1 Tuesday, 10 February 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.15 p.m.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, could you please
6 call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon,
8 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case number IT-04-74-T,
9 the Prosecutor versus Prlic et al.
10 Thank you, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
12 I would like to wish a good afternoon to the accused, to the
13 Defence counsel, as well as to Mr. Scott, his colleagues, as well as
14 everybody else assisting us.
15 Mr. Scott, you have 59 minutes left. We can have the witness
16 brought in.
17 Ms. Nozica, will your witness be ready tomorrow?
18 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honour.
19 Yes, the witness is ready for tomorrow.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
21 [The witness takes the stand]
22 WITNESS: SLOBODAN BOZIC [Resumed]
23 [The witness answered through interpreter]
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, sir. I will
25 now give the floor to Mr. Scott, who will continue his cross-examination,
1 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. President. Good afternoon, Your
2 Honours. Good afternoon, Counsel, and all those in and around the
4 Cross-examination by Mr. Scott: [Continued]
5 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Bozic.
6 A. Thank you. Good afternoon to everyone in the courtroom.
7 Q. Sir, I'd like to continue on from where we left off last evening.
8 We were looking at the report concerning events at Sovici/Doljani in
9 mid-April 1993. I'll come back in a moment to the packet document that
10 we were looking at and the other two related documents that we looked at
11 right at the end of the day. Let me come back to that in a moment.
12 We spoke the other day about packet communications. These were
13 wireless or electronic communications being prepared and transmitted. We
14 talked about that. Can you confirm to the Judges, sir, when a packet
15 communication is being prepared, this is a machine -- this is an
16 electronic machine where the text is keyed in; correct?
17 A. I said - I don't know on what day of my testimony - that I really
18 have no real knowledge of packet communications, and I think when I spoke
19 to you, I said that packet communications were, for me, a modern system
20 of e-mail communications, but I really have no better understanding of
22 Q. Well, if we can take -- if we can follow, then, your e-mail
23 example, you understand obviously that when someone sends an e-mail or
24 even what we might call today a text message, it is something that is
25 keyed in, that is, using a keyboard; the sender keys the text into
1 whatever apparatus is being used; correct?
2 A. Yes, roughly so.
3 Q. Now, you appeared to indicate yesterday afternoon, if I heard you
4 correctly, that you believe there are differences in the text between the
5 hard-copy document, which bears hand markings on it, which we looked at,
6 and for the record those two documents are P 02052 and P 02056, and you
7 saw or claim that there are differences between those two documents and
8 the packet document version, which is P 09790; is that correct, sir? Do
9 you base your position in part on an allegation that there are
10 differences in the text of the document? Is that what I understand you
11 to say?
12 A. Yes, but I would like to ask you to let me look at the document,
13 because it is much easier for me to follow if I have it in front of me.
14 MR. SCOTT: If we could have the usher's assistance, please. We
15 have the binders on the -- if we can look at -- sorry. If we can look
16 at -- you want to have the three documents at hand, but perhaps we can do
17 primarily with two. The so-called hard-copy document that has some hand
18 markings on it is P 02052, the packet document in the first binder, and
19 the packet document, which is P 09790.
20 Q. Now, sir, while we're doing that, because unfortunately our time
21 is limited and we don't have time to go through that document word for
22 word, I'm afraid, or at least unless the Chamber would see fit to give us
23 both more time, but I'm going to next ask -- and I'm sorry, Mr. Usher,
24 I'm going to complicate your life further. I'm going to ask the usher to
25 please put on a document that I'll ask to be given an IC number on the
1 ELMO, and there are work copies to be handed out in the courtroom.
2 MR. SCOTT: Mr. Usher, that's for the ELMO? And could these
3 please be --
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, this document for
5 which you want an IC number, was it part of the 65 ter list or not?
6 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, it's a document that's been prepared
7 simply for courtroom presentation purposes as you'll see in a moment. If
8 I can ask the copy be given to Defence counsel and the Chamber, please.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
10 MR. SCOTT:
11 Q. Sir, while that's being distributed, so we can -- not lose time:
12 This is a document, sir, that's been prepared by speakers and writers of
13 the Croatian language, comparing the handwriting -- excuse me, the
14 document, which is P 02052 and P 02056, and the packet document, which is
15 P 09790, and I -- because of the shortness of time, sir, I'm going to --
16 I put to you that there are absolutely no significant differences in the
17 text of the two documents that have anything to do with the content or
18 meaning of that document. And I'd like you to go down, looking through
19 that as much as you can, but I can tell you we're only going to be able
20 to spend a minute or two on that topic, but I put to you that a review of
21 that document indicates that the differences are few and trivial. I put
22 that to you, sir.
23 A. I shall go in order. The differences are not small or trivial.
24 Look at the heading of the text with the signature and the heading of the
25 text that arrived by packet communications. You will see that they are
2 Secondly, even more importantly, look at the number on this
3 document, of which you say that you received it from a witness, and look
4 at the number on the document that reads "the Main Staff." They are
5 entirely two different numbers.
6 In the text, if -- in the document with the signature, there is
7 mention of the army, "armija," and the document that reads "the
8 Main Staff," it says "AR.BiH."
9 Q. Sir, that's simply an abbreviation for the same thing, is it not?
10 A. If it's the same document and the same author, he doesn't need to
11 change anything in that document, but he sends it in the authentic
12 version. In my opinion, the first version is the one published in the
14 I apologise. I don't wish to enter into a dialogue. I think it
15 is not right to say that I am making speculations. I'm referring to
16 facts that are visible to everyone in this courtroom. Secondly --
17 Q. Excuse me, but time is short. You have no personal knowledge of
18 the preparation -- the actual preparation of this document. You weren't
19 there when it was prepared; you have no knowledge of how it was prepared.
20 I asked you specifically about these documents. These are not Xerox
21 copies. Two people would have keyed these documents in, one, either a
22 typewriter or word processor, which creates a hard-copy document, which
23 is the first documents, and, secondly, typing -- keying the message into
24 a packet machine. Both those documents require the sender -- the
25 transmitter to key those messages in; correct, sir?
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kovacic.
2 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] With all due respect, I don't wish
3 to interrupt, but there is some confusion.
4 My learned friend in his explanation says explicitly these are
5 not Xerox copies, but that is not true. We only have Xerox copying.
6 That's all we have. We only have photocopies. We don't have a single
7 original, and, of course, this is confusing for the witness. Simply, it
8 is not correct to say that.
9 The Prosecutor may present his submission to the witness, and the
10 witness can respond, but by his submission, he cannot use untruths by
11 saying they are not copies. They are copies. Everything we have are
13 Thank you.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
15 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, I accept that clarification. What I
16 meant to say, and I will correct -- I'll say it differently: The
17 Prosecution's position and the position that I put to the witness is --
18 is that it is not like putting the same document on a fax machine twice,
19 the exact same document, sending the same image twice. Yes, these are
20 copies -- each one of these -- the packet communication is a copy of some
21 original document. The other so-called hard-copy document is a copy. I
22 understand that, and I appreciate counsel's clarification.
23 My point, and my point to the witness is, and I submit to the
24 witness is: This is not a situation where the same document has simply
25 been put on the fax -- the same document has twice been put on the same
1 fax machine. That's not the way this works.
2 Q. So, sir, I take you back to your comparison of the document. So
3 you say it's a big difference to you where one person writes out the
4 armija, Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the other person keying the
5 message in uses an abbreviation for the same thing; is that your
6 position? That's a significant difference to you?
7 A. I said that the most important difference is the number that you
8 see on the top, and an important fact which no one has raised so far,
9 which I will, this document with the signature was written on the
10 equipment used for packet communications. You can establish that easily
11 when you see the "cusa" [phoen], et cetera. Therefore, this document
12 with the signature was typed in the same way as packet communications, so
13 it is strange for someone to write a document in one version when sending
14 it by packet communications, using one number, and then to change the
15 number and make certain changes in it.
16 And the most importantly of all, Mr. Marko Rozic is not head of
17 the Defence Department. He is chief of the Defence Department, and he
18 told me that he never signed it. And the stamp you see on this
19 document --
20 Q. Excuse me, sir. Let me finish.
21 MR. KHAN: Your Honour, it's normal procedure that an objection
22 is put prior to the offending question being answered. Your Honour, in
23 this situation, the witness, and I have understood before on numerous
24 occasions, firstly, Mr. Scott, with the greatest respect, is trying to
25 squeeze, for understandable reasons, a lot of information in the
1 remaining time, and I would ask, as Judge Prandler always reminds us,
2 that there should be a pause between the question and the answer, because
3 on several times the unfortunate appearance is given that the witness is
4 being cut off. In this particular instance, it's very clear that the
5 witness is not being allowed to answer his question, and I would ask that
6 -- the witness is giving relevant evidence directly to the proposition
7 put by the Prosecution regarding the document, and it's only fair, now
8 the question has been asked, that the witness be allowed to give his
9 answer. After that answer is given, of course, follow-up questions can
10 be put in the normal way, but I would ask that the witness be allowed, as
11 a matter of fairness, to answer the question.
12 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President --
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, the Prosecutor has
14 asked questions to you. You've provided answers. Is there anything else
15 you'd like to say that you didn't say, or do you wish to supplement your
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do not -- I do wish to add to my
18 answer. Mr. Scott did not allow me.
19 The key issue on the document with the signature is the stamp
20 that applied to the HVO. Bear in mind the Staff of the HVO in Jablanica
21 and the stamps used by the department, and when I was giving testimony in
22 answer to a question by Ms. Nozica, I presented the stamps and the times
23 when they were in use. So when this document was prepared, this stamp
24 was no longer valid.
25 And even more importantly, Mr. Marko Rozic, who is the sender of
1 this document, was not head of the Defence Department but was chief of
2 the Defence Department in accordance with all the acts and documents that
3 I referred to in my previous testimony.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott.
5 MR. SCOTT: Well, Your Honour, to make the record -- in response
6 to Mr. Khan and in response to other comments been made, no, exactly
7 makes my point. This wasn't an answer to my question. We're dealing
8 with the topic now of comparison of the text, and I was giving the
9 witness specifically the opportunity to talk about the comparison of the
10 text. It had nothing to do with telling us for the 15th time that he
11 claims that Mr. Rozic said he didn't sign it. It has nothing to do with
12 the text comparison; it also has nothing to do with the text comparison,
13 talk about the stamp. So the witness is wasting time, my time, precious
14 time, not responding to the question.
15 Q. My question, sir, is this: And two things -- and I do have to
16 note in passing, it's just too big a point not to pass, just few moments
17 ago, sir, you said you didn't know anything about packet communications.
18 You didn't how they were made, and then you go on to express the view you
19 know how this document was input, and I put it to you, sir, that it's a
20 striking contrast of positions just a few minutes apart.
21 Now, sir, apart from the fact that someone abbreviated "ABiH,"
22 can you tell us any other significant difference in the text of the
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Khan.
