KARNAVAS:
21 Q. Okay. And if we can go to now P 00615. And there are several
22 decisions that we see in there. You will find if you -- if you page
23 through it.
24 MR. KARNAVAS: And it would be on page 19, Your Honours in the
25 English version, one that refers to Mr. Slobodan Bozic, law graduate from
1 Siroki Brijeg.
2 Q. If you could find it. Towards the middle of the document -- or
3 towards the end of it, I should say.
4 Do you have it, sir?
5 A. Mr. Karnavas -- Mr. Karnavas, I know something similar to what
6 you've been saying, but I can't find it. You said 615, did you? Was
7 that the number?
8 Q. P 00615. Page number 19 in the English version.
9 A. I only have the English version but I've found it, yes.
10 Q. All right. Well, let me just read out part of the English
11 version. It says here:
12 "Pursuant to Article 18 of the statutory decision," and it goes
13 on and on.
14 It then goes on. It refers to Article 31, paragraph 2 of the
15 degree on the organisation and competence of the department and
16 commissions of the HVO HZ HB as proposed by the head of the HVO HZ HB
17 Defence Department, the HVO HZ HB at the session held 15 January 1993,
18 and we have a decision. Article 1 we see Slobodan Bozic's name. Do you
19 see that, sir?
20 A. Yes, I do.
21 Q. Okay. Now, going back to your report, your report does not state
22 that it's the HVO HZ HB that actually takes the decision as a collective
23 body, but what you have, sir, is that it is Jadranko Prlic who actually
24 makes the appointment.
25 Now, my question to you is: Is your report accurate when we look
1 at these documents, or would you like an opportunity to correct your
2 report here and now?
3 A. Mr. Karnavas, I stand by my findings, and that's why I asked you
4 the question whether there's any things you wish to clarify. Is what
5 you're saying this: Do you mean to say that Mr. Prlic was on the same
6 level with all the members of the HVO? Is that what you're saying?
7 Q. Let me put it to you this way, sir --
8 A. Did I understand it correctly?
9 Q. Let me put it to you this way, sir: We heard from Mr. Buntic.
10 We heard from Mr. Petkovic. We heard from Martin Raguz. We also heard
11 from Mr. Tomic, and with Mr. Tomic in particular it was none other than
12 Ms. Senka Nozica that cross-examined to establish that decisions are
13 taken by the collective body. And now I put to you, sir, are these not
14 the decisions of the collective body and not, as you suggest in your
15 report, the decisions of Dr. Jadranko Prlic?
16 A. Your Honours, on the one hand these are collective decisions of
17 the HVO as the executive body, but in its name that executive body has a
18 person at its head, and whenever we refer to the HVO here, and I think
19 Judge Trechsel said on one occasion, in inverted commas, he put this
20 under quotation marks when he said "government," but put it in quotation
21 marks, as I say, because it's called the way it was called, anyway, from
22 the documents we can see that the body made the decisions collectively,
23 but the body did have a person at the head who signed on behalf of that
24 collective body. And I look at -- I looked at the statutory Decision on
25 the Temporary Organisation of the Executive Authority. I think that's
1 what the title was. That's what it was called, of the 3rd of July, 1992,
2 and I refer to it in one place, I believe, and that's how I understood
3 it, that all the members of the HVO were accountable for their work to
4 Mr. Prlic, were responsible to him.
5 Q. Okay. All right. Let's look at --
6 MR. STEWART: Excuse me, Your Honours. I wonder if I might make
7 a small practical observation to tie Mr. Karnavas's examination to the
8 report. The document Mr. Karnavas has been referring to which is P 00615
9 appears to be for practical purposes the same as the one referred to in
10 footnote 48 of the witness's report which is P 01136; and I think if one
11 appreciates that they are the same item it's going to be much easier to
12 tie Mr. Karnavas's cross-examination together with the report.
13 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Mr. Stewart.
14 Q. If we look at paragraph 25 of your report, here you -- you say:
15 "The HVO president appointed chiefs of Defence administration at
16 the recommendation of the head of the Department of Defence."
17 A. Yes, correct, Mr. Karnavas.
18 Q. And then you go on to say:
19 "The president of the HVO established," established, "the
20 internal organisation."
21 And of course we can see your footnote number 68, document 988?
22 Now, when you say it is Dr. Jadranko Prlic here that appointed,
23 are you not suggesting that it was his appointment and not the
24 appointment of the collective body? Are you not suggesting that, sir?
25 A. Mr. Karnavas --
1 Q. Yes or no. It's a yes or no, sir. Are you suggesting that or
2 not? You're an educated man. You know how to read. Are you making that
3 suggestion that he made the appointment? Yes, no, I don't know, which of
4 the three?
5 A. Yes. Yes, he --
6 Q. Thank you.
7 A. Yes, he --
8 Q. Now let's look at number 31, paragraph 31.
9 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I do apologise to my
10 colleague Mr. Karnavas. However, I can't catch up. I can't follow.
11 Now, Mr. Karnavas referred to paragraph 25 of the report. Would he allow
12 the witness time to find that paragraph and the circumstances surrounding
13 it, because it says the Defence ministry -- internal organisation of the
14 Defence administrations signed by the president of the HVO,
15 Jadranko Prlic in 1993 I see nothing to be challenged there but if the
16 witness isn't given time to read the whole text then he can't answer. So
17 there's no need to go that fast. So could he please allow time for the
18 witness to read through the whole paragraph and see the circumstances to
19 which he refers.
20 MR. KARNAVAS:
21 Q. Let's look at paragraph number 31. Here you say:
22 "On October 1992, the president of the HVO, J. Prlic, appointed
23 Ivica Lucic to the position of assistant head of Defence department for
25 Same question. You have the paragraph in front of you, do you
1 not I sir?
2 A. Yes, I do --
3 Q. Okay. Thank you.
4 A. -- the paragraph and the document.
5 Q. Now, are you not suggesting here, sir that it is
6 Dr. Jadranko Prlic who appoints Ivica Lucic, that it's his appointment?
7 Isn't that what you're trying to suggest here?
8 A. Yes. This is a decision by Mr. Prlic.
9 Q. Now let's look at P 00578. P 00578.
10 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honours, you will find it on -- we're looking
11 at item 6, paragraph -- on page 5.
12 Q. Do you have it, sir?
13 A. Yes, Mr. Karnavas, I do.
14 Q. Now, it says here, and I'll read, and if I read anything wrong
15 you correct me:
16 "Head of the Defence department Mr. Bruno Stojic proposed
17 adopting a decision to appoint Mr. Ivica Lucic lawyer from Ljubuski,
18 assistant head of the Defence Department for security.
19 "The draft decision to appoint Mr. I. Lucic was unanimously
21 Do you see that, sir?
22 A. I read the item, and I do see that, yes.
23 Q. Okay. Now, is it Mr. Prlic who unanimously adopts it by himself
24 or is it the collective body of the HVO HZ HB that takes a vote and makes
25 a decision, a collective decision, a decision which belongs to the
1 HVO HZ HB?
2 A. Mr. Karnavas, I can see that there was a vote on this decision
3 and they all voted in favour.
4 Q. And whose decision is it, sir? Because earlier you told us that
5 the appointment -- the appointment was Dr. Prlic's. So whose appointment
6 was it, the HVO's or Dr. Prlic's? Which of the two, sir?
7 A. That appointment -- Mr. Karnavas, the appointment was carried out
8 by the president of the HVO, Dr. Prlic.
9 Q. Sir, don't be simple with me. You have a Ph.D. For a living you
10 read documents. My question is very simple. Whose -- who made the
11 decision for the appointment, Mr. Prlic or the HVO HZ HB? Which of the
12 two? Come clean, sir.
13 A. Mr. Karnavas, I really do have a Ph.D., yes, and I know what an
14 executive body means; and I know that an executive body is the only
15 collective body that I know of in the region of the former Yugoslavia
16 that was made up of equal members. There was the Presidency of the SFRY,
17 but this did not function in that way.
18 Therefore, the members, all the members of the HVO as an
19 executive body was not a conglomerate or a collection or a body in which
20 everybody was equal, had an equal footing. With the exception of one
21 person all the others were equal, but as far as I understand it, that
22 body had its head who was not equal to all the other members but above
23 them, and he was the sole individual, as far as I understand it, who
24 could have sign this decision, and it was Mr. Prlic, if I understood
1 Q. Do you recall testifying before the Tuta-Stela case and informing
2 the Trial Chamber at the time that you were not a lawyer? Do you recall
4 A. Well, it's common knowledge from my CV that I'm not a lawyer. So
5 there's nothing to add there.
6 Q. And were questions put to you about the -- about the government
7 authorities, at which point in Tuta-Stela you indicated that you are an
8 historian and could give an opinion as an historian and not a lawyer? Do
9 you recall saying that? You were being questioned, I believe, by
10 Mr. Scott.
11 A. Well, that was -- it was seven years, ago, was it? I don't
12 remember that. Most probably that's the case if you found it in the
13 transcript. However, I didn't write this as a lawyer. I wrote it as an
14 historian. So I'm not interpreting the law here --
15 Q. Thank you.
16 A. -- that was not my intention.
17 Q. Let's look at P 00615, sir.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, just a clarification.
19 You're not a lawyer. We all know that. Still, in your report as it
20 stands, it can appear that Mr. Prlic appointed a person X to such and
21 such position. One can conclude from this that Mr. Prlic has the power
22 to make appointments. With this document on the screen, we find out that
23 in the actuality, Mr. Ivica Lucic was appointed after unanimous
24 deliberation and decision. So the procedure would be as follows:
25 Mr. Stojic makes proposals, submits proposals, and everyone agrees to the
1 appointment, after which Mr. Prlic signs the document. And in listening
2 to both of you, I was trying to place myself in the shoes of a Judge
3 signing a decision. As a Presiding Judge, when I sign a decision, I sign
4 a decision on which it was deliberated, sometimes after a vote, and I put
5 my signature. And sometimes I even sign a decision when I disagree with
6 the decision. So I sign. I have a power. I have to sign, must sign,
7 even though I have not made the decision.
8 In the light of this, of the procedure, three stages: One,
9 proposal of draft decision; second, deliberation; and third, somebody
10 who's got the competence to sign, would that change what you stated in
11 your report or does it remain the same?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I understood it --
13 well, it's clear to me that the HVO made decisions. I assume had most of
14 the body been against the decision it would not have been passed. I
15 understand that, but -- well ...
16 MR. KARNAVAS: I believe it's a non-answer answer, Your Honour.
17 And I am pressing the witness because now, at this point, I'm calling him
18 incompetent or a liar, either two.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Don't go that far.
20 Witness, there was the deliberation that decided to it appoint
21 Mr. Lucic, but let's imagine Mr. Prlic disagreed, but all the others
22 agreed with the draft decision. Lucic was appointed, and Mr. Prlic had
23 to sign even though he may have disagreed. In such a case, in the
24 decision, there would be a note that the proposal was carried with
25 majority, et cetera. But does that mean, according to you, Mr. Prlic, it
1 is -- the appointment was Mr. Prlic's responsibility? This is the issue.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In that case, I think that
3 Mr. Prlic wouldn't bear the responsibility for that appointment.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, you -- you may
6 MR. KARNAVAS:
7 Q. So whose appointment is it? Is it the HVO in that instance or
8 Dr. Prlic, which of the two and are you suggesting that when he votes for
9 it, it's his appointment and when he votes against it it's not his
10 appointment? Is that what you're suggesting, sir?
11 A. If I understood it correctly -- well, they were always unanimous
12 decisions as far as I understood it, but, yes, the HVO did make
13 collective decisions. I can see that from this.
14 Q. Sir, my question is -- is rather precise picking up on what the
15 president asked you. Based on your answer, so if Prlic votes against an
16 appointment, then it's not his appointment but it would be the HVO's
17 appointment in your opinion. Is that what you're trying to tell us, sir?
18 A. That is correct.
19 Q. If he votes for the decision, if he votes for the appointment
20 then it's his appointment, not the HVO's.
21 A. Mr. Karnavas, well, it's difficult for me -- becoming difficult
22 for me to follow, but what I can tell you is this: The HVO did make
23 collective decisions, that's true, whether Mr. Prlic agreed or not. If
24 he was out-voted, he would sign. Is that what you want to hear?
25 Q. No, it's not what I want to hear. I want to know what you are
1 thinking. With Mr. Lucic you claim, you claim that this is his
2 appointment, his decision. That's what you're claiming. Had Mr. Prlic
3 voted against Mr. Lucic's appointment, would that be the HVO's
4 appointment and not Mr. Prlic's, in your point of view? It's a yes or
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Okay. Now --
8 A. Well, the decision would --
9 Q. Yes. Go ahead. Continue. You don't need to look at the
10 transcript. You can just answer the question.
11 A. Well, I said yes.
12 Q. Okay. So -- but now if Mr. Prlic had voted for Lucic to be
13 appointed, then it would be Prlic's appointment, not the HVO's then?
