Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 36421

 1                           Thursday, 5 February 2009

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The Accused Petkovic not present]

 5                           [The Accused Coric not present]

 6                           --- Upon commencing at 8.59 a.m.

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, kindly call the

 8     case, please.

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

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

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

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

13             Today is Thursday, February 5th, 2009.  Good morning to

14     Mr. Prlic, Mr. Stojic, Mr. Praljak, and Mr. Pusic.  Good morning to all

15     the Defence counsel.  Good morning to Mr. Scott, and his colleague as

16     well as everybody else assisting us.

17             First of all, I'd like to give the floor to Mr. Coric's Defence

18     counsel.  Mr. Coric is not present today.  The Chamber would like to know

19     why Mr. Coric is absent today.

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

21     Good morning, Your Honours.  Good morning to everyone in the courtroom.

22             This morning I received two messages one in writing from

23     Mr. Coric.  He wrote to me in these messages that this morning he refused

24     to sign a waiver of his right to be present during the proceedings; and

25     in the second message he asks me to read the letter he addressed in

Page 36422

 1     public session, so I'm asking for your permission to read his letter

 2     because in it he explains the reasons for his absence.

 3             Dear Ms. Tomasegovic Tomic, I'm asking you and all the others who

 4     are in any way involved these proceedings whether there can be a just

 5     verdict regardless of what it is if it will take almost eight years.  I

 6     remember one statement by Honourable Judge Antonetti who once said that

 7     if everyone acted professionally in the courtroom, then this trial would

 8     be completed in three months.  I apologise to Mr. President if I

 9     misinterpreted his statement.  In this connection, I wonder whether three

10     years were not enough for this trial to be nearing the end, if not

11     completed already.

12             I remind you that I intervened in the courtroom once because

13     several months were lost due to the fact that some thousands of pages

14     were not translated.  Also, hours and hours are wasted in testimony over

15     discussions whether a Defence team will get several more minutes for

16     their cross-examination or not.

17             Recently, I was a witness to the demonstrative walkout of the

18     Prosecutor from the courtroom.  Does this merit even a mild condemnation?

19     I wonder if all the parties are really equal in the courtroom.  Did we

20     get an answer to the complaint against the interpreter who grossly

21     insulted the accused during the trial?

22             There are some who in a two-faced manner complain against lack of

23     time and then the Prosecutor's request for additional time is granted.  I

24     remind you that dozens of times we discussed the lengthiness of this

25     trial.  I'm convinced that you are among those who have done their best

Page 36423

 1     for this trial to be over as soon as possible.  Regrettably, we are

 2     definitively on a good way to set a record for the length of trial.

 3             I wonder if this fact does honour to those who have contributed

 4     to this development in any way.  Watching all this for years, I'm

 5     fighting a losing battle for my health, and unfortunately, today I am no

 6     longer able to participate in the trial until further notice; that's why

 7     I decided to stop taking my pills, the pills that help me go through with

 8     this for months and for years.

 9             In addition, as part of my personal protest against the way this

10     trial is conducted and how long it is taking, I will refuse all medical

11     assistance regardless of consequences.  At this time, I'm not able to

12     participate in the proceedings any further.

13             Dear Ms. Tomasegovic, my power of attorney remains vested in you

14     and Mr. Plavec, but I also demands that you ask for a continuance of the

15     trial until I'm able to return.

16             Thank you for your successful cooperation hitherto, and I

17     congratulate you on your performance in the proceedings.

18             It was misinterpreted, Mr. Coric is asking for a stay of the

19     trial until he is able to return to the courtroom.

20             I thank you for your cooperation hitherto; and I congratulate you

21     on your performance in the proceedings.  Respectfully to you and

22     Mr. Plavec.

23             Valentin.  Den Haag, 4th February 2009.

24             Your Honours, at this time I have to abide by the wishes of my

25     client and his instructions and ask for the stay -- for a stay of the

Page 36424

 1     trial until he returns.  I know I have no other details than what I read

 2     in the letter.

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, about the stay of

 4     the proceedings?

 5             MR. SCOTT:  Good morning, Your Honours, Mr. President each of

 6     Your Honours, counsel, all those in and around the courtroom.

 7             Well, this certainly comes as much as a surprise to me as it does

 8     to everyone else.  As I understand what counsel has just said, there is

 9     no waiver from Mr. Coric about being absent from the proceedings.  And I

10     suppose that raises the question of whether the proceedings can then go

11     forward without the Chamber perhaps - and I'm saying again I'm surprised.

12     I don't have any particular law in front of me at the moment-  whether

13     there's particular findings that the Chamber may be able to make in

14     particular circumstances that would allow the trial to go forward in his

15     absence; but I think probably all us, well, I won't speak for everyone

16     but myself, I would have to certainly look into the law further before I

17     could say anything more than that, to be perfectly transparent.

18             Thank you.

19             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Would the other Defence counsel

20     want to intervene, otherwise the Judges are going to confer right away.

21     Okay.  So we are going to interrupt our proceedings for a few moments and

22     we will deliberate and we'll get back to you with a decision.

23                           --- Break taken at 9.09 a.m.

24                           --- On resuming at 9.14 a.m.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Further to its deliberations on

Page 36425

 1     the issue raised by the letter of Mr. Coric, letter in which he complains

 2     about the duration of the proceedings and in which he informed us that he

 3     has decided to stop taking the medication prescribed to him by a medical

 4     doctor, and in which he asks for a stay in the proceedings, the

 5     Trial Chamber has taken note of what he says in his letter.

 6             Moreover, the Trial Chamber indicates that this is a

 7     multi-accused trial, that the other accused are also entitled to an

 8     expeditious trial; and, therefore, the Trial Chamber indicates that it

 9     cannot stay the proceedings.

10             Moreover, Mr. Coric has indicated that he trusts his Defence

11     counsel, and therefore his Defence counsel can, according to the case law

12     deriving from the Chamber's as well as from the Appeals Chamber, his

13     Defence counsel can therefore represent him while he is temporarily

14     absent.

15             In conclusion, the Trial Chamber will continue hearing the

16     witness.  We will start with the cross-examination to be carried out by

17     the Prosecution.  We also invite the Defence counsel to visit Mr. Coric

18     as soon as possible at the detention centre so that she can take stock of

19     the situation with the accused.  The Trial Chamber immediately instructed

20     the legal officer to refer this matter to the chief medical officer of

21     the detention centre so that he can have a look at the situation from a

22     medical standpoint, and so that any necessary measure is taken as far as

23     the health of Mr. Coric is concerned.

24             The Chamber contemplates the possibility of having an ex parte

25     hearing next week with Mr. Coric, his Defence counsel, and the Chamber,

Page 36426

 1     again to take stock of the situation.

 2             This is the oral decision issued by the Trial Chamber today on

 3     the request referred to it.

 4             Mr. Praljak you are on your feet.

 5             THE ACCUSED PRALJAK:  [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honour.

 6     Good morning to everyone else.

 7             I have a few points.  I support the position of Mr. Coric.  Your

 8     decision is your decision, but I wish to say I support him in his

 9     position because it's not only about the duration of the trial, it's

10     about a series of other problems that he indicated in his letter.  I also

11     had some problems regarding my right to cross-examine which is a

12     challenged every time anew.  An enormous number of decisions taken by

13     outvoting within the Trial Chamber, but on the other hand, the Judges

14     find it easy to agree on the most banal things.  And some other things

15     that I requested before like how to introduce witnesses, I still have no

16     answer to that; but I believe that there must be a way that some points

17     should be raised in the courtroom.  Some points to which everyone has the

18     right.  You said that you were surprised, all of us were surprised; but I

19     was not, and I don't want to be included in this without my consent.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Your position has now been

21     recorded in the transcript.  Mr. Stojic.

22             THE ACCUSED STOJIC:  [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.

23     I fully support my colleague Mr. Coric and Mr. Praljak in everything they

24     said.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Stojic.  It's

Page 36427

 1     recorded in the transcript as well.

 2             We are going to ask Mr. Usher to bring in the witness.

 3                           [The witness entered court]

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Good morning, sir.  You had to

 5     wait for 20 minutes, but we had a procedural issue to solve due to the

 6     absence of Mr. Coric.  The cross-examination will start with Mr. Scott.

 7             Mr. Scott, you have the floor.

 8                           WITNESS:  SLOBODAN BOZIC [Resumed]

 9                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

10             MR. SCOTT:  Thank you, Mr. President.  Again, good morning to

11     everyone in and around the courtroom.

12                           Cross-examination by Mr. Scott:

13        Q.   Good morning, Mr. Bozic.

14        A.   Good morning to everyone in the courtroom.

15        Q.   And we see each other again.

16        A.   Nice to see you again after five and a half years.

17        Q.   Sir, as you perhaps heard at the end of the day yesterday, I have

18     tried - I'll just tell you as I'm telling you I'm also telling the

19     Chamber - I've tried to go back through my own notes and be as efficient

20     as possible not covering ground that's been, at least in my view,

21     adequately covered, but there are few bits and pieces of things that I

22     would like to go back to before moving on to a few more -- some topics in

23     more depth.

24             Just in terms of your background, sir.  You mentioned in passing,

25     I think, yesterday that you had performed a period of compulsory military

Page 36428

 1     service with the JNA, and can you confirm to us, please, that that

 2     service was performed between approximately the spring of 1975 and the

 3     end of the winter 1976.

 4        A.   Yes, you are right.

 5        Q.   And you performed that service, I think, on the territory of the

 6     Republic of Croatia?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   And my understanding is that service involved particular training

 9     and assignment in reconnaissance; is that correct?

10        A.   Well, all right, I said that I as a young boy I was a boy scout,

11     and in the army I practically belonged to that kind of units that were

12     called, I don't remember any long scouts or reconnaissance or something.

13        Q.   And can you tell us when you left your period of service at the

14     end of the winter 1976, did you leave the JNA at that time with any

15     particular rank?

16        A.   No, I did not have a rank.

17        Q.   Now, sir, is it correct that you have dual citizenship, that is

18     in Bosnia-Herzegovina and also in the Republic of Croatia?

19        A.   Yes, that's correct.  I have citizenship of Bosnia-Herzegovina

20     and citizenship of the Republic of Croatia.

21        Q.   And can you tell us, please, sir, approximately when did you

22     obtain Croatian citizenship?

23        A.   I can't tell you exactly when, but I can say it was roughly at

24     the time when the constitution, or rather, the current legislation of the

25     Republic of Croatia governing citizenship issues made it possible to have

Page 36429

 1     dual citizenship, or rather, the obtaining of Croatian citizenship.

 2        Q.   Can you tell us, sir -- can you assist us, was it during the

 3     period approximately 1992 to 1994, sometime during that period?

 4        A.   I can't remember precisely whether it was in that period.  If

 5     it's important, I can check and tell you later.  I can call my wife this

 6     evening and ask her to look it up in my passport.

 7        Q.   Well, I'm just asking you to assist as much as you can sir, if

 8     you can give us any sort of a time estimate on that.  And I guess my

 9     final question on that point then for now, do you recall where you made

10     your application for Croatian citizenship; did you go to Zagreb; did you

11     do it somewhere in the Herzegovina region, or how was that done?

12             MR. KARNAVAS:  Excuse me, Your Honour I object on the grounds of

13     relevancy.  Why is this line of questioning relevant?  Especially

14     yesterday since the gentleman indicated he needed extra time to prepare.

15     Whether he has dual citizenship or not, carries two passports, especially

16     when many others in Bosnia-Herzegovina were doing it irrespective of

17     their ethnic origin.  Why is this relevant for this particular witness

18     based on the direct examination and cross of the other parties?

19             MR. SCOTT:  Your Honour, it's come up with a number of witnesses.

20     The Chamber may --

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott.

22             MR. SCOTT:  Your Honour, it's come up with a number of Defence

23     witnesses, spent considerable time talking about the concept of joint

24     citizenship, what that meant, the ramifications for whether one had

25     refugee status, the moment of people, et cetera, certain advantages

Page 36430

 1     flowing from having dual citizenship.  I might agree with Mr. Karnavas if

 2     I spent 15 or 20 or 30 minutes on the topic.  I've asked two or three

 3     questions, and I think this is my last question.  I do think, however

 4     it's relevant overall to this man's backgrounds and character.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well go ahead then.  Go ahead.

 6             MR. SCOTT:

 7        Q.   Sir, my last question on this topic is a very simple one, can you

 8     recall where you applied for Croatian citizenship?  If you can't recall

 9     the particular time-period then can you remember where you made your

10     application?

11        A.   I'm not sure, but I think I applied at the consulate in Mostar.

12     I'm not sure, but I think it was there.

13        Q.   Now, going back to your positions and your roles at the

14     Department of Defence, and if you allow me sir, probably in the course of

15     the cross-examination, I will probably refer to it as the Department of

16     Defence.  Everyone in the courtroom is aware of the fact that sometime in

17     the latter part of the 1993 the terminology may have changed to ministry,

18     although I think you established in your testimony with Ms. Alaburic that

19     that was primarily a matter of change of names more than anything else.

20     If you'll forgive me I'm just going to use the term "Department of

21     Defence".

22             Is it correct, sir, that during the time that you held the

23     position of deputy minister, you were the only senior official at the

24     Department of Defence to hold the title "deputy" as opposed to assistant

25     minister?

Page 36431

 1        A.   In view of the decision about the basic organisation of the

 2     Defence Department and later the decision on the organisation of the

 3     Defence Department, it was stipulated precisely who held which position

 4     and who was in charge of which affairs; and from both documents, it was

 5     obvious that there was a position of the deputy and a certain number of

 6     assistants.

 7        Q.   The answer to my question, sir, was yes, you were the only one

 8     who had the position deputy?

 9        A.   Yes, I confirm precisely what is written in the decision on the

10     basic organisation and the decision on the organisation of the Defence

11     Department governing various positions within the department.

12        Q.   And your direct superior at all times, at least during this

13     period from approximately August of 1992 to at least November of 1993,

14     your immediate superior was Mr. Stojic; correct?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   And just to be clear on that, there were no -- there was no other

17     level of management, if you will.  There was no one between you and

18     Mr. Stojic?  You reported to and took direction from directly Mr. Stojic;

19     correct?

20        A.   Well, that's not exactly the way it was.  It's not exactly the

21     way you had put it.  In fact, I was Mr. Stojic's deputy whose line of

22     work was perfectly clear within the civilian sector of the

23     Defence Department, and that in part Mr. Stojic gave me orders and -- or

24     instructions, and that is the area in which I reported to Mr. Stojic.

25        Q.   There was no other management level between you and Mr. Stojic?

Page 36432

 1     It's a very simple question, sir.  Did you have some other superior that

 2     supervised your work and that you reported to other than Mr. Stojic?

 3     It's a very simple question, sir.

 4        A.   No, the answer was very simple too.  I reported to Mr. Stojic for

 5     my own line of work as the person who was in charge of civilian affairs

 6     within the Defence Department, and that is the work that was carried out

 7     by the deputy head of the Defence Department.

 8        Q.   And is it correct, sir, that your role involved, as deputy,

 9     acting as the replacement or substitute for Mr. Stojic when authorised to

10     do so?

11        A.   Practically I could not stand in for Mr. Stojic, although the

12     position I held was called the deputy head of the Defence Department for

13     a simple reason; Mr. Stojic was a member of the HVO HZ-HB as the

14     collective temporary executive organ in the area of the Croatian

15     Community of Herceg-Bosna, and as such, he had been chosen by the

16     presidency of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna.  I stood in for

17     Mr. Stojic only at certain sessions of the HVO of the Croatian

18     communities of Herceg-Bosna, as I've already said during my previous

19     testimony.  And this happened when I was a rapporteur with regard to

20     certain matters at sessions of the HVO HZ-HB and also on certain

21     occasions when due to certain private commitments Mr. Stojic was not in a

22     position to attend these session.

23        Q.   My question wasn't limited to simple substituting for Mr. Stojic

24     at the meetings of the HVO HZ-HB, but more generally.  If there were

25     occasions if other officials came to the Department of Defence for some

Page 36433

 1     other reason if there were other functions going on at the Department of

 2     Defence, and Mr. Stojic for one reason or another was not available, you

 3     stood in for him on a number of occasions; correct?