25 MR. KHAN: Your Honour, this is a consequence of - with the
1 greatest of respect and however inadvertent - a lack of --
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Khan, leave respect apart
3 for the time being. What I want to know is whether the document is a
4 forgery or not. The issue of respect is -- I am a million light-years
5 away from respect.
6 Now, we have a witness here, whether he can say if it's a forgery
7 or not. The Prosecutor says it isn't a forged document. The witness
8 says it's a forgery. That's all we want to know. The rest is a waste of
10 MR. KHAN: Your Honour, it is a waste of time, but as
11 Mr. Karnavas always says, I'm making a record. It is completely
12 inappropriate for counsel to make comments as asides and not put a
13 question. Mr. Scott prefaced his question with a comment. This is
14 impermissible, and, Your Honours, I will say that for the record. It is
15 inappropriate. A question should be put to the witness, not a comment.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. You're right.
17 You're right.
18 Let's continue. Mr. Scott, let's go back to our business.
19 Please continue on this document if you believe this is necessary and
21 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. President.
22 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
23 MR. SCOTT: Apologies.
24 If we can go forward, please, to the documents that we were
25 looking at at the end of the day yesterday, and we may need the usher's
1 assistance on this, please.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Would you like a number for the
3 document --
4 MR. SCOTT: Could I please have a --
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, could we have
6 an IC number, please.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. The document before us shall
8 be given Exhibit IC 912. Thank you, Your Honour.
9 MR. SCOTT: Actually, if I can have the usher's assistance,
10 hopefully we can make the point briefer by putting this on the ELMO so
11 that information can be shown, what's on there.
12 Q. Mr. Bozic, in the interest of time, I've prepared -- I've laid
13 the communication stamp information of the three documents, and I'll give
14 the numbers for the record in just a moment, next to each other, which is
15 now being placed on the ELMO. The top box comes from P 02074, which is
16 one of the documents we looked at yesterday evening; the second box is
17 from P 09790, which is the packet communication that we've been talking
18 about; and the last box is P 10795, the third of those documents that we
19 were looking at last evening.
20 Now, sir, if you look at the packet communication, you will
21 agree with -- excuse me, at that information that's on the ELMO, you'll
22 agree with me, won't you, that these are three incoming communications to
23 the HVO Main Staff, given numbers 2247, 2248, and 2249, coming in at the
24 times 1745, 2300, and 2345, so that the document P 09790 comes in and is
25 given the correct numerical order assignment and comes in in the correct
1 time sequence; correct?
2 A. If you are referring to the documents you showed me yesterday and
3 that we looked at today, these come in the order of the time. The date
4 is the 24th of April, 1993, and the times are in sequence.
5 Q. And if you'll also look, sir, at the operations officer -- duty
6 officer who's entering this information we've talked about several times
7 during the course of your testimony, would you not look at those
8 signatures on each of the three, and don't those look to you to be three
9 same signatures of the same person?
10 A. I don't wish to -- an expert for handwriting. They don't look
11 like the signatures of the same person, but they are similar. Because of
12 certain lines and dots, they're similar, but I'm not a graphologist, so I
13 can't give an expert opinion.
14 Q. Sir, you have voiced an expert opinion -- you have voiced an
15 opinion over the signature of Mr. Lavric, sir, so is it correct, sir,
16 that on sometimes you do feel the ability to give an opinion on
17 hand-written -- hand signature and on others, you don't?
18 Strike that.
19 A. That's not so. Again, you're trying to lead me into an area,
20 that even though I'm on the eve of my 70s, my concentration is quite
21 good, and with regard to Mr. Lavric, I conveyed his words. So, please,
22 there's a big difference. What I said is one thing, and if I'm conveying
23 what someone else said is something else.
24 Q. Thank you very much for that clarification. I think that is, in
25 fact, important. So in concerning the Lavric document, your evidence
1 before this Chamber is not that you know that that is not Mr. Lavric's
2 signature, but all you have is somebody else's claim that it's not his
3 signature; correct?
4 A. Mr. Lavric told me that it was not his signature, and when I was
5 shown this document in the courtroom, I said that to me it also looks as
6 if it wasn't his signature, but I relied primarily on Mr. Lavric's
8 Q. With the assistance of the usher, perhaps, can we go next,
9 please, to Exhibit P 00463 in the binder 1, P 00463.
10 While the usher is finding that, sir, this is an excerpt of a
11 document the Chamber has seen before. It is the log-book of incoming
12 communications concerning the HVO Main Staff for a period of time
13 including 1992 to 1993, and I would like you, sir, if you could turn to
14 the entry -- the numbers are -- there's a continuing sequence of numbers
15 down the left side, and if you can please go to the entry for 2248, and
16 for those in the courtroom using the English version, it will be the top
17 of page 3. 2248.
18 Sir, I think if you'll look at -- if you'll look at 2248, you
19 will see it is the -- it is the log-book entry recording the incoming --
20 this incoming communication on the 24th of April, 1993, at 2300 hours
21 from the HVO in Jablanica, directed to the Defence Department, S. Bozic's
22 personal attention, and that is the document -- that is the packet
23 communication that we've been looking at, isn't it, sir?
24 A. Yes, and never for a moment did I deny in this courtroom that the
25 document was received in the Main Staff. If you remember, when
1 Ms. Alaburic asked me whether this applies to the Main Staff, I said that
2 it applied to a part of the organisational unit within the Main Staff, so
3 that never for a moment did I question the fact that it reached the
4 Main Staff, and I think there was no need for me to give any other
5 comments. But it's important to point out what I said at the beginning,
6 and that is that I never received it and that it was never sent by
7 Mr. Rozic. That is what is very important in this whole issue.
8 Q. And you'll note on the communications log, just in reference to
9 the documents we were looking at a moment ago, that -- and, indeed, the
10 communication 2247 is logged in immediately before and corresponds to the
11 document we looked at, and communication 2249 is logged in in proper
12 sequence after that communication; correct?
13 A. Yes, I am not denying that this reached the Main Staff, but I
14 repeat that I never received the document and that it was never signed
15 and sent by Mr. Rozic.
16 Q. If you can turn, sir, to Exhibit P 03220, P 03220 in binder
17 number 1. And you can also -- with the usher's assistance, if we can
18 also have P 03216, which is close by, immediately at hand.
19 Sir, as I understand it, this Exhibit P 03220 is another document
20 which you claim to be false in some way, and let me just be very clear.
21 So it's your -- it's not your testimony that you say this -- the document
22 is false because you recognise Mr. Lavric's signature not to, in fact, be
23 his signature, but that you base your position on this document on what
24 Mr. Lavric has allegedly told you?
25 A. I will have to repeat myself. I said that my position is based
1 on what Mr. Lavric told me. When he said that, he didn't show me that
2 document, nor did I see that document. When I saw it in the courtroom
3 and when it was shown to me by Madam Tomasegovic, I said that this
4 signature does not look like Mr. Lavric's signature, so these are two
5 quite different things. When Mr. Lavric spoke to me, he didn't show me
6 the document because he didn't have it. He simply told me roughly what
7 the contents of the document were.
8 Q. Sir, if you will look at P 03216, once again, sir, we have
9 another document, a very similar document, coming from a different folder
10 in the Croatian State Archive. And if you can look at that signature,
11 you're telling us -- on 3216, are you telling us that that signature is
12 also false?
13 A. I'm not saying it's false at all. I'm not saying it's a forgery.
14 Don't put words into my mouth, Mr. Scott. I'm trying to be precise, and
15 -- precisely because I'm a lawyer, so I want to behave as one. I didn't
16 say it was forged or falsified. What I said was something that I
17 repeated already twice. I don't want to say whether it is false or not.
18 I see that the document is similar, that the two documents are similar,
19 in fact. But you say they come from different sources, but I see that
20 both of them have two small stamps.
21 Q. Thank you, sir. So just -- because, again, it may be, sir, that
22 some weeks or months from now the topic may come up again, so I just want
23 the record to be very clear on what your evidence is and what your
24 evidence is not. Your position concerning P 03220, as you've expressed
25 it in court, then, as I understand your testimony over the last few
1 minutes, is based entirely upon what Mr. Lavric has told you, and you
2 have no independent information to add to that, one way or the other?
3 A. I repeat, what Mr. Lavric told me, and I hadn't seen the document
4 then, and when I saw the document, I gave my own opinion and said I don't
5 think that it was Mr. Lavric's signature. I don't want to be exclusive.
6 I say "in my opinion." That is my personal feeling, and I have a dilemma
7 whether it's the signature of Mr. Lavric or not, so I can't say "yes" or
8 "no." I can't confirm or refute, but I doubt it, and I told you what
9 Mr. Lalic told me on the subject.
10 Q. Thank you, sir. If we can go on to another topic.
11 You discussed previously your involvement with the Department of
12 Defence Personnel Administration, sir, and, indeed, I think it's fair to
13 say, and if you will agree with me, that that was one of the sections and
14 functions of the Department of Defence that you were most actively
15 involved with; is that correct?
16 A. I can just confirm that I was at the head of the civilian sector
17 within the frameworks of which was the Personnel Administration too. It
18 had its department, and I was head of my own sector, and within that
19 sector there were certain organisational units, one of which was the
20 Personnel Administration.
21 Q. If you can go, sir, to Exhibit P 02783 in binder number 1,
22 P 02783.
23 Sir, this is a document dated the 15th of June, 1993, coming over
24 the typed name, at least, and again, I don't want to spend time debating
25 with you whether you recognise the signature or not, but at least over
1 the typed name of Mladen Naletilic, Tuta, it's a request directed to or
3 "For Mr. Slobodan Bozic personally: Subject, request for
4 promotion of Convicts Battalion members to a higher rank."
5 Do you see that, sir?
6 A. Yes, of course. I remember that. That's one of the documents
7 you showed me while you interviewed me as a suspect.
8 Q. And, sir, that is, in fact, the type of document that would come
9 to you and come to the Personnel Administration for the purposes of
10 dealing with things like appointments, promotions, et cetera; correct?
11 A. No, that isn't correct. I couldn't appoint anyone or determine
12 ranks. This document came to the Defence Department, and as far as I
13 remember, I answered at the time that nothing was -- it wasn't acted
14 upon, and now I repeat for the Trial Chamber, this document was not acted
15 upon for the simple reason that in 1993, individual ranks could be
16 assigned, and the first assignment of rank in the HVO took place sometime
17 in May 1994.
18 Q. And did you communicate back to Mr. Tuta and say that, Well, I
19 have your request, but I'm not able to take the action that you requested
20 at this time.
21 A. No, I didn't consider that to be necessary. I didn't feel I
22 needed to communicate, and you have the transcript of our interview, and
23 as far as I remember, I thought that it was an attempt to have the --
24 have a better position for these individuals when it came to their
25 salaries, but nothing was done as far as rank is concerned.