14 A. I must admit I am not following.
15 Q. Okay. Well, that's why -- that's why I'm trying to clarify, sir,
16 because on Article 31 -- paragraph 31 you make the insinuation that Lucic
17 was appointed by Prlic. Now, do you make that decision to put that in
18 because you see it was a unanimous vote and, therefore, you attribute the
19 decision to Prlic and not to the HVO?
20 A. It's like this, Mr. Karnavas: Item 80, the appointment of
21 Mr. Prlic, well, it was published in the Narodni List of the HZ HB, which
22 makes it a public document, and from that public document it emerges, it
23 follows -- or, rather, at least that part of the public documents that
24 the appointment of the president of the HVO -- of course these minutes
25 are not a public document and here we see the technology of it, for
2 Q. Excuse me, we can look at P 00615, go back to that document. And
3 we see in that document on page 10, Your Honours, a decision on
4 Mr. Lucic, and I apologise for having to spend so much time on a rather
5 simple issue, but here on page 10 in the English version, and if you
6 can't find it I'll give you the B/C/S version, sir.
7 MR. KARNAVAS: Mr. Usher, if you can come and we can assist this
9 Q. Here again --
10 A. Yes, well, all right, I found the document. I found it.
11 Q. Okay, again you see pursuant to Article 18 of the statutory
12 decision there was a session held on 14th October 1992. We see that a
13 decision is taken. Do you see that, sir?
14 A. Yes, yes, I do.
15 Q. Okay. To appoint a security assistant to the president of the
16 HVO HZ HB, and we see it's Mr. Lucic. Do you see that?
17 A. I do.
18 Q. Okay. And so we see that this decision is as a result of a
19 session that was held on the 14th of October; correct?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. And if we look at the earlier document we saw that at that
22 particular session all the members that were present of the HVO HZ HB
23 voted for and made the decision to appoint Mr. Lucic; correct?
24 A. Correct.
25 Q. And so from that, does it not follow, sir, that that decision and
1 that appointment was of or by the HVO HZ HB and not, as you stated on
2 paragraph 31, that it was Dr. Jadranko Prlic's appointment?
3 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honour -- Your Honours, I have
4 to intervene. Mr. Marijan, on several occasions, has been repeating that
5 the appointment was conducted by Mr. Jadranko Prlic, was carried out by
6 him, and that's a logical term, because an appointment is made by one
7 person and the selection can be made by a whole body, or the decision to
8 select may be made by a body; and Mr. Marijan has been saying several
9 times, has been referring to appointment, and there's no -- that's quite
11 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honours.
12 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] But it's such a decision which is
14 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honours, I will interrupt because
15 [Overlapping speakers] ... dishonest.
16 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I have to protect -- no, no, I'm
17 being quite frank, and I have to protect my witness because several times
18 now, he's been repeating the term "appointment." Whether it's a problem
19 with the English interpretation, I really don't know, so I wish to be of
20 assistance because an appointment is signed in this case by
21 Jadranko Prlic; and now I'm confused because he doesn't know what's being
22 asked at this point.
23 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, Your Honour, let me be very clear.
24 My colleague and I having worked in the region know that what we have
25 just heard from Nozica is false. This is not an appointment by Prlic,
1 and it's nonsense what we just heard. That objection is utter nonsense.
2 It's gobbledegook. The gentleman is very clear and the insinuation is
3 very clear that he wishes to make it the appointment by -- but by doing
4 so we can show there's some kind of chain of command. That's the essence
5 of all of this. And there's no issue with the translation. And unlike
6 Ms. Nozica, Ms. Tomanovic knows English very, very well and can track
7 both languages.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, first of all --
9 Mr. Karnavas, you have used up your 30 minutes.
10 Witness, this is an issue of appointment. It needs to be looked
11 at from a legal point of view because behind this appointment there is
12 the power, the competence to make appointments who exercises the actual
13 power or competence to a point and this is the underlying issue. Is it
14 Mr. Prlic who decides thoroughly to appoint Mr. X to such and such
15 position because he has this sovereign discretionary competence or power,
16 or will Mr. Prlic appoint the witness but he has a limited competence,
17 that is -- that is a prior procedure and which is not involved that is
18 proposal by Mr. Stojic, then deliberation, then vote, if necessary, and a
20 So this is how things stand. Of course this can give rise to
21 submissions by the counsels because they have their own point of views,
22 but we need to be above this as Judges, but I'm putting the problem to
23 you as it is presented to us. But reading your paragraph 31, according
24 to you, it was Mr. Prlic's competence to make appointments, but maybe
25 this is not what you meant. Maybe you meant something else. So what did
1 you actually mean?
2 Do you understand the difference between having the power or
3 having limited competence? Are these concepts familiar to you, or do you
4 not understand them? If that's the case, then we might as well call a
5 halt to the discussion.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if this calls --
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I see the term "limited
8 competence" or "qualified competence." We have very different legal
9 concepts here, and perhaps translation can lead to misunderstandings, but
10 since your legal system is very similar to mine, I think that when I say
11 something you should perhaps understand it perhaps more easily than if I
12 belonged to a different legal system.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If necessary, well, I'm looking at
14 this text in front of me, and if necessary I may clarify this one
15 sentence, and I may say that Mr. Jadranko Prlic, on behalf of the HVO,
16 appointed Mr. Lucic to the position of the assistant head. But this is
17 what I meant even before I said this.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, I think we need
19 to put an end to this discussion. This is a complex legal issue. The
20 witness maintains his statement and --
21 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well, Your Honour. I need about 15 more
22 minutes. I have a couple of more topics to go.
23 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Mr. Karnavas, the record, on page 27, line 16,
24 it's gone now, but maybe you have the possibility to look back, quotes
25 you as mentioning or addressing Mr. Tomljanovich. It says Tomanovic.
1 MR. KARNAVAS: Tomanovic. It is Tomanovic.
2 JUDGE TRECHSEL: You wanted to say Tomanovic.
3 MR. KARNAVAS: Ms. Tomanovic, this is my co-counsel.
4 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Okay, thank you. I know, I know. Okay. It was
5 surprising because --
6 MR. KARNAVAS: Not Mr. Tomljanovich, Ms. Tomanovic, my
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You just said you need another
9 15 minutes. Does that mean that one of your colleagues will be giving
10 you 15 minutes?
11 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, in light of -- in light of the
12 abstinence of this particular witness, I'm going to need for time. And
13 yesterday the Trial Chamber was rather generous having, you know, given
14 the -- the Stojic Defence additional time. So I do need to cover a
15 couple of points because I do believe that it will assist the Trial
16 Chamber in clarifying certain matters, and if not, I will -- I will at
17 least want three minutes to make my offer of proof of the record of the
18 topics that I would be going into in the event I'm not given the time.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Go ahead.
21 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you very much, Mr. President and
22 Your Honours.
23 Q. If you look at paragraph 95 of your report, yesterday you made
24 reference to a document which is P 00646. It's referenced in footnote
25 217 of your report where you claim, you know, if we look at the bottom
1 part of page 44, Your Honours, you say:
2 "The HVO Main Staff was responsible to the work to the president
3 of the HZ HB as the supreme commander of the armed forces of the HZ HB
4 and the Security Sector, in addition to the president of the HZ HB also
5 to the president of the HVO."
6 And you quote that document. And I noticed yesterday you and
7 counsel for Stojic were referring to the document as a work plan. That
8 document, sir, is it not -- does it not say "Proposal"?
9 Document P 00646. Is that not a proposal, sir, and not something that
10 has been adopted?
11 A. That is correct, Mr. Karnavas. This was a proposal, but I
12 believe I explained yesterday why I wrote what I did.
13 Q. All right. Now, can you point anywhere, sir, because I've looked
14 high, low, wide, and repeatedly, to find where at any of the sessions
15 this proposal was adopted? Can you please point where, sir? In which
16 session, at what time, this proposal was actually adopted?
17 A. I did not see any session at which this proposal would have been
18 adopted, but I'm not sure that I saw all the documents from all the
20 Q. All right.
21 A. And some minutes -- minutes from some of the sessions that I did
22 see were completely illegible.
23 Q. All right. Let's look at document P 04211. And I believe you
24 make reference to this in paragraph 38 of your report. And let's see
25 because now we're into who's responsible for SIS. And when you're
1 looking for the document, did you by any chance meet with Mr. Lucic? Did
2 you make an attempt to meet with him, he's also an historian, as I
3 understand, to discuss under who -- under who he was reporting to?
4 A. You mean whether we meet concerning this particular topic?
5 Q. Yes.
6 A. There was no need to meet up --
7 Q. Okay.
8 A. -- he reported to the head.
9 Q. All right. To -- you mean Mr. Stojic; right?
10 A. Yes, to Mr. Stojic.
11 Q. Okay. So there's no doubt that SIS was under Mr. Stojic,
12 reported to Mr. Stojic, and Mr. Stojic was responsible for all their
13 work; correct?
14 A. There is no doubt about that, Mr. Karnavas.
15 Q. And of course if we look at Article 42, I won't go through all of
16 the articles, but 42 might be of an interest so we can actually see
17 who's -- who's on top of him. Article 42, it talks about taping:
18 "In order to prevent illegal activity by a individual, group,
19 organisation, and foreign institutions, the service has resources to
20 covert taping in order to uncover, monitor, and document this activity."
21 If we go further down, we see that permission has to be obtained
22 by the head, that is Mr. Stojic; correct? Not by the HVO, not by the
23 president of the HVO HZ HB, but by Mr. Stojic himself; correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And if we look at Article 43 [Realtime transcript read in error,
1 "17"] we see the same thing. We see secret taping of telephones and
2 other means of communications. We see the same thing.
3 A. Approved by the president, yes.
4 Q. And --
5 THE INTERPRETER: Leave a pause between question and answer
6 you're overlapping with the witness.
7 MR. KARNAVAS: My apologies. My apologies.
8 Q. It says shall be approved by the head, not the president, by the
9 head. That means Mr. Stojic; correct?
10 A. [No interpretation]
11 Q. Beg your pardon? You're going to speak louder so we can make a
12 record. I want to make sure the interpreters can hear you. So we're
13 talking about Mr. Stojic makes that decision; correct?
14 A. Yes. He was approving such taping.
15 Q. And of course the same thing would go under Article 44 where it
16 talks about covert photographic and video recording; correct?
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. Now, of course --
19 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Correct -- correct -- sorry, it's my time, not
20 your time. Don't worry. Correction to the transcript. On page 32, line
21 3, reference is here written to Article 17. I think it should be 43.
22 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes, 43.
23 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.
24 MR. KARNAVAS:
25 Q. So if Mr. Stojic -- if SIS, for instance, decided that they
1 wanted to tape record or photograph or videotape the president of the HVO
2 or any member of the HVO, Mr. Stojic would be the one to make that
3 authorisation; correct?
4 A. Maybe you could have mentioned a better example. I'm not sure
5 that he was in charge of approving it at that level, although from what
6 it says here he could have decided even to tape President Boban.
7 Q. All right. Now, if we look at P 00098. P 00098. And when you
8 look at -- and while you're looking at that -- once you have it, let me
9 know. I have a couple of questions before I to ask you about the
11 A. [No interpretation]
13 A. I have it, yes.
14 Q. Was this document shown to you by Mr. Stojic?
15 A. I saw several requests. I'm not sure that this was one of them.
16 I saw several similar requests.
17 Q. And when you --
18 A. I cannot be 100 per cent sure that this is one.
19 Q. And when you met with him to discuss your expertise did he by any
20 chance talk to you about his involvement in the financing of these sorts
21 of matters? Financing of the military.
22 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise. This
23 claim by my honourable colleague is just completely senseless.
24 Mr. Karnavas is asking did the counsel for Mr. Stojic show you any
25 documents showing -- indicating his participation in the financing. This
1 aggressive attitude by Mr. Karnavas shows -- first of all, wastes too
2 much time, and now he's even starting to accuse. So first of all, I need
3 to protect Mr. Stojic because what Mr. Karnavas just said, I believe, is
4 totally inappropriate:
5 "Did Mr. Stojic's counsel show you the documents showing
6 Mr. Stojic's activities regarding the financing of the HVO?"
7 I'm only asking that we should all be correct. So if
8 Mr. Karnavas is trying to indicate that what Mr. Prlic signed was part of
9 a collective decision that he might be as professional to make the same
10 claim for Mr. Stojic because Mr. Stojic was also the head of a collective
11 body. So we cannot have two different attitudes here. That's why I need
12 to object to this particular method of questioning, and I also need to
13 object to the additional time approved because then I will need to have
14 additional time in the future because just as you said, if I have two
15 binders, the Prosecution will have four. So I will also need additional
17 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] I would just need to make a
18 correction in the transcript. I believe this is necessary for
19 Mr. Karnavas behalf and also for Your Honours.
20 On page 33, line 25, it is stated that Madam Nozica said that
21 Mr. Karnavas wastes too much time. She, however, put it in different
22 phrase. She said that with his aggressive attitude Mr. Karnavas is
23 trying to get more time from the Chambers for his cross-examination. And
24 given that this particular remark regards also the attitude of the
25 Chambers, I would kindly ask you to take this into consideration.
1 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honours, if I may briefly respond --
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] First of all, if there is a
3 translation, let me say -- let me say the reason the Chamber granted time
4 to Mr. Karnavas has nothing to do with whether or not he's being
6 Given Madam Nozica's objection, the witness had access to all of
7 the documents in the archives that he consulted. Perhaps he saw certain
8 documents relating to financial matters proving that certain individuals
9 were involved in the financing, and perhaps in the archives was to be
10 found the document that we have before us here; and therefore
11 Mr. Karnavas has found it in asking the question have you seen this
12 document, and if you've seen it, what can you say about it.