 4        A.   No.  No.  That was not my function to stand in for Mr. Stojic.  I

 5     as a lawyer, and you too, and Their Honours look at regulations and how

 6     things are regulated in the rules.  I held this function which was the

 7     function of deputy head of the Defence Department, and within that I had

 8     my specific line of work that I carried out.  Not in a single document

 9     does it say or is there any mention of this that within my line of work,

10     I also stand in for Mr. Stojic when he is not present within the Defence

11     Department.

12             JUDGE MINDUA:  [Interpretation] One question.  This concerns my

13     understanding regarding his belonging to the HVO.  You said that as the

14     deputy of Mr. Stojic, you represented Mr. Stojic during the HVO meetings

15     when he was not there.  So my question generally, I'm not saying that the

16     HVO is a government, but I was thinking about the level of organisation.

17     In a government, deputy ministers are also members of the government, and

18     if you as a deputy, if you were not a member, does that mean that the

19     people sitting in the HVO were chosen into a t-personee [phoen], meaning

20     based on their personal qualities and not based on their assignments?

21     Were there, in this case, deputies who were members at the HVO?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour Judge Mindua, I wish to

23     explain to you that deputies of the head of the Defence Department were

24     not members of this government, that is the HVO HZ-HB.  It was only the

25     heads who were members of the government, and they were elected by the

Page 36434

 1     legislative body that at that time was the presidency of the Croatian

 2     Community of Herceg-Bosna.  I was not a member of the government.

 3             I've already said this twice over the past three days, if not

 4     even more often, that I was present at government meetings when certain

 5     documents were being proposed.  And I was the person sponsoring the

 6     proposal of the Defence Department, but I did not attend these sessions

 7     as a member of the government; and I did not have the authority that the

 8     members of government had, and persons who were elected members of

 9     government.  I'm saying this in a figurative sense.  When I say

10     government, it was the HVO HZ-HB, and it was consisted of the elected

11     representatives of the Defence Department, elected by the legislative

12     legal body.  I as the deputy head of the Defence Department - as I've

13     already said in my previous statements - was not elected by that

14     legislative legal body.  I was elected by that same government, the

15     HVO HZ-HB.  I was elected a deputy carrying out a certain line of work

16     but who was not a member of that same government.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

18     Mr. Witness, let me take a clear example so that we understand because

19     it's rather difficult and complex.  Here is my example:  Let us take the

20     case of Mr. Stojic who would, let's say, be held at a check-point, and he

21     is not allowed to go through.  His Motorola is confiscated and he is,

22     between inverted commas, a prisoner; he is not allowed to do anything.

23             You are in the building, in the office next to his secretary's

24     office, and all of a sudden, municipality or brigade sends a logistic

25     request for a doctor or for a truck.  Mr. Stojic, well, you cannot get a

Page 36435

 1     hold of Mr. Stojic.  Who would take a decision in this case?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour Judge Antonetti, that's

 3     a very good question.  It shows that there weren't proper regulations in

 4     force that would say who would regulate the matter.

 5             I did not have the authority to do that.  My authority is in line

 6     with regulations and rules in that field, and that is in the Defence

 7     Department, and only has to do with the civilian sector.  That is a

 8     confirmation, perhaps, which I can understand as a lawyer, and you as

 9     lawyers will understand me better when I say that this is this lack of

10     regulation.  It only confirms a particular thesis, how temporary or

11     provisional this type of government was.  Many things had not been

12     regulated.  Many things that only later when the government of the

13     Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna was established towards the end of 1993

14     were being resolved or an attempt was made to resolve them, although I

15     believe that that was a provisional authority, although it was called the

16     government of Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna.  So in this specific

17     case, I did not have the powers to do that.

18             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I take note of what you have

19     just said.  I will now use another example, a second concrete example.  I

20     do not know whether in Bosnia and Herzegovina if there are earthquakes in

21     this area, but let us just imagine that in a given area there is an

22     earthquake with buildings destroyed and civilians hurt.  And the

23     president of the municipality asks for help and makes a request to the

24     Department of Defence, so that the Department of Defence sends the

25     necessary means to help the people in the rumbles and sends a logistic

Page 36436

 1     means of food, et cetera.  Let's imagine Mr. Stojic is also under the

 2     rumbles.  Who in the Defence Department in such a situation would give

 3     the necessary instructions?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, all right.  I mean, it's a

 5     hypothetical situation, isn't it; and I am willing to accept it as an

 6     example in terms of who would make a decision to involve all the military

 7     and the logistics in this.

 8             My logical answer to that would be that it would be the president

 9     of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna as the supreme commander who

10     can decide to have the army used in such situations.  However, in order

11     to be of assistance to you, Your Honour Judge Antonetti, this was a very

12     good example that you referred to in case of a natural disaster, that is.

13     Within the civilian sector, it was envisaged that -- well, this was a

14     sector that was supposed to belong to the sector that I headed

15     theoretically and that was civilian protection.  That has to do with

16     natural disasters.

17             This particular division never started functioning within the

18     Defence Department, and I know that there was this big debate between the

19     Ministry of the Interior, rather the department of the interior and the

20     Defence Department who would take care of this particular work.  And

21     finally it went to a place where it didn't belong, and that was the

22     Department of the Interior.  So I'm trying to explain to you the actual

23     situation as it was, and the regulations that were there in that period

24     of time.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Scott.

Page 36437

 1             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Just in the same course of questions, when asked

 2     by Mr. Scott, Mr. Bozic, you were deputy head of the department, you

 3     answered in the affirmative.  What does that mean?  Is it nothing but an

 4     empty label, or does it have any meaning at all?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much for this

 6     question, Your Honour Judge Trechsel, you put it very well.  Was this in

 7     a name only, this particular position.  First of all, I was not a

 8     creator.  I do not know how President Boban proposed the establishment as

 9     such.  However, this particular position, deputy head of the Defence

10     Department was specifically linked to a line of work that is called the

11     sector for civilian affairs.

12             In order to make things easier for you - I mean to understand the

13     entire situation - towards the end of December 1993, when the ministry

14     was formed, the Ministry of Defence of the Croatian Community of

15     Herceg-Bosna, then the deputy minister became exactly the embodiment of

16     what you asked me about and what Mr. Scott asked me about, that this

17     links up all sectors within the Ministry of Defence as such.  Within that

18     structure of the Ministry of Defence, that is to say, from mid-December

19     1993, the work that I carried out as the deputy was now subdivided

20     between two assistants:  The assistant between personnel matters and

21     supplies, which is what I talked about on the first day.  That for awhile

22     I carried out that particular work as well parallel with my function of

23     the head of the office for contacts with UNPROFOR and international

24     organisations.  And the other part of my work was carried out by another

25     assistant, and that also had to do with mobilisation and things like

Page 36438

 1     that.

 2             So this shows how this function of deputy head of the Defence

 3     Department, and someone made decisions to that effect, and I cannot

 4     explain why.  Formally I did have the function of deputy head, but in the

 5     very next line, my function is limited by the fact that I'm responsible

 6     for and in charge of part of the work within the civilian affairs section

 7     of the Defence Department.

 8             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  In other words, you could have said, Yes

 9     practically it's just a name.  And I would really invite you to try to

10     make short answers.  Thank you.

11             Mr. Scott.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

13             MR. SCOTT:

14        Q.   Sir, throughout the course of your -- the cross-examination there

15     may come times when I will refer you back to your -- the interview that

16     you gave over a period of days in November of 2003.  And, sir, at that

17     time you did confirm that you did act as a replacement for Mr. Stojic;

18     and you did, for example, indicate that you received dignitaries and

19     visitors to the ministry or Department of Defence on Mr. Stojic's behalf

20     when he was not available.  That is what is you said in November 2003,

21     have you changed your position since then?

22             MR. KHAN:  Perhaps when my learned friend puts the interview to

23     the witness, it would be useful to get the actual reference and to

24     perhaps quote the line if it's not too long.  It will be easier to

25     follow.

Page 36439

 1             MR. SCOTT:  In that particular instance the two in the part one

 2     of his interview on page 27, and again in part one of his interview at

 3     page 41.

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, is this interview in

 5     the binder because we were not -- we had not heard about it?

 6             MR. SCOTT:  Your Honour, I believe it is marked fork the record

 7     purposes P 10796, 794.  My apology, P 10794.

 8             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  It's in binder 2.

 9             MR. SCOTT:  Binder 2.

10        Q.   While His Honour is looking at that sir, let me persist at my

11     question with -- I hope I've been able to assist counsel in court.  Sir,

12     that is's what you said in 2003.  Are you changing your answers in what

13     you are conveying to the Judges of this Court?

14        A.   May I have a look at my statement, the one that you are referring

15     to, the one that's in the binder.

16        Q.   Well, let me ask you this question -- let's make it more concrete

17     based on something that you've said in the last couple of days.

18             When you were being questioned about the 9th of May, 1993, the

19     events in Mostar on that day, you were called by SpaBat because their

20     APCs had been blocked on the entrance to Mostar.  You then apparently

21     intervened on that situation.  You called the duty officer to deal with

22     that situation.  You then told Judge Trechsel that after that particular

23     intervention, you apparently rolled over and went back to sleep.  Later

24     that day, you -- later that morning, you then did contact Mr. Stojic, and

25     as part of your answer, apparently in why you had not called Mr. Stojic

Page 36440

 1     earlier, you said on a number of -- in a number of situations, you sought

 2     to resolve those matters yourself by delegation or otherwise and not to -

 3     if you will - bother Mr. Stojic if not necessary.

 4             So now, sir, what authority were you exercising when you

 5     delegated authority to resolve certain situations instead of bothering

 6     Mr. Stojic?

 7             MR. KHAN:  Your Honour, I do ask, I do apologise for interrupting

 8     my learned friend.  I am looking firstly at page 27 of the interview that

 9     my learned friend cited, and I don't - I must be missing something - but

10     I don't actually see the line that supports the question.  What I do see

11     is at line 13 a question from my learned friend:

12                 "During the time that you were deputy minister of defence,

13     did you attend any meetings any part of the Republic of Croatia?"

14             And the answer was no.  So I don't see from page 27 anything that

15     supports the question.  Your Honour, I do think if my learned friend is

16     going to spend any time on this interview, the appropriate course is as

17     the witness requested, that he be given access to this interview that he

18     took part in, and he can look at the context and we can all follow it.

19     I'm asking for verbatim quotes if my learned friend is putting

20     proposition to the witness.

21             Your Honour, of course, the witness also held different positions

22     which he has described both as a deputy minister of defence and something

23     completely different when he was working with UNPROFOR.  So I think it

24     will be useful to Your Honours and to us to follow the evidence if my

25     learned friends is specific and quotes the interview line by line.

Page 36441

 1             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, what is the line

 2     where he says that he replaced Mr. Stojic which would be in contradiction

 3     with what he is saying just now?

 4             MR. SCOTT:  Excuse me, Your Honour.  Page 27 and Your Honour.

 5             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please for Mr. Scott.

 6             MR. SCOTT:  Apologies.  The portion of the version I have of the

 7     transcript, Your Honour, doesn't have line numbers, but towards top of

 8     the page Mr. Bozic says halfway through the first paragraph signed by

 9     him:

10                 "And who was replacing or acting on behalf of the Defence

11     Department when he, the representative, authorised me to represent him."

12             That's what I'm referring to in that particular instance

13     specifically.

14             And I also referred, Your Honours to another instance on page 41

15     when he talks about receiving visitors on Mr. Stojic's behalf.

16             Let me go back, sir, I have a pending question for you

17     unfortunately --

18             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, I do not agree with

19     what you said because looking at the English version, you asked the

20     question and Mr. Bozic answered, and I quote:

21                 "I was not the second person.  I was the deputy who was in

22     charge of the civilian part."

23             So his answer is not as affirmative as you indicated.  I refer

24     everybody to this answer.

25             MR. SCOTT:  Well, with great respect, Your Honour, you are

Page 36442

 1     stopping too soon.  You are stopping at:

 2             "... civilian aspect, and who was replacing or acting on behalf

 3     of the representative of the Defence Department when he the

 4     representative authorised me to represent him."

 5             That's also in the transcript.  If I can go back to the other

 6     specific scenario.

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, but in legal terms he said

 8     when he was authorised to represent him.  This is what he said.  He did

 9     not say that he was -- he had the permanent authorisation to do so, he

10     said that he needed to have an authorisation to represent him.  This is

11     what he said.

12             Mr. Witness, this is the answer you gave a few years ago.  Since

13     you are a lawyer, I believe that when you mention that, you were giving

14     also a legal answer?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would like to ask

16     you something first and foremost.  I'm not trying to evade any answer,

17     and I'm going to answer all questions that are put to me.  It is a fact

18     that Mr. Scott, during these talks that we conducted over five and a half

19     years, promised me to submit a transcript of this conversation in the

20     Croatian language; and he hasn't done this in the past five and a half

21     years.  And I cannot deal with without reading my statement, reading what

22     I had said.  I will give Your Honours comments with regard to everything

23     I stated, but I ask that I have the transcript before me in the Croatian

24     language so that I can give reliable answers to these questions.

25             I mean, for me to go back five and a half years, and it depends

Page 36443

 1     on how people read things; and as I listen to what you've been saying, I

 2     see that you understand certain things differently from the way Mr. Scott

 3     understands them, and this is not very pleasant for me.  So therefore, I

 4     kindly ask could I please have the transcript in Croatian, and then I'm

 5     going to give answers to all questions put to me.  Until then, I do not

 6     feel capable of going back five and a half years in time and recalling

 7     everything that I discussed over three exhausting days with Mr. Scott

 8     with hundreds of questions, sub-questions, going back to one in the same

 9     thing with yet new questions.

10             So you are asking me to deal with this now.  I said that I am, as

11     you've said, a witness for justice, and in order to be one, I need to

12     have the document that I can read.

13             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fair enough.  Since we do not

14     have the B/C/S text, that will be very difficult.  Mr. Scott.

15             MR. SCOTT:  Yes, Your Honour.  I will confirm, I will do this to

16     the extent I will confirm that there is no B/C/S transcript of this.  It

17     was provided, the original audio recording has been provided to the

18     Defence in both languages.

19             Just to answer the Judge's questions and it is one of the

20     problems, frankly, when there is a long series questions of interventions

21     after the Prosecution puts a question, way back now when this whole --

22     when I first put these question to the witness back on page 12, line 3.

23                 "And is it correct, sir, that your role involved as deputy

24     acting as a replacement or substitute for Mr. Stojic when authorised to

25     do so?"

Page 36444

 1             That is the question I've been pursuing now for the last 20

 2     minutes or so, 25 minutes or so since the question was first put.  So

 3     that is exactly the point.  And that relates back to the prior testimony.

 4     So had there not been a long series of inventions and long answers by the

 5     witness, there would have been a stronger connection to the original

 6     question.  If I can go back --

 7             MR. KHAN:  Your Honour, can I just say, I do apologise sincerely

 8     for interrupting Mr. Scott.  I do have the page 27 now.  One of the

 9     difficulties I've found if one looks, there are a number of interviews

10     under this tab number.  And I was looking at the wrong page 27.  I think

11     that's just something to be aware of as we go forward.

12             But, Your Honour, I would ask if we don't have the B/C/S version

13     of this interview that it's only fair in the normal practice that if a

14     previous statement is being put to the witness, he is entitled to see it.

15     It would have been far preferable in my submission to get this transcript

16     translated if my learned friend for the Prosecution was seeking to put it

17     to the witness in the box today.

18             Your Honour, be that as it may, and without prejudice to any

19     further submissions I may make on that issue, at the very least what I do

20     ask Your Honours to do is to require Mr. Scott - if he is not otherwise

21     willing to do it - to read out verbatim the answers when he puts

22     questions to the witness as far as they relate to the interview that took

23     place some years ago.  I think that's only fair, and it is only proper.

24     I do apologise for interrupting, but it is an important point.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Mr. Scott, if you

Page 36445

 1     go back to any issue that relate to the interviews carried out several

 2     years ago, then you will have to read verbatim both the question and the

 3     answer.  At least we'll be able to read it and hear it in our earphones.

 4             Please continue, Mr. Scott.

 5             MR. SCOTT:  Thank you, Your Honour.  I will endeavour to do my

 6     best.  I would hope there might be situations Mr. Bozic will be able to

 7     assist us by simply indicating, Yes that's what I said before.  If we are

 8     going to engage in exercise of reading every prior question and answer to

 9     him, we will certainly be here for substantially longer than we otherwise

10     would be.  So I hope maybe he can be forthcoming with us on a number of

11     occasions.

12        Q.   Sir, there was a question put now some minutes to you, and it's

13     long gone off the transcript page, but let me go back and try again.