1 Q. Do you recall, sir, telling me during your interview that you
2 didn't recall ever -- during the time that you were serving in your
3 various functions in the Department of Defence, you did not recall any
4 occasion where you had any disagreement with Mr. Petkovic or anything
5 that Mr. Petkovic did?
6 A. I really do apologise, but I just didn't understand your
7 question. Could you repeat it, please.
8 Q. During the time that you were serving in your various functions
9 in the Department of Defence, you told me you did not recall any occasion
10 where you had any disagreement with Mr. Petkovic or anything that
11 Mr. Petkovic did. Do you recall telling me that in your interview?
12 A. You have two questions there. First of all, I never had a
13 disagreement with Mr. Petkovic, and I confirm that here publicly before
14 the Trial Chamber. Now, the fact that I did -- disagreed with him, well,
15 I don't know what General Petkovic did in performing quite a different
16 function than was mine, so you're bringing me into a position now
17 whereby, by asking two questions, two separate questions that don't
18 follow on from each other, you want me to answer, and I wanted to give
19 you a broader answer, which I've just done. But, no, I never came into
20 conflict with General Petkovic at all.
21 Q. I'd like to move ahead to the topic of certain events in Vares
22 and Stupni Do in late October 1993. On that topic, sir, you told me in
23 the previous interview that you did not receive any official information
24 about events at Stupni Do on 23 October 1993. My question to you is:
25 Did you receive any unofficial information?
1 A. At that point in time, I did not receive any information, whether
2 official or unofficial, but later on -- well, later on, after a certain
3 amount of time had passed - I'm not quite sure how much - I did receive
4 information that -- for certain events -- about certain events in
5 Stupni Do, but nothing special that I should know about in view of the
6 job that I did.
7 Q. Well, let's look at that. If you can turn, please, to
8 Exhibit P 06182 in the first binder. P 06182.
9 While the usher is finding that, sir, for the record I'll state
10 that this is a press release issued by UNPROFOR on the 27th of October,
11 1993, concerning events in Stupni Do. We only have time to touch on a
12 few highlights. The opening paragraph says:
13 "UNPROFOR troops succeeded in entering the Muslim village of
14 Stupni Do on the afternoon of 26 October 1993 and have confirmed that a
15 massacre has occurred there."
16 In the third paragraph, it mentions all 52 houses in the village
17 had been burned to the ground; at least -- the bodies of at least 15
18 persons had been found. In the fifth paragraph, it starts -- it says:
19 "The UNPROFOR troops initiated attempts to reach Stupni Do almost
20 immediately after the HVO attack began on 23 October."
21 In the following paragraph, the UNPROFOR commander says:
22 "Despite the valiant efforts of NordBat, the HVO [Realtime
23 transcript read in error, "UN"] troops systematically prevented the UN
24 soldiers from entering the village of Stupni Do for three days."
25 Over to the last paragraph in the document:
1 "The investigation into the massacre and the collection of
2 further evidence regarding war crimes will continue."
3 Now, sir, since you've told us several times that you were the
4 liaison officer with international organisations, including UNPROFOR, I
5 take it, sir, that you saw this press release around the time that it was
6 issued on 27 October.
7 JUDGE PRANDLER: Excuse me, Mr. Scott. I believe there is a
8 mistake in the citation that you mentioned. You said:
9 "In the following paragraph, the UNPROFOR commander says ..."
10 And then the quotation:
11 "Despite the valiant efforts of NordBat, the UN troops
12 systematically prevented the soldiers from entering the village of
13 Stupni Do for three days."
14 I believe that not the UN troops prevented the soldiers, but they
15 were prevented to enter the village by others, isn't it so, I mean by
16 the -- I believe it was the HVO to which reference was made, and not to
17 the UN troops.
18 MR. SCOTT: Judge Prandler, you're absolutely right, and the
19 transcript should please be corrected. The document says: "... the HVO
20 troops systematically prevented the UN soldiers."
21 Q. Sir, I turn back to my question. You saw and were aware of this
22 press release around the 27th of October, 1993; correct?
23 A. Well, you asked me two questions before this one, so I don't know
24 what to answer.
25 Q. Answer the question I just put to you just now.
1 A. Which question do you mean, do you want me to answer?
2 Q. Sir, you saw and were aware of this press release around the 27th
3 of October, 1993; correct?
4 A. Well, I have to take care about what you asked me before that
5 because you asked me about official and unofficial. This is a press
6 release that any citizen could have heard about or read if it was
7 published somewhere, and that has nothing to do with my function and post
8 as a member of the Commission for Relations with UNPROFOR. This was a
9 piece of information for the public because it says at the top here that
10 it was a press release, therefore, a piece of information for the press.
11 Q. I'll repeat my question for the third or fourth time, sir.
12 As the liaison officer with UNPROFOR, you were aware of this --
13 you reviewed and were aware of this document around the 27th of October,
14 1993; correct?
15 A. I was not aware of this document as a liaison officer. I was
16 aware of this press release as citizen Slobodan Bozic who heard about
17 this in the press because UNPROFOR never put a press release of this kind
18 to me, and we can see from the heading and title that it is a press
19 release, therefore, for the public and for the press, for printing.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, let me say something
21 because it is up to the Judges to supervise this, and we have to avoid
22 useless loss of time, and that enables us to interrupt occasionally and
23 also do everything we can to be sure that the truth comes out. This is
24 our role. We don't have much to do, but that is one of our essential
1 Now, the Prosecutor is asking you a very specific question. He's
2 asking you whether you were aware whether this press release was given to
3 you, and your answer is inadequate. We understood that you were the
4 liaison officer with UNPROFOR at the time, and I imagine that this is an
5 assumption that when UNPROFOR discovered what happened and releases a
6 press release, and this is rather unfortunate, in fact, for the two women
7 who were raped, they should not have done that, but these are soldiers,
8 so we can't ask them to be aware of every aspect, but I suppose that when
9 they have knowledge of this type of thing, they must come to you and say,
10 Are you aware of what happened? I mean, that's the very least they can
11 do. Otherwise, what is your purpose?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you for that question,
13 Your Honour Judge Antonetti, and this question gives me the possibility
14 of telling you what my role was in answering.
15 Now, on the territory, that was Herzegovina, conditionally
16 speaking, and cooperation with those UNPROFOR units stationed in the area
17 - they were the Spanish, then the British, and then the French afterwards
18 - this press release came from the UNPROFOR headquarters, and you can see
19 that if you look at page 2, the UNPROFOR headquarters in Zagreb, and that
20 is how this press release came to be made for the public. Had it been
21 sent through the lower UNPROFOR units stationed in Herzegovina and
22 forwarded to me, then I would certainly have acted upon this information.
23 So that's how I wish to explain my position. It doesn't mean that my
24 position as member of the Commission for Cooperating with UNPROFOR,
25 liaising with UNPROFOR, means that I had links with all levels of
1 UNPROFOR units stationed on the territory of the former Yugoslavia at the
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] To summarise, well, this press
4 release came from Zagreb, and you are right, the spokesman from Zagreb
5 was one to issue it, so you don't have any knowledge of it. But the
6 second part of my question, which is the people at UNPROFOR, well, did
7 they ask you for your opinion on what happened, or did nobody ask you
8 anything at all?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour Judge Antonetti.
10 Nobody asked me anything with respect to this press release.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.
12 Mr. Scott.
13 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. President.
14 Q. Sir, as I take it, just to clarify again before we move forward:
15 What you've said about this document is you were aware of it in your
16 individual capacity, but it didn't come to you -- across your desk, you
17 say, officially?
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, there might be a
19 problem with the translation, but the witness I don't believe said that
20 he did have any knowledge of it personally.
21 MR. SCOTT: Excuse me, Your Honour --
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, did you have any
23 knowledge of the press release?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that I heard about the
25 document that was published in the media, not that I had received it. So
1 Judge Antonetti, that was my answer. You understood it precisely, and
2 you're quite right in what you've just said.
3 MR. SCOTT: Excuse me. If I can just --
4 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry.
5 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Your Honour, please.
6 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry, my microphone does not [microphone
7 not activated] -- Mr. Buntic [sic], you were asked did you have
8 cognizance of this. You had. You had as a private person. That was
9 your answer. You had not been served with it in your official capacity.
10 That's another answer. But the answer was, did you know about it? You
11 have said: I, as citizen Slobodan Bozic, had knowledge of this
12 communique. Are you retracting this? Are you now saying something
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that as a citizen, I took
15 care that this document -- well, it's not a document. It's a press
16 release. It is a release for the public, that the whole public in
17 ex-Yugoslavia could have heard about and received this information. So
18 officially or unofficially, I did not receive any information. The fact
19 that as a citizen I came to learn of --
20 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry. Mr. Bozic, we must assume that you,
21 as a lawyer, have a certain intelligence, and if that is so, then you
22 should be aware when you're just repeating yourself instead of answering
23 a question.
24 Now, you have told us that the document could have -- everyone
25 could have heard about it. That was not the question at all. It is
1 obvious that if there is a press release, everybody could have heard
2 about it. The question was: Did you personally take -- have knowledge
3 of this? This is the question that you are repeatedly being asked, and
4 you have to answer by yes or no finally.
5 And, Mr. Khan, I think this is not -- you can comment afterwards.
6 I want this answer. There has been so much time spent just for such a
7 simple answer.
8 MR. KHAN: Well, Your Honour, I have a remark to make. Perhaps
9 the witness can answer, but I do have a remark regarding Your Honour's
11 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Okay. Make it afterwards.
12 MR. SCOTT: [Microphone not activated]
13 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Scott, please.
14 MR. SCOTT: -- recurring problem that we have. If I can take a
15 number, I'm in the queue -- I was in the queue before Mr. Khan, and I'd
16 just like to refer -- well --
17 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I have asked a question, and I would like the
18 witness to answer, and then I'll let you fight.
19 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Judge.
20 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Mr. Bozic, yes or no?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All I want to say is this, that in
22 the -- in translation, a document means something official, something
23 that comes from a certain -- one organ to another organ, whereas a press
24 release I see as something quite different. I knew or, rather, heard
25 about this press release, and I take cognizance of it.
1 JUDGE TRECHSEL: You are really trying our patience. We do not
2 need lectures about what is a document or not, and you are not here to
3 lecture the Chamber. You are here, and I quote myself, I said to tell us
4 whether you have taken cognizance of this. I did not use the word
6 I'm sorry, perhaps I was too loud. The interpreters, please
7 excuse me. I said that I had not even used the word "document" and that
8 we did not need a lecture about the difference between a -- the
9 interpretation does not seem to work. Is it all right now? Okay, I'm
10 sorry. You still have no -- still no? Still no? This must be something
11 for the technician. Can you -- I keep on talking now. It's embarrassing
12 that it gets on the record, but it is merely to make a sound so that the
13 accused can react whether they get an interpretation or not. So far ...
