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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Stojic. It's
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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;
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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?"
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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.
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
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
1 wrong - which is 17 June, 1993
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
24 the last page or beneath the name of the intelligence chief, the
25 distribution 1, head of Defence Department, Bruno Stojic personally;
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
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
25 assumption? How can you explain that?
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
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
11 and why the Split
12 the Republic of Croatia
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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 --
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
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,
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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?
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.
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?
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,
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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]
11 Pages 36508-36511 redacted. Private session.
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.
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
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
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Scott, for your
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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?
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
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.
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.