14             You testified, sir, that on the 9th of May at one point you had

15     intervened after being called by the Spanish Battalion about being

16     blocked by Mostar.  You then called a duty officer to deal with that

17     situation.  You then later on said that when asked by, I think,

18     Judge Trechsel why it was you didn't contact Mr. Stojic soon around that

19     time and if that wasn't exactly Judge Trechsel's question, I beg some

20     leeway, but that's certainly my question.  In any event that's certainly

21     my question at this time.  And you said to the effects that well, there

22     were on various situations you would act about try to solve the problem

23     yourself, that's my para-phrase, you used the term delegation and would

24     not try to bother Mr. Stojic.

25             So what authority, sir, when you were acting in that case to

Page 36446

 1     intervene and to delegate and solve problems without disturbing

 2     Mr. Stojic, what then authority were you exercising, if not as deputy?

 3        A.   At that time, I was exercising the authority of a member of the

 4     commission for contacts with the UNPROFOR to which I was appointed before

 5     being appointed deputy head of the Defence Department, and I was never

 6     replaced from that position until the office was elected.  And I

 7     clarified yesterday that I had done certain things on behalf of the

 8     commission, things that regarded not only the department, but other

 9     bodies of the HVO HZ-HB, so even that communication on the 9th of May

10     with the Spaniards was part of my job on behalf of the commission for

11     contacts with the UNPROFOR on the part of the HVO HZ-HB.

12        Q.   All right, sir.  We'll come back to that when we get to the 9th

13     of May and we'll see if we can pursue that a little bit further.  You

14     remained in this position as deputy minister, deputy head, if you will,

15     before the term minister was used, until approximately November 1993.  I

16     want to clarify after that, sir, you then remained in various functions

17     and duties related to the what was then the minister of defence even when

18     you were no longer by title, at least, deputy minister; is that correct?

19             You had some roles related to personnel?

20        A.   Excuse me, Mr. Scott, I really did not understand this question.

21        Q.   Well, let me ask you to go to P 07090 in the binders that you

22     have, and I'll have to be assisted which binder it's in.  Binder

23     number 2.

24        A.   Sorry, which number did you say?

25        Q.   P 07090.  Sir, this is a decision to establish the military

Page 36447

 1     council of the minister of defence dated 9th of December, 1993, over the

 2     name of Mate Boban in the English version.  And in that list under

 3     section Roman numeral II, it says, the following are here by appointed to

 4     the military council as members, and number 5 defence minister's

 5     assistant for personnel matters, Slobodan Bozic; do you see that?

 6        A.   Yes I can see that.

 7        Q.   And keeping that in mind, please, can I ask you to next turn to

 8     P 08215, also in binder 2.  It shouldn't be too far from the one you were

 9     just looking at.  P 08215.  This is a list of employs of the Ministry of

10     Defence --

11        A.   Sorry, I haven't found it yet.  P?

12        Q.   P 08215.

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   This is a list of Ministry of Defence employees as of the 20th of

15     April, 1994.  If you'll find the heading that says personnel

16     administration on page 2 of the English version.  Person listed as 1,

17     Slobodan Bozic, assistant minister for personnel.  You see that?  Can you

18     confirm that, sir?  It will assist everyone in the courtroom - you may

19     not wants to assist me - but it will assist the courtroom sir, if some of

20     these answers if you could tell us, isn't it correct, sir that you

21     continued even though you were no longer deputy to Mr. Stojic when he

22     left the department in November 1993, you continued in a senior role in

23     connection with personnel administration throughout 1993 and 1994?  Very

24     simple, sir.

25             MR. KHAN:  Your Honour, I do object, I do object.  It's

Page 36448

 1     completely unnecessary to make these snide comments on the side.  There's

 2     been no indication from the witness that he is not willing to assist any

 3     party in this courtroom, whether it be the Defence or the Prosecution or

 4     Your Honours.  And, Your Honours, to cast aspersions on a witness without

 5     a foundation is really unworthy of a Prosecutor of my learned friend's

 6     ability and experience.

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The witness said he is a

 8     witness of the court.  Therefore it's not necessary to address these

 9     issues.  He is witness of the court.  He has taken the oath, so he will

10     answer these questions.

11             MR. SCOTT:  Your Honour, I try to get into this area again by a

12     simple question without need together resort to the documents.

13     Judge Trechsel already admonished the witness once to give short answers,

14     and I leave the record at that.

15        Q.   Sir, isn't it correct, you look at these two documents, P 07090,

16     P 08215 --

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, wait.  It may be

18     more complicated than you think.  Let's go back to this document,

19     Witness.  It's dated the 20th of April, 1994.  There's another defence

20     minister at the time.  This document contains a list of the staff of the

21     Ministry of Defence.  Looking at this list, we see that there is an

22     inspection.  There is an immediate office for the minister with the chief

23     of the immediate office.  There are general administrative services, and

24     there's also a unit called personnel administration.  There are 14 staff

25     within that administration, and you were number one because you are

Page 36449

 1     numbered as 1.

 2             In fact, you are in charge of this administrative unit, and next

 3     to it in English, next to your name, your title is indicated, namely

 4     assistant minister for personnel; but this reference is also found for

 5     your other colleagues.  Let's check, for instance, civilian affairs,

 6     Mr. Barbaric.  His title is also assistant minister.  Now, it seems that

 7     in the administrative system as it stood at the time, the chief of the

 8     administrative units were given the title of assistant ministers.  Is

 9     that the way things have to be interpreted?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour Judge Antonetti, I

11     would now like to kindly ask without any intention to waste time because

12     time is important to me as well.  I wish to finish as soon as possible

13     after more than 14 days in The Hague, but I have to give answers that are

14     all the truth and nothing but the truth, as my solemn declaration

15     requires me.

16             Mr. Scott deliberately or not, I believe not deliberately, is

17     making a connection between two periods.  One period when there was a

18     Defence Department with Mr. Stojic in it.  And the second period is the

19     one to which these two documents now shown by Mr. Scott, apply.  The

20     documents you discussed.  I have to go back to the first day of my

21     evidence when I said --

22             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, Witness, I've asked

23     you a specific question.  We are talking about 1994.  I'm not mixing

24     things up.  I'm a professional, and I'm talking about the specific date

25     of the document.  That's why I specify the 20th of April, 1994, and I

Page 36450

 1     indicated that it wasn't the same minister.  So on the single, on the

 2     sole basis of this document, could you please tell me whether the fact

 3     that you are number one within this personnel administration unit,

 4     whether it meant that, in fact, you were number two of within the

 5     Ministry of Defence, or whether, as the other colleagues you had at the

 6     time, you were the head of an administrative unit?  My question is very

 7     specific.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will answer your question very

 9     precisely.  That referred to one division.  But I have to remind you of

10     my evidence given on the first day that I was elected on the

11     1st December 1993, as head of that commission for contacts with the

12     UNPROFOR, and at the request of Minister Jukic and later Minister Soljic,

13     I remained as acting head of that personnel division.  And I was never

14     actually appointed to that position, but I was an acting officer doing

15     simultaneously two jobs.

16             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What you are saying is that you

17     were the head of the personnel division, but you say that you were acting

18     because, in fact, your job was the person in charge of contacts with

19     UNPROFOR?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely, Your Honour.

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

22             Mr. Scott, I've tried to clarify.

23             MR. SCOTT:  Thank you, Mr. President.  I was, again, I thought

24     abundantly clear to everyone in the courtroom what is happening.  Twelve

25     minutes ago, at 4 minutes after 10, I asked the witness this question.

Page 36451

 1     Page 25 starting at line 25:

 2             "I want to clarify" after that -- no, I'm sorry:

 3             "You were deputy minister, if you will, before the term minister

 4     was used until approximately November 1993.  I want to clarify," to use

 5     your words, Mr. President, "I want to clarify after that, sir, you then

 6     remained in various functions and duties related to that then to that

 7     minister of defence even when you were no longer by title at least deputy

 8     minister; is that correct.  You had some roles related to personnel."

 9             The answer it to that question would have been, Yes.  That would

10     have been about you know 14 minutes ago.  And that's all I was try

11     together establish.  If we could move forward a little bit through the

12     chronology so we could talk about Mr. Bozic's continuing contacts in

13     these matters.

14        Q.   So, sir, it's correct, is it not that from the end of 1993 and

15     well into 1994, you continued to have a position, a senior position, if

16     not deputy assistant minister related to personnel matters; correct?  Yes

17     or no?

18        A.   I acted as deputy -- there is assistant minister for personnel

19     affairs, but I never occupied that position, I just did that work

20     temporary at the request of the --

21        Q.   How long, sir, did you continue doing that work?

22        A.   On the first day of my evidence, I said that unfortunately it

23     went on into 1994.

24        Q.   Well, how long into 1994, sir, approximately?  Please help us.

25        A.   I can even suppose that it happened into 1995 because the

Page 36452

 1     minister's asked me to stay in that position since heads of the division

 2     for personnel and head of division for procurement were appointed and

 3     they wanted to keep me as a coordinator.

 4        Q.   Thank you, sir.  Thank you very much.  You've answered my

 5     question.

 6             Now, I'd also like to come back to the topic of the location of

 7     the offices of Department of Defence, at least what we might call the

 8     headquarters office, Mr. Stojic's seat, if you will, that you went

 9     through and took us to some extent both with Ms. Nozica and again with

10     Ms. Alaburic.  But I want to focus, I want to be very clear about a

11     particular period of time, sir, so let me focus your attention from

12     mid-April 1993 until the end of June 1993.  Do you have those dates in

13     mind?  Mid-April 1993 until the end of June 1993.  Yes?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   Now, can you tell us during that time where the Department of

16     Defence offices, which included both you and Mr. Stojic were located?

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If I may, I'd like to

18     intervene.  As regards Mr. Coric, I asked for the chief medical officer

19     to visit right away Mr. Coric.  I'm being told that the visit will take

20     place tomorrow right away.  And this is 19 past 10.00 this very morning.

21     I'm instructing the Registrar to take the necessary measures.  Please

22     continue, Mr. Scott.

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

24        Q.   Sir, I have a pending question to you again already as so often

25     this morning.  Can you tell us, please, where that office was located

Page 36453

 1     during that time-period?

 2        A.   At that time, the offices were on the premises of the agronomy

 3     institute, or to be more precise in the building housing the

 4     administration of an agronomy complex called Apro, A-p-r-o, of Mostar.

 5        Q.   And can you give us, sir, it may assist us in the future, and of

 6     course I suspect for you when you say that agronomy institute, you know

 7     exactly where that is.  Can you give us an approximate street address or

 8     intersection in two streets in Mostar, so it will assist the Judge at

 9     some point to know exactly where that was?

10        A.   Well, to be quite honest, I'm not sure whether it was

11     Kralj Tomislav Street or something else.  If I'm looking at the entrance

12     from Siroki Brijeg from which I used to come, then 500 or 700 metres from

13     the Mostar cathedral, that's where it was.

14        Q.   All right.  Is it true, sir, that throughout the entire period,

15     now focusing on when you joined the DOD, if you will, in approximately

16     August of 1992 until Mr. Stojic's departure in November 1993, the two of

17     you always had your offices in close proximity to one another?

18        A.   Yes, the office of Mr. Stojic and my office had the secretary's

19     office between them.

20        Q.   And did you share that secretary, if you will?

21        A.   I think we shared the same secretary.  And now I recall that for

22     awhile we had another girl doing secretarial jobs.

23        Q.   In terms of people who officed at this location, and we heard

24     about a number of them yesterday, but let me ask you about one more, do

25     you recall that the man named Mladen Naletilic also known as "Tuta" also

Page 36454

 1     had an office close by to Mr. Stojic?

 2        A.   In those offices in that building, I'm no longer sure when we

 3     moved in, whether it was the end of August or the beginning of September.

 4     I'm not sure whether there was anyone from the units of the

 5     Convicts Battalion, which had its offices there.  There was one office,

 6     even later where the secretaries sat, but I know as a native of

 7     Siroki Brijeg, I know that Mr. Tuta had his offices in the tobacco

 8     station in Siroki Brijeg, the offices of the Convicts Battalion whereas

 9     in our building we had offices occupied most of the time by a young girl.

10        Q.   Now, in terms of your role in personnel administration and in the

11     department, again I would like to touch on a few things which I had hoped

12     we would be able to do rather quickly.

13             But if I can just take you back, please, to Exhibit P 00586.  In

14     the first binder, P 00586.  This is the decision on the internal

15     organisation or constitution of the Department of Defence, dated 17

16     October, 1992.  I think we've seen it in the courtroom before, perhaps

17     several times.  If I can ask you, sir, to look in particular to Roman

18     numeral III, section Roman numeral III, which is in the English version

19     is on page 3.  And this is a document that went out apparently over the

20     name of Mr. Stojic, you see on the first page.  In Roman numeral III, it

21     says:

22             "The head shall have a deputy full stop.  The deputy head is

23     directly responsible for the civilian section, which shall include the

24     following organisational units: " And we can see them all there.  I won't

25     read them, except among those you'll see number 5, personnel

Page 36455

 1     administration; is that correct?

 2        A.   [Interpretation] [No interpretation]

 3        Q.   If I can next ask you to go to P 02477, P 02477, also in the

 4     first binder.

 5             JUDGE MINDUA:  Just help me, which part?

 6             MS. NOZICA:  [Interpretation] I'm sorry Your Honours.  Good

 7     morning.  I don't understand this comment by Mr. Scott.  I don't know if

 8     we are looking at the same thing, line 34, that is page 34, line 8, it

 9     says "over the name of Mr. Stojic."  If we look at the document, this was

10     signed by Mr. Boban.  I don't think it's a good idea to leave this on the

11     record.  I don't see Mr. Stojic's name on the document.  Perhaps I

12     misunderstood my learned friends.

13             MR. SCOTT:  I believe counsel, if you look at the first page of

14     P 00 --

15             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

16             MR. SCOTT:  I believe, sir, if you'll find -- if I misspoke, I

17     apologise.  I was referring to the first page of that document P 00586,

18     distributing, I will correct myself to say the cover letter, if you will,

19     distributing the document by Mr. Boban.  Perhaps we are both a little bit

20     right.  My apologies if I misspoke.

21        Q.   Sir, you see that and then I also direct your attention to

22     P 02477.

23        A.   Could you tell me in which section of the binder is that,

24     Mr. Scott?

25        Q.   First binder, sir.

Page 36456

 1             MR. SCOTT:  Can we have the usher's assistance, please.

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.  Thank you

 3     very much, I can see it now.

 4             MR. SCOTT:

 5        Q.   If you look, sir, at Roman numeral II of that document, which is

 6     on the English, the bottom of the first page.  This is the decision on

 7     the internal organisation of the Defence Department, and it talks about

 8     in the second paragraph under Roman numeral II:

 9             "Chiefs of administration for Defence affairs and mobilisation,

10     budget administration, civilian protection staff, legal affairs

11     administration, personnel administration, and welfare administration

12     manage the work of those administrations and answer for their work to the

13     deputy head."

14             And that was you, sir; is that correct, the deputy head?

15        A.   Yes, that's me.

16             MR. SCOTT:  I'm told, Your Honour, by my colleague that it's

17     perhaps time for the break.

18             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, you are right.  We'll have

19     a 20-minute break.

20                           --- Recess taken at 10.29 a.m.

21                           --- On resuming at 10.52 a.m.

22             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We can resume.

23             MR. SCOTT:

24        Q.   Sir, if I can direct your attention next, please, to 2D 01017 in

25     binder number 2.  That will be a Defence exhibit at that.  2D - some of

Page 36457

 1     the documents that you were shown by Ms. Nozica - 2D 01017.

 2        A.   I'm sorry.  I'm sorry, Mr. Scott, the last document that I opened

 3     before the break was P 02477.  That's what you said to me.

 4        Q.   Yes, but we are moving on to another document now.

 5        A.   Sorry, where is this other document?  Where is this other

 6     document?

 7             MS. NOZICA:  [Interpretation] Your Honours, I beg your pardon, I

 8     believe that it would be a good idea that this be explained to the

 9     witness, namely how the documents are organised.  I think that would be a

10     good idea because I think he cannot find his way in the binder.  He

11     doesn't know how the documents are organised, the P documents, the 1D, D

12     documents, and so on.  I think it would be good to instruct him.

13             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, we have two binders.

14     The documents are filed with bearing letters P and figures in the

15     chronological order, and then you have Defence 2D, 3D, et cetera, which

16     is presented in an order which might be different.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honour.