14 I would ask the interpreters now and then to make some sound
15 until this works again.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, I'll try something.
17 Perhaps my colleague destroyed his microphone. Is it now working or not?
18 Well, the best thing would be to have an early break, in that
19 case. Let's have our break.
20 --- Recess taken at 3.09 p.m.
21 --- On resuming at 3.32 p.m.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We're back in session.
23 The technical problems have been solved. Everything's fine.
24 Mr. Prosecutor, you still have 24 minutes.
25 Mr. Scott, after all these exchanges, you have the floor.
1 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. President. I do appreciate that, but
2 I do want to be clear. I don't know if Judge Trechsel has considered his
3 question as still pending before the technical difficulties or if
4 everyone wants to move forward.
5 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you, Mr. Scott.
6 In fact, in fairness to the witness, I think I should give him a
7 last opportunity to answer the question, and I'm sure he can remember
8 because it was repeated so many times.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First of all, Your Honour
10 Judge Trechsel, I want to say that it is not my intention to avoid
11 answering the question; far from it. And I said that as far as this
12 press release is concerned, I heard about it from the media, not from any
13 official sources, and I went on to explain this precisely in response to
14 the question by Judge Antonetti.
15 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.
16 MR. KHAN: Your Honour, in that case, this seems a very sensible
17 point to make my submissions to the Trial Chamber before my learned
18 friend --
19 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I think Mr. Scott was before in line.
20 MR. KHAN: Well, Your Honour, I took the liberty of speaking to
21 Mr. Scott on this issue on the break.
22 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Okay. Fine.
23 MR. KHAN: He has nothing to say on this issue, so perhaps I may
24 be permitted to make the submission that I intimated was relevant in this
25 regard before he moves on either to a new topic or an unrelated matter.
1 I believe that's correct, Mr. Scott; is that right?
2 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honour. I just wanted to clarify -- that's
3 true. I have no further comment -- in the interest of time, I have no
4 further comment, of course, to reserve an appropriate response to what
5 Mr. Khan might have to say. Thank you.
6 MR. KHAN: Of course. Your Honour, firstly, it is unfortunate
7 that counsel has to stand up and make objections. They're not tactical
8 devices. They're not simply for the joy of being heard, but there is a
9 non-derogable duty for counsel that are acting for an accused to
10 represent the client and appear as officers before the Court. I hope the
11 intervention, firstly, is viewed in that regard.
12 Your Honours, the transcript is before you. I'm not going to go
13 through it ad nauseam, but in my respectful submission, whilst a number
14 of questions were put on the same area, it does appear, with respect,
15 that a lot of fuss is being made about very little.
16 Your Honours will see in due course, at page 21, line 2 of the
17 transcript, the witness referred to -- he made it very clear that if the
18 press release was published somewhere. He has not said that he actually
19 saw the press release. At page 21, line 11, again, he clarifies that
20 point. Your Honours, page 22, line 24, to page 23, line 6,
21 Judge Antonetti, the Presiding Judge, very properly, with the greatest of
22 respect, put a question to clarify in a bid to get to the truth, and the
23 witness was unequivocal in his response.
24 Your Honours, there is a clear distinction, in my submission,
25 between cross-examination and examination from the Bench. Your Honours,
1 of course, there are sometimes long days. The witness has been in court
2 and been in The Hague for a long period of time, and no doubt patience is
3 wearing thin on all sides, and the Bench is only human, and no doubt on
4 occasions all of us try the patience of the Bench; witnesses, counsel,
5 and all parties. But, Your Honours, I'm sure that it would appear most
6 unfortunate if an independent and impartial Judge, that Judge Trechsel
7 is, would inadvertently, no doubt, give the appearance of being other
8 than independent and impartial.
9 Your Honours, there is always a jeopardy, borne of good sense and
10 common understanding, why the Bench should be very loath to descend into
11 the pit of litigation. Your Honours, the questions put by
12 Judge Trechsel, for the record, in my submission, were unfortunately and
13 no doubt inadvertently somewhat strident and somewhat accusatory. Your
14 Honours, this is not necessary. It is not borne out by the scheme that
15 the Judges -- the permanent Judges of this Court have crafted in the
16 Rules of Procedure and Evidence, in which under Rule 90 there is
17 cross-examination by the parties. Of course, one always welcomes the
18 intervention of the Bench when they are seeking clarification, but I
19 would ask that those questions be put with precision and carefully, but
20 not with impatience or in a manner that it appears that the Bench is
21 taking over the mantle of cross-examination from one of the parties,
22 whoever it may be.
23 Your Honours, I would ask that some care be taken, because it is
24 important in a process to keep matters calm, that the accused are
25 assured, as well as by standards of watching, that the process that Your
1 Honours are struggling with, no doubt with all its difficulties, is fair,
2 is detached, and is objective, and it's with that spirit that I do ask
3 that Your Honour does take care in the mode of questioning. It must not
4 appear to be cross-examination, which is the function of the parties. It
5 should be questioning. And, Your Honours, I think that is something that
6 is a concern of our clients. It's only important to -- one accused is
7 already absent from this court. Your Honours are live of the
8 consequences of that, and it is important to have a fair trial, that the
9 accused feel they are getting a fair trial. And, Your Honours, I would
10 ask that the spirits behind my submissions is taken on board.
11 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I would react with two observations, Mr. Khan.
12 First, I'm not very happy of -- with the way that you have cited
13 the transcript because you have cited line 11 of page 21 but not line 12
14 and 13, which I had referred to and where the witness is reported as
15 having said, I quote:
16 "I was aware of this press release as citizen Slobodan Bozic, who
17 heard about this in the press ..."
18 So that puts a bit of different light.
19 And the second point is: While I admit that I may have been a
20 little bit emotional, you also have to recognise that we have had a lot
21 of non-responses to questioning in a row, and I think it is
22 understandable that someone -- that sometimes, though one tries to keep
23 patient, there comes a drop that for a short while lets the barrel spill
24 over. That is what happened. But I fully agree, in principle, with what
25 you are saying, Mr. Khan.
1 MR. KHAN: Your Honour, that's most gracious of you. In relation
2 to substance, I didn't want to take time, but now it's been raised. Your
3 Honours will review in the due course the entire transcript, but it was
4 very clear to me, at least, that the witness was seeking to draw a
5 distinction between the existence of a press release and knowledge of the
6 contents of that press release. I think that was the issue that His
7 Honour the Presiding Judge, Judge Antonetti, got out of the witness and
8 clarified it. But, Your Honour, there are consequences, of course, of
9 being a professional judge, and I do accept, as I said before, that
10 sometimes one's patience is worn thin, but I don't accept, for the
11 record, that the witness was non-responsive. I think in order to get to
12 the truth, precision is needed with questions, and the witness -- it may
13 have been frustrating. There is translation involved. There were, of
14 course, translation difficulties that were referred to before the break.
15 But, Your Honours, I think the witness did try to answer the questions.
16 It's a matter for Your Honours, after hearing all the evidence, to decide
17 upon the credibility of witness, but that, of course, is not a license to
18 descend, in my submission, into the pit, as I describe it, the pit of
19 litigation, because there are consequences to the appearance of fairness
20 when Judges do that.
21 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Mr. Khan, I definitely will not enter into a
22 discussion about this. I think that would really be improper, which does
23 not necessarily mean that I fully agree.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Khan, I listened carefully
25 to what you said, as always, and what you say is always interesting, and
1 it's always with interest that I hear you. I do not agree with part of
2 your arguments. This is a mixed proceedings, a common law/civil law
3 proceedings. When you say that the Judge shouldn't be, as you said,
4 going down into the arena of litigation, I don't fully agree because we
5 are looking for the truth, and sometimes in order to find the truth, we
6 have to ask questions, to look at documents, to hear statements of the
7 witnesses, and in everybody's interests, in the interests of your own
8 client, in the interests of truth, we have to ask questions and look for
9 the truth. I'm speaking under the control of the witness, who was a
10 judge once, and he knows exactly what I'm talking about. Whether in
11 Croatia, in Serbia or in Bosnia and Herzegovina, presiding judges ask
12 questions and they look for the truth.
13 Here there was a problem, a problem related to a press release.
14 The Prosecutor was cross-examining the witness. He was trying to find
15 out about the press release. The witness spoke. Maybe the Defence
16 counsel have another viewpoint, and the Judges are trying to understand
17 whether the witness had knowledge of the document -- of the content of
18 the document, what he did at the time, and it is true, those questions,
19 that we tried to seek the truth. Maybe we'll find the truth, maybe not.
20 That's it.
21 The issue of impartiality has nothing to do with it. If a Judge
22 was partial, he would say the accused is guilty or is not guilty, but
23 this is not what it is about. We're just looking at a document, and
24 we're just trying to find out whether the witness knew about the document
25 or not. It's nothing to do with the Judge being impartial or not.
1 MR. KHAN: Mr. President, I agree with you completely. My
2 principle objection was not about the right of the Bench to ask
3 questions. I accept on many occasions it's most illuminatory, and it
4 sheds an awful lot of light for the Prosecution and for the Defence on
5 questions that are opaque or not clarified, but I do maintain for the
6 record my primary submission that it does behove the Bench to ask neutral
7 questions rather than, no doubt wrongly, give the impression that they
8 are cross-examining the witness in the manner that is on the side of one
9 party or the other. There's no need to ask cross-examination in order to
10 get to the truth. The truth can be arrived at particularly by the Bench
11 by non-leading, neutral, and rather balanced questions. But when one
12 talks about the intelligence of a witness, as Judge Trechsel did, and
13 when one talks about the Bench losing patience, it is perhaps unnecessary
14 and lends more heat to the debate than light, in my respectful
15 submission. But Your Honours, of course, the questions of the Bench are
16 always welcome.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
18 Mr. Scott, you have the floor.
19 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. President. Still at 24 minutes.
20 Q. Sir, if I could ask you to look at P 06335, P 06335, and at the
21 end of binder number 1 -- toward the end of binder number 1.
22 Sir, you said you were hearing about these things in the press,
23 and we've now heard over the last hour, including the break, about what
24 you heard as a citizen and what was in the press, and I'd just like this
25 one particular document - the Chamber has seen others; the courtroom has
1 seen others - but this is an article from the "Times of London," 1
2 November 1993, concerning the events in Stupni Do. And again, sir, as a
3 senior official in the HVO and as the liaison officer with UNPROFOR -- or
4 to UNPROFOR, you were aware at the time, weren't you, that whether it was
5 this article or other articles or CNN or BBC or Croatian Television, you
6 were aware that what had happened in Stupni Do was a huge controversial
7 issue at that time by the 23rd, 24th, 25th of October, 1993; correct?
8 A. In any event, it was a controversial period, not only in
9 Stupni Do but in other areas of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
10 Q. I didn't ask you about any other area of Stupni Do -- about
11 Bosnia. Stupni Do and what happened there on the 23rd and 24th of
12 October was a worldwide controversial event reported in the press and
13 which you said a few moments ago you heard about in the press; correct?