13 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas.
15 MR. KARNAVAS:
16 Q. Did you go over this document with Mr. Stojic himself, sir, or
17 any other document, for that matter?
18 A. I saw Mr. Stojic for 15 minutes altogether in my entire life, so
19 I did not go through any documents with him.
20 Q. All right. Now -- and is this the first time you see this
21 document? If we look at it, sir, this is a --
22 A. Most probably.
23 Q. Okay. This is a request for opening a non-residential account.
24 We see Mr. Stojic's name and signature. We see Mr. Jelavic's signature.
25 Mr. Jelavic was -- held at some point the position that Mr. Stojic held,
1 when Mr. Stojic was in Grude, when he was in logistics; correct? That's
2 the position that Ante Jelavic held?
3 A. Yes. Ante Jelavic was in charge of the logistics at the Main
5 Q. And that's what Mr. Bruno Stojic was in charge of too when he was
6 located in Grude, the same place that Mate Boban had his headquarters;
8 A. Could you please explain that?
9 Q. Okay.
10 A. Could you explain that question.
11 Q. Well, the question is this and you make reference to it in your
12 report at that Mr. Stojic was head of the logistics of the HVO before he
13 became the head of the Department of Defence; correct?
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. And that -- in the logistics centre, in the logistics centre was
16 located in Grude; correct?
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. And Mate Boban is from Grude and his offices were in Grude;
20 A. Yes. He was born in Grude, and I believe his office was there.
21 Q. Right. Now -- we see one other signature under number 5, and
22 then we see somebody has sign for Mate Boban. Do you see that where it
23 says, "za"? It means for. Do you see it? And if you look at that
24 signature and look at number 1, Bruno Stojic's signature, do we not see
25 that Mr. Stojic has signed for Mr. Mate Boban?
1 A. This signature is rather similar to the signature in line 1 that
2 was signed by Mr. Stojic.
3 Q. But we don't see signatures for the head of the finance
4 department or the president of the HVO HZ HB for this non-residential
5 account; correct? For the opening of this non-residential account.
6 A. That's correct.
7 Q. Finally, if we go to a couple of documents, P 00586. This is
8 dated 17 October 1992
9 organisation of the Defence Department. Have you had a chance to look at
10 this, sir?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And would it be fair to say that when you look at it there is no
13 mentioning of the HVO HZ HB?
14 A. In this document -- just a second, and I will be able to confirm
15 that. No.
16 Q. Right. And did you have a chance to look at it beforehand, to
17 make a determination whether this was actually being applied?
18 A. This is the decision on the basic principles of the organisation,
19 and on the basis of this decision Mr. Stojic signed a Decision on the
20 Organisation of the Department of Defence. This document was dated the
21 15th of September, although we can see here the 17th of October is the
22 date, possibly that was the delivery date. I can say that the document
23 that followed that was made on the basis of this document regulates
24 certain issues differently.
25 Q. And if we look at P 02477. This is the Decision on the Internal
1 Organisation of the Defence Department dated 20 May 1993. Surely you
2 must have been given this document and shown this document; correct? Do
3 you have it, sir?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. If we look at the last page we see again the same signature that
6 we saw on that non-residential account, very similar to both what was for
7 Mr. Boban and what was for Mr. Stojic. We also see a signature by
8 Mate Boban. Here we see his actual signature.
9 If we look at this document again, sir, there is no mentioning of
10 the HVO HZ HB, is there?
11 A. 2477? I should have it here. In this document HVO HZ HB is
12 mentioned in item 8.
13 Q. All right. And how are they mentioned?
14 A. This item refers to the defence administrations, and in paragraph
15 II it says that chiefs of defence administration are appointed by the HVO
16 of the HZ HB following the proposal by the head of defence. I believe
17 this is the only time that the HVO HZ HB is mentioned in this document.
18 MR. BOS
19 HZ HB is maybe mentioned.
20 MR. KARNAVAS: It talks about the president of the HVO, and it
21 talks about the Croatian Community as opposed to the HVO HZ HB.
22 Very well. All right. Your Honours, I appreciate the extra time
23 being given to me. I have no further questions for this particular
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, in that case, it is time
1 for the break. It's 10.30. We will have a 20-minute break.
2 --- Recess taken at 10.27 a.m.
3 --- On resuming at 10.57 a.m.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Next counsel.
5 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: On the concept use by
6 Judge Antonetti earlier on "competence qualifiees [phoen]," the closest
7 equivalent we've come up with is "qualified powers." Or sometimes
8 mandatory duty. It means a decision which taken by somebody which has to
9 be taken because certain conditions are met.
10 MR. KHAN: Mr. President, Your Honours, just one very brief
11 matter for the record. This morning we were handed by my learned friend
12 Mr. Scott a further Prosecution motion regarding the Bozic issue. Just
13 on the record, on the bench are -- is the Defence response to that. It's
14 just been filed and my learned friends have been served with a hard copy
15 of it just before Your Honours came in.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you.
17 I think Mr. Praljak will be doing the questioning.
18 General Praljak, the floor is yours.
19 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
20 Cross-examination by the Accused Praljak:
21 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Marijan.
22 A. Good morning, Mr. Praljak.
23 Q. Due to the shortness of time, I formulated some questions that
24 will be very easy to answer, so for the mentioned reasons of time, please
25 are as concise as possible in your answers. Could we see Exhibit P 00502
1 on the screens, please.
2 While we're waiting, let me ask you the following question: The
3 assistant brigade commander for SIS, did he report the brigade commander
4 about his work as well as the SIS headquarters?
5 A. It was his duty to do so, both.
6 Q. Thank you. Did you find any document stating that he would send
7 a document about that to the Main Staff?
8 A. The assistant brigade commander was not in a position to do so.
9 Q. Did the assistant commander of the zone of operation for SIS also
10 collect these reports from the brigades and report to the commander of
11 the zone of operation as well as the SIS headquarters?
12 A. That's what it should have been like.
13 Q. Did you find any report submitted by the assistant for SIS in a
14 zone of operation that was submitted to the Main Staff?
15 A. I cannot tell for sure. I'm not sure.
16 Q. Thank you. That is sufficient. Did you find any report made by
17 the SIS headquarters reporting to the Main Staff?
18 A. The same question. I'm not sure I saw anything of the kind.
19 Q. Thank you. Do -- does the same apply to the military police?
20 Did you find any documents stating or would show that the military police
21 reports to Main Staff about its activities?
22 A. I believe not.
23 Q. Let us look at the document. The first two pages matter, namely
24 the structure of the Main Staff. You may have seen them before. So let
25 me ask you whether according to the organisational structure of the
1 Main Staff there were any position forces or the military police,
3 A. This document from 1992, I believe, does not contain what you
5 Q. Do take a look at the first two pages, please.
6 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Mr. Praljak, it seems that we have not been
7 given these documents. Am I correct, or something has gone wrong on the
9 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Since this document already
10 has an exhibit number, I --
11 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Mr. Praljak, you're sure aware that we cannot
12 work on the basis of sheer numbers. We have decided that we want the
13 paper, and maybe it is in some other -- in one of the files that we have
14 already, but we have requested this, and we would like also to obtain it.
15 Ms. Alaburic.
16 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it is customary that
17 documents are not repeated if some documents were submitted to the
18 Chamber in the direct examination. So this document should be in the set
19 of documents submitted by the Stojic Defence.
20 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Ms. Nozica, can you indicate where it is if it
21 is with your documents, and if so, where we can find it.
22 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I believe it is there, but I didn't
23 show it, as far as I remember. I believe it is there. I will make an
24 effort to find it. I believe that our expert has found it because we had
25 it in the binder in the proofing.
1 I'm sorry, this is -- I don't have the right to address you now,
2 but could you tell the Chamber which document this is in the binder so as
3 to enable the Judges to find it?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe it is the tenth document
5 in binder 2.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kovacic, I suppose you had
7 a talk with General Praljak before he does the questioning. I think that
8 you knew he had the intent of referring to some documents. You should
9 have before the hearing have made copies of the documents because look at
10 all the papers I have behind me. Look at this. So that means that we
11 have to go fishing for documents.
12 Of course Mr. Praljak could say this document is in binder
13 number 2, et cetera, but we have an issue with this. But let's move on.
14 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] This is my mistake,
15 Your Honours.
16 Q. Mr. Marijan, in the document -- in this document that you surely
17 know, mentions a position in the organisation of the Main Staff for SIS
18 or the police.
19 A. The document dated 18 September 1992, does not have such
20 positions in the establishment.
21 Q. In possible -- after possible changes of the organisational
22 structure of the Main Staff did you find any positions for the SIS or the
23 military police?
24 A. I have not seen the second document about the organisational
25 structure of the Main Staff. I know for sure that there was no position
1 for the military police. A few days after you were relieved from your
2 duty, I know that there were two SIS officers there.
3 Q. Do you know that the headquarters of the military police daily
4 issued a bulletin about their work and distributed it to about 15
5 addresses in Herceg-Bosna?
6 A. I haven't seen that bulletin.
7 Q. Thank you. Now about the document you saw yesterday. We don't
8 have to put it on the screen. This is 2D 00944, dated 19/11/93
9 mention is made of a certain Mr. Bandic in the Main Staff. We saw that
10 document yesterday, didn't we?
11 A. I believe that there was another desk officer, but there was also
12 Mr. Bandic.
13 Q. Let's stick to Mr. Bandic. Based on that document, obviously, in
14 your report, in paragraph 39, toward the end of the paragraph, you state
15 the following:
16 "At the -- in the HVO Main Staff an assistant for SIS was no
17 longer envisaged by establishment in 1992."
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. "In the latter half of 1993, such a position must have exist."
20 I'm interested in this phrase "must have existed." What is the
21 likelihood with which you can claim, based on the document dated 19/11/93
22 that there was a position in the latter half of 1992? Or to put it
23 differently was he appointed two days earlier, five days earlier, a year
24 earlier, and what does this "must have" mean? Is that certain or
1 A. I refer here to a document dated 2nd of September, 1993. I don't
2 know whether it is here, and that is the approval of the appointment of
3 some officers. I cannot say off the top of my head who it was, but there
4 were several names. And then there is this later document that you
5 mentioned which can be interpreted either way, as you correctly say.
6 Q. Mr. Marijan, have you ever seen the appointment of that person to
7 the Main Staff, the appointment, a document of appointment?
8 A. I do not remember having seen it.
9 Q. So can we draw the conclusion by which I will finish that since
10 you have not seen the appointment and since the position is not -- does
11 not exist in the organisational structure, which need not be particularly
12 significant, though, that you cannot state or claim with certainty that
13 he was there in the latter half of 1993? You can suppose with some
14 degree of probability that he was there, but you could not claim,
15 certainly not for certain, that that was actually the case. Do you agree
16 with me that this would be a logical conclusion?
17 A. You are right to a great extent. I do not remember this
18 document. I refer to the document dated 2 September.
19 Q. It's a document about -- which is a proposal, and there is no
20 document showing the appointment, so we cannot be sure that, at least
21 during the time while Praljak was there at the Main Staff, there was a
22 person in charge of SIS. Do you agree?
23 A. I would reformulate the sentence to say that in the latter half
24 of 1993, such a person was there.
25 Q. Do you think so, or do you know that?
1 A. I know based on that document.
2 Q. Which document?
3 A. The documents dated 19/11/93
5 Q. That is a sort of weird logic. He may have been appointed on the
6 16th of November. Please read the -- through the entire document. What
7 makes you draw the conclusion that the person was not there half a year
8 earlier or a year earlier? And even if a document says that he was
9 there, which doesn't necessarily mean that it's indeed the case?
10 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Excuse me, Mr. Praljak. That is not a bad will
11 of mine, but now you are asking the witness to read a document which is
12 not on the screen, which is -- I have not found anywhere, and this really
13 is not the way to work here. Perhaps you can help me out. I would be
14 grateful. Thank you.
15 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] 2D 00944, 2D 00944.