18     Thank you.

19             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fair enough.  And in addition,

20     Witness, you can see the document on the e-court.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honour.

22             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone for Mr. Scott, please.

23             MR. SCOTT:

24        Q.   All right.  Sir, you have that document now --

25             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone for Mr. Scott, please.

Page 36458

 1             MR. SCOTT:

 2        Q.   2D 01017.  Sir, can you just look at that.  I'm not going to take

 3     you through the document in any detail, but if you can look at that and

 4     confirm that these are the rules as stated in the title page.  These are

 5     the rules on the conditions and procedure for assignment awarding ranks

 6     and promotion to higher ranks applicable to the HVO armed forces.  And

 7     the date of this document is 14th of October, 1992.  Do you see that?

 8     Yes or no?

 9        A.   Yes, correct.

10        Q.   And these would have been the rule that is would have within --

11     that were applicable to those topics during the period of latter part of

12     1992 and, would it be accurate to say through at least the end of 1993?

13        A.   Yes, it was signed by Mr. Stojic.

14        Q.   And just as an example, and again I'm not going to take your time

15     or the courtroom's time to go through it, but even at the back there were

16     even such things as forms that have to be completed; correct?

17     Information required, for example, to justify promotion, different dates

18     and service records; is that correct?

19        A.   Yes, that's correct.

20        Q.   Can I ask you next, please, to go to 2D 00933.  Again, sir, you

21     should be able to find that roughly in the same part of the binder.

22     Binder number 2 in the 2D exhibit.

23        A.   Yes, I found it.

24        Q.   And can you confirm to us, sir, that this is an order dated the

25     16th of July, 1993, by Mr. Stojic indicating, or someone over

Page 36459

 1     Mr. Stojic's name - so I don't want to get bogged down on whether it's

 2     Mr. Stojic's signature or not - but going out over his name and title, an

 3     order, 1:

 4             "Send proposals for awarding ranks, promotion to higher ranks,

 5     and assignment of ranks within seven days."

 6             Number 2:  "Proposals of officers and non-commissioned officers

 7     of all units shall be sent through the Main Staff to the personnel

 8     administration of the Defence Department."  Et cetera, and would you just

 9     confirm for us that that was indeed the procedure for the awarding of

10     ranks, promotion and assignment of ranks as further confirmed by

11     Mr. Stojic as of July 1993?

12        A.   Yes, this is the procedure for proposals to award ranks.

13        Q.   And if I could next ask you to go to P 00502.  We are going to go

14     back to the first binder, please.  Different binder.  P 00502.

15             Sir, this appears to be a list of the, I think this may have been

16     shown to you earlier, maybe not, I may be confusing it with another

17     document.  But it's dated the 18th of September, 1993, giving kind of a

18     personnel structure, organisations, number of positions for the HVO

19     effective immediately, as I say again over the name of Mr. Stojic.  And

20     when I say - let me just say it to counsel - when I say, "over the name

21     of," I'm not trying to get into whether it's actually his signatures or

22     not but on the authority of Mr. Stojic as head of the Department of

23     Defence.

24             And if I can ask you to look at least in the English, I'll try to

25     assist you if I can with the B/C/S.  But on page 9 of the English

Page 36460

 1     version, but if you'll find in the document there's a section that

 2     relates to the personnel section several pages into the chart, if you

 3     will, there is a section personnel.  It's on page 9 of the English.  It

 4     may be on page -- there's, unfortunately, no page number on the B/C/S

 5     one.  I apologise.  Item 50 at one point, I think it's item 50 the

 6     numbers are consecutive.  In any event sir, if you see that, this list

 7     the personnel section, a chief, a personnel affairs officer, a labour

 8     relations officer, and an operator typist.

 9             And if you could just simply confirm for me, sir, that during

10     this period of time, during 1993, this personnel administration or

11     personnel section was rather small operation; is that correct?  Four

12     people, five people, six people?

13        A.   Mr. Scott, I would like to go back to the first page of this

14     document.

15        Q.   Sir, my question to you is this:  During this time 1993, was the

16     personnel -- did the staffing of the personnel administration, was it

17     generally in the vicinity of four, five, six persons?  Yes or no?

18        A.   This doesn't have anything to do with the personnel department at

19     all.

20        Q.   All right.  Then forgive me if I'm wrong.  Forget the document,

21     sir.  The personnel administration that you supervised, we looked at the

22     document earlier you agreed that personnel administration was one of your

23     responsibilities as deputy chief.  In 1993, how many people worked in

24     that section?

25        A.   Which period of 1993 do you have in mind?

Page 36461

 1        Q.   Well, let's say the second half of 1993.  Let's say from July to

 2     December of 1993.

 3        A.   All right.  I cannot be very specific, but it's a personnel

 4     department consisting of six, seven persons, eight at a maximum.

 5     Although, the specific number was established yesterday when we looked at

 6     that structure within the Defence Department.

 7        Q.   And where were those offices of the personnel administration, the

 8     people that these six, seven, or eight persons, where were they

 9     physically located?  Where did they office in relation to your office?

10        A.   Near my office on the same floor.

11        Q.   All right.  I'm going to turn to the topic of reporting at the

12     Department of Defence, which I'm sure has been discussed to some extent.

13     But is it fair to say, sir, that in the course of being the minister of

14     defence, Mr. Stojic regularly received reports on a whole host of matters

15     including the military situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina; correct?

16        A.   Well, I can say that he received quite a few reports regarding

17     the work that his assistants sent reports to him about, and some of the

18     reports probably have to do with the Main Staff as well.

19        Q.   Well, let me show you an example.  P 01114.  This will be in your

20     first binder.  Binder 1, in numerical order, P 01114.  You may --

21        A.   What did you say that it was?

22        Q.   P 01114.

23             MR. SCOTT:  Usher, you may have to just take up a chair next to

24     the witness, I suppose.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would ask if it

Page 36462

 1     would be possible for the usher to sit next to me because I really don't

 2     want to have all this time go by without me having a look at the

 3     documents.  Thank you very much.

 4             MR. SCOTT:

 5        Q.   Sir, this is an example, I put it to you as an example the kind

 6     of reports that I suggest to you, I'm putting to you that Mr. Stojic

 7     would have received, did receive on a regular basis.  This one being a

 8     report dated the 13th of January, 1993 from someone, I believe, named

 9     Zeljko Akra [phoen], reporting on the situation in Gornji Vakuf in

10     Novi Travnik at the top of it head of the Defence Department, personally

11     to Mr. B. Stojic.  That's at type of report that Mr. Stojic received on a

12     regular basis; correct?

13        A.   I can say this is the type of reports that he received, but I

14     cannot say whether it was on a regular basis.  I said already that he

15     received in from the Main Staff and other sectors.

16        Q.   Well, sir, do you think that Mr. Stojic as a minister of defence

17     took prudent steps to keep himself informed about defence matters in

18     Bosnia-Herzegovina?

19        A.   I did not quite understand your question.  What do you mean by

20     necessary steps?

21        Q.   Do you think, sir, that Mr. Stojic as a minister of defence took

22     prudent steps to keep himself informed about defence matters in

23     Bosnia-Herzegovina?

24        A.   Well, obviously he did receive information and reports and that

25     could be seen on the basis of what you have shown me.

Page 36463

 1        Q.   If you will turn next, please, to P 02823.  P 02823.  First

 2     binder in numerical order.

 3        A.   Thank you I've found it.

 4        Q.   Thank you, sir.  Sir, this particular document is a communication

 5     dated 17th of June, 1993, from Major-General Praljak.  It says to

 6     Bruno Stojic, as well as the Main Staff:  "URGENT!  Inform us ASAP when

 7     the tanks are arriving in Rama!"

 8             My particular question about this document actually has very

 9     little do with that, but there's a stamp on the middle lower middle

10     centre of the document, I guess you might say, that he been added and

11     certain information filled in.  For example, to orient you, the first

12     line in the box it says GS HVO, which I think we can agree means the HVO

13     Main Staff; correct?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   Now, is it fair to say this is what we would call a packet

16     communication?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   And that was an electronic form of sending a signal, a wireless

19     signal through the air and with a print-out facility at the other end; is

20     that correct?

21        A.   Yes, although I'm not very knowledgeable about this particular

22     system but I believe that's it.

23        Q.   The box we are looking at here, the one dependent that starts

24     GS HVO, appears to have the number 3468, appears to say 17/06/1993, which

25     I'm going to suggest to you - and I am sure I'll be corrected if I'm

Page 36464

 1     wrong - which is 17 June, 1993, which will correspond to the date on the

 2     document itself, at 0840, presumably 840 hours, 8.40 a.m.

 3             Now, who would put that stamp on an incoming or outgoing if you

 4     will, whichever you wants to address it.  Who would put that stamp on and

 5     complete that information?

 6        A.   I've already said I'm not very knowledgeable about this

 7     particular system, but I believe this was done by the operations person

 8     who had received the document.

 9        Q.   We can tell since it appears to be coming from Mr. Praljak to the

10     Main Staff the person who received it - again trying to be as clear as

11     possible - this was the duty officer, communications officer at the

12     Main Staff; correct?

13        A.   I repeat, I'm not very knowledgeable about this system but I

14     assume it was the operations person who was working on these matters.

15        Q.   Now if we could look at very quickly some additional reports just

16     in connection to the topic of reports, the type of reports going to

17     Mr. Stojic.  Can I ask you to turn next, please, to P 00653.  First

18     binder.  P 00653.

19        A.   Thank you very much, I found it.

20        Q.   Sir, if you can just scan through that document, I'll tell you

21     again I'm not going to take you through any detailed part of it.  If you

22     could just scan it if you will, please, enough to see what it is.  This

23     says intelligence report number 89/92 for the 26th of October, 1992, on

24     the last page or beneath the name of the intelligence chief, the

25     distribution 1, head of Defence Department, Bruno Stojic personally;

Page 36465

 1     number 2, Commander J. Bobetko personally; 3, HVO GS staff brigadier,

 2     M. Petkovic personally, et cetera; do you see that?

 3        A.   Yes, I see that.

 4        Q.   And sir, the Judges can under, can't they, and properly so, that

 5     again this is the kind of a report that Mr. Stojic and others received on

 6     a regular basis?

 7        A.   Yes, that's an example.  I'll not talking about things on a

 8     regular basis because I really don't know about that, but this was

 9     something that was received from the Main Staff.

10        Q.   P 02760.

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, looking at the list of

12     beneficiaries, I see the name of General Bobetko.  How do you explain

13     that a general from a foreign country should receive a document, an

14     internal document which is internal to the Croatian Community of

15     Herceg-Bosna?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour Judge Antonetti, this

17     is the first time I see this document.  I don't know what I could say by

18     way of response except that the person sending this knew what he was

19     doing.  Everything else I would say would be speculation, and I really

20     don't want to engage in that.  What you said is correct that this was

21     submitted to General Bobetko.

22             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If it is a packet

23     communications or a transmission by fax, this meant that the Republic of

24     Croatia had a direct connection with the units on field?  Is this an

25     assumption?  How can you explain that?

Page 36466

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot explain.  I really don't

 2     know that, and that is why I said that whatever I would say would be

 3     speculation.  Who sent this knew why he sent it.  Now, did he want to

 4     raise his document to a higher level or whatever, I really don't know.  I

 5     really don't know what was meant by this.  And I don't know whether there

 6     was any kind of packet communication between and among the military

 7     structures of the Herceg-Bosna and the Republic of Croatia.

 8             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  Could all other

 9     microphones please be switched off, we have great difficulty hearing the

10     witness.  Thank you.

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Okay.  Mr. Scott.

12             MR. SCOTT:

13        Q.   Sir, if you'll turn next to --

14             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone for Mr. Scott, please.

15             MR. SCOTT:

16        Q.   My apology.  P 02760 in the first binder.  Should be, well, not

17     immediately next door, but in that same binder.  P 02760.

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   Thank you, sir.  And this is the last one of these I'll show you.

20     I won't take the time to go through more in the interest of time.  That

21     is document dated the 14th of June, 1993.  Also from the chief of

22     military intelligence, Mr. Keza.  If you will look please again at the

23     distribution below Mr. Keza's name, Herceg-Bosna president, Mate Boban,

24     personally; Bruno Stojic, personally; Mr. Petkovic, personally.  I'll

25     stop there for a moment, but I'll follow up on Judge Antonetti's

Page 36467

 1     questions in a moment, but can you confirm that much for us?  Again this

 2     is a military intelligence report concerning certain actions and events

 3     around the 14th of June that went to, among others, Mr. Stojic.

 4        A.   Yes, on the basis of this report it can be seen that it is a

 5     report bearing the date that you refer to, the 14th of June, 1993, that

 6     it's sent by Mr. Zarko Keza inter alia to Mr. Stojic as well.

 7        Q.   And to follow-up on Judge Antonetti's point, if we look at

 8     persons 4 and 5, and maybe you can assist us and maybe you can't.  Isn't

 9     it correct, sir, that Mr. Domizat [phoen] was another senior officer in

10     the Republic of Croatia armed forces and can you tell us why Mr. Domizat

11     and why the Split operations zone Colonel Bonacan [phoen], Split being in

12     the Republic of Croatia, why they would be being copied on the

13     intelligence reports from the HVO?

14        A.   I can just give you the answer that I've already given to

15     His Honour Judge Antonetti, that I will dot not know why it was sent to

16     them.  It's only the person who sent this can say why he did that.

17     Anything else that I would say would be speculation, and I do not wish to

18     speculate.

19             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, look at item 6 of this

20     document.  Maybe we can find the answer there.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I've read this paragraph 6

22     now.  That could be related to this letter, but I really don't know

23     anything about it.

24             MS. NOZICA:  [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm sorry, I don't

25     want to speculate, I don't know anything about it either; but it's

Page 36468

 1     interesting to look at paragraph 4, maybe there is a connection there why

 2     this letter was sent.

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes.  Take a look at point 4.

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I've looked at it.  This

 5     para 4 or the issues related to para 4 confirm a situation that went on

 6     and on, and the problems that we encountered in the Croatian Community

 7     Herceg-Bosna regarding mobilisation, shirking from military duty, and

 8     desertions into the Republic of Croatia.  So this para 4 makes sense.

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please continue, Mr. Scott.

10             MR. SCOTT:

11        Q.   Sir, I'd like to turn next very briefly to the topic of meetings

12     at the Department of Defence, I might refer to them perhaps as section

13     head meetings.  I think they've been referred to in the purpose in these

14     proceedings as the college.

15             Do you know the meetings that I'm talking about, the meetings

16     that would take place among the managers, if you will, within the

17     Department of Defence that have been mentioned several times?

18        A.   Yes, I understand what you are driving at.  That's what I have

19     emphasised so far in my evidence, and the transcripts presented here in

20     the courtroom confirm that these were, indeed, college meetings of the

21     Defence Department.

22        Q.   Very well.  Thank you.  My only further question on that topic,

23     unless the Judges have questions, just to be clear, and when these

24     meetings were being held and conducted, was it generally the case,

25     perhaps with exception, that those meetings were chaired or conducted by

Page 36469

 1     Mr. Stojic?

 2        A.   I can't be sure, but I believe the greatest number of those

 3     meetings were chaired by Mr. Stojic.

 4        Q.   You recall an instance in -- later in 1993 where Mr. Stojic made

 5     it a point that he expected the head of the Main Staff to attend those

 6     meetings also on a regular basis, essentially ordered whoever it was at

 7     the time, Mr. Praljak or Mr. Petkovic to always attend those meetings?

 8     Does that ring any bells?

 9        A.   I would put it quite differently.  College -- the college of the

10     Defence Department consisted of heads of sectors, and they were

11     represented by heads of certain administrations and representatives of

12     the Main Staff because yesterday we had --

13        Q.   Sir, I apologise that I cut you off, we'll come to the documents

14     in good time assuming we can get there.

15             Is it correct, sir, that -- hopefully you'll be able to confirm

16     this to me without the need to go back through the interview, but can you

17     confirm, sir, that you were not involved in and really knew nothing about

18     the funding of the Department of Defence?  You weren't involved in that.

19     You don't know where the funds came from.  You just simply can't assist

20     us on that topic; is that correct?

21        A.   You mean the answer I gave you during the interview five and a

22     half years ago, or is it a new question now?

23        Q.   Yes, sir.  You told me, and I'll just tell you, it can be found

24     on part 2, page 12 of the interview; part 3, page 32 of the interview;

25     part 2, page 13 of the interview.  On several occasions, sir, you assured

Page 36470

 1     me that you knew nothing about the funding of the Ministry of Defence.