14 Yes or no?
15 A. It is correct. In fact, I just remembered, and you have it in
16 the transcript, that I told you when we talked that I heard this from the
17 media, and you can check the transcript of our conversation.
18 Unfortunately, I don't know English --
19 Q. If we can go next, please, to P 06303, P 06303, in binder 1.
20 This is an ECMM report, sir, for the 31st of October, 1993. I'll direct
21 the courtroom's attention to the second paragraph under the heading
22 "Political." I'm sure you can find that in the Croatian version, as
23 well, sir. It starts with the words: "HOM/HRC".
24 "Head of mission, head of the regional centre, head of the
25 coordinating centre, and the political advisor met Jadranko Prlic,
1 president of the government, CRHB, and Slobodan Bozic (deputy minister of
2 defence CHRB
3 with head of mission again issuing the European Community demarche.
4 Prlic stated that Bosnia-Herzegovina would never exist as a state, but
5 all other options were possible. With regard to Stupni Do, he stated
6 that General Petkovic, Chief of Staff, (COS HVO) had removed all local
7 commanders, and an investigation was underway."
8 Now, sir, do you know which commanders had been removed in
9 connection with the events in Stupni Do as of the date of this meeting on
10 the 31st of October, 1993?
11 A. Well, from this report, I see that I was present at the meeting
12 at Mr. Prlic's, and that is something I referred to in the previous days,
13 that I arranged certain meetings with Mr. Prlic with representatives of
14 the International Community, this one included, at which I was simply the
15 organiser of the meeting.
16 As for your second question, which commanders were dismissed, I
17 don't know what Mr. Prlic had in mind when he was speaking, but one can
18 see from the whole text that my name is mentioned only as someone who was
19 present, who didn't take part in the discussions.
20 Q. I'm asking you, sir, as the deputy minister of defence and as the
21 person with primary responsibility with liaison -- liaising with UNPROFOR
22 and ECMM, you must have gone into this meeting on the 31st of October
23 clearly knowing, clearly knowing that Stupni Do would be on the agenda.
24 Now, when Mr. Prlic said General Petkovic has removed all local
25 commanders and an investigation was underway, I ask you again, do you
1 know what commanders were removed? And that's my question. What
2 commanders were removed?
3 A. I answered clearly that I don't know what Mr. Prlic had in mind.
4 And when you say that it was known, what the topic would be -- allow me
5 to finish.
6 Q. You've answered my question, sir. You said you didn't know.
7 That answers my question. My second question is, if you can assist us,
8 if you don't know exactly which commanders were removed, do you know on
9 whose orders or directions, whoever it was that had allegedly been
10 removed, on whose orders were they removed?
11 A. No, I can't say, but I wish to tell the Trial Chamber that you
12 did not allow me to answer your previous question fully.
13 Q. Please go on to Exhibit P 06328, P 06328, in the first binder,
14 toward the end.
15 Sir, this is a document dated 1 November 1993 over the name of
16 Bruno Stojic, recommending the conferral of the rank of colonel to
17 Ivica Rajic of Kiseljak. Do you see that? Do you see that?
18 A. Yes, I do.
19 Q. Would you please go on to Exhibit P 06339, also in the second
20 binder -- excuse me, the first binder, it should be close by, P 06339.
21 This, in fact, is a document -- it appears to be dated toward the bottom
22 of the page, again, the 1st of November, 1993, by Boban, conferring the
23 rank of active colonel on Ivica Rajic from Kiseljak. Do you see that?
24 A. Yes, I do.
25 Q. Now, in reference to this event, this appointment of Mr. -- or
1 promotion of Mr. Rajic to the rank of colonel, the previous document, the
2 recommendation of Mr. Stojic, which is P 06328, as Mr. Stojic's deputy
3 and someone that worked with him very closely, shared a secretary, had
4 the office next to him, did you raise with Mr. Stojic that the promotion
5 that Ivica Rajic to colonel on the 1st of November, 1993, given the
6 controversies about Stupni Do, might not be the best thing to do?
7 A. No, I didn't. In fact, I didn't even know that such a proposal
9 Q. Is it your position that despite the fact that you were
10 Mr. Stojic's deputy and supervised the Personnel Administration, you're
11 suggesting that Mr. Stojic personally prepared and signed this document
12 without the involvement of you and your section?
13 A. No, I don't wish to say that Mr. Stojic signed that document on
14 his own. This proposal could have of come from anyone who was within the
15 Personnel Administration, within that small group. In any event, I don't
16 wish to say that this was done by Mr. Stojic, but someone upon his
18 Q. And it didn't occur to you around this time, and I put it again
19 to you, sir, given the nature of this controversy, I put it to you, sir,
20 it's inconceivable that there was not discussion in the immediate office
21 of the minister of defence about Stupni Do, the people involved in it,
22 and the international concerns that had been expressed; and, again, are
23 you telling this Chamber that as of the end of -- as of late October
24 1993, in fact in connection with the meeting that you -- in part that you
25 attended with Mr. Prlic, that you and Mr. Stojic and others were not
1 discussing the topic of Stupni Do and Ivica Rajic?
2 A. I can't say what we spoke about Ivica Rajic. I remember very
3 well that I told you that this was a man I never met, I never saw him,
4 and I didn't know anything about him, except for certain information that
5 came after this that I now see as a proposal. Therefore, the meeting at
6 Mr. Prlic's was not announced; that is, the topic was not announced. It
7 was a meeting upon the request of representatives of the International
8 Community without any indication of the topic.
9 Q. That's not my question now. My question to you was: You worked
10 in the immediate office of the minister of defence or the head of
11 defence. You were close by to him. You've told us before you were close
12 to a lot of the senior staff, and I put to you, sir, that you could not
13 have been involved in that position at that time with this controversy
14 swirling around and not have had discussions with Mr. Stojic. Isn't that
16 A. No. I'm saying that I didn't talk to Mr. Stojic, and I repeat
17 before this Honourable Trial Chamber that I didn't know that such a
18 proposal for a promotion existed.
19 Q. Let's go to Exhibit P 07546.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, a brief technical
21 question. I've taken a look at the document - as everybody else -
22 carefully, and I've noticed one thing. Mr. Stojic recommends to
23 Mr. Boban that Mr. Rajic becomes colonel. This is Mr. Stojic's
24 recommendation, but my question is the following: Looking at the
25 document, I realised that there is, first of all, Office of the
1 President, Cabinet Predstojnika [phoen], but the Department of Defence
2 was not part of the immediate office of the president. So why does this
3 document talk about the Office of the President or immediate Office of
4 the President?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour Judge Antonetti, this
6 is the Cabinet of the head that formally existed but in actual fact was
7 not operational until the end of 1993 when the ministry was formed. So
8 this is the Cabinet of the head, and it's addressed to the president of
9 the Croatian Community, at the time, the Croatian Republic of
10 Herceg-Bosna. So it's the body that we discussed when Madam Nozica was
11 examining me as a witness that were not functioning but formally existed,
12 and one of those bodies is the Cabinet of the Head, not of the president
13 but of the head of the department.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In the English version, we read
15 "Office of the President." Is that a mistake?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I have another assumption.
18 Please let me know if it's correct or completely incorrect.
19 Looking at the document, in your language "Odjel Obrane" is
20 "Defence Department." This was added to the letterhead. Would it be
21 possible that Mr. Stojic went to the secretariat of Mr. Boban to make his
22 recommendation, that the secretary took the usual letterhead indicating
23 "immediate office of the president," that she added "Odjel Obrane" with
24 her typewriter, and that she then typed in the text signed by Mr. Stojic?
25 Would that be possible or completely impossible?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour Judge Antonetti, it is
2 not possible, for the simple reason that these are two different
3 positions. There's the head of department and the president. What
4 referred to the cabinet of the head, it replies to the Department of
5 Defence, and it is sent to the president of the Republic of Herceg-Bosna
6 on behalf of the Defence Department.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Your answer, that sheds light
8 on this document.
9 Mr. Scott.
10 MR. SCOTT:
11 Q. Sir, it's correct, isn't it, that the topic of Stupni Do remained
12 on your screen, if you were [sic], and the screen of the -- in the minds,
13 if I can put it that way. "Screen" perhaps doesn't translate well, but
14 it remained on your minds and in the minds of the senior leadership of
15 the HVO, not only at the end of October and November, but even into the
16 following year, correct, 1994; correct?
17 A. I don't know what you're referring to. What do you mean?
18 Q. Would you go, please, to Exhibit P 07546, binder number 2.
19 P 07546. This is an ECMM report for the 10th of January, 1994. I'll
20 refer it to you, and you can find it easily, sir, by its item number 2 in
21 both the English translation and the Croatian language version, item
22 number 2 under "A, Political Situation." And number 2 says:
23 "The HRC
24 minister of defence. Prlic was interested in ECMM knowledge of the
25 alleged massacre in Krizancevo" - sorry for my pronunciation - "and HRC
1 fully informed Bozic drew comparisons with UNPROFOR reaction in
2 Stupni Do, which was immediate. HRC explained comparisons were
3 superficial as an active confrontation line in Krizancevo prevented
4 access at will and not armija conditions."
5 So, sir, in this meeting in January 1994, for example, you were
6 continuing to raise issues concerning or involving Stupni Do; correct?
7 A. First of all, at the time I was not deputy defence minister as is
8 stated in this report. Secondly, this statement of mine, referring to
9 comparisons with similar events in which the Croats were the victims, and
10 as I said earlier on, I never wish to annul one crime with another; I'm
11 just saying that one needs to have the same approach and same attitude
12 towards every situation, regardless of who the perpetrators were and
13 where it was done.
14 Q. I'd like you to go next, please, and I apologise for having the
15 usher up and down, but in the interest of time, if we can move as quickly
16 as possible -- my apologies and thanks. P 07352 in the third -- excuse
17 me, second binder, P 07352. This is a document that the courtroom has
18 seen before, dated the 27th of December, 1993, from Ivica Rajic to
19 Milivoj Petkovic, and noting that the correct information regarding the
20 new name is Viktor Andric. Do you see that, sir? Do you see it, sir?
21 A. Yes, I do. It's in front of me.
22 Q. Will you please go on to P 07394 in the second binder, P 07394.
23 MR. SCOTT: And I'm going to be giving another document or two,
24 Mr. Usher, in quick succession, please. P 07394.
25 Q. This is an order from Tihomir Blaskic, dated the 30th of
1 December, 1993, dismissing Ivica Rajic as commander of the Kiseljak
2 Forward Command Post. Do you see that? Do you see it, sir?
3 Sir, I don't have time for you to mark all the documents as you
4 go through them. The record should show, just so the record is clear,
5 that the witness has a highlighter and is marking the documents, which is
6 fine, and I wish we had more time, but my question is, sir: Do you have
7 the document? Apparently you do, and apparently you've now put a number
8 of markings --
9 A. Yes, I see it.
10 Q. Now --
11 A. Yes, I see it.
12 Q. If you look at the distribution or what's translated into English
13 as "Submit to," do you see that General Blaskic's order dismissing
14 Ivica Rajic, one copy goes to the HVO Main Staff and another copy goes to
15 the Ministry of Defence, Mostar? Do you see that?