16 Q. Mr. Marijan, please, where it says as of which time that person
17 should have been there in this document. Show meet sentence from which
18 you draw the conclusion that the person was there in the latter half of
20 A. Just a minute.
21 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] If I may help. That document is in
22 my binder, in the middle -- in the middle of binder 1. So if I can -- if
23 this is helpful for the witness or the Chamber. It may be the 15th
24 document or so.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, the sentence you read
1 out to me a minute ago, I refer to the document dated the 2nd of
2 September about the appointment to the Main Staff. I don't have that
3 document here, but it isn't by chance that I refer to this document. I
4 don't know what it says by heart, but it mentioned eight or nine names.
5 That can be easily found out. And you are now confronting me with a
6 document dated 19/11.
7 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation]
8 Q. That document was shown yesterday, and based on that document you
9 said that he was there in the latter half of 1993. Even that document
10 from September is not the latter half of 1993. And that document is not
11 an appointment but possibly a proposal, but we don't have that document
12 here so we can't discuss it. So you see, I don't want to dwell on this
13 topic any longer. My answer is completely satisfactory -- or your answer
14 is completely satisfactory to me, and I thank you for it.
15 This concludes my questions.
16 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] For the sake of the accuracy of the
17 transcript, the witness in his report refers to a document dated 2/9/93
18 and that document 2D 00928. That document is -- is admitted as evidence.
19 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] That document is -- does
20 not contain the same names. Some people were there, then they went away,
21 and then some other people came, and this -- that's from where you draw
22 the conclusion of that person being there in the latter half of 1993.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If I got it right, all the
24 Defence counsels have taken the floor. So it is now Ms. Alaburic's turn.
25 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Not all the Defence teams have
1 cross-examined yet, such as the Coric Defence, and they will be coming
2 after me.
3 Your Honours, I'd like to say good morning to everyone in the
4 courtroom, to my learned friends and to Mr. Marijan.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning, Ms. Alaburic.
6 Cross-examination by Ms. Alaburic:
7 Q. In these proceedings, I'm going to cross-examine you on behalf of
8 General Petkovic, who is my client and also on behalf of General Praljak
9 who ceded part of his time to the Petkovic Defence.
10 I'd like to inform the Trial Chamber and also you, Mr. Marijan
11 that for the most part I'm going to deal with the topic of the
12 relationship between the head of the Defence Department and the armed
13 forces of the HZ HB, and the relationship between the head of -- I'm
14 repeating for the transcript the head of the Defence Department and the
15 armed forces of the HZ HB. And if I have time left over, I'm going to
16 ask you some questions in order to clarify some of your answers. For
17 example, the questions raised by Judge Trechsel because I consider that
18 those were important questions and that we owe a fuller explanation in
19 response to them.
20 Now, the provisions that I'm going to use and regulations are to
21 be found in the Defence binder, the Stojic Defence binder, which my
22 learned friend Ms. Nozica put an X to. It was binder X. And those will
23 be documents P 586, the Decision on the Establishment of the Defence
24 Department [Realtime transcript read in error, "company"], and I'm going
25 to deal with item 9 first and foremost which His Honour Judge Antonetti
1 quite rightly qualified as the most important provision. Let me repeat,
2 the title was -- because it wasn't properly recorded in the transcript,
3 it is the Decision to Establish the Organisational Structure of the
4 Defence Department.
5 It's not Defence company, it's Defence department. Yes, Defence
6 Department. That's right. And the following regulations will be the
7 regulations governing the armed forces, number P 289 from May 1992 --
8 July 1992
9 Now, my binder has been ordered in the following way: The
10 documents are in the order in which I'll be showing them.
11 Mr. Marijan, it is not my aim, at least not in this first set of
12 documents, to discuss the contents of those documents with you, but what
13 I'm interested in is whether you were familiar with those documents.
14 Now, to begin with let me just check my understanding of your
15 report. If I understood you correctly and understood your report
16 correctly, you compiled it on the basis of analysing provisions and an
17 analysis of certain orders, decisions, minutes, records, and similar
18 documents. Have I understood that correctly?
19 A. Yes, you have understood it correctly.
20 Q. Now, before I start asking you my questions, I'd like an
21 explanation. In paragraphs 119 and 120 of your report, you speak about
22 the responsibilities and authority of the Defence Department with respect
23 to military prison and detention centres, and those paragraphs you place
24 in the section which is titled "Military -- compulsory military service,
25 compulsory military service."
1 Now, I'd like to ask you to explain to us whether this is a
2 mistake, or did you do this intentionally in order for this to escape the
4 A. This was a mistake. It should be employee relationships.
5 Q. I have to ask you to explain that term. Do you mean it has to do
6 with employee relations?
7 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. Microphone.
8 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] My microphone seems to be on.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I don't know where else I
10 would place that.
11 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. I have to repeat my question. You mentioned employee
13 relationships. Now my question is that under that term do you imply the
14 authority of the head of the Defence Department over prisoners of war,
15 military prisons, military detention centres? Just give me a yes or no
16 answer. We don't have much time to go into explanations. Just yes or
17 no, please. Have I understood you correctly? Is that what you think?
18 A. Well, yes, that would be the closest.
19 Q. Very well. Now, in view of the fact that my colleague Ms. Nozica
20 emphasised that you're not a lawyer and you're not qualified to interpret
21 provisions and regulations, I'm not going to ask you about regulations
22 for the time being, but I am going to ask you about individual decisions.
23 Now, yesterday and this is reported on page 75 of the transcript, said
24 that the head of the Defence Department was not in the chain of command;
25 is that right?
1 A. That was my conclusion, yes, having conducted an analysis of the
3 Q. And on that same page you said that you hadn't seen a single
4 document on the basis of which one would be able to conclude that the
5 Defence Department was in the chain of command of armed forces. Is that
6 what you said?
7 A. I think that's what I said, yes.
8 Q. Very well. Now I'd like us to go on to the next set of
9 documents, and please just tell me whether you knew about the document,
10 were familiar with them, or not. And the first document is P 600. The
11 contents of the document is not what interests us now. P 00600 is the
12 document number.
13 So take a look at that document in my binder. We'll take the
14 documents in the order they've been put into the binder. Keep it in
15 front of you because we're going to need the ELMO.
16 So this then is a document dated the 18th of October, 1992
17 Bruno Stojic, and he is calling upon the commander of the Central Bosnia
18 operative zone to a meeting. Now, tell me, did you know that
19 Bruno Stojic had direct communication with the commanders of the
20 operative zones and that he called them to attend meetings and quite
21 obviously talked to them?
22 A. I am familiar with the document. You said we weren't to go into
23 the contents, but, yes, those are the contents.
24 Q. The next document is P 00619. It's a report by the military
25 police administration for the 22nd of October, 1992, and at the beginning
1 of the second paragraph it says, and I quote:
2 "Pursuant to an order from the [as interpreted] Defence
3 Department and based on a decision by the Presidency of the HVO, during
4 the day we took the following facilities in town: The post office
5 building, the MUP centre, the police station, and we stopped the work of
6 Radio Mostar."
7 I'd like to make a correction in line 19. The word "head" was
8 left out. So the sentence reads:
9 "Pursuant to an order from the head of the Defence Department."
10 Now, I'd like to know whether the head of the Defence Department
11 issued such orders.
12 A. This document is familiar to me. That's what I can tell you.
13 Q. All right. Fine. Now, the third document I'd like to look at is
14 P 00799. The document is dated the 25th of November, 1992. Bruno Stojic
15 is issuing an order to the commander of the Rama Brigade and to the
16 commander of the Military Police Platoon in Prozor as well as to the
17 commander of the Military Police Battalion to report to the offers of the
18 head of the Defence Department. Now, do you know that Bruno Stojic
19 issued such orders and had direct communication with the commanders of
20 the brigades and also the commanders of certain military police units?
21 A. Yes, I'm familiar with that document.
22 Q. The next document is P 00804. The document is dated the 25th
23 November, 1993. Once again Bruno Stojic is issuing an order to the Bruno
24 Busic Regiment to redeploy, to be transferred. Now, do you know that
25 Bruno Stojic issued certain units of the HVO orders of this kind?
1 A. I am familiar with this document, yes.
2 Q. Thank you. Now, the next document is P 01098. It is an order
3 from Bruno Stojic, date the 11th of January, 1993. And in the lower half
4 we see that the order was sent to the commanders of the operative zones,
5 the commanders of the brigades, and the military police administration.
6 And this order prohibits persons to -- in uniform and bearing arms to
7 move around.
8 Now, do you know that Bruno Stojic issued orders of this kind
9 directly to the commanders of the armed forces?
10 A. Yes, I am familiar with that document.
11 Q. Now, the next document is P 1140. It is Bruno Stojic's order of
12 the 15th of January, 1993
13 document we've seen in this courtroom quite frequently. It is a document
14 by which Bruno Stojic orders the main -- certain activities to the
15 Main Staff and orders the resubordination of certain units to the army of
17 I don't want to go into this document in detail. We're all very
18 familiar with it, but are you familiar with the document. Have you ever
19 seen it before?
20 A. Yes, I have seen this document.
21 Q. The next document is 4D 348. It is a report from
22 Colonel Miro Andric, and we'll see what post he held, what position he
23 held. It is directly addressed to Bruno Stojic, and in the first
24 paragraph it says as follows:
25 "Following a verbal order from the head of the Defence Department
1 of the HZ HB, Mr. Bruno Stojic, on the 12th of January, 1993, I went to
2 carry out a mission in Prozor with the objective of calming the situation
3 in the Gornji Vakuf municipality."
4 Tell us, please, Mr. Marijan, did you know that Bruno Stojic
5 issued oral orders of this type and have you seen the document?
6 A. Yes. Well, I've seen several reports from Mr. Andric. He was
7 deputy head of the Main Staff at the time, but I cannot say with
8 certainty that I have actually seen this document; but I have seen some
9 of his documents whether I've seen this one I'm not quite sure.
10 Q. Now, in view of the fact that in the transcript not -- your
11 answer hasn't been translated. He was the deputy head of the Main Staff;
12 is that right?
13 A. Yes, I think that's right.
14 Q. Let's look at the next document, P 1316. And it's an order from
15 Bruno Stojic to all the operative zones and military police
16 administrations to let through the vehicles of -- carrying humanitarian
17 aid and their convoys. Now, did you see this -- have you seen this order
18 ever and similar ones sent to the armed forces?
19 A. I think we looked at this document yesterday because it's
20 included in my report.
21 Q. Fine. Now look at the next document which is 2D 00984. I think
22 that you have already seen the document and it -- that it's mentioned in
23 your report, but let's check it out.
24 A. I think so, yes.
25 Q. Now take a look at document 2D 00439. It is a document dated the
1 20th of May, 1993, Bruno Stojic, first of all, is seeking complete data
2 on the situation in Tuzla
3 there; and then from the Zrinjski 115th Brigade, he receives an answer
4 from the commander. Have you seen this document before?
5 A. I'm not quite sure, but I would rather say yes than no.
6 THE INTERPRETER: Could the Judge's microphone be switched off,
7 please. Thank you.
8 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Now, P 3146 is the next document. The document is one from
10 Bruno Stojic. It is dated the 3rd of July 1993. It is sent to the
11 Petar Kresimir Brigade in Livno or, rather, Livno. It is the brigade
12 that you were in too; right?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. So Bruno Stojic here says or, rather, orders that the military
15 police from -- that the Livno military police be relocated to Mostar.
16 Did you know that Bruno Stojic issued such orders on the relocation of
17 certain units of the armed forces depending on the situation on the
19 A. Well, that question would merit a longer comment but you're
20 asking me whether I've seen the document or not, so, yes, I have.
21 Q. Now look at the next document which is P 05232, 05232 is the
22 correct number. The document has the status of exhibit. It is an order
23 from Bruno Stojic dated the 20th of September, 1993, and it says due to
24 these newly arisen situation in Mostar, Buna, Zitomislic, and Capljina,
25 Bruno Stojic orders that all human and material resources be engaged in
1 all free military and civilian police forces, hunting associations and
2 other free forces in these areas and be placed under the command of the
3 commander of the 1st Brigade or at the time sector of the South-eastern
5 Tell us, have you ever seen this order before?
6 A. Yes, I have.
7 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters note there is a lot of
8 interference in the courtroom and it is difficult to hear the speaker.
9 Thank you. It's been put right.
10 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. The next document is 41183 a document in which Bruno Stojic
12 directly sends the commander of the -- is sent to the commander of the
13 brigade in Zepce. Do you know that Bruno Stojic had direct
14 communication -- let me repeat the number of the document 4D -- 4D, D as
15 in Dubrovnik
16 A. Yes, I have seen this document.
17 Q. Does that mean that you knew that Bruno Stojic had direct
18 communication with the brigade commanders?