 2     You didn't know what the source of funds were.  You simply could provide

 3     no information.

 4             MR. KHAN:  Mr. President, Your Honours, perhaps my learned friend

 5     can assist and point out to which part of examination-in-chief does this

 6     question relate to?  It's not clear to me.

 7             MR. SCOTT:  Your Honour, we've spent days talking about the

 8     Department of Defence, and its operations as deputy minister, I think

 9     while we have this here, it's information that the Chamber should have.

10     The Chamber can reach its own conclusions about the operations of the

11     department, if the deputy minister say that is he doesn't know where the

12     funds came from.

13             MR. KHAN:  Your Honour, I'll leave it to Your Honours, of course,

14     but certainly I missed any reference in examination-in-chief to the issue

15     of funding.  But Your Honour, I will say no more.

16             MR. SCOTT:  One question, Your Honour.  Did you know anything

17     about -- can you condition firm to us that you don't really know anything

18     about the funning of the department of defence.  That's the one question

19     I asked that can be answered very easily.  Yes, no, maybe, I don't know,

20     to quote Mr. Karnavas.

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Witness.

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Would you please put to me an exact

23     specific question and quote my answer from that interview to avoid

24     speculation on my part.

25             MR. SCOTT:

Page 36471

 1        Q.   I'm asking you the question now.  Can you tell these judges, you

 2     are sitting here under oath, do you know anything about the funding of

 3     the Department of Defence during the period of August 1992, to November

 4     1993?

 5             MR. KHAN:  Your Honour, I know my learned friend very kindly

 6     intimated that there was only one question on this topic.  However, the

 7     number of questions is really a secondary issue.  I would ask that my

 8     principal query - in fact, it is an objection - be ruled upon.  This

 9     topic was not touched upon at all in examination-in-chief, and I would,

10     therefore, ask why is it relevant to be raised in cross-examination.  It

11     doesn't arise out of examination-in-chief.

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, the issue wasn't

13     raised during the examination-in-chief, what is your position?  My

14     position is well known to everybody, but what is yours?

15             MR. SCOTT:  Your Honour, I'm not --

16             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

17             MR. SCOTT:  I don't want to use the time to go into it.  If the

18     Chamber is not interested in it, then I'll move on.

19             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'll turn to my colleagues from

20     the Bench.

21                           [Trial Chamber confers]

22             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, the Chamber will

23     allow the question.  Go ahead.  Even though the issue wasn't addressed.

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, may I just say

25     something.

Page 36472

 1             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes.  What would you like to

 2     say?  Go ahead.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.  Precisely

 4     because of your goodwill and that of the entire Chamber, I would like to

 5     repeat that I'm a witness of the justice.  I spoke to Mr. Scott as a

 6     suspect.  At that time, Mr. Scott told me that anything I say may be used

 7     against me and against anyone else.

 8             As a legalist who in addition to five -- in spite of five prior

 9     telephone calls and other invitations refused to talk to them when the

10     summons came, I came for that interview.  I know about my rights.  I knew

11     that I could see Mr. Scott at that time, give him my personal details and

12     defend myself with silence, without answering a single question.  Instead

13     I stayed for three days and answered every question that Mr. Scott put to

14     me.

15             Now Mr. Scott is taking me five and a half years back.  I repeat,

16     he never gave me a copy of the transcript in Croatian that he had

17     promised when we finished that interview, and now I'm supposed to recall

18     what I said or did not say on that occasion.  And on the other hand, I'm

19     a visual type.  I prefer to see before I comment rather than hear.  I

20     really don't want to speculate.

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Sir, we have taken note of what

22     you've just said.  You were a lawyer, you were a judge once just like us;

23     you are almost a colleague, and you know better than anybody else the

24     scope of what you are saying.  Mr. Scott has asked a question about the

25     funding.  It has nothing to do with what you said five years ago.  Now

Page 36473

 1     you are a witness of this court.  This a simple question Mr. Scott is

 2     asking, please provide an answer to this simple question.  After its

 3     discussion, the Trial Chamber has decided that Mr. Scott will be allowed

 4     to ask his question.

 5             Mr. Scott, please ask your question and we hope the witness can

 6     answer.

 7             MR. SCOTT:

 8        Q.   Sir, do you know anything about the funding of the Department of

 9     Defence during the time that you were deputy minister from -- deputy head

10     during the time from -- well, unofficially, from September 1992 until

11     November 1993, which then became official on the 15th of January, 1993.

12     During that time-period, sir, can you provide the Judges with any

13     information about the sources of funding and the funding -- the financial

14     operations of the Department of Defence?

15        A.   I cannot be precise, but as far as I can remember, for the most

16     part, we were financed from the estimated budget of the Croatian

17     Community of Herceg-Bosna, and as to any other sources of finance, I do

18     not know.  Do not recall.

19        Q.   Were you involved with --

20             MS. NOZICA:  [Interpretation] I am sorry.  I apologise to my

21     learned friend.  Your Honours, I wanted to let the witness answer.  I

22     have no problem with that, and I don't want to object.  But I want this

23     on the record.  You made a decision, Your Honours, to allow the

24     Prosecutor to ask questions beyond the scope of examination-in-chief.  I

25     want it to be on record that the Defence has almost never been allowed to

Page 36474

 1     do that.  I want it on record that this right belongs to both parties and

 2     I, I'm speaking only in my own name, I feel threatened by the difference

 3     in approach.

 4             Your Honours, I do not want to comment on this.  I feel

 5     frustrated about this decision, and I want it to be on record.  I have

 6     nothing further to add.

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Nozica, the Judges have

 8     deliberated as you could see and the Judges felt -- I did not develop the

 9     whole deliberation, we are not going to issue very long oral decisions

10     given the fact that the accused are complaining about the duration of

11     this trial - rightly so - I did not develop of course the contents of our

12     discussions, but we discussed the issue of credibility, and we thought

13     that in that discussion there might be an aspect related to the

14     credibility of this witness.

15             MS. NOZICA:  [Interpretation] Your Honours, I appreciate your

16     position.  I just wanted my position on record.  But if authenticity is

17     in issue and be credibility is an issue, then the witness should have

18     been shown what he had said before, only then would his answer have been

19     valid.  We did talk about fairness, but it is true that sometimes there

20     is no equality of arms between the parties.  I wanted to rise and to say

21     this because I want to be able to invoke this example when I have further

22     questions that are important.  I know that I was, myself, cautioned

23     several times to state exactly the question from direct examination that

24     my question has to do with.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, please continue.

Page 36475

 1             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

 2             MR. SCOTT:  I'm going to move on because I don't want to take the

 3     time on it given where we are.  I would -- if Your Honours felt it

 4     necessary at some point can respond to counsel's comments and give you my

 5     perspective, but not when we have the witness on the stand.

 6        Q.   Sir, is it correct that you knew Mr. Mate Boban before the war?

 7     You had known him before the war and had dealings with him from time to

 8     time?

 9        A.   It's not true that I had contacts from time to time.  I said I

10     knew Mr. Mate Boban as a person who was managing a commercial company in

11     Imatsko [phoen] while my father held a similar job.  And I personally

12     first met him in the 1980s concerning a project in Siroki Brijeg.  I had

13     no contact with Mr. Boban before that, and I didn't know him personally

14     before that.

15        Q.   Let's go directly to, again, the period that I've mentioned

16     several times today, roughly August 1992 to December 1993, during the

17     core period of your involvement at the Department of Defence in

18     connection with Mr. Stojic and shortly thereafter.  During that

19     time-period, sir, and again just so the record and you can hopefully be

20     very clear, I'll state the dates again, between August of 1992 and

21     continuing to December of 1993, can you tell the Judges approximately how

22     many occasions did you have any conversation or meeting with Mr. Boban?

23     And all I'm asking for now is a number or not al all, zero, not at all,

24     two times, five times, how many times?

25        A.   I don't understand what you meant zero to --

Page 36476

 1        Q.   How many times, sir, from August 1992 to December 1993, how many

 2     times during that period did you have conversation or meet with

 3     Mr. Boban?

 4        A.   I can't say I ever had any conversations with Mr. Boban.  I was

 5     present perhaps three or four times, maybe five in that period where

 6     Mr. Boban was.

 7        Q.   When you say you were present.  Present at a dinner party?

 8     Present at some official function?  In these three, four, or five times

 9     can you tell us a bit more about the nature of those contacts?

10        A.   Well, I tried to recall, and in my proofing until I saw the

11     record of the session of the HVO HZ-HB of the 17th May, 1993, when

12     Mr. Mate Boban got involved.  If you had asked me before seeing that

13     whether I had been there in his presence, I would have said no, but I

14     can't say that those were contacts or regular meetings or individual

15     encounters.  I repeat, how I recalled that meeting when Mr. Boban

16     attended that meeting of the HVO HZ-HB.

17        Q.   We know about that?

18             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, let me try and help

19     you.  This is an important question that the Prosecutor is asking for

20     himself and for the Judges as well, as well as for the Defence because

21     there's a lot at stake here.  Why, I'll be very clear and transparent, I

22     have nothing to hide, we are trying via the witnesses and through the

23     documents, we are trying to determine how Mr. Boban, Mr. Prlic,

24     Mr. Stojic, and yourself were working, were operating.  If, Mr. Boban was

25     meeting everybody, every day, during meetings, this would have a specific

Page 36477

 1     meaning, if he met somebody very rarely, this would have another meaning.

 2     So you just told us that you met him three or four times.  Did you meet

 3     him in working sessions, at dinners, during receptions organised when

 4     somebody was leaving, at burials?  This is very important for us to know.

 5     Do you understand the significance of this question?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand the question,

 7     Your Honour.  I said perhaps it was three, four, or five times, and I can

 8     expand by coming back to that meeting with the ambassadors of the

 9     European Union, some meetings that ended by representative of the

10     UNPROFOR.  But I never attended a meeting chaired by Mr. Boban where some

11     decisions would have been made.  And I didn't attend meetings of the

12     presidency of the Croatian Community Herceg-Bosna or the presidency of

13     the party.  I didn't attend such meetings.  I was present during the

14     contacts that I listed because I in a way I was a link between

15     representatives of the UNPROFOR who wanted sometimes to meet with

16     Mr. Boban, and I stayed during the meeting sometimes as a person just

17     listening to the conversation.

18             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Your answer is very

19     useful and specific.

20             MR. SCOTT:

21        Q.   Sir, a similar question just to be very, very clear.  Once again

22     you've told news the last few days several times about the locations of

23     the Department of Defence offices, where you and Mr. Stojic had your

24     offices.  At those particular locations, at those particular locations

25     during this same period of time between August 1992 and December 1993,

Page 36478

 1     can you tell us, if you can recall, how many times did you ever see

 2     Mr. Boban come to those offices?  You ran into him there, he came to a

 3     meeting, how many times did you see Mr. Boban physically present in the

 4     offices of the Department of Defence senior officials such as you and

 5     Mr. Stojic?

 6        A.   I'm sure about one encounter, and I told you as much when you

 7     interviewed me, when I met him in passing on the stairway, and I'm not

 8     sure about another encounter, whether it happened or not; but I know we

 9     passed each other on the staircase, or on the landing of our building.

10     And I told you as much five and a half years ago, I recall that clearly.

11        Q.   Thank you.  And do you have an approximate time-period?  If you

12     can help us, if you can't just say, I can't recall.  But can you put any

13     date, can you put any time-frame on that meeting Mr. Boban in the

14     hallway?

15        A.   I remember that you insisted a lot on that kind of detail, how it

16     all happened, but I can say that it all happened in the period after the

17     attack of the Muslims against the HVO on the 9th of May.  But whether it

18     was on the 15th of May or the 17th or the 20th, in any case, it could be

19     mid-May or the second half of May, and I believe that's the answer I gave

20     you then.

21        Q.   All right.  Now, I'm moving on to another individual,

22     Mr. Jadranko Prlic.  It is correct that you knew him before August 1992.

23     And you had known him in the 1970s in connection with his being a

24     functionary in some political party or activity; is that correct?

25        A.   No, I did not say that he was a party official.  I don't know

Page 36479

 1     Mr. Jadranko Prlic because as I say I was a scout for many years and

 2     Mr. Prlic then worked in some youth organisations or led some such body.

 3     And I told you I knew Mr. Prlic because he was president of the executive

 4     council at the same time when I was mayor of Siroki Brijeg.  And I knew

 5     that he deputy prime minister of Bosnia and Herzegovina because I was an

 6     MP in the parliament of Bosnia and Herzegovina.  When I belonged to a

 7     group of MPs who succeeded in promoting the idea that a younger group of

 8     people should be allowed to take position --

 9        Q.   Thank you, sir.

10        A.   -- such as Mr. Bogic Bogicevic and deputy prime minister was

11     Mr. Prlic.

12        Q.   Is it correct, sir, that it was and has been your view that there

13     was no one in the HVO government at that time who was more powerful than

14     Mr. Prlic?

15        A.   I don't understand the question, what do you mean more powerful?

16        Q.   Do you recall saying sir, in my quote in my opinion no one could

17     have been more powerful because he was at president of the HVO

18     government, part 2 of the interview page 42:

19             "Question:  Sir, was there anyone in the government, was there

20     anyone in the HVO government who had more power and authority than

21     Jadranko Prlic at that time?

22             "Slobodan Bozic:  In my opinion no one could have more power

23     because he was the president of the HVO government."

24             That's what you said in 2003 and is that still your answer today,

25     sir?

Page 36480

 1        A.   First of all I have to emphasise for the benefit of the Court

 2     that in the interpretation of my evidence there were at least six or

 3     seven occasions when my counsel intervened, and he knew initial very

 4     well.  He intervened because of misinterpretations.  I spoke knowing the

 5     position of Prlic's head of the HVO HZ-HB.  And I'm speaking as a lawyer

 6     in view of the decision governing the temporary authorities.  It was

 7     quite clear what the president's position was.  That was Mr. Prlic.  It

 8     would be quite different if I spoke about the most influential position

 9     that --

10        Q.   Sir, excuse me, you've' just said after complaining about

11     interpretation and errors, you've just confirmed what did you in fact

12     say, and you said that and tell me again I'm going to give you another

13     chance:

14             "In my opinion no one could have more power because he was the

15     president of the HVO government."

16              And my specific question to you again was, was there anyone in

17     the HVO government who had more power and authority than Jadranko Prlic

18     at the time?

19             MR. KHAN:  Your Honour, before the witness answers, I think it's

20     only fair to look at page 42 of the interview.  My learned friend very

21     properly puts the question.  There's no dispute about that.  However, the

22     preceding question is important when one is assessing the credibility of

23     the witness and the context, my learned friend's previous question in the

24     interview was:

25             Mr. Scott:  "Who was the second most powerful individual in

Page 36481

 1     Herceg-Bosna after Mate Boban?"

 2             And this witness's answer was, "No, I do not know.  No I do not

 3     know.  I cannot answer that question.  I wouldn't be able to answer that

 4     question because that answer can be commented upon from different sides."

 5             Your Honour, that was the preceding question.  I think it's only

 6     fair that the context be put to the witness.

 7             MR. SCOTT:  Well, except that was not the question I put to the

 8     witness.  My question was the one I put to the witness.  If he is saying

 9     he didn't say those words, he can say so.

10        Q.   But let me put it to you this way, sir, we are in The Hague today

11     on the 5th of February, 2009.  And you are under oath.  Is it your

12     position, can you confirm to the Judges today that in 1993 there was no

13     person in the HVO government more powerful than Mr. Prlic.  Yes or no?

14             MR. KARNAVAS:  Excuse me, at this point I will object.  What does

15     he mean by "more powerful"?

16             MR. SCOTT:  I'm using his own words, Your Honour.

17             MR. KARNAVAS:  At this point -- at this point, he said now we are

18     in The Hague, now he is rephrasing the question, and the witness say what

19     is more powerful?  If you look at the statement.  I've read the statement

20     several times, you see that continuously Mr. Scott is trying to put words

21     into the witnesses mouth in the way he asks leading questions during the

22     interview.  So what is more powerful.  In what sense?  He can ask, Can

23     Prlic direct a member of the government to do X, Y, and Z; but what does

24     he mean by more powerful?  It has different meanings, in different

25     places, and different times.