16 A. Yes, I do.
17 Q. Would you please go next to Exhibit P 07401, P 07401. This is
18 the order of General Blaskic, dated the same day, the 12th -- the 30th of
19 December, 1993, appointing as the new commander of the Kiseljak Forward
20 Command Post a man named Viktor Andric. Do you see that? Do you see
22 A. Yes, I see it, but I've never seen this document before, nor the
23 previous one.
24 Q. You'll see in the distribution, next to Mr. Blaskic's name, one
25 copy, again, goes to the Main Staff, and one copy goes to the Ministry of
1 Defence in Mostar; correct?
2 A. Yes, I do, but I repeat that I never saw this document or the
3 previous one before.
4 Q. Sir, based upon everything you've told us in the last some number
5 of days about the workings of the DOD and the office of Personnel
6 Administration, I put it to you, sir, that these documents could not have
7 been created and were not created without them ultimately passing through
8 your section of Personnel Administration; correct?
9 A. I am saying once again before this Honourable Trial Chamber that
10 I never saw these documents and that I see them for the first time today.
11 Q. Sir, you told us under oath that during this time-period, and I
12 was very specific about asking about the time and location, that during
13 that time-period the Personnel Administration consisted of a total of
14 perhaps five, six, or seven people working a short distance away from you
15 on the same floor, and I put it to you again, sir: You were involved in
16 and supervised your people in the preparation of these documents and
17 documents related to it, weren't you?
18 A. Mr. Scott, you are obviously neglecting a very important fact.
19 Here, General Blaskic is dismissing and appointing and signing, and as
20 far as I can recollect, he was the only military commander that Mr. Boban
21 transferred such authority to. Therefore, this kind of dismissals and
22 appointments have nothing to do with the Personnel Administration. Allow
23 me --
24 Q. Sorry, no, we don't have time, sir. I'm sorry. I'm sure if
25 counsel wants to pursue it, I'm sure she'll be given the opportunity.
1 I specifically asked you, and you agreed with me, that on both of
2 the Blaskic documents, they were sent -- both of them were copied to the
3 Main Staff and to the Department of Defence. I submit to you, sir, that
4 the reason they were sent to the Ministry of Defence is so they could be
5 properly processed through Personnel Administration and be part of their
6 appropriate file; correct?
7 A. I repeat, I never saw these documents before, and these documents
8 were not issued by the Personnel Administration or prepared by it, but it
9 was done by Mr. Tihomir Blaskic.
10 Q. Then tell us, sir, who created the HVO personnel file for Viktor
12 A. It's very easy to see that from the document that you've shown
13 here. It was the Military District of Vitez. It has the number, the
14 date, the time, and that has nothing to do with the Personnel
16 Q. Sir, my question was not what was in Vitez. I'm talking about
17 the personnel records that were kept by the people working under your
18 immediate supervision. In the Department of Defence personnel file for
19 this person, who created the Viktor Andric file?
20 A. Judging by where this came from, someone did this in the Military
21 District of Vitez, but I can't specify who, although we can see that it
22 was signed by Colonel Tihomir Blaskic.
23 Q. Can you tell us, please, who in Mostar -- who in the Ministry of
24 Defence in Mostar would have known to put any materials related to Viktor
25 Andric in the Ivica Rajic file?
1 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I seem to feel that
2 this question presumes something which hasn't been discussed yet, and the
3 presumption here is that somewhere, according to the Prosecutor, the
4 Ministry of Defence, the Defence Department, there is a file which is
5 called "Ivica Rajic" or I don't know what other name; that is to say,
6 that they have a file on everyone. First of all, that should be the
7 question, whether that is the case, and then, next, who created this
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, your time is almost
10 over, so ask your last question. We'll have to stop.
11 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. President.
12 Q. If I can ask for my last question, sir, that you turn to
13 Exhibit P 10783 in the second binder, P 10783.
14 Sir, this is a document dated the 11th of July, 1995, from the
15 Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna, Ministry of Defence, Personnel
16 Administration, over the name of Bruno Stojic, under the title:
17 "Assistant Minister for Personnel." And this document is passing on
18 certain information concerning Ivica Rajic. In the first paragraph -- in
19 the first indented paragraph, Mr. Stojic does report that Mr. Stojic, on
20 an earlier occasion, not in connection with Stupni Do, but on the 5th of
21 March, 1993, Mr. Stojic dismissed Mr. Rajic.
22 In the second -- in the next-to-last paragraph, above the name
23 "Bruno Stojic," he does confirm Mr. Mate Boban has presented
24 Mr. Ivica Rajic of Kiseljak with a decree dated 1 November 1993, which is
25 consistent with the documents that the Court saw a few moments ago,
1 granting him an active colonel's rank.
2 Now, sir, is it correct that in this document prepared by -- over
3 the name of Bruno Stojic, in July 1995, Mr. Stojic doesn't report
4 anything about Mr. Rajic's involvement with Stupni Do, or the fact that
5 he had been dismissed by Tihomir Blaskic, or the fact that someone named
6 Viktor Andric had allegedly been put in his place? We don't get any of
7 that information from reading this document, do we? Do we, sir?
8 A. Your Honour, this is the first time that I'm seeing this
9 document, and what it says in the document I cannot comment on it. All
10 I can say is that it is a text -- well, I can say what it says there.
11 Whether -- why something was written or not written, that would be mere
12 speculation on my part.
13 Q. You would agree, sir, that, for example, just in terms of the
14 content, that it is consistent with the earlier documents that we saw by
15 which Mr. Bruno Stojic recommended to Mate Boban, for example, that
16 Mr. Rajic be promoted to the rank of active colonel? It fits with that
17 document, doesn't it?
18 A. Yes.
19 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. Bozic, and thank you, Mr. President.
20 I have no further questions for the witness.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
22 Witness, I have one question in relation to a question that was
23 asked you earlier on. This will be very brief.
24 Can we come back to folder number 1 and look at the log-book,
25 P 463. These are the various telegrams that reached the Main Staff --
1 well, coming from the Main Staff or going to the Main Staff. Have you
2 seen this?
3 This is my first question. It's a very simple one. Were you
4 aware of the fact that at the Main Staff, all telegrams were registered,
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I've already said earlier on,
7 there was this one organisational unit in the Main Staff when there were
8 these packet communications or telegrams, as you say, which were
9 registered. I didn't know that a log-book was kept, but this confirms
10 that it was.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Let me ask you to
12 look at the 9th of May, 2580 and the following ones. I will ask this
13 question again when we have army people or General Praljak or
14 Mr. Petkovic, but perhaps you could give us your opinion now.
15 Looking at all these telegrams as of the 9th of May, if there was
16 [indiscernible] from the HVO or the BiH, there must have been traces of
17 that in these messages, and I see on the 9th of May that it starts at
18 3.00 in the morning, but it doesn't relate to Mostar. VP Mostar, which
19 must be something that relates to Mostar, goes to Prozor at half past --
20 or at 2.55 p.m., but nothing else is said about the events in Mostar,
21 apparently. Is that normal? What do you say about that? Whereas the
22 9th of May would seem to be an absolutely essential date.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour Judge Antonetti, I said
24 that I'm not a soldier and, therefore, can only present my own views or
25 logical thinking, whether it will suit or not.
1 Now, you heard why it didn't come from Mostar, because in Mostar
2 there was the military district where the Main Staff was located, so they
3 had the possibility of communicating in other ways. That's the only
4 thing that I can say, thinking logically, but not as a professional
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you for your
8 Ms. Nozica, I think you have follow-up questions.
9 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] I'd just like to draw your
10 attention that in the record, the response by this witness was not
11 exactly transcribed. He said that in Mostar, both the Main Staff and the
12 headquarters of the Military District were located, and, therefore, that
13 information could be received or given out to either post, and that's not
14 how it was recorded in the transcript. So could the witness just confirm
15 whether that is a correct interpretation of what he said?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that communication was
17 possible between the Main Staff and the Military District in another way,
18 too, in view of the fact that both the Main Staff and the Military
19 District were in town and not too far away from one another.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. That's clear.
21 Ms. Nozica, follow-up questions.
22 MS. NOZICA: Thank you, Your Honour.
23 May I ask the usher's assistance. Could he please hand out my
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Usher.
1 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Since I prepared for my
2 cross-examination before the Prosecutor concluded his cross-examination,
3 I'd like just to go back briefly to the last topic that was discussed by
4 the Prosecutor and which he questioned Mr. Bozic about.
5 Re-examination by Ms. Nozica:
6 Q. Mr. Bozic, just to remind you, at one point when you were shown a
7 document --
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Starting from now, whatever you
9 say will be taken off your time allocation. I'm sure you -- I want you
10 to be clear on this. So time is precious.
11 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I am aware
12 of that all the time.
13 Q. Now, when the Prosecutor showed you -- you needn't leaf through
14 the document. For the moment, Mr. Bozic, I'm going to deal with some
15 documents that were shown you most recently by the Prosecutor, but you
16 don't have to take up the Prosecution binder. I'd like to ask you to
17 rely on e-court, and I'm just going to show you two documents from the
18 Prosecution binder, and then we'll move on to questions which relate to
19 the documents that are in my own binder that you received today.
20 Today, the Prosecutor showed you document P 7546, and that was a
21 document dated the 10th of January, 1994. You don't have to look at it.
22 I don't need it for my questions, and in that document, it says that you
23 were the deputy minister of defence. Now, you said that in that
24 particular document, that piece of information was incorrect.
25 I'd now like to ask you to repeat to the Trial Chamber until when
1 you were the deputy head of the Defence Department and when Bruno Stojic
2 ceased to be the head of the Defence Department.
3 A. I think I've already answered that, but let me repeat. I was the
4 deputy head of the Defence Department, while Mr. Stojic was the head of
5 the department. To all intents and purposes, he didn't come to his
6 office from the 10th of January, 1993 --
7 THE INTERPRETER: November 1993, correction.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- and we were all relieved of our
9 duties in the former HVO HZ-HB I think at around the 20th of November,
11 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Mr. Bozic, I'd now like to ask you to take a look at the last
13 document shown to you, and it will come up on e-court, and that is
14 P 10783.
15 It still hasn't come up on e-court. Here it comes. There, we
16 have both versions.
17 Now, this document is dated the 11th of July, 1995. My learned
18 friend the Prosecutor asked you where this document was stored -- where
19 the Viktor Andric document was stored. Can you confirm to the Trial
20 Chamber whether we're talking about data referring to Ivica Rajic or
21 Viktor Andric?
22 A. Without a doubt, it is information on Ivica, Ivo, Rajic.
23 Q. Is this a document of the Personnel Administration dated the 11th
24 of July, 1995?