19 A. Yes, I did know that.
20 Q. All right, fine. Now let us look at one more document. These
21 were taken at random as examples. The document is P 06364. And it is a
22 report from the Commander Ivica Rajic directly to Bruno Stojic. You say
23 you knew about this? Have you seen this document before?
24 A. I think I have.
25 Q. All right. Fine. Now, if I can conclude on the basis of all
1 that, Mr. Marijan, most of these documents, almost all of them, in fact,
2 are familiar. You have seen them before; right?
3 A. With the exception of that one report from Mr. Andric which I'm
4 not sure about, I can say that I've seen all the others.
5 Q. Now tell me, please, documents have you seen other similar
7 A. I think there's some more, yes.
8 Q. I'd now like to ask you to go back to a statement you made
9 yesterday and recorded on page 75 of the transcript when you said that
10 you hadn't seen a single document on the basis of which you would be able
11 to conclude that the Defence Department was in the chain of command over
12 the armed forces.
13 Now, tell us, Mr. Marijan, whether you stand by that position and
14 that conclusion of yours or on the basis of all the documents I've put to
15 you and the others that you mentioned, you could perhaps revise your
17 A. Well, it's like this: I can't remember with absolute certainty
18 what came before that statement of mine, those words of mine, but when I
19 say chain of command, I mean --
20 Q. I'll go into that later. Don't tell me what you mean and imply
21 by the chain of command. Just tell me whether you stand by the statement
22 you made yesterday or rather the conclusion that you made yesterday, and
23 in due course we'll go into your understanding of the chain of command.
24 A. Well, can we first analyse what I mean when I say chain of
25 command, what I imply by that.
1 Q. Well we're not going to analyse what you mean by chain of
2 command. We're going to analyse what the chain of command, in fact, is.
3 Very well. Now, in the second portion of my documents or binder
4 beginning with the sectors in the Defence Department, look at
5 document 4D 12 --
6 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise but the
7 witness has just been shown a sequence of documents, a set of documents,
8 and I'm afraid that any comment is lacking about this series of
9 documents; and I think the witness said at one point that one of the
10 documents would deserve further comment so either I -- I suggest he
11 either be asked questions on this sequence of documents, or we're going
12 to go through documents and not come to a question because this way on
13 the record we just have the witness saying he was familiar with the
15 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Might I respond to my learned
16 friend Ms. Nozica.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Alaburic, you have
18 presented to a series of witnesses and you said well, Witness I'm
19 presenting a number of documents that indicate such and such, et cetera
20 and do you agree with the following conclusion that can be drawn from
21 examining these documents; and then you go on and explain, and then the
22 witness says, "I agree," or, "I don't agree." Well, I think it might
23 have been useful to do so.
24 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I only wanted to
25 evaluate the statement that the witness made that he had not seen any
1 document which would include the head of the Department of Defence into
2 the chain of command. I believe that on the basis of these documents we
3 can make a different conclusion, and I simply wanted to check whether the
4 witness was familiar with these documents or not.
5 We now know that the witness did see these documents, so the
6 question is simply whether he stands by his conclusion that the head of
7 department, Bruno Stojic, was still not within the chain of command or
8 not; and the witness said that first of all we should discuss what the
9 witness -- what the chain of command actually means. So given that this
10 is my cross-examination, please allow me now in the continuation to talk
11 about that chain of command, and I would kindly ask my learned colleague
12 Ms. Nozica to stick to the procedure, rules of procedure, and if she has
13 any objection to any question to object in appropriate time nobody
14 interfered with her questioning, so I would kindly ask her not to
15 interfere with her colleague's.
16 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, there is no need to be
17 nervous. I am not interfering with anybody. I understood very well what
18 Madam Alaburic just said. She showed a range of documents to see whether
19 the witness will stand by his statement that Mr. Stojic was within the
20 chain of command or not. I simply lacked that question. And just as
21 Madam Alaburic said it is her conclusion that he was within the chain of
22 command, but I believe that neither her nor my conclusion are relevant
23 for this Court but, rather, the conclusions made by the witness, and this
24 is why I interfered; but I will try to keep my interferes as least as
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please continue.
2 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honour,
3 we will come back to this conclusion after the next set of documents.
4 Q. Could you please now look at the scheme 4D 128, and I would
5 kindly ask the usher to put this on the ELMO. I would like to thank our
6 law assistant, Mr. Lazic, who prepared this one and a range of other
7 schemes that we prepared for you, Mr. Marijan. So this -- the
8 document 4D 1280.
9 Mr. Marijan, this is something that we prepared for you in order
10 to be able to go very quickly through certain issues without losing too
11 much time on reading the documents, interpreting them and so on. Could
12 you please take a look at the schematic. It should show various bodies
13 of Herceg-Bosna at the level of the entire Herceg-Bosna which had certain
14 powers over the defence. This document was prepared on the basis of the
15 Decree on the Armed Forces, and the structure, the organisational
16 structure of the Defence Department was made on the basis of the
17 document P 586, and I believe that everything that you testified about in
18 the past two days, and that is included into your report, is included
19 into the schematic as well. If you, however, can find any mistakes,
20 please take a pen and cross out whatever you believe needs to be cross
22 A. Your Honours, I believe that this organisational structure has
23 been presented very well.
24 Q. The copy that you have on the ELMO, could you please put your
25 signature and today's date on it, and I would kindly ask an IC number for
1 this document.
2 A. [Marks] I can sign it anywhere?
3 Q. Yes.
4 A. [Marks]
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Can we have a number?
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, the document will shall be given
7 Exhibit IC 00904. Thank you, Your Honours.
8 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Before we go into any further details, Mr. Marijan, can we just
10 repeat some things which I believe are very important. Yesterday you
11 stated that --
12 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry if I intervened. There's something I
13 don't quite understand. In your binder, Ms. Alaburic, this document
14 figures under 4D 01280, and now you are asking an IC number for it.
15 Which of the two? Normally there should not be two numbers for the same
17 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, is there a
18 possibility that the witness will intervene with some of these
19 schematics. This is why we wanted to have a 4D number for the schematics
20 prepared by us and an IC number for the schematic on which the witness
21 made some corrections or if he -- even if he did not make any corrections
22 with his signature he shows that he approves with such a schematic.
23 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I can -- I can follow. One doesn't do it with
24 documents. One could with the same logic one could say every document
25 the witness says, "I've seen it," ask him to put a signature. Isn't it a
1 bit of loss of time and an unnecessary formality which also may lead to
2 confusion with having two numbers for the same document? I would suggest
3 that we do not proceed in this way.
4 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] All right, Your Honour. I fully
5 accept your suggestion, and this is why I shall continue as follows: If
6 the witness believes that a schematic is incorrect and he makes an
7 intervention, then I will ask for an IC number for that particular
8 schematic. So I will give up on my request for an IC number for this
9 particular schematic and once again I'm very grateful for this useful
10 comment by Judge Trechsel.
11 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you. And I -- I appreciate you --
12 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
13 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Yes. Thank you. I appreciate your cooperation.
14 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Mr. Marijan, you told us yesterday that a sector assistants were
16 directly responsible to the head of Department of Defence; is that
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Yesterday, you explained what were the tasks of particular
20 sectors belonging to the Department of Defence. So we can conclude that
21 this fell under the remit of the assistants.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. We could see that apart from the tasks mentioned here from your
24 report it results that the Department of Defence also had certain other
25 powers, for example, when it comes to military prisoners and prisoners of
1 war; is that correct?
2 A. I believe that none of these provisions mentioned the position of
3 the POWs, but certain -- given that there are certain characteristic
4 documents by Mr. Stojic, there is also the Decision on the Establishment
5 of Military Prisons.
6 Q. So apart from the Decision on the Organisational Structure of the
7 Sectors, there are some other regulations regulating different tasks of
8 the Department of Defence; is that correct?
9 A. Yes. There are several other regulations.
10 Q. Can you tell us, does this mean that there are certain issues
11 falling under the military law area that have also been included into the
12 remit of the Department of Defence?
13 A. I can't remember having seen any regulations including that
14 particular area.
15 Q. Given that Their Honours are very familiar with this, I would not
16 like to waste any time on this. Let us now try to analyse the decision
17 on basic principles of the Department of Defence. This is binder X and
18 the document is P 586, and point 9, which just as
19 His Honour Judge Antonetti said is crucial for the topic of your report.
20 You have this decision in front of you?
21 A. Yes, I do.
22 Q. I'm particularly interested, and I would kindly ask you to give
23 us your understanding, because your understanding, regardless of whether
24 you are qualified to provide a legal interpretation or not, your answer
25 will enable us to evaluate properly your report. So please give us your
1 understanding of the last two paragraphs of the item 9. I will quote the
2 first of these paragraph:
3 "Within the remit of the specific authorities of the president
4 of the HZ HB, the head of the Department of Defence is subordinated
5 to" --
6 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters apologise, but we do not see
7 this document, so if the counsel could kindly read again.
8 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. So:
10 "Within the remit of the concrete and specific tasks of the
11 president of the HZ HB the chief of Main Staff is superior to the command
12 of the HVO."
13 Could you kindly give us your interpretation of this provision.
14 A. Well, I believe -- first of all, I would like to determine the
15 time when this was made.
16 Q. Please do not. Please give us your understanding of this
17 provision. So the Chief of the Main Staff, in which parts is he superior
18 to the command of the HVO?
19 A. Well, the Chief of the Main Staff is superior to the command of
20 the HVO when it comes to some specific and concrete powers.
21 Q. Given to him by whom?
22 A. Given to him by the president of the Croatian Community of
23 Herceg-Bosna. That is Mr. Boban.
24 Q. Tell us, the Chief of the Main Staff, could he do anything else
25 apart from this general and specific powers given by the president of the
1 HZ HB?
2 A. Generally speaking, he shouldn't.
3 Q. Please take a look at the beginning of this provision. Can the
4 Chief of the Main Staff do any things for which he would respond to the
5 head of the Department of Defence?
6 JUDGE PRANDLER: [Microphone not activated]
7 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Could you see -- take a look at the beginning of item 9.
9 A. I thought this is what you had in mind. Well, here in this
10 item 9 we have a list of issues for which the Chief of the Main Staff
11 responds to the head of the Department of Defence. We can see it in the
12 third paragraph. So my understanding is this is what it refers to.
13 Q. So I will repeat my question: Can the Chief of the Main Staff
14 carry out any tasks for which he's not authorised by the president of the
15 HZ HB but for which he would be authorised by, for example, the head of
16 Department of Defence?
17 A. Well, from what you've just read to me, I can conclude that the
18 Chief of the Main Staff only carries out the tasks that he's authorised
19 to carry out by the president of the HZ HB.
20 Q. Mr. Marijan, there is no word "only "anywhere here. It only says
21 that in these issues the Chief of the Main Staff will be superior to the
22 command of the Croatian Defence Council. So one of the techniques for
23 interpretation of legal texts is that in all other issues, the Chief of
24 the Main Staff is not superior to the command of the HVO.
25 Although you're not qualified to interpret the law, could you
1 tell us whether you've heard of such a possibility and whether such an
2 interpretation would be agreeable to you?
3 A. I cannot remember that I've heard of it.
4 Q. Can we take a look at the following paragraph, which is directly
5 linked to the previous one, and it says:
6 "The brigade commanders shall be subordinated and responsible to
7 the president of the HZ HB as the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces
8 and to the head of the Defence Department and Chief of the Main Staff
9 within the scope of their responsibilities in accordance with the powers
10 described above."
11 Mr. Marijan, let us see what is your interpretation of this
12 provision. Does it follow from this provision that the brigade
13 commanders always and in everything are subordinated and responsible to
14 the president of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna as the
16 A. Yes, we could conclude that.
17 Q. Can we conclude that at lower levels, the responsible people are
18 either the head of the Defence Department or the Chief of the Main Staff
19 depending on the issue at hand or, rather, whether a question comes
20 within the remit of the head of the Defence department or whether it
21 comes within the remit of the Chief of the Main Staff?
22 A. Well, looking at all -- the whole of this item, the upper part of
23 the paragraph, they are -- and from this, it does not follow that they
24 are responsible to the head of the Defence Department.
25 Q. Mr. Marijan, I'm asking you this at the level of literacy,
1 general literacy without any legal interpretation. The sentence begins:
2 "The brigade commanders shall be subordinate and responsible to
3 the president of the HZ HB," and then it says, "and to the head and chief
4 of the main -- head of the Defence Department, Chief of the Main Staff
5 within the scope of their responsibilities."
6 Now my concrete question is are the brigade commanders
7 subordinate and responsible to the head of the Defence Department
8 according to his remit?
9 A. Of course they are, yes. So my answer is yes. Yes, they are.
10 Q. All right fine now we're going to try and look -- see that
11 together to see what actually happened in practice, to take a look at
12 that together. And look at the next schematic which relates to the
13 Health Sector the document is 4D 1285. And I'd like the document to be
14 placed on the ELMO as well, please. The schematic was compiled on the
15 basis of the Stojic Defence, which you -- on their documents. We just
16 added the operative zones because in that document they have been left
17 out. So would you now take a look at that document and either confirm
18 this structure for the health centre or make any corrections if you feel
19 that is necessary.