Page 36482

 1             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, can you refine your

 2     question and develop what you mean by more powerful.  According to you,

 3     the Prosecution, what does more powerful mean.  Is it the power to

 4     appoint people, power on the civilian authority, power on the military

 5     authorities, power to negotiate international treaties?  I don't know.

 6     Can you elaborate a little bit on this question?

 7             MR. SCOTT:  Excuse me, Your Honour, going back to the transcript.

 8     Sorry, Your Honour, I've got too many loose pages floating around.  It's

 9     my apology.

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I can help you, Mr. Scott, I

11     helped the witness now I can help the Prosecution.  Mr. Karnavas made --

12     had an objection because in the question you put --

13             MR. SCOTT:  I understand the objection.

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Okay.  You understood that.

15             MR. SCOTT:  I was looking for -- excuse me, Your Honour I

16     apologise for cutting across.  Your Honour, my apology.  I do understand

17     the question.  I was simply trying to find the point in the transcript

18     before giving a further answer because I have been accused so many times

19     in the last ten minutes of somehow being unfair.  I want to look exactly

20     back at the words.

21             MR. KARNAVAS:  Well while this is happening, just for the record,

22     I will be asking for redirect or re-cross or whatever this is, but I will

23     be asking for an opportunity to go into this.

24             MR. SCOTT:  In light of what Mr. Khan said, Your Honour, I'd like

25     to go back.  I'll simply read the question.  I'll ask the witness if he

Page 36483

 1     wants to say something more, he can.  If he wants to say, I didn't say

 2     that, he can.  I'm going to go back and so we have this broader context.

 3        Q.   The bottom of page 41 of part 2 of the interview.  And since I

 4     was being so unfair, the question was this:

 5             "What was the role of Jadranko Prlic in formulating and carrying

 6     out the policies of Herceg-Bosna?

 7             "Slobodan Bozic:  That's what I told you.  There was an

 8     organisation of authority where Jadranko Prlic was president of

 9     government, and the government role was very clear.  That was also

10     regulated by the organisation of that government and also individual

11     ministries within that government.

12             "Ken Scott:  Who was the -- who would you say was the second to

13     most powerful individual in Herceg-Bosna after Mate Boban?

14             "Slobodan Bozic:  No, I do not know, I cannot answer that

15     question.  I wouldn't be able to answer that question because that answer

16     can be commented from different sides.

17             "Ken Scott:  Was there anyone in the government, was there anyone

18     in the HVO government who had more power and authority than

19     Jadranko Prlic at that time?

20             "Slobodan Bozic:  In my opinion no one could have more power

21     because he was the president of HVO government."

22             Now, Mr. Bozic, is there anything about those answers that you

23     want to change today?

24        A.   Now you've jogged my memory a bit.  Obviously your question is

25     now a lot broader for a simple reason, because you took a particular

Page 36484

 1     context out of this interview and you wanted to gear me towards the power

 2     and influence of Mr. Prlic.

 3             If I were to give you answers today, I would say the same thing,

 4     that in the then provisional government of the HZ-HB, again

 5     Mr. Jadranko Prlic was at the head.  As for his powers and obligations,

 6     they were specifically regulated by the statutory decision on the

 7     establishment of this authority.

 8             At that time, I didn't use the word power.  And today I would not

 9     use the word power, greater or lesser power.  As a lawyer, I wish to

10     explain that it is logical in a collegiate and collective organ such as

11     the HZ-HB, there would be one person that is leading this collegiate and

12     collective organ.  I do not wish to speak of any kind of power today, as

13     I didn't at that time.  I'm just saying this as a lawyer in view of the

14     documents that existed then if we can call them legislative regulations,

15     that this matter had to do with.  I was not thinking of power, and I do

16     not think of power.

17             MR. SCOTT:  May I move on, Your Honour?  Does the Court have any

18     further questions on this matter?

19             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] No.  Continue.

20             MR. SCOTT:  Thank you.

21        Q.   Sir, I'd like to draw your attention now please to

22     Mr. Bruno Stojic.  As I understand it you had known Mr. Stojic before the

23     war, during the time when you were, as you've told us, the chief of

24     police and Mr. Stojic at the time was an assistant minister for Internal

25     Affairs or interior; is that correct?

Page 36485

 1        A.   Yes, I agree, you are right.

 2        Q.   During the time that you worked with Mr. Stojic as a deputy head

 3     of the Department of Defence, to your knowledge or was it ever expressed

 4     to you, that Mr. Stojic had any dissatisfaction with the way you

 5     performed your job?

 6        A.   Beg your pardon.  I didn't understand that question.

 7        Q.   During the time that you worked with Mr. Stojic as a deputy head

 8     of the Department of Defence, to your knowledge or was it ever expressed

 9     to you that Mr. Stojic had any dissatisfaction with the way you performed

10     your job?

11        A.   No, I'm not aware of that.  It is possible that something like

12     that was the case, I'm not ruling out that possibility, but I don't know.

13        Q.   Did you consider throughout that period, sir, that you carried

14     out your responsibilities and your functions at the Department of Defence

15     including assisting Mr. Stojic to the best of your professional

16     abilities, conducted yourself in a professional manner?

17        A.   Well, all right, this question is such that it is unpleasant to

18     give an answer.  I was supposed to speak about myself, what I was and

19     what I wasn't.  However, all my life --

20        Q.   Excuse me, sir.  You don't have to be modest for the moment, I've

21     asked a question.  We are in the courtroom.  It's a very simple question

22     and very simple answer at least initially.  Did you conduct, did you view

23     that you conducted yourself to the best of your professional ability and

24     conducted yourself in a professional manner.  Yes or no?  If you say no,

25     I'll ask you why you would answer no, but let's start just yes or no.

Page 36486

 1        A.   In every work that I do, I try to act professionally,

 2     responsibly, and in the framework of my expert knowledge; and I will not

 3     be the judge of that.

 4        Q.   Sir, did you consider that it was your -- part of those

 5     professional duties and part of your desire to do the best job possible

 6     was to keep Mr. Stojic informed?

 7        A.   Well, we really have to go back to the basics of what it was that

 8     I did, and that was within the civilian sector.

 9        Q.   [Previous translation continued] ... is there any information,

10     sir; can you tell the Judges, do you recall any time you withheld

11     information from Mr. Stojic, you said, Yeah, I just received this

12     information, but I'm just not going to tell Mr. Stojic.  Can you remember

13     anything like that?

14        A.   I think that this kind of situation did not occur, at least as

15     far as I can remember at this particular moment.

16        Q.   You officed immediately across or adjacent to Mr. Stojic with a

17     secretary there; correct, sir, that you sometimes met with Mr. Stojic as

18     much as three or five times a day?

19        A.   I cannot give a precise answer now.  At any rate, we met as often

20     as the situation required when we were together at the office.  Now, was

21     it twice or three times or more than that?  We met when necessary and

22     sometimes we wouldn't even meet a single time.

23        Q.   Do you recall, sir, any instance in which you did not either

24     failed or refused to carry out a task or assignment given to you by

25     Mr. Stojic?

Page 36487

 1        A.   I cannot remember that I refused to carry out a task or

 2     assignment given to me by Mr. Stojic.  At least now that I go back in

 3     time 17 years that is.  I doubt that there was a situation when I would

 4     not carry out a task or assignment given to me by Mr. Stojic.

 5        Q.   Do you know how many times in your experience based on your

 6     position, Mr. Boban and Mr. Stojic would meet together?

 7        A.   I've already told you that Mr. Boban was at our department once

 8     when I met him.  I don't know whether he was there another time or not,

 9     but as for how many time Mrs. Stojic and Mr. Boban met and when, I really

10     cannot speak about that because that would be speculation.  At any rate,

11     I know that they did meet, but how often that happened and where and

12     when, I cannot say with any specificity.  At any rate, I did know that

13     they did meet depending on the need involved.

14        Q.   Now, staying with Mr. Stojic and his continuing involvement in

15     some of these matters after he ceased being head of the Department of

16     Defence, is it correct, sir, that the position that he took on

17     immediately following being head of the Department of Defence was head of

18     the office for production and trade of arms?

19        A.   I'm not sure, but I think, as far as I can remember from those

20     times that there was a decision that was published in the Narodni list

21     and I think you showed it to me when we discussed Mr. Stojic's positions.

22        Q.   Let's look at it briefly again, P 07461.  P 07461 in the binder

23     number 2.

24             MR. KHAN:  Your Honours, again I must be missing something, but

25     it's my recollection, and certainly it was I was reminded by Ms. Nozica,

Page 36488

 1     that the Prosecution didn't lead any evidence in its own case regarding

 2     the time when Mr. Stojic was head of the office for production and trade

 3     of arms.  That being the case, this evidence was not led by my learned

 4     friend in the Prosecution's case in chief.  I'm rather at a loss to see

 5     why now in the Defence case their seeking to elicit evidence on this

 6     issue that they chose not to lead when they had an opportunity to do so.

 7     So clarification in that regard would be most enlightening.

 8             MR. SCOTT:  I'll connect it up, Your Honour, in another part of

 9     my cross-examination.  With the witness in the room, I don't want to say

10     the reasons I want the information at this point.  I don't think I have

11     to tell the witness that.  Is there some point of controversy that the

12     Chamber should not know what Mr. Stojic did after being --

13             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.  Witness, if

14     Mr. Stojic, who was minister becomes the head of the department, the

15     department of production and trade of arms, it's a bit surprising in

16     the -- in the way countries operate in the European Union, when somebody

17     is a minister, he doesn't become number 5, 6, or 8.  So is it true as far

18     as you know that Mr. Stojic after being minister became the -- an

19     administrative officer; and if this is the case, is this normal?  Is this

20     abnormal?  What is your position?  You may have your own opinion.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour Judge Antonetti, I see

22     on this page of the Official Gazette, Mr. Stojic was appointed the same

23     day of the head of the office for production, and I for the office of for

24     cooperation with UNPROFOR.  I have a position of my own in this regard.

25     I can understand that you who come from states with an organised system

Page 36489

 1     and tradition, you find it quite incomprehensible that someone can come

 2     to the position called head of the department for production and

 3     manufacture of weapons.  But I look at all of this as the time when there

 4     was this provisional functioning of authority in the Croatian Community

 5     of Herceg-Bosna.  And in that situation there are no rules like the rules

 6     prevailing in the west that you come from, that someone can come from

 7     this lofty position to a position is at a much lower level.

 8             I think that I've often said this to Mr. Scott as well when we

 9     talked, I personally viewed this as a time when one had to try to bring

10     this war to an end as soon as possible, and that everything that we were

11     doing was provisional, temporary.  And from that point of view, we

12     shouldn't really care about who was doing what and who held what

13     particular position.

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Okay.  Mr. Scott.

15             MR. SCOTT:

16        Q.   Sir, if I can ask you to next look, please, at P 10785 in binder

17     number 2.  P 10785.

18             MR. KHAN:  Your Honour, there is an issue of law that I'm going

19     to be going into.  I'm happy to deal with it now.  It's the same

20     objection as to one I raised earlier.  This document relates to a period

21     after November 1993 at a time when my client was in the personnel

22     department.  The Prosecution have given no notice at all in relation to

23     this -- this is not an exhibit.  It has not been led in the Prosecution's

24     case in chief.  No evidence at all, not a scintilla of evidence has been

25     led in the Prosecution case in chief in relation to this matter.  Your

Page 36490

 1     Honour, there is a real issue of notice here.  Of course, it would go

 2     both to the inadequacy of the indictment, but, Your Honour, when looking

 3     at the sufficiently of notice, it's quite proper, and according to the

 4     case law of the Tribunal to look at the pre-trial brief and even to look

 5     at the Prosecution's case in chief and the facts that they have led.

 6             They have not brought any evidence in their case in chief, made

 7     no reference to this part of -- this portion of my client's occupation at

 8     any time prior to today.  In those circumstances, it is completely

 9     inappropriate, in my respectful submission, and a misuse of

10     cross-examination to raise issues that the Defence do not have proper

11     notice are going to be inquired into.

12             Your Honour, I do cite case law from the Rwanda Tribunal, it's

13     the Prosecutor and Bagosora case number - excuse me ICTR 9841-T.  And

14     it's the decision on the request for severance of the three accused, 27th

15     of March, 2006.  And, Your Honour, at paragraph 7, the Trial Chamber, in

16     that case, made it very clear, and it is, in my respect not remarkable.

17     It is a common sense, logical position.  And they had a cross-examination

18     of Defence witnesses by the Prosecution must be defined and limited by

19     the evidence presented during the Prosecution case.  The Prosecution may

20     adduce evidence during its cross-examination which corroborates or

21     re-enforces evidence presented during the presentation of its case.  But

22     Your Honours, this is the critical bit that comes next, but they may not,

23     at this stage, venture into new areas.

24             This document is dated the 24th of May at 1995.  This area of

25     evidence has not been referenced at all in the Prosecution's pre-trial

Page 36491

 1     brief, nor in the Prosecution's indictment, nor in any part of the

 2     Prosecution's case.  To do so now in cross-examination is contrary - in

 3     my respectful submission - to the rules detailed by this court about due

 4     notice, and it's impermissible; and I would ask that Mr. Scott not be

 5     allowed to refer or put this document to the witness unless some proper

 6     grounds can be put forward justifying a departure from what I

 7     respectfully submit to be the very clear and non-controversial

 8     jurisprudence of this court.

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Khan, with all due

10     respect -- yes, Mr. Ibrisimovic, I was going to answer to Mr. Khan.

11             MR. IBRISIMOVIC:  [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.  I

12     do apologise for interrupting you but I would just like to join Mr. Khan

13     in saying what he was saying.  And I would like to go back to your

14     decision from the 27th of November.  This document is not on the list,

15     and the Prosecutor should explain to us what are these exceptional

16     circumstances that make it necessary and justified to show the witness

17     this document.

18             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Ibrisimovic, you are

19     perfectly right, this document should have been -- the Prosecutor should

20     have told us this document is not on the list 65 ter; so, therefore, I

21     would like to the document to be filed.  And you are right in that,

22     Mr. Ibrisimovic.  Come coming back to Mr. Khan.  Mr. Khan, you presented

23     your argument.  You took five minutes.  And listening to you, I was

24     thinking about Mr. Coric's letter, about what Mr. Praljak told us a while

25     ago, and what Mr. Stojic told us.  And I thought, well we are just

Page 36492

 1     wasting five minutes on a document.  And what does the document say, that

 2     Mr. Stojic in 1995 had position function.  What is the interest of

 3     wasting time?

 4             It is true, of course, Mr. Stojic had a function at a position

 5     why is that prejudicial to Mr. Stojic's -- in 1995, he was responsible

 6     for personnel affairs.

 7             Secondly, is there -- this document, you know this document by

 8     definition.  You are Mr. Stojic's counsel, so with Mr. Stojic you

 9     probably asked him, What did you do in 1990, 1980, 1995?  What did you do

10     at the time?  What was your position?  He probably said, I was this, I

11     was that; so this document is not something you just discovered.  This is

12     what I don't understand.

13             MR. KHAN:  Your Honour, Mr. President, allow me to however feebly

14     to try to assist.  I'm very happy on behalf of Mr. Stojic to make an

15     offer on proof that on the 24th of May, 1995, my client was the assistant

16     to the minister of personal affairs.  That is not my objection.  My

17     objection is that as far as time is wasted, it's been wasted because the

18     Prosecutor is seeking now that he chose not to do in the many years prior

19     to today which is to lead evidence in the first time in relation to the

20     period after my client was head of the Defence Department.  They should

21     be estopped from doing so.  Your Honours, this will save time.  The

22     matters are quite clearly put by the Prosecution in the indictment.  They

23     were quite properly put in the pre-trial brief and in the Prosecution's

24     case.  And there was no reference at all to the period of time May 1995

25     and my client's work in the personnel department.