25 A. Yes, the Personnel Administration from that period.
1 Q. So obviously, the Personnel Administration at that time had a
2 file on Ivica Rajic; right?
3 A. Obviously, there were some documents for the Rajic file.
4 Q. All right. Now I'm going to ask you one more thing, and I would
5 like to remind the Trial Chamber that Witness EA explained in this
6 courtroom how the rank came about. I can't say more than that.
7 Now, would you take a look at the information given. Now,
8 there's paragraph 2, and does it say in paragraph 2 which post was taken
9 up by Ivica Rajic on the 5th of March and that it was pursuant to
10 Mr. Stojic's order that he was dismissed from that position? Is that
11 what it says in para 2 of this document?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Fine. Now let's look at another document linked to information
14 about Viktor Andric and shown to you by the Prosecutor. It is P 07401.
15 Mr. Bozic, on the 30th of December, 1993, who was the minister of
16 defence of the HR-HB, which post you held at the time in the Ministry of
18 A. The minister of defence were Mr. Perica Lukic [as interpreted],
19 and at the time I was president of the Office for UNPROFOR and
20 International Organisations, and I said earlier on I did some work for
22 Q. Mr. Bozic, you have looked at a great many documents, both in the
23 proofing sessions and the ones shown to you in the courtroom. Now, if a
24 document were to be sent and addressed to the Personnel Administration,
25 would it state precisely that, here where it says to whom sent, would it
1 say if the document were addressed to the Personnel Administration?
2 A. Yes.
3 MR. SCOTT: Excuse me, Your Honour. Just for clarification, and
4 apologies for interrupting counsel, on page 50, line 23, the name for the
5 minister of defence at the end of 1993 was indicated as Lukic, and
6 I believe it should be Jukic, J-u-k-i-c. Thank you.
7 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Yes, thank you. I've already learnt
8 that corrections are made subsequently when it comes to names in the
9 transcript, so that is why I did not intervene.
10 Anyway, fine. We can now move on to another area.
11 Q. You were asked several times during your testimony here over the
12 past six days where -- in what building was the Defence Department
13 situated from the day that you started working there and onwards, and now
14 I'm asking you very precisely. You said that sometime after the conflict
15 between the BH Army and the HVO in May - and please correct me if I'm
16 wrong - or towards the end of May, the Defence Department relocated from
17 that location; am I right?
18 A. Yes. I said roughly after the conflict, roughly at the end of
20 Q. Did the Main Staff move out of the building too?
21 A. I think it did, yes.
22 Q. Can you tell me where it relocated to, if you remember, and
23 whether later on, after that period of time, when you, at the end of the
24 summer and the beginning of autumn, as you said, returned, whether the
25 Main Staff returned to that building too?
1 A. I think that the Main Staff stayed where it was. It was the -- a
2 factory building.
3 Q. Mr. Bozic --
4 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] The transcript doesn't reflect that
5 Mr. Bozic said in the building of a factory in Citluk.
6 Q. Did I hear you correctly?
7 A. Yes, you did.
8 Q. Mr. Bozic, where did the Administration of the Military Police
9 have its headquarters, if it had any, outside of this building? We're
10 talking about the entire period -- well, you tell me what you know about
12 A. The military police had a part of its headquarters in Ljubuski.
13 Q. Was that throughout the period? I'm talking about the period
14 from October 1992 until November 1993.
15 A. I can't be quite sure whether it was at the beginning of October
16 1992, but in any event the Military Police Administration had some
17 offices in Ljubuski and others in the premises where the rest of us were
19 Q. Mr. Bozic, I have prepared two documents, which I think you have
20 already commented on, so I don't need to go back to them, but would you
21 look at the third document in your binder. It is document 2D 150.
22 A. Yes, I see it.
23 Q. Can we look at the number of employees in the Defence Department.
24 Tell me, please, to the best of your recollection, the administrations
25 and the offices and those employed in the offices of the Defence
1 Department were added to this number? In other words, the employees in
2 the Defence Department Administration and in the offices, are they
3 included in this number?
4 A. I think so.
5 Q. Mr. Bozic, I know this is an approximation - we never discuss
6 numbers - but could you, please, tell us -- as this was one of the
7 segments of your activities and which you supervised, could you tell us
8 how many employees could have been in the administrations and offices, or
9 if not, could you tell us, to the best of your recollection, how many
10 administrations and offices there were at the beginning of June?
11 A. As far as I can remember, there were four administrations, and
12 then another five were added in Zepce, and within them there were
13 offices. I don't dare give you the exact numbers, how many there were,
14 but those offices existed at the level of the municipalities where
15 municipal HVOs had been formed.
16 Q. So you can't give us an approximate number, whether this number
17 of 247 figuring in this document, you can't tell us roughly how many
18 employees there were?
19 A. I'm sorry. I don't know which employees you're referring to.
20 Q. I'm referring to the employees in the administrations and offices
21 of defence.
22 A. In any event, it depended from one municipality to another
23 because in one report that we saw, the numbers of employees differed
24 within the administrations or the defence offices.
25 Q. Very well. I won't insist on that. We will see later, if
2 Mr. Bozic, let me move on to another topic now.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very briefly, because time is
4 precious: On that document about staff, within the Department of Defence
5 there were 9 Muslims out of 247 people; is that a correct figure?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. According to these figures,
7 that is the number.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The 102nd and the 105th
9 Brigades, in June, June 1993, because this document bears the date of
10 June 1993, I can see that within those brigades the Muslims were in the
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, you're quite right,
13 Your Honour Judge Antonetti.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I also see that in June, if I
15 add up all the figures, that the HVO had 36.997, out of which 6.000 were
16 Muslims, that is, one-sixth. Does that reflect the figures that you had?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, because the document was
18 obviously compiled on the basis of data available to the Personnel
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One final question. The
21 Convicts Battalion, and maybe we will talk again about this battalion in
22 the future with all the witnesses still to come, I never noticed it
23 before, but there are 280 people comprising this battalion. There are
24 164 Croats and 116 Muslims, which means that the Convicts Battalion is
25 made up of Muslims -- that is, half of it is made up of Muslims, almost.
1 Does that reflect what you knew?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Around that, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
4 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, you asked about the
5 102nd and 105th Brigade. I just wish to point out that that will be the
6 topic of the testimony of the next witness, so we will be able to discuss
7 that with the next witness, so you have preempted my case.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] My apologies. I didn't know.
9 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] [Previous translation continues]...
10 glad that we will be able to provide more detailed answers to this
11 question of yours.
12 Q. Mr. Bozic, let me now move on, in view of my own time and the
13 Court's time, to cover a very important issue as quickly as possible,
14 something discussed both by my colleagues, the Prosecutor, and the
15 Judges; that is, the Defence Department.
16 You have the Defence Department board. You have told us what
17 that collegiate body dealt with and especially whether questions were
18 reviewed at those meetings that had to do with the use of the armed
19 forces. We will now cover all the collegiate bodies that we have.
20 Unfortunately, we don't have more. But at the end, I will ask you what
21 you know about the collegiate meetings that you attended and from which
22 we do not have any minutes. I will briefly ask you to look at each of
23 these meetings, and for the benefit of Their Honours, we will see which
24 were the topics reviewed at those meetings.
25 So let us look at 2D 1363. That is the next document. It is
1 minutes from a meeting held on the 23rd of November, 1992; is that right?
2 It is much more important, Mr. Bozic, for you to tell us what the
3 six agenda items were.
4 A. These are items relating to the organisation, the preparation of
5 certain documents, certain current issues, personnel issues, more or less
6 everything else that I would describe as administrative activities which
7 the Defence Department was supposed to engage in.
8 Q. In this text, we have an indication of who was present. We have
9 all the discussions, the conclusions. You attended this meeting. You
10 did have occasion to see, during the proofings, that this is part of the
11 subject matter reviewed at this meeting?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Look now at the next document, 2D 1443.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Here we have three agenda items: a decision on salary rates, a
16 decision on the acquisition of communications equipment for the
17 Communications Department of the Main Staff of the Armed Forces of HZ-HB,
18 and current matters. Mr. Bozic, can you confirm?
19 A. Yes. These are the topics that I described in answer to your
20 previous question about the previous collegium meetings.
21 Q. Mr. Bozic, can we look at the Document 2D 01444.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. This is minutes of the meeting of the collegium held on the 1st
24 of December, 1992?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. There are three agenda items?
2 A. Again, as I said before, topics relating to the administrative
3 segment of the activities of the Defence Department, or administration
4 profession, if you prefer to define it in that way.
5 Q. Let us look at the next document, D 00880.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Please look at all the agenda items carefully so that Their
8 Honours, the Judges, can review them, too, should they have any questions
9 to ask, so as not to be too hasty in your answers, what were the topics
10 discussed? It's P 00880. Thank you, and I'm sorry, P.
11 A. All 13 agenda items, including current issues, had to do with
12 administrative and professional activities which, in accordance with the
13 decree, were entrusted to the Defence Department.
14 Q. Look now at the minutes under P 01075.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'm also looking at this
16 document, and I'm wondering. You know we have a lot of questions, and we
17 always try to look for answers to our questions. It seems that the
18 Department of Defence, looking at this document, works with some kind of
19 a collegium, of which members regularly meet with an agenda. It is
20 presided over or chaired by Mr. Stojic. That's clear. And there are
21 several topics that are being discussed, among others, the appointment of
23 Now, when I look at this document with my glasses on my nose, I'm
24 wondering, what was the margin of manoeuvre of Mr. Stojic in relation to
25 that collegium? Was he completely dependant upon this group of people,
1 and was he just implementing the decisions made by this collective organ?
2 For instance, Judges, even when they disagree, they discuss matters and
3 then they take a decision as a collective organ. As a Judge, I'm sure
4 you know about that. In your opinion, first of all, since you took part
5 in such meetings, do you think that the head of the department and then
6 the minister of defence was the big boss? Was he making the decisions,
7 or was he just implementing the decisions made by the collegium?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, Your Honour
9 Judge Antonetti. The last part of your question was not precisely
10 interpreted for me.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I'll repeat the
12 last part of my question.
13 What I want to know is the following: As the head of the
14 department or as the minister, was Mr. Stojic the big boss, was he the
15 number 1, was he deciding about everything, as a leader would do, or in
16 fact was he limited to the decisions actually made by this collective
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour Judge Antonetti, at the
19 beginning of my testimony I said that the collegium was an informal body
20 which was not envisaged by any acts or documents, but the purpose of
21 holding meetings of the collegium was that all topics of interest for the
22 Defence Department and the preparation of documents and acts that were to
23 be adopted at the level of the HVO HZ-HB or the president of the HZ-HB,
24 should be discussed with the possibility of all members of the collegium
25 taking part, the aim being to reach the best possible proposals and
1 solutions that would then be further processed.