20 A. The only thing that I can say here, my only comment as far as the
21 Health Sector is concerned, is that what is lacking here is the
22 assistant, assistant head of the health department. So I think the
23 chiefs of the Medical Corps and so on would come under him.
24 Q. Can you write that in? Put "Assistant," and then draw the
25 connecting lines that you think apply?
1 A. [Marks]
2 Q. You now linked one of the services to him, the care service.
3 A. What do you mean?
4 Q. The care service to the assistant.
5 A. No, I didn't do that. I linked the Medical Corps and the units
6 in the brigades.
7 Q. So you mean the blue part?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Then link that blue section directly to the assistant.
10 A. [Marks]
11 Q. Thank you. Now, in keeping with our agreement, may we have an IC
12 number for this document, please.
13 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I'm not going to interrupt my
14 colleague, but there's been a request from my client. We have this
15 schematic only in English on our screens, and I think it would be a
16 better idea --
17 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Yes, the ELMO is in Croatian.
18 It's in Croatian on the ELMO.
19 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] All right. Fine. I apologise, but
20 that request came in from my client.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Nozica [as interpreted],
22 I'm a bit lost, because earlier on you requested the document be given an
23 IC number and the Chamber asked the registrar to give that number. I
24 think it was 904. My colleague took the floor to point out to you that
25 there was an issue because this number had already been given, and there
1 could be a confusion regarding these two numbers. So the Chamber decided
2 to withdraw that number. Now there's 4D 1285, 4D 1285. So there is
3 already a number, but now you want an IC number, so I no longer
5 Fine. Since there is a change, a new number is provided. But
6 when -- or during the deliberations on the judgement, we'll have to
7 juggle with all the documents, so we'll give an IC number, but, registrar
8 you have to remove the first number 904, if I'm not mistaken and give 904
9 to that particular document and we have to juggle all the time between
10 the two.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, in line with your decision, this
12 current document shall now be assigned Exhibit IC 00904. Thank you, Your
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.
15 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Mr. Marijan, you made this intervention just now because, if I
17 understood you correctly, what you wanted to say is this: That the parts
18 of the Defence Department in the Health Sector which were within the
19 armed forces -- I apologise. Let me repeat the question. I didn't
20 formulate it properly. That parts of the Medical Corps, the Medical
21 Corps service in the armed forces, had direct communication with the
22 assistant head of the Defence Department for health; is that right?
23 A. My intervention was as follows and should be understood in the
24 following way: I didn't deal with the Health Sector in any great detail
25 because as far as I understood it the then-assistant will be coming in,
1 but it's not logical judging on all similar solutions, that is to say the
2 security service, how that is set up, or morale or moral guidance to
3 link -- we're dealing with the head of the Medical Corps of the operative
4 zone, I mean it's logical that he is linked to the assistant.
5 Q. What is important for me now, Mr. Marijan, is for us to try and
6 see the direct communication between the Health Sector and the armed
7 forces, that line. So look at document P 4145, the next document now,
9 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Excuse me, Ms. Alaburic. I would like to have
10 something clarified.
11 Witness, Mr. Marijan, you have also struck out the line that
12 connected the care service for the wounded and it's chief to the -- what
13 I will call blue zone, for simplification. Have I understood at that
14 correctly? According to you, it's not the case that this chief of care
15 service was responsible for the blue sector, but it was the deputy from
16 Ocnic [phoen] of the assistant for the health, the chief assistant for
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, well, we're dealing
19 with logic here and looking at the logics in the security service in the
20 Political Activities Department and so on that where the commanders or
21 assistant chiefs in the operative zones from the Defence Department who
22 have their headquarters or something like that, that they are responsible
23 to the assistant head for that particular sector and not some other
25 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Excuse me, Witness. I must strictly and
1 strongly contradict. We are not dealing nor interested in logic. We
2 want to know what was actually the case, and if you make a guess based on
3 a logical conclusion, then it is a guess, and it is not testimony on a
4 fact. I hope that the distinction is clear. So what are the facts, not
5 what would logically be the case.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, my colleague is quite
7 right. We're here to ascertain facts and not theories and precisely
8 since you wear two hats: You're an expert and you're in the field. So
9 you're best placed to understand the question I'm about to ask. I can
10 see that according to this document in operation areas brigades had their
11 own physicians, and you will tell us in your brigade there was a
12 physician? Yes or no?
13 A. Well, the brigade had a number of doctors within the Medical
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. The brigade has several
16 physicians. Imagine perhaps you were involved in combat activities.
17 Imagine that you need to make arrangements in case soldiers get wounded
18 to provide treatment to soldiers who are wounded during combatting
19 activities. If the brigade commander realises that the number of doctors
20 available is not sufficient, I presume that in the traditional chain of
21 command, he will ask the operational area commander for support so that
22 other areas, possibly present in the area, provide their doctors.
23 But imagine that there is a shortage of either doctors or
24 ambulances. Will the commander of the operational area call the deputy
25 of the ministry of defence in charge of health to tell him that there
1 will be an operation in three days' time, We're going to deploy 3.000
2 men. It's like that we will have casualties, wounded or dead, and we
3 lack medical logistical resources. Could you make sure that some support
4 is provided to us?
5 And in such a case is it the deputy in the yellow square here
6 making that decision? It is a specific example I'm putting to you.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, Your Honour, that's how
8 things should be and that's how things must be. So in this case of a
9 brigade not having enough men or the Medical Corps not having the
10 resources needed to tackle the situation on the battleground, then the
11 chief of the Medical Corps asks assistance and reinforcement from his
12 superior, the head of the Medical Corps in the operative zone. But if he
13 can't respond, then it goes further and assistance is sought from the
14 Medical Corps Sector -- or, rather, the Health Sector because they have
15 these services.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. I agree with what you
17 say. This is sheer military logic, but have you seen documents showing
18 that such situations actually arose which would substantiate the diagram
19 we have in front of us between the blue and the yellow, or is this just a
20 theoretical diagram and you have not seen yourself an instance of this?
21 Please allow the witness to answer.
22 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with your permission
23 I have a document here --
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Hold on, Mrs. Alaburic. I'm
25 asking a question which has to do with credibility which is very
1 important, so don't disturb him and let him answer. My question is very
2 straight forward. What we have this flow chart, you have the schematic
3 of the chain of command, and I'm asking him if he's seen documents
4 demonstrating that at some stage the commander of the operational area
5 asked the deputy of the Department of Defence for logistical support.
6 The answer would be yes.
7 What is your answer, Witness?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Mrs. Alaburic, before
9 we started this discussion, opened a document which is the reverse of the
10 situation. It doesn't go from the operative zone up to the sector but
11 the other way round, from the sector down. It's this feedback mechanism.
12 So this was an example which can illustrate the point and support
13 it. And I have to say that I didn't deal with the Medical Corps much.
14 Military matters were what I focus on, but I know this from my own
15 experience, although at the time I was within the operative zone and I
16 know that that's how we function, that hierarchy was respected.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. Mrs. Alaburic, I give
18 you the floor, and you could perhaps complement this.
19 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I didn't want to
20 interfere in the witness's answer to your question. I just wanted to
21 draw your attention to the fact that we are going to look at a number of
22 documents to deal with this, but before we go into them just tell me,
23 Mr. Marijan, the diagram that we just looked at, does it correspond to
24 the diagram 2D 00752 which you used in compiling your report and to which
25 you refer in the footnotes? It looks different in graphical terms, but
1 organisationally speaking is what I'm asking you about. If you don't
2 know what I mean and can't see the diagram in your mind now -- you don't
3 remember it? 2D, do you, that particular one?
4 A. No. You mean the previous diagram?
5 Q. From the Stojic Defence, the diagram that you used in preparing
6 your report. But let's move on as we haven't got much time,
7 unfortunately, document P 4145 is the next one I'd like us to look at,
8 and it speaks of direct communication between the assistant head of the
9 Defence Department and the armed forces. I'm not interested for the
10 moment in the contents of the document. All I'm interested in is whether
11 you can confirm that the Health Sector had direct communication with the
12 services -- the health services in the operative zones and other units.
13 A. I think that that is evident from this document, especially to
14 whom it is addressed.
15 Q. Now, the next document is P 1417, and it is an order from
16 Bruno Stojic, dated February 1993, and it relates to missing persons and
17 captured persons sent to the operative zone commanders and chief of the
18 Medical Corps in the brigades and operative zones, and apart from
19 Bruno Stojic it was signed by his assistant, Bagaric.
20 Now, does this document confirm direct communication between the
21 Defence Department and the brigades when it comes to the Medical Corps,
22 Medical Corps issues?
23 A. Yes, it does.
24 Q. Next document, P 1428. Again Bagaric and Stojic direct
25 communication within the zones of operation and brigades. This document
1 also confirms the existence of their communication. Isn't that the case?
2 A. Yes, it is.
3 Q. If we were to try and define the chain of command in the area of
4 health in accordance with paragraph 9 of the Decree on the Internal
5 Organisation of the Department of Defence, would we be right to say that
6 the health service is within the remit of the Department of Defence and
7 that brigade commanders with respect to that were accountable to the head
8 of the Department of Defence?
9 A. Could you please repeat the latter part of your question?
10 Q. Can we agree that health is within the remit of the head of the
11 Department of Defence?
12 A. There's a -- no doubt about that.
13 Q. Do we agree that health is not within the remit of the
14 Main Staff?
15 A. Well, you know --
16 Q. In terms of the establishment, the organisational structure.
17 A. Well, in -- in those terms, I believe no.
18 Q. If we look at paragraph 9 about the Decree on the Internal
19 Organisation Structure of the Department of Defence --
20 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Excuse me, Mrs. Alaburic. I find at least in
21 the translation I heard the last answer a bit ambivalous, because you
22 say, "In those terms I believe no." What do you mean exactly in those
23 terms? In other terms, yes, and in which other terms yes then? I would
24 be grateful if you could clarify.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would have to take a
1 look at the diagram showing the structure of the Main Staff, but I don't
2 remember at the time the chief of Main Staff does have an establishment
3 position of a head of Medical Corps, but Ms. Alaburic was asking about
4 health, and health falls within the remit of the Department of Defence,
5 because it is actually a sector of the department. The question was
6 about the Main Staff, and I was thinking about the armed forces, hence
7 the doubt, but I believe Ms. Alaburic will arrive at that.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I have the document
9 before me. I have another question. Did you yourself participate in
10 combat where your comrades were killed? Did it occur? And the only
11 point of my question -- my following question is if you answer that one.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Unfortunately, yes, I did,
13 Your Honours.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I understood that you said yes.
15 When that occurred, when your comrades were killed during combat, did you
16 see a doctor come in to examine the individual and determine that they
17 had indeed died? Were you familiar with that? Did you have knowledge of
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, one of the better
20 organise components of the HVO was the Medical Corps. I believe that
21 they received awards and were considered extraordinary in global terms
22 when it comes to their efficiency. During any instance of combat, there
23 was a medical man or a paramedic in every platoon. But to return to your
24 question directly, the head of the Medical Corps of any brigade had to
25 confirm death, whichever way inflicted, in combat or any other way, and
1 then a report would be drafted, et cetera.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. Thank you. I was asking
3 that question because the document which is quite clear and which comes
4 from the Department of Defence signed by Mr. Stojic instructs all
5 operational personnel that if there is any suspicion of criminal
6 activity, that they must do an autopsy on the body, et cetera. So that
7 is the meaning of the document as I read it, and, therefore, you have
8 confirmed to me that when combat occurred without there necessarily being
9 any criminal activity, in any case, when combat occurred the doctor would
10 examine the bodies.
11 Fine. This is -- this is clear.
12 Madam, we're going to have a break in five minutes.
13 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
14 Q. Mr. Marijan, let us try to sum up what we said about the health
15 service. We said that health service issues were within the remit of the
16 Department of Defence; is that right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. To the extent that you can remember now, in terms of
19 establishment, the Main Staff didn't have a representative of the health
21 A. That's easy to verify, but I don't remember it did.
22 Q. Let -- let us suppose that the Main Staff didn't have the medical
23 service, and if we go back to paragraph 9 to -- of the decree on the
24 basic principles of the organisation of the Department of Defence, can we
25 say that the brigade commander in -- for health-related issues was
1 accountable to the head of the Department of Defence because health
2 services were within his remit?
3 A. I believe we can say as much.
4 Q. Let us continue with the Morale Sector. Take a look at the
5 diagram of document 4D 1284.
6 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Let us have this on the ELMO,
8 Q. Mr. Marijan, take a look, and I believe that this is an accurate
9 representation in accordance with the documents mentioned below. First
10 and foremost, the documents of the Defence of Bruno Stojic. But if you
11 should find any inaccuracies, please point them out.