Page 36493

 1             That being the case, my objection is based - in the greatest of

 2     respect - on principle.  Why open a door to new litigation in relation to

 3     matters that were not inquired by the Prosecution in the years that they

 4     had to present its evidence.  The fact that they did not has some

 5     consequence.  We don't have notice to investigate new vistas that the

 6     Prosecution now in its -- in our Defence case seeks to open up.

 7             And Your Honours, the case law I cited is exactly on point, is

 8     exactly on point, they should be prohibited now at this late stage

 9     opening up areas that were not opened up earlier.  And Your Honours, I

10     would ask for a ruling on this issue --

11             MR. STEWART:  Your Honours, may we simply say briefly, we support

12     the application and we also specifically draw attention to Your Honours'

13     own order of the 27th of November, 2008.  Your Honours know that four of

14     the accused are dissatisfied with that decision and have an appeal with

15     Your Honour's certification on foot.  But the decision as it stands,

16     regardless of what happens on appeal, strongly supports Mr. Khan 's

17     position.  And just that the single point, Your Honour, that the question

18     of prejudice may be an issue which then arises as part of the submissions

19     and debate which will ensue if the Prosecution makes its application and

20     presents the exceptional circumstances to Your Honours to justify the use

21     of that exhibit and exploration of that area.  But it's not the other way

22     around.  We don't have to argue the prejudice points and the prejudice

23     issue in advance of the Prosecution complying with the order which Your

24     Honours have clearly made.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, why wasn't this

Page 36494

 1     document on the 65 ter list?  And what is the usefulness of this document

 2     which shows that Mr. Stojic on the 25th of May, 1995, had a specific

 3     function?  Could you please answer.

 4             MR. SCOTT:  Yes, Your Honour.  First of all, Your Honour, this is

 5     cross-examination.  It directly relates to something that is not new.  I

 6     will tell you that ultimately, I will attempt, I may fail; but it relates

 7     to something that happened in 1993 that this Chamber has heard extensive

 8     evidence about.

 9             No one has heard my question yet.  No one has any idea to be

10     perfectly honest where I'm going, maybe that's part of the problem, but

11     to anticipate, not knowing, and object having no idea how this evidence

12     might be applied is premature.  There is no requirement in the Tribunal

13     law, and I will hazard on this occasion to make a fairly categorical

14     statement.  There is no law that requires cross-examination material to

15     be put on the 65 ter list or to be provided advance notice.  As the

16     Chamber knows from this case, there is never been a requirement for any

17     party including the Defence to give advance notice of their

18     cross-examination material.  So much of the argument is simply based upon

19     completely incorrect notions of law.  Number one.

20             Number two --

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, I was turning to my

22     colleague because we have issued a decision in this regard, if memory

23     serves me right because the legal officer did not have the time to find

24     the decision.  Maybe she'll find it now, but I have a good memory, so

25     I'll try.  The Chamber at the time had decided that during the

Page 36495

 1     cross-examination the Prosecution could submit a document to a witness

 2     even if such document had not been included in the 65 ter list.  But

 3     solely to check or to test the credibility of the witness, and the

 4     Trial Chamber had added, and again I'm just using my memory here, this

 5     document was not going to be admitted.  This is in summary the content of

 6     the decision we had issued at the time.

 7             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  The decision we took on the 27th November

 8     regarded admission of documents, and it is the practice of this Chamber

 9     that documents not intended to be asked for admission can be put to a

10     witness in cross-examination.  Those are two entirely different questions

11     as long as Mr. Scott does not want this document to be admitted.  He can

12     take it as a basis for questions to the witness.  I'm not talking about

13     now about the date of the document, but I think that is really the law.

14             MR. KHAN:  Your Honour, this, in fact, on behalf of Mr. Stojic,

15     the objection is not founded on the fact that this document is not on the

16     Rule 65 ter list.  That is not the objection.  The objection is based

17     upon the Bagosora case law, and as others, I've got a list of other

18     cases, that the Prosecution should be estopped.  They should not be

19     permitted to go into new areas now in cross-examination to elicit

20     evidence that they chose not to lead evidence about in their own case in

21     chief.  Your Honour, we didn't touch upon this issue in the case in

22     chief, so my objection, I am not going to repeat it, was not predicated

23     upon these two documents.  10784 and also this current document P 010783

24     not being on the Rule 65 ter list.  Your Honours have made a ruling, no

25     objections taken.  It's simply the fact that the witness is being opened

Page 36496

 1     up to new areas that we haven't inquired into.  The Prosecution, most

 2     importantly, have not given us notice were in dispute neither in the

 3     pre-trial brief or in the case in chief.

 4             Now to open up these new areas in the Defence case is

 5     inappropriate and that's exactly what the Trial Chamber, as I read out,

 6     in Bagosora decided.  Your Honours, another case in Bagosora as well, I

 7     can read it from September 2006.  Testimony which broadens the facts

 8     imputed to the accused or the nature of his culpability are inadmissible.

 9     But the main quote I relied upon was the decision of Bagosora of March

10     2006, and that was the basis of my objection not that fact that we didn't

11     have notice on the 65 ter list.  I hope that clarifies, Mr. President.

12             MR. STEWART:  Your Honour, that's exactly right and with respect

13     Your Honour's recollection of your own order is not surprisingly

14     [indiscernible].  But paragraph 4 just two brief citations from that

15     order, the 27th of November; paragraph 4 of Your Honours's order:

16             "According to the joint Defence, new documents as defined are

17     those documents that were not admitted during the Prosecution case or

18     during the Defence cases, whether or not they are on the 65 ter list of

19     the Prosecution."

20             The points that Mr. Khan has just made.

21             And Your Honours, that was our definition in the motion, that

22     although Your Honours didn't accept the motion, you did adopt that

23     definition for working purposes.  And then the key paragraph in the

24     conclusion was paragraph 23:

25             "In conclusion, the Chamber does not deem it necessary to adopt

Page 36497

 1     new guide-lines as the jurisprudence is sufficiently clear."  But then

 2     Your Honour stated, "In principle all of the documents essential to a

 3     party's case must be tendered into evidence during the phase of the

 4     presentation of its case in chief."

 5             We are talking about the Prosecution here.  Consequently, if

 6     after the conclusion of its case, and its case has concluded, the

 7     Prosecution seek toss tender, in quotes, "new documents."  And Your

 8     Honours, didn't depart from our definition of that into evidence in order

 9     to establish the guilt of one or several accused, it must justify its

10     request by providing exceptional reasons in the interest of justice to

11     admit these documents.  And that is not is what has happened.

12             So Your Honour, we are, of course, very grateful and any support

13     from previous cases is extremely valuable.  But here the key issue is

14     Your Honours's own order in this very case.

15             MR. KARNAVAS:  If I may, I think there may be some confusion,

16     because I see Judge Trechsel shaking his head in agreement, in agreement,

17     I think, in agreement.

18             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I think the English language it would be nodding

19     that would be as opposed to shaking.

20             MR. KARNAVAS:  Right, right, nodding.  And I guess maybe we need

21     a point of clarification, whether if we intend to -- whether the document

22     is intended to be introduced into evidence, whether there needs to be

23     preclearance, as it were, whether you need to get permission to -- or

24     whether, even if you don't intend to tender it into evidence, but merely

25     using it whether you still need to get preclearance.  I think that's the

Page 36498

 1     one objection, not the objection that was being raised by Mr. Khan.

 2     Mr. Khan's objection is much more not subtle, pretty blatant and

 3     different.

 4             But I think with the use of the document, it was my

 5     understanding, if I was going to use a document that was not on my list,

 6     I would first need to get authorisation, permission from the Trial Bench,

 7     and we did seek that authorisation throughout the course when we were

 8     putting on our evidence.  Obviously the -- any party can use documents

 9     that are outside their list provided that they are relevant, but it was

10     my understanding that we needed to get preclearance from the Trial Bench.

11     Now, whether that is the exception -- that is only necessary when you

12     intends to introduce it into evidence and have it be part of the evidence

13     versus merely using it to confront a witness or to show it to a witness

14     whether it's to refresh their memory or to impeach, I leave it up to the

15     Court.  But I don't know whether I've been helpful in any way in trying

16     to figure out this conundrum.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We need to have the break.

18     Mr. Khan a moment ago was talking about the Bagosora case law.  I would

19     like to thank him for reminding us of such case law.  Yes?

20             MR. SCOTT:  Excuse me, Your Honours, I apologise to Mr. Khan.  I

21     am going to stand and interrupt at this point because we are back into

22     the same syndrome that we were in, got in the other night.  The Defence

23     is allowed to continually pop up and down, go on, get the Chamber's

24     attention, talk, talk, talk.  I started my response.  I what cut off and

25     then we go on and on and on.  And I do object to this procedure.  I'm

Page 36499

 1     tired of being treated as an afterthought.  It is unfair.  I apologise to

 2     Mr. Khan and procedural aspects -- excuse me, Your Honour.  I'm going to

 3     finish my comment, Your Honour, I'm going to finish my comment no matter

 4     who standing up.  Because I'm the one that always keeps getting cut off.

 5     I want to say very clearly, Mr. Khan, I apologise for interrupting you,

 6     but this goes on all the time.  And it just -- we just -- they just go on

 7     and we are cut off and we never come back.  You're going to take a break

 8     and you're going to deliberate.  Oh well, I wonder what the Prosecution

 9     thought.  We should get equal time.  We should get equal time.  I want

10     every minute, I want every minute that the Defence have gotten to deal

11     with this issue.

12             MR. KHAN:  Your Honour, there's no objection.  I don't mind for a

13     moment my learned friend standing up.  I don't mind for a moment, and no

14     offence is taken.  What I was going to propose, Your Honour, is, of

15     course my learned friend was going to be granted time perhaps after the

16     break.  What I've identify' asked my legal assistant to do is bring up

17     the Bagosora case and copies will be served upon Your Honours and also my

18     learned friends of the Prosecution.  You have the benefit of the short

19     break, and then could respond in total to all the submissions put forward

20     by the defence.  And, of course, I do understand his predicament.  It is

21     extremely frustrating when there are six Defence counsel on their feet in

22     a case of this type.  That is one of the consequences of a multi- accused

23     trial.  Your Honours, what I was proposing is that the judgement in

24     Bagosora, at least one of the judgements I referred to, there are many

25     others; but one judgement be handed to Your Honours.  It can be looked at

Page 36500

 1     by Mr. Scott my learned friends so that he is not prejudiced.  And once

 2     have the benefit of looking at that decision, he can address the merits

 3     of my objection or otherwise.  Your Honours, I wonder if that assists.

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, I was about to take

 5     the floor and you interrupted me, which is not proper.  I gave you the

 6     floor.  Of course, of course, you will be allowed to develop your answer

 7     to the objections raised by the Defence counsel.

 8             Indeed there are six accused, there are six Defence counsel who

 9     are -- who may raise objections.  This is your own law.  This is common

10     law that governs these proceedings.  In another system things would be

11     different.

12             Unfortunately these are some of the draw back backs of this

13     system, and that's the reason why these proceeding are very lengthy.  And

14     this is what I will explain to Mr. Coric when I see him again.  This is

15     the problem, lawyers, Defence counsel take the floor rightly, wrongly, we

16     don't know.  But you have the possibility to react.  However, in the

17     current circumstances, and I can only agree with you, we had no idea what

18     the question you were about to ask was.  Before we heard the question,

19     objections were raised.  This was the problem.  We didn't know what you

20     were about to show, and some objections were raised by the Defence

21     counsel based on various legal aspects which may be deserved some

22     attention.

23             This is the situation.  Now, Mr. Scott, of course, you will be

24     allowed to answer.  Would you want to answer now or after the break it's

25     up to you.

Page 36501

 1             MR. SCOTT:  Thank you, Mr. President.  I can just comment --

 2     excuse me.  If I can just responds to a couple of observations the

 3     Chamber has made or the Mr. President has made, and I'll reserve to

 4     address the merits of the Defence arguments in a moment.

 5             I do apologise for cutting across, Your Honour.  I apologise for

 6     that.  There is a sense of frustration when this seems to happen on a

 7     number of occasions when the Prosecution loses -- seems to lose the floor

 8     in mid-argument, in mid-submission and then not get if it back.  I

 9     apologise, but I do apologise for cutting across to you.  The Court has

10     my apologies.

11             I have no problem with the six accused all being able to -- of

12     course there are six accused.  And of course, I have no problem or

13     objection -- I have no problem, of course.  It's a matter of procedure

14     with all six being able to say what they want to say.  That's not the

15     nature of -- that isn't the nature of my frustration.  However, when I'm

16     given the floor, and I stand up and then halfway through, not even

17     somewhere into my submission, somebody else, the way I put it, pops up

18     and all of a sudden I've lost the floor again, that's the part that I do

19     object to.  All six say as much as they want to say.  I don't care.  Give

20     them a week to say it.  Give them 60 hours.  I'll sit here for 60 hours

21     and I'll listen to it as long as we get the same amount of time in

22     response.  There has to be some rhyme or reason to the order of people

23     getting up, popping up, and making their submissions.  I apologise if any

24     of that offends the Chamber.  I'll be happy to address any further

25     aspects of the pending issue following the break.  Thank you.

Page 36502

 1             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  You will address

 2     those aspects after the break.  Indeed you are right, when you have the

 3     floor and you were interrupted by somebody this is not pleasant.  And I

 4     do understand that a moment ago when you were on your feet, the Defence

 5     counsel raised objections not knowing what you were about to say.  I do

 6     subscribe to your point of view in this regard.  And vise verse, of

 7     course, when the Defence counsel want to say something and the Prosecutor

 8     stands up, I would agree with the Defence and say, Yes let's hear what

 9     you have to say, and then we will see.

10             But here again we will realise that it was much ado about

11     nothing.  Anyway, we'll have a 20-minute break.

12                           [The witness stands down]

13                           --- Recess taken at 12.35 p.m.

14                           --- On resuming at 12.58 p.m.

15             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We'll bring in the witness once

16     Mr. Scott has developed his argument.  Mr. Scott, the floor is yours.

17             MR. SCOTT:  Thank you, Mr. President.  I think my comments will

18     be brief.  I don't intend on this particular moment to get into a long

19     discussion of jurisprudence.  I think it's fair to say there may be parts

20     of the Chamber's 27 November ruling that, of course, time will tell the

21     exact nature and scope and the application of that ruling.  And I can

22     understand where it might take -- might take sometime and experience for

23     all of us to come to terms with exactly how that rule will be applied.

24     That is just simply as a prepatory comment.  The basic, position, Your

25     Honour, is that there's been a lot of speculation so far about what the

Page 36503

 1     document and the evidence may or may not ultimately relate to.  It

 2     doesn't inject a new area into the case.  It relates to something that

 3     there has been relatively extensive evidence in the case on during the

 4     Prosecution case in chief, and this witness, it's the Prosecution's

 5     position, there's an aspect that we submit, the Chamber may ultimately

 6     disagree, but we submit, connects this witness to that.

 7             As the Chamber has ruled previously, the fact that a document

 8     post-dates certain other events or even after the time-period of the

 9     indictment doesn't mean at all that it's not relevant to something that

10     happened during that time-period.  You may have had a document from 1995

11     as the Chamber has ruled on a number of occasions, has found it to

12     nonetheless relevant to something that did happen in 1992, 1993.  So that

13     principle is a clear one, and as to that aspects of the date of the

14     document, that is this is nothing new or different at all.

15             As to the Mr. Khan's some of the language that Mr. Khan has

16     quoted about from the Bagosora case, I will just without still, and I

17     don't pretend to have studied and read all that during the break, but

18     just to pick up with I'm not saying, I'm going to be very clear for the

19     record, we are not saying this represents the core of our position.  But

20     picking up on part of the language, Mr. Khan says that it can't be a new

21     area, but Prosecution can be allowed to corroborate and reinforce - I

22     think that's the language I heard him say - evidence and issues that were

23     part of the Prosecution case.

24             If one wants to read it that way, I have no question that this

25     evidence corroborates and reinforces something that is not new to the

Page 36504

 1     case or not opening a new area but it relates to something that has

 2     already been in the case clearly; and therefore, the Prosecution should

 3     be able to put it to the witness.

 4             Now, whether or not it's ultimately admitted or not that, of

 5     course as always, will be up to the Chamber, but the notion that there

 6     has to be a preclearance to parties cross-examination, prenotice,

 7     preclearance, pre-disclosure, preclearance; okay, you can cross-examine

 8     on that, I submit to Your Honours, is not what the law requires.  And in

 9     try together administrate such a regime, it would be a nightmare.

10     Because after every direct examination, there would have to be some of a

11     series of disclosures and submission that would then go to the Chamber.

12     And the Chamber would give some sort of a green light to the party about

13     what cross-examination would be allowed.

14             I don't think that is a workable system nor is it the

15     jurisprudence.  I put again the issue admission to one side.  We are not

16     there yet, if we tender it on our IC list or not we will see.  If we

17     tender it and the Chamber thinks it should not be admitted, I'm sure the

18     Chamber will so rule, but we are not there yet.  All we are try together

19     do is cross-examine a witness on a matter that has already been this

20     case, and it's our submission this witness is related to.  That's all

21     there is.