12 A. I've never been very happy with most diagrams I've seen. In this
13 blue block there is an issue with subordination and hierarchy.
14 Q. What do you mean?
15 A. This is unclear. This may be a mistake.
16 Q. I can clarify. There is a direct link from the left side
17 entering the brigade from the vertical lines and to the zone of operation
18 because in accordance with the documents that you used and read out to us
19 here the assistant commanders for morale in the brigades and zones of
20 operation were appointed in the Department of Defence.
21 A. Yes, they were appointed.
22 Q. And lower-rank commanders in battalions and companies were
23 appointed differently, and therefore there is no direct link between the
24 lower rank units with the Morale Sector. Instead, the link is
25 established vertically through the brigades and the zones of operation.
1 Mr. Marijan, if you cannot comment on this diagram, we can
3 A. I would have drawn this differently, but okay.
4 Q. You can look at this it during the break and cross out everything
5 you think needs to be and then we'll get back to it. Let's now take a
6 look at --
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I think the best thing is that
8 we have the break now. It's now 12.30. We shall have 20 minutes' break.
9 --- Recess taken at 12.30 p.m.
10 --- On resuming at 12.53 p.m.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Two pieces of information. As
12 to the summaries, the Chamber will file a written decision this
13 afternoon, so you will here about this decision this afternoon. As to
14 time, Mrs. Alaburic, you have used 51 minutes, meaning that you have
15 another 39 minutes, and you should be able to complete your questioning.
16 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I may remind you
17 that General Praljak has not used 30 minutes. He used 12 minutes, which
18 means that I can take his 18 minutes, and together with my 39 that makes
19 the -- a total, whichever it is, 57.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I think that by the end of this
21 trial we'll all have very strong maths, that is for sure.
22 If Mr. Praljak gives you these unused minutes, you have another
23 57 minutes, which means that you will not finish today.
24 But, Mr. Kovacic, do you confirm that you have given your time to
25 Ms. Alaburic?
1 MR. KOVACIC: Yes, Your Honour, and I believe I mentioned that
2 before Praljak started, that what he would not use, it belongs to
3 Ms. Alaburic. Thank you.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Okay. It's in the transcript.
5 Thank you.
6 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Perhaps it is judicious to recall that this will
7 be quite exceptional, because the Chamber has decided not to accept more
8 dealings between Defence teams; but for today, in view of the fact that
9 you had a great demand and were cut brutally to what you have got, the
10 Chamber decided has decided the present, but I should just warn that this
11 should not become a rule again. Thank you.
12 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the colleague took
13 the floor probably because he thinks that the guide-lines are different
14 on this, but anyway, thank you, Your Honours, for letting me use
15 General Praljak's time. And as I'm in favour of the proverb, "Hope lives
16 as long as I live," I will -- I hope to get a few minutes additionally if
17 I should need it then.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It's a bit of a mystery.
19 Mr. Karnavas had used 15 minutes extra. I do not know where they come
20 from. I thought I understood that they had been given to him by
21 Mr. Praljak. So it must be the Holy Ghost. I don't know where these 15
22 minutes come from. And I asked Mr. Karnavas. You said yes, these 15
23 minutes were given to you, but I forgot to ask who had given you these 15
24 minutes, but let's proceed.
25 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I may remind you
1 of the intervention of my learned friend Ms. Nozica who, like I,
2 understood that you allotted additional time to Mr. Karnavas, and he was
3 allotted due to his aggressive approach. I do not have an aggressive
4 approach, but I hope that you will be lenient to me also.
5 Q. Mr. Marijan, you wanted to say something.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] As a rule the Chamber only
7 grants time taken away from others, because we ourselves do not have a
8 time capital to give away. You can proceed.
9 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Mr. Marijan, I saw that you raised your hand to say something.
11 A. I did wanted -- want to ask the Chamber about a problem. It's
12 been repeatedly said to me that I'm not a lawyer, which is a fact; but I
13 do know something about the army, and for a long time I dealt with an
14 army for things were clear, where terminology was clear.
15 Q. Mr. Marijan, just a minute, please.
16 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I ask for permission
17 for that what the witness is saying now is not counted against my time.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It will not be counted against
19 you, but please move on.
20 What did you want to say?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm sure that in the
22 continuation of this trial there will be a lot of misunderstanding, which
23 stems from the organisation of the HVO and the way they drew up their
24 regulatory acts and documents. There are very few of them, I must point
25 out, and in comparison to other armies, they are the worst in
1 Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia
2 military terminology at all. I would like to point out one example.
3 In the Decree on the Armed Forces of Herceg-Bosna, there is
4 paragraph 29. We don't have to look at it at all. I will tell you what
5 it says. It deals with the powers of the president of the HZ HB, and for
6 command the term "leadership" is used, and this term, "leadership," has
7 never been defined, and if it had been maybe now I wouldn't have a
8 problem with this story of the chain of command. Because if we take this
9 to the extreme, I could say that I've never seen the definition a zone of
10 operation. I can only suppose what it is. I have never seen the
11 definition of an HVO brigade. I can suppose what it is based on my
12 knowledge of other things. But I know the former Yugoslav army, and
13 from -- there is a term which was banned from Croatian glossaries and
14 probably also from glossaries of Herceg-Bosna because the term was deemed
15 Serbian although it certainly isn't.
16 Each and every document that was shown to me these days that read
17 order and Yugoslav terminology not only that of the federal army but also
18 in the terminology of the republics, it would be something else. It
19 would be another word, "naredba." That can also be translated as
21 And what -- so the word "zapovijed," that was used, and I always
22 link with combat activity. This has to do with my background. And some
23 of the these terminological issues seem to undermine my credibility.
24 It isn't only about terminology though, yesterday, I mentioned
25 some things that -- even today I can see that Mr. Scott is absent because
1 he's been working on these trials longest. We still don't know who
2 appoints the chief of General Staff, and some other things are unclear.
3 So I with like to make clear to the Chamber that I'm dealing with an area
4 here that is poorly defined.
5 And another example that was shown to me yesterday, and I
6 understood what Mr. Karnavas wanted, in the decree of the president of
7 the HZ HB, date the 15th of September, where there is no HVO, you will
8 find a completely different definition of some concepts. I have never
9 had the impression reading the documents that never anybody asked
10 themselves the question why there is lack of consistency, why things have
11 been skip. Some things were, rather, left out. The HVO never really had
12 a military lawyer. I'm not sure whether the Chamber understands what I
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I've perfectly understood.
15 Thank you for sharing this with us and pointing our attention to the
16 terms used in all the documents from the HVO. According to you, those
17 who drafted those documents are not highly qualified lawyers, and there
18 were former Yugoslavia
19 wanted to change this using the Croatian language, for it is possible
20 that some terms may be inaccurate. This is what I understand from what
21 you said. And as far as I know, you were lucky or unlucky to have to
22 give evidence in trials.
23 And since you must already have realised that beforehand, why did
24 you not say that in the previous trial in which you were a witness? And
25 in your conclusion, you should have said, These are the important terms,
1 and you provide examples. Why did you not do that?
2 This is not criticism. What I'm saying is that what you just
3 said is important. Why have you not written this down? Now it's in the
4 transcript, but it would have been better had it been in the report.
5 We got the point. At least I got the point. We'll take that
6 into account when reviewing documents, but whenever you come across such
7 problems please point it out -- point them out to us.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will, Your Honour, but when I was
9 here for the first time the topic was different.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. Ms. Alaburic, taking
11 into account what has just been said, you may proceed.
12 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Your Honours, Mr. Marijan, thank you for these observations, and
14 do point it out to us if you think that terminology is wrong or something
15 is badly phrased. Were you able to look at the diagram of the Morale
16 Sector during the break and do you have comments?
17 A. Frankly, think it would be best to draw this anew. There are too
18 many lines, I believe, in principle, although I do not suppose there was
19 ill-will involved. So it would have been better if the line did not go
20 through the administration because this way, you can get the impression
21 that these three administrations of the Morale Sector are superior to the
22 assistant commanders in the units; and we can go back to the appointment
23 and then you know who was accountable to who. So this -- the assistant
24 commanders down there are clearly not accountable to these here.
25 Q. So what you are referring to is drawn the way it is because
1 that's exactly how it was depicted in document 2D 685. It's a document
2 from the Stojic Defence, and you referred to this document in your
3 report. That's why we didn't change it. But everybody will be able to
4 compare the two.
5 Mr. Marijan, let us now look at the direct communication between
6 the Department of Defence with the military commanders as regards morale.
7 Let us look at document P 1198. This is a report from the
8 Ante Starcevic Brigade from Gornji Vakuf dated 18 January 1993, sent
9 directly to the Defence Department and it's IDP Sector. That sector is
10 actually the Morale Sector, isn't it?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Tell me, have you seen this document or similar documents showing
13 direct communication between military commanders and the IPD Sector?
14 A. Especially from this brigade and this period there are a number
15 of similar documents where the assistant for IPD skips his direct
16 superior and turns directly to the sector.
17 Q. Let us move on to document 4D 1156. It's the following document.
18 It's dated 19 April 1993
19 Rama Brigade is sending a report directly to the Department of Defence
20 and its IPD Sector.
21 Does this document confirm that direct communication?
22 A. Yes, it does.
23 Q. A document that is outside the time-period of your report, but do
24 look at it anyway, 4D 1554. The assistant minister of defence, it's
25 called the political administration in January 1994, directly
1 communicates with assistant commanders for political business.
2 So can we say that the Assistant minister of defence directly
3 communicated with the brigades on the ground?
4 A. Yes, although it is not completely clear, but as it says to the
5 "Assistant commanders for political business." We can suppose that it
6 was sent to everybody.
7 Q. Can we then conclude that issues that have to do with morale are
8 within the remit of the Department of Defence?
9 A. Yes. That's why there is a sector for morale there.
10 Q. According to your knowledge or memory, did the Main Staff and its
11 establishment have a service that would deal with morale?
12 A. Well, honestly, I knew a person who called himself assistant, but
13 I have never seen that position in the establishment -- or, rather, I
14 looked at it a short while ago, the establishment from 1992. It isn't
16 Q. If we wanted to find out to who the brigade commander is
17 accountable to as regards morale, and if we were to apply paragraph 9 of
18 the Decision on the Basic Principles of Organisation of the Department of
19 Defence, would it be right to say that the brigade commander is
20 accountable to Bruno Stojic?
21 A. It can be interpreted that way, but if you let me, I would like
22 to add something.
23 Q. Mr. Marijan, as I have very little time, do make a note of your
24 additional comment, and if I should have enough time I will deal with it
25 at the end.
1 A. But this is very important.
2 Q. But then Ms. Nozica can ask you that question in redirect.
3 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm not opposed to
4 the witness saying something, but it shouldn't count against my time.
5 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Okay. Then we will deal with it in
6 the redirect, but this witness has said that this is very important. It
7 is obvious he wants to clarify something additionally.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I just wanted to say
9 that the decision dated 15 September and 15 days earlier the zones of
10 operation had been established. I don't know why they are not contain in
11 the decision because the decision was made on August the 31st, if I
12 remember well. According to me it would be right if the assistant
13 brigade commanders through the assistant commanders for morale were
14 accountable to Mr. Stojic as the head in the operative zone, but whoever
15 is in the establishment of the brigade is also accountable to their
16 commander because you could -- one could conclude that the brigade
17 commander is not in a position to issue orders to assistants -- to his
18 assistants for morale or something, although he could. I was in that
19 position for a while and received orders from the brigade commander.
20 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. As this part did not count against my time, I would like to make
22 clear to the witness that now we're not talking about the communication
23 between the brigade commander and his assistants, but, rather, that we
24 are establishing to who the brigade commander is accountable with regard
25 to certain issues.
1 It is clear that the brigade commander could issue orders through
2 his assistant for morale, but the question is to who the brigade
3 commander was accountable for such orders. So we're now interested in
4 the chain of command above brigade level in accordance with our
5 paragraph 9 of the decision on the internal organisation of the Defence
7 Let us now take a look at the Security and Information Service,
8 SIS. As General Praljak has already asked you questions about it, we'll
9 be very fast.
10 Please look at diagram 4D 1281. Let us show it to the witness so
11 that he can comment on it. It is -- the diagram is a somewhat altered
12 diagram that you have already seen, but it also now includes the armed
13 forces. The part in blue has been added when we compare it to the one
14 that you used. Please say if this is an accurate depiction.
15 A. Yes, this is the best so far.
16 Q. So I conclude that you have no other -- no objections?
17 A. Yes, but in accordance with the decision on the basic principles
18 of the internal organisation, probably you singled out the military
19 police -- military police on purpose.
20 Q. Yes. In answering the question -- questions of Mr. Karnavas and
21 General Praljak, you said that the SIS was within the remit of the head
22 of the Department of Defence, didn't you?
23 A. Yes, I did. The Security Sector.
24 Q. You also commented some provisions of the rules governing the
25 work of the SIS. I have also included document P 4211. Please take a
1 look at it. I would like -- I'll focus on something you mentioned in
2 your report, namely in paragraph 9, definition of the Department of
3 Defence in the wider sense.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Nozica [as interpreted],
5 you have asked for the admission of this document? This document, the
6 one dated the 6th.
7 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I did not say
8 anything about the adoption of these documents. I would just like to
9 have us look at it. I know that this already is an exhibit.
10 Q. So Article 9 of this document, here you have a definition of the
11 Defence Department in a broader sense, and you also included this into
12 your report.
13 Pursuant to this decision, the Defence Department consists of all
14 sectors or sectors of the departments, the Main Staff military districts,
15 units, assembly points, training centres, companies for the production of
16 military equipment and so on.
17 Is there anything you would like to comment on regarding this
19 A. I believe that when we are talking about the Defence Department
20 in a broader sense here, the armed forces are also included, whereas I
21 believe that we should say that we are talking about the Defence
22 Department and the armed forces, otherwise it would follow that
23 everything falls under the Defence Department because here even the
24 Assembly points are mentioned which did not exist in the HVO so obviously
25 this was copied from somewhere.
1 Q. This is something that you copied in your report but you did not
3 A. Yes, I believe I just mentioned that this was adopted.
4 Q. I'm most interested in Article 63 of this document which says
5 that the assistant commanders for the Information and Security Service
6 should be required to perform the tasks of commanders of the units within
7 whose structure they belong which pertain to the scope of the work of the
8 service, and the next one says with respect to the implementation of the
9 tasks with the scope of SIS the employees shall be responsible to the
10 superior centre of administration.
11 Is this what you confirmed to Mr. Karnavas, that the head of the
12 Department of Defence, Mr. Stojic, was in charge of SIS rather than HVO
13 government or any other body?
14 A. Is that what I said? The assistant head was indeed in charge of
15 the security matters, and obviously within the HVO this was his remit.
16 Q. Can we now try to clarify the dilemma which we used to have and
17 this will also serve us to assess the quality of your report. So the
18 part that regards your paragraph in which you talk about the assistant
19 chief for SIS within the Main Staff. We said that this is document
20 2D 002 -- 928. We have this document now in both the Croatian and the
21 English language. I would kindly ask the usher to take several copies
22 and provide Their Honours, the witness, and Mr. Stojic's counsels as well
23 as the OTP with this. So once again the document is 2D 928.
24 At the end of your -- can have your article 39, you say:
25 "At the Main Staff of the HVO the assistant for SIS was not
1 provided after the end of 1992. In later half of the 1993, such a
2 position must have existed."
3 As we can see from the footnote 102, this claim is based on the
4 document 2D 00928. Now, if we look at this document, 2D 00928,
5 Article 10 or item 10, we can see that a this was the proposal for
6 Mate Knezovic to be appointed as the SIS office -- as the official for
7 SIS at the Main Staff. Can you see this?
8 A. Yes, I can.
9 Q. So this is the proposal for the employment of a SIS employee to
10 the Main Staff. Your conclusion regards the function of the assistant
11 for SIS at the Main Staff.
12 Can we conclude that the document 2D 928 has nothing to do with
13 the position of the assistant for SIS at the Main Staff and that the
14 statement or conclusion you drew in your report has no factual base?
15 A. Yes, you are right. Mr. Knezovic was not appointed an assistant
16 but he was, rather, assign to the position of an employee for -- of SIS.
17 Q. Mr. Marijan, we tried to use the same methodology to draw some
18 conclusions, so we said that the activities related to SIS were within
19 the remit of the head of the Department of Defence, that at the
20 Main Staff until the later part of 1993 in its formation or establishment
21 had no service that would be dealing with SIS.
22 Can we now by applying the item 9 of the decision on the basic
23 principles of the internal organisation of the Defence Department
24 conclude that the tasks related to -- that when it comes to the task
25 related to SIS the brigade commander was responsible to the head of the
1 Department of Defence?
2 A. [No interpretation]
3 Q. You only have two alternatives. He was either responsible to the
4 Chief of the Main Staff or to the head of the Defence Department. So who
5 was he responsible to?
6 A. This is an interesting question. Look --
7 Q. If you cannot answer, Mr. Marijan, we shall proceed. If you
8 cannot make that choice for any reason, we shall proceed.
9 A. On the basis of all of this, it would follow that the assistant
10 commander was responsible to the head of the Defence Department.
11 Q. My question relates to the brigade commander. So who did the
12 brigade commander respond to in relation to the topics related to SIS?
13 A. I'm not sure that I would dare say that the brigade commander was
14 responsible to him.
15 Q. Please bear in mind all the time item 9 of the decision on the
16 basic principles of the internal organisation of the Defence Department.
17 Here it is stated that defence commander is subordinated and responsible
18 to the head of the Department of Defence for the topics that fall under
19 his remit. So isn't it the only possible conclusion that for this
20 particular topic, the brigade commander was responsible to the head of
21 the Department for Defence?
22 A. Well, on the basis of this, we could draw such a conclusion.
23 Q. Now that we are --
24 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Excuse me, Ms. Alaburic. I tried to get your
25 attention but you were concentrated elsewhere, which is correct.
1 I still have a question. Mr. Marijan, on the previous document
2 where Mr. Knezovic is assigned to the position of quote, "worker,"
3 unquote, in SIS - Main HQ, what does this mean, SIS - Main HQ? If I look
4 at the diagram I do not fine any reference to the HQ so how come? What
5 does this mean? Is there an omission in the organigramme in the sense
6 that there also ought to be one reference to a SIS section placed with
7 the main headquarters?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm not sure that this
9 translation "worker" is a good one. Article 10 or item 10 stipulates
10 that an employee of the SIS - so this is a rather broad term - will be
11 put or assigned to the Main Staff of the HVO. So his precise title or
12 position is not defined.
13 Madam Alaburic, on the basis of the internal structure which was
14 one year old, and I need to add that we do not know whether it may have
15 been amended in the meantime, because now that you went back to this I
16 might add that it is rather illogical that a person would be appointed to
17 the Main Staff even if this was not in the formation or in the
18 establishment. So we are not sure whether this kind of a formation
19 existed or not. But anyway, this was an employee who was assigned to the
20 Main Staff, but his precise position or title was not defined.
21 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Could it be a position like a liaison officer,
22 something like that?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] According to this, all the options
24 are open. It is an extremely imprecise formulation.
25 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you. I think we'll have to live for some
1 time with insecurity, uncertainty.
2 Please, Ms. Alaburic. Sorry for the interruption.
3 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] That is quite all right,
4 Your Honour. We shall have a witness who was a part of the SIS, so we
5 will be able to clarify this.
6 Q. Witness, you said that this formulation, "an employee of SIS," is
7 a broad one. Have you come across this term when you were reading the
8 regulations on the work of the SIS service?
9 A. "An employee" is used for anybody, so this was certainly a
10 person working on the expert tasks related to the security. This is
12 Q. When we are talking about the security, I will ask something else
13 as a follow-up to Judge Trechsel's question, and I don't believe that
14 you've answered this. Judge Trechsel asked about the civilian control
15 over the military, and in answering this question, you said that HZ HB
16 was totalitarian and not democratic - I will give you the specifics of
17 the transcript - and that all the power was in the hands of Mate Boban
18 and that the local authorities also had certain influence over the
19 military. This is on pages 15 and 16 of yesterday's transcript.
20 I start from the assumption that you will know what civilian
21 control over the military actually means.
22 A. Yes, I do know that, and that's why I can't believe that I said
24 Q. Well, this is why I would kindly like -- ask you to clarify this,
25 not only to Judge Trechsel but to all of us. So what are the mechanisms?
1 In which way does civilian authority exercise control over the military?
2 A. The way in which the civilian authority exercises its control
3 over the military, well, first of all please allow me to correct this,
4 because even if I said this then this is rather outrageous. I believe I
5 may have been talking about Yugoslavia
6 said that Yugoslavia
7 there is a recording from the proceedings, and it could be checked.
8 Q. Could you tell us what it was like in the HZ HB? So in
9 principle, what are the instruments of the civilian control over the
11 A. Well, when we are talking about the HZ HB, the civilian control
12 was meant to be in the hands of HVO, and it was meant to be in the hands
13 of Mr. Stojic. This is what I talked about yesterday or the day before.
14 I can't remember exactly. But this is what was different in comparison
15 to the previous system where the minister of defence was a military
16 officer, whereas here in the HVO, I -- the only person who could exercise
17 civilian control over the military was Mr. Stojic.
18 Q. I'm not asking who did this. I'm just asking how. So I'll try
19 to help you.
20 When it comes to the civilian authority's control over the
21 finances used for the military, is this one of the instruments of the
22 civilian authority's control over the military?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. The topics related to the procurement and supplies for the
25 military, is this yet another mechanism of the civilian control over the
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. The personnel policy and the entitlement to appoint and dismiss
4 military commanders, is this yet another mechanism of civilian control
5 over the military?
6 A. No as much as the previous two examples you gave.
7 Q. Is the security control over the military, if in hands of the
8 civil authorities, is this yet another mechanism of the civil control
9 over the military?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Can you then tell us all these elements of the civil control over
12 the military? Did they exist in Herceg-Bosna?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Which one did not exist?
15 A. The financial one.
16 Q. Who was in charge of the finances for the military?
17 A. The arm forces of -- it's better to say the armed forces than the
18 HVO. They were supposed to be financed through the Department for
19 Economy and Department for Defence. So these two departments were
20 supposed to be allocating the money. I believe we already mentioned that
21 this was a problem.
22 Q. But as far as I remember, you were mentioning civilian -- civil
23 authorities at the local level.
24 A. I did not understand what's your point.
25 Q. You were talking about the local level, but as far as I
1 understood, you also mentioned the civil authorities. So my question
2 does not regard bodies and persons but just the difference between civil
3 authorities and military authorities. So the finances in Herceg-Bosna,
4 was this yet another way for the civil authorities to exercise their
5 control over the military regardless of the level?
6 A. Well, I believe I mentioned that yesterday or the day before. I
7 said that the elements of the civil control were much more obvious at the
8 local municipal control than at the higher level.
9 Q. Can we then agree that regardless of the level, the civil
10 authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina had these instruments, the
11 previously mentioned instruments, of the civil control over the military?
12 A. Well, if we accept what you said regardless of the level, then we
13 can say yes. We can say that they did have these instruments.
14 Q. I hope that Mr. -- Judge Trechsel is now more satisfied with the
15 answer to his question?
16 Now I would like to proceed with the next organisational unit
17 within the Department of Defence and this is the military police. We
18 will do this very quickly. There are two diagrams. The first one is
19 4D 01282. This diagram is based on the document P 59 --
20 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's apology, P 957.
21 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. These are addresses by Mr. Coric and Stojic. So the document
23 is P 957. This document can also be found in the binders.
24 Could you please take a look at this diagram. It is based on the
25 documents that you used when you were preparing your report so that you
1 are familiar with them. Could you confirm whether this diagram was drawn
2 in line with the letter sent by Mr. Stojic and Coric. If there are any
3 problems, then the Defence of Mr. Coric can intervene in this -- in this
4 diagram, if necessary.
5 A. Can you tell me just where I can find this document? Can you
6 tell me which is the number of the footnote mentioned in my report?
7 Q. I am not sure what -- which footnote it was, and I wouldn't like
8 to lose too much time now.
9 A. Well, the first correction I can say is this January, June. I
10 believe that this is the proposed organisational structure from
11 December 1992.
12 Q. Well, the document that we based this diagram on was dated
13 26th of December, 1992. So this was in effect in the quoted period of
15 A. Well, I believe that this is the structure of the military
16 police, if I remember the document well, and this is a rather strange
17 organisational structure. Particularly on page 3 there are several
18 provisions which are contradictory in themselves. So this is what I
19 wanted to point out. A good military lawyer would have rejected such a
20 document, but I believe that at the period that you mentioned this was
21 indeed in effect so that this diagram is correct.
22 Q. Could you please now look at the -- at the -- at the diagram
23 1D 1283, based on the document P 300 [as interpreted], and prepared by
24 the Defence of Mr. Coric. So P 3000, 3000.
25 If you could just take a look at this.
1 A. I believe that this is from August.
2 Q. This is based on a letter from June. It was supposed to come
3 into effect in July but we know there was a reorganisation during the
4 summer, but this is something that Ms. Tomasegovic will ask if necessary.
5 A. Yes, this is what it looked like in the second half of 1993,
6 although later we also had the light assault brigade.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I believe we should stop there
8 because it's quarter to 2.00, and don't forget that it takes time to
9 change the tapes, et cetera. So we will resume tomorrow.
10 Witness, we will see you tomorrow and again at 9.00.
11 Thank you to all.
12 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m.
13 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 22nd day of
14 January, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.