22             MR. KHAN:  Your Honour, it is, of course, not our contention that

23     this is analogous to the various rulings on questions post-dating the

24     period of the indictment, the decisions on joint criminal enterprise.

25     It's fundamentally different, in our respectful submission, because the

Page 36505

 1     Prosecution clearly in its own case in chief, led evidence, led evidence

 2     out with the scope of the indictment; and it's position all along was

 3     consistent that this was relevant to cast light on the alleged

 4     criminality of that they were alleging in the context.

 5             Our objection is far more basic.  It is simply that there was no

 6     reference at all, at any stage prior to today in relation to our client's

 7     functions and occupations whilst he was in the personnel department.

 8             Now, Your Honour, if my learned friend states that it

 9     corroborates or reinforces evidence presented during its own case, the

10     matter can be very easily determined if my learned friend, I stand ready

11     to be corrected, if my learned friend can point to that part of the

12     Prosecution's evidence in its own case in chief where they led evidence

13     relating to our client's functions when he was in the personnel

14     department.

15             If my learned friend cannot do that, it cannot be said now that a

16     document upon which he proposes to rely corroborates, rather the

17     distinction is clear, in our respectful submission.  It amounts to

18     opening a new door and a new area that the Defence have not had notice

19     of, and may well not have investigated.

20             So, Your Honours, that was the primary basis of my objection.  It

21     has nothing to do with the Rule 65 ter list.  It has nothing to do with

22     the analogy to JCE.  It's to do in contradistinction to the ruling on

23     joint criminal enterprise that the Prosecution hitherto has not led any

24     evidence in relation to our clients's occupation and conduct whilst in

25     the personnel department.

Page 36506

 1             Your Honour, it may well seem in abstract it was rather

 2     precipitous of me to stand and object before a question was asked.

 3     Your Honour, that may well be the case from one vantage point.  However

 4     when my learned friend referred to an exhibit which in my submission, we

 5     take issue with, it is only proper for me to stand up and take issue with

 6     it, and give my learned friend a chance to show relevance.  Your Honour,

 7     that not being the case, there is a standing objection that I would ask

 8     that the Trial Chamber rule upon.  I'm most grateful, Your Honours.

 9             MR. SCOTT:  Your Honour, I'm just standing up again because it's

10     not clear to me what further the Chamber wants me to do in terms of what

11     particular question the Chamber might want.  Mr. Khan seems to suggest

12     that I have an answer to some question that would assist the Chamber.  If

13     I can assist the Chamber then certainly I will.

14             MR. KHAN:  Your Honour, my learned friend Ms. Nozica points out

15     there may be an error in the transcript that it doesn't signify when I

16     started speaking.  Your Honour, perhaps that can be corrected in due

17     course:  Your Honour, the second issue is as far as it assists my learned

18     friend Mr. Scott, is the further clarification that we'd like is the

19     reference to what part of the evidence in the Prosecution's case in chief

20     where they led evidence on my client's work in the personnel department

21     to show relevance.  You can't corroborate that which has not been led at

22     all.  It's as simple as that.  If I'm stand to be corrected, I'm ready to

23     do so.

24             MR. SCOTT:  If the Chamber wants to hear it, I will go into it.

25     I realise the witness is not in the room, but out of an abundance of

Page 36507

 1     caution I would ask to go into private session concerning it.

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We're in private session.

 3     Private session, please.

 4                           [Private session]

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 36508











11 Pages 36508-36511 redacted. Private session.















Page 36512

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8                           [Open session]

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we are back in open session.

10                           [The witness takes the stand]

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, please forgive us

12     because you were waiting outside.  The break for you was probably a bit

13     long, but there was a procedural issue we had to deal with, and we did

14     so.  Since we have very little time left and we have to stop at 1.45

15     sharp because there is another hearing after that I'm busy somewhere else

16     in another trial, I just would like to tell you that we would have the

17     opportunity to meet again next week on Monday at 2.15 p.m.  that's what I

18     wanted to say just to make sure at 144 minutes 55 seconds, we should not

19     all of -- obviously we do not have enough time.  Now that we have dealt

20     with in administrative point, I would like to give the floor to Mr.

21     Scott.

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honour.

23             MR. SCOTT:

24        Q.   Mr. Bozic, I think I was in the process of showing you two

25     documents and let me just say again because I did not go back, I've not

Page 36513

 1     gone back to look at the transcript exactly where we left off before the

 2     procedural matters were raised; but I was simply asking you or trying to

 3     ask you a few questions about what you could tell the Judges about

 4     Mr. Stojic's continuing involvements with the department of Ministry of

 5     Defence after he was no longer the head or minister.  I think we had

 6     successfully looked Exhibit P 07461 which confirmed again and there was

 7     confirmation from you in the courtroom there was no dispute that

 8     Mr. Stojic, on no longer being minister, was appointed head of the office

 9     for production and trade of arms and military equipment by a document, by

10     an appointment of decision dated 22 December, 1993.  I was then about to

11     show you P 10785 in binder number 2.  And if we can go there now.

12             MR. SCOTT:  I should say, Your Honour, not to embarrass the

13     witness at all, I do understand because some of his eye problems that he

14     has it very well may be that he has some additional trouble finding the

15     exhibits.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Scott, for your

17     understanding.

18             MR. SCOTT:

19        Q.   If I've been impatient in that respect, I apologise.  We'll try

20     to assist you as much as I can, but at the same time the courtroom is

21     extremely sensitive to time.

22             Sir, if you can look at P 10785.  Can you just confirm to us,

23     please, that Mr. Stojic at some time in -- perhaps you can assist us, but

24     at least as of the 24th of May, 1995, held a position that was described

25     here in item number 1 in those of attendance it says:

Page 36514

 1             "Bruno Stojic, assistant to the minister for personnel affairs

 2     and chairman of the commission."  I note that in the subject part of the

 3     document it says, "Meeting of the personnel commission of the Ministry of

 4     Defence."

 5             Can you just please tell us briefly about Mr. Stojic being

 6     assistant to the minister for personnel affairs and chair of the

 7     personnel commission when he took on those particular responsibilities

 8     and approximately how long he was in those positions, please?

 9             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Excuse me, just a clarification of this title.

10     Assistance to the minister for personnel affairs.  I think there should

11     be a pause, because the ministers - as I read this - the minister is the

12     minister of defence.  So it would perhaps be clearer if it read assistant

13     for personnel to the minister of defence.  Do I understand this

14     correctly, Mr. Bozic?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, you are right, Your Honour,

16     Judge Trechsel.

17             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you.

18             MR. SCOTT:  And I also agree, Judge Trechsel.  Thank you for the

19     clarification.

20        Q.   Sir, can you then just tell us, do you know approximately when

21     Mr. Stojic took up these functions and approximately how long he

22     continued in them?

23        A.   I'm seeing this document for the first time, but I can answer

24     that it was in this period, whether it was a month before or longer

25     before, I really don't know how long he remained in this position in

Page 36515

 1     personnel.

 2        Q.   All right.  If I can just press you a moment longer.  You

 3     indicated earlier that you continued in these personnel administration

 4     functions, you said to the effect longer than you probably wanted to,

 5     possibly as late as 1995.  Did you overlap, if you will, with Mr. Stojic

 6     in any of those functions related to personnel matters within Ministry of

 7     Defence?

 8        A.   No, I mean, when I left this acting position because I repeat, I

 9     was never officially appointed assistant for personnel affairs.  I think

10     Mr. Stojic came after that.

11        Q.   All right.  I think especially given the issues surrounding the

12     document, I'll leave it at that for this juncture.

13             Thank you, Your Honours, for allowing me to go to that.

14             Sir, the last -- where we were sometime ago in going through a

15     number of items in a few documents was I was asking you about your

16     relationships or involvements with various persons, and we had been

17     talking up until now or most recently about Mr. Stojic.  I'd like to ask

18     you very briefly a couple of questions about Mr. Coric.

19             Is it correct that you had also known Mr. Coric for some time

20     since at least 1989, 1990, and again the two of you had worked together

21     either in the Ministry of Interior or when you were chief of police?

22        A.   No, Mr. Coric did not work at the Ministry of Interior the same

23     time when I worked at the police, but we know each other from that

24     period, 1989, 1990, but our acquaintanceship from that time does not have

25     anything to do with my work with the police because he did not work at

Page 36516

 1     the police then.

 2        Q.   I may have misspoke, but thank you for your answer in any event.

 3             Can I just ask you, can you tell us when you were deputy

 4     minister, the way we've been describing it today of the Department of

 5     Defence and Mr. Coric was chief of military police, can you tell the

 6     Judges what interactions you had, the nature of the interactions that you

 7     had with Mr. Coric during that time within the Department of Defence?

 8        A.   In view of the work I did at the Defence Department, I explained

 9     to you already that I had no communication, no relationship with

10     Mr. Coric.

11        Q.   So the Judges can understand for purposes of this case and as

12     Judge Antonetti said sometime ago they are trying to collect as much

13     relevant information as possible, you don't really have anything to add,

14     if I can put it this way, good or bad; you have no evidence to give

15     concerning Mr. Coric; is that a correct statement?

16        A.   I answered your question in the same way as I answered yesterday

17     to Mrs. Alaburic when I described my position at the Defence Department

18     and the work that I did and which affairs exactly fell under my purview

19     as deputy.

20        Q.   Well, let me -- all right.  Since we broached the topic, let me

21     go a step further.  When you had these department meetings or section

22     head meetings or the college that was usually presided over by

23     Mr. Stojic, was Mr. Coric one of the persons who attended as part of the

24     Department of Defence structure?

25        A.   Yes, Mr. Coric was one of the people who came to these meetings.

Page 36517

 1     Not all of them and not regularly, but he attended most of the meetings.

 2        Q.   And what was the interaction, if any, between the personnel

 3     administration of the department in general of the HVO and the personnel

 4     administration as it related specifically to the military police?  Did

 5     the section of personnel administration that was under your supervision,

 6     did that include personnel administration as it related to the military

 7     police?

 8        A.   I don't know if my microphone is on.  The personnel division, as

 9     I said yesterday responding to questions, practically prepared draft

10     regulations, in fact, documents for Mr. Stojic concerning certain

11     appointments so that when, under the decision of the internal

12     organisation of the Defence Department, such a document was drafted, this

13     document would go to the assistant for security for approval; and this

14     document would go to the personnel division if the appointments were

15     supposed to be made by Mr. Stojic in keeping with his authority.

16        Q.   All right.  Let me -- staying on this a bit longer than I

17     forecast, so let me go back on that a bit.

18             Sir, I don't think it's controverted at this point, the military

19     police administration was part of the security section, if you will,

20     section sector of the Department of Defence; correct?

21        A.   Yes, that's true, but I just wanted to explain to you the

22     procedure how the personnel division would be involved in appointments

23     within the Defence Department, that is appointments regarding the

24     military police.

25        Q.   All right.  And that then leads me to the next question, and

Page 36518

 1     since the personnel administration which you've supervised applied to the

 2     department as a whole, then it's correct, is it not, that that personnel

 3     administration was also responsible for the personnel administration

 4     aspects of the military police?

 5        A.   The personnel administration practically processed all

 6     appointments that related to the Defence Department, following prior

 7     procedure, that is clearly specified in the decision on the internal

 8     organisation of the Defence Department, who is supposed to nominate whom,

 9     who gives approval, and who makes decisions.  All these appointments

10     since these were persons in the Defence Department are recorded in the

11     personnel administration, and we could see yesterday from that document

12     about the composition how many staff were recorded at the Defence

13     Department.

14        Q.   Did the records kept by the personnel administration department

15     include, we've talked primarily about just now we are talking about

16     appointments; but as part of the personnel file, if you will, did that

17     also include disciplinary actions taken against members of the HVO or the

18     removal of members of the HVO?

19        A.   I don't dare give you a certain answer.  I don't think so.  I

20     don't think all the disciplinary measures were recorded in their files,

21     but it's very important to distinguish between different periods because

22     the --

23             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness please repeat this.

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, there is a problem,

25     interpreters had difficulties following.

Page 36519

 1             Witness, could you please sit closer to the microphones and

 2     please try to speak louder.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I answered this question put by

 4     Mr. Scott, but I'm not sure.  I don't think the disciplinary measures

 5     were recorded in files, and I added that it's very important to know

 6     which period we are looking at, the period when the personnel division

 7     was formed in May 1992.  Before the department, most of their job had to

 8     do with procurement, and it was only from the first half of 1993 that the

 9     personnel administration started to deal with affairs for which it was

10     responsible according to its own organisation.

11             MR. SCOTT:

12        Q.   Well, if I can just again stem on a bit longer then.  I'm

13     struggling a bit with the concept, I think most of us, I would hazard a

14     guess, most of us would come from systems where if you were employed by

15     or part of an organisation and you have a personnel file, if you will,

16     kind of both the good and the bad is in the file.  And if there's a poor

17     performance record or disciplinary action or a soldier is disciplined for

18     not keeping his weapon clean or he goes AWOL or whatever the action might

19     be, wouldn't you want to find that -- wouldn't some subsequent officer

20     perhaps want to find that in the personnel file of that soldier?

21             Well, Mr. Praljak seems to be laughing, but I mean it as a

22     serious question.

23             Sir, there's no comprehensive personnel file at the HVO by which

24     someone, a member of the HVO would have their personnel record?  Are you

25     saying that no such file existed?

Page 36520

 1        A.   Mr. Scott, the two of us had a three-day long conversation, and

 2     you asked me one of these questions comparing your very well organised

 3     state with the democratic system and very well organised services with

 4     something quite different.  And I have to tell you again, we were working

 5     within temporary authorities dealing with things we were encountering for

 6     the first time.  And I told you that the personnel administration started

 7     to define its own purview only in the first half of 1993 when ID cards

 8     were in preparation and when ID cards were prepared, these files then

 9     started to be filled in.

10             And as for whether disciplinary measures were recorded or not, I

11     told you I don't think so.  Maybe to you, who come from a very well

12     organised state, it seems inconceivable but I'm talking to you about

13     realities.  What happened in real life.

14        Q.   In the few minutes that we have left, sir, if I can move on to

15     another topic that we might be able to complete.  Turning to the HVO Main

16     Staff itself, is it correct, sir, that you never attended any meetings of

17     the HVO Main Staff?

18             MS. ALABURIC:  [Interpretation] Your Honour, just a brief

19     objection with your leave.  If I remember correctly, in this courtroom we

20     haven't seen a single record from the meeting of the Main Staff of the

21     HVO, nor did a single witness speak about meetings of the Main Staff of

22     the HVO.  So I would only like the Prosecution to point out the factual

23     foundation for this question.

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Alaburic, your objection is

25     a waste of time.  It's not because they may not -- may or may not be

Page 36521

 1     minutes that no informal meeting ever took place.

 2             Mr. Scott.

 3             MR. SCOTT:

 4        Q.   Just again to be clear, sir, I'm again asking you in terms of

 5     what the assistance that you may or may not be able to provide to the

 6     Judges.  You never attended anything that might be called a meeting of

 7     the HVO Main Staff.  So you would not be able to provide to these judges

 8     any information about the workings of the Main Staff; correct?

 9        A.   Yes, you are right.  I did not attend any meetings of the

10     Main Staff.

11        Q.   Now, do you have any knowledge of how often or if at all, for

12     example, during the time that Mr. Petkovic was head of the Main Staff, do

13     you have any opportunity to observe Mr. Stojic and Mr. Petkovic meeting

14     together or doing business, if you will; one as the head of the Main

15     Staff and one as the minister of defence?

16        A.   I practically answered this question yesterday in response to a

17     question from Mrs. Alaburic.  I said that they met ad hoc depending on

18     the situation, and we met on the same premises.  As to the regular

19     character of the meetings, I can't say they were regular.  They were

20     organised depending on the situation, if the situation so required.

21             MR. SCOTT:  Thank you very much, Mr. Bozic.

22             Your Honour, that completes that small topic and without starting

23     something new, I'd suggest that might be a time to break.

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Thank you,

25     Mr. Scott, you are right.  You will address next week other topics.

Page 36522

 1     You've used, unless I'm mistaken, approximately 1 hour and 45 minutes.

 2     Very well.  We will resume, as I indicated, our proceedings on Monday,

 3     Monday afternoon.  Next week, we will be working afternoons.  I wish

 4     everybody a good weekend, and we'll meet again on Monday.

 5                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.42 p.m.

 6                           to be reconvened on Monday, the 9th day of

 7                           February, 2009, at 2.15 p.m.