2 Mr. Stojic was head of the Defence Department. He headed that
3 department, but through this method of work all of us had the possibility
4 of taking an active part, especially in the preparation of certain
5 documents, as I just said, which were then further processed in
6 accordance with the regulations of the HZ-HB.
7 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Mr. Bozic, I will ask you some follow-up questions after His
9 Honour the Judge.
10 If the collegium reviewed certain issues and took a decision, was
11 this -- did this oblige all of those listed in the minutes? Did it mean
12 that they had to implement it, even if -- look at this document P 00880,
13 880, item 9, please, if you can find it. I'm just giving you this as an
14 example in connection with the question by His Honour Judge Antonetti.
15 It says here that the decision of the HVO Mostar, dated the 13th of
16 November, 1992, was reviewed, and it says that the collegium adopted the
17 following conclusion: The mentioned decision is contrary to the decree
18 on the take-over of JNA equipment within the territory of HZ-HB, and,
19 therefore, it should be annulled, and the person who passed it should be
20 informed as well as the HVO HZ-HB.
21 If such a decision were to be adopted at the collegium, would
22 that mean that such a conclusion of the collegium would be compulsory for
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And that was the case on a series of other issues, too, and
1 listing these collegium meetings we can see that. Sometimes they made
2 conclusions and certain individuals were tasked to do something; right?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. Fine. I think that brings us to document P 01075, and would you
5 please -- well, I'm going to ask you something there, but take a look at
6 the agenda and tell us whether they are the usual questions discussed.
7 A. Yes, more or less.
8 Q. Mr. Bozic, let's focus on current issues, and then it says
9 appointments to the Main Staff, and accommodation of the former Military
10 Medical Clinic, and proposal of establishment ranks, and insignia of
11 officials in the Defence Department. I wanted to discuss this topic with
12 you at greater length, but I didn't have time during my
13 examination-in-chief, but tell us, what ranks are these, establishment
14 ranks, and what was discussed here? And we'll see this at the following
15 collegium meetings, or maybe the previous ones; I'm not quite sure.
16 A. Let me repeat: I'm no military man, but as a lawyer working on
17 these affairs, when we received information as to individual units from
18 bottom to top and right up to the Main Staff level, then, along with the
19 post performed by a person, without stating the name and surname, the
20 establishment rank is set for that position; not for the individual, but
21 for the position. So that is a forerunner to the future activities as to
22 actually giving a rank. So this applies to the post, and that once
23 somebody takes up that post, that post equals a certain rank.
24 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Excuse me, Ms. Nozica. I would like to ask a
25 question referring to the previous matter, where you said, Mr. Bozic,
1 that the collegium took decisions that were binding for everyone.
2 I wonder, what's the legal basis for this affirmation? Where is
3 this set out?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour Judge Trechsel, I said
5 at the beginning that the collegium was an informal body, the formation
6 of which was not regulated by any act or document, and in that way they
7 wished to include all the close associates of Mr. Stojic to give them an
8 opportunity to take part in the discussions and debates, to give their
9 contribution as regards certain documents which would then go on through
10 the regular procedure and through the regular bodies.
11 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you. That's exactly my problem. I do not
12 see, really, how an informal body could take a decision that would be
13 legally binding on everyone, including, I must suppose, Mr. Stojic. Is
14 that really what you wanted to tell us? And if so, isn't there a problem
15 about the legal basis for this?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as the legal basis,
17 Your Honour Judge Trechsel, you're quite right, because we're talking
18 about the operative procedure here, and to all intents and purposes they
19 wanted to arrive at the best possible solution or, rather, proposal for a
20 certain act or document, which would then be passed through the regular
21 procedure. So when you say that, you're absolutely right, that there is
22 no provision that was in force at the time, but let me give you an
23 example, the provision about assigning military apartments, for example.
24 There were discussions at a number of collegiate meetings, and the
25 ultimate proposal agreed upon by the collegium was one that Mr. Stojic,
1 as head of the Defence Department, sent to the corresponding bodies of
2 the HVO HZ-HB, and they were acted upon, and procedure was unleashed. So
3 in this additional act, it does not say that this was the position of the
4 collegium but that the Defence Department was going to act upon the
6 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.
7 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Mr. Bozic, you worked for a long time as a lawyer. Was that the
9 only thing that you noticed which was not in conformity with what it said
10 in the rules and regulations, this difference between the de jure and
11 de facto? Was that a fairly frequent occurrence in the overall
12 establishment of the HZ-HB? Can you tell us briefly something about
13 that? And as we have very little time, then from the beginning of the
14 establishment to these unfortunate events or, rather, the beginning of
15 the war.
16 A. Well, I think I've repeated this a number of times during my
17 testimony over these six days, that it was a temporary organ of executive
18 power, that we were not able to attend all the changes with rules and
19 regulations, and I gave my example, that I was a member of the Commission
20 for Relations with UNPROFOR and worked with other international
21 organisations, as well, and very often the regulations weren't able to
22 follow the de facto events on the ground which were imposed by the
23 development of events generally.
24 Q. Let's look at the final set of minutes that we have,
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before we move on to this
2 document, let's have a look at the current one, P 1075. I am a bit like
3 Diogenes, who was walking in Athens with a lantern in daylight and he was
4 asked what he was doing, and he answered, I'm looking for a human, a
5 human being. I myself am looking for the truth. I'm the judicial
6 counterpart of this famous person, and I'm looking for the truth.
7 In this document, Mr. Akrap is mentioned, Zeljko Akrap. We've
8 already talked about him. The collegium assigned him to the position of
9 assistant within the Main Staff for training and education. Now, when I
10 read this, I wondered what it meant. I suppose that the head of the
11 Main Staff has plans in terms of education of soldiers and training. Why
12 would an informal body impose somebody, that is, Mr. Akrap? We already
13 know that he already had some responsibilities because an important
14 document, according to you, was signed by him, so could you please
15 explain to me how it all worked? How can an informal body impose to
16 Mr. Petkovic, in this example, how can it impose Mr. Akrap as an
17 assistant in charge of education and training?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour Judge Antonetti, we
19 would have to read the whole of that part of the text, where it says the
20 head, Mr. Stojic, informed the collegium that appointments are underway
21 to the Main Staff, so this is just a piece of information for the benefit
22 of the collegium, telling them that the Main Staff would be replenished
23 with the various individuals. But no decision was made here, but it was
24 just given as a piece of information.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I take note of what
1 you just said.
2 Ms. Nozica.
3 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I apologise, but I have a few more
4 questions, ten minutes at the most. Somebody has just told me that it
5 might be time for the break.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Would you like to have the
7 break now? Remember, this is going to be the last break. All right,
9 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] That would suit me, Your Honour, so
10 that I could take a look at the document related to your last question.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, if it's convenient for
12 you, very well. Let's have our break now, and you will go on with your
13 redirect. After that, we will allow the witness to go, and then we will
14 give the floor to Mr. Praljak and the other Defence for their part.
15 --- Recess taken at 5.00 p.m.
16 --- On resuming at 5.25 p.m.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, Ms. Nozica, you have the
18 floor. Therefore, the Praljak Defence to be able to do their part
19 properly, you have only ten minutes left.
20 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I'll do my best, Your Honour, to
21 wind up as soon as possible.
22 But before I continue with the topic that I started discussing,
23 I'd like to tell the Trial Chamber or draw their attention to the
24 decision on the internal establishment of the Defence Department.
25 P 02477 is the document number, and I'd like to look at point B. I don't
1 have time to do that, but I'd just like to draw your attention to that
2 because it concerned a question by Judge Antonetti, because it regulates
3 how and who elects all the individuals to the Main Staff.
4 Q. Mr. Bozic, you spoke about that when we analysed this document.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Now, just briefly take a look at the minutes from the collegium,
7 which is document P 04756, which is the next document in order.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. This is a meeting of the collegium of the 2nd of September, 1993,
10 and take a look at the agenda there for the meeting, and these minutes
11 are well known to us all.
12 A. My answer is the same as the previous one, that they were
13 subjects which came within the Defence Department's remit as professional
14 subjects to be dealt with by them.
15 Q. My learned friend of the Prosecution asked you about the military
16 prisons, and if we look at page 3 there, and Their Honours showed a great
17 deal of interest for what it says there, so I'm going to ask you,
18 Mr. Bozic, to read out what it says in these minutes, what Mr. Lucic said
19 at that meeting.
20 A. "I consider that we can't pass over the subject of the Dretelj
21 prison and the situation there and that it can do us a lot of harm. We
22 have to say exactly who stands behind those prisons, who is doing that,
23 and what steps we can take in that respect."
24 Q. Thank you. Yes, we can read the rest in the minutes and the
25 conclusions that were made. You testified about what was done pursuant
1 to this request, so we can now move on to the next document, 4D 00575.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Let me ask you first, Mr. Bozic, whether you've ever seen this
4 document before.
5 A. No.
6 Q. Can we take note together that it is signed by Mr. Blaskic?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. On the 6th of December, 1993; right?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And that it is addressed to the Supreme commander Mate Boban?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Now, you were asked by the Prosecutor about the investigation
13 into Ahmici. Would you read out the fourth paragraph of this document?
14 What does it say?
15 A. "The Ahmici case has been completed according to your
16 instructions, and video footage has been forwarded to the chief of the
17 VOS of the Main Staff, the HR-HB HVO-GS, Mr. Zarko Kesim [phoen]."
18 Q. Mr. Bozic, did you know then or later that Mate Boban gave
19 instructions to Mr. Blaskic to conduct an investigation or to do anything
20 else with respect to the Ahmici case?
21 A. No, I did not know that. And I see this document for the first
22 time, and from it I am able to learn those facts.
23 Q. Thank you. I'd now like to ask you to take a look at the last
24 document in my binder, which is document P 7892.
25 On page 2 of the Croatian text, we have the part that you were
1 questioned about by my learned friend of the Prosecution, and it refers
2 to the outbreak of the conflict between the HVO and the BH Army on the
3 24th of October, 1992, and that the minister of defence, Bruno Stojic,
4 ordered that the team return to the area of Central Bosnia, and it says
5 upon returning, the group submitted a report.
6 I'm going to ask you first whether you've ever seen this report
7 or a report of this kind by Bruno Stojic.
8 A. No, never. I never saw a report, and I saw this report for the
9 first time when shown by the Prosecutor.
10 Q. Now, on e-court, that we have P 10028, the next document I'd like
11 us to look at.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Let me stress straightaway that it is not my intention to tender
14 this document, but I'm going to read out to you, Mr. Bozic, a part of
15 that document, and it is the statement given before the Court by
16 Mr. Petkovic in the Blaskic trial, and I'm going to refer to page 24177
17 of the transcript, and I'm going to read out what he says there. And as
18 far as I know, Mr. Petkovic was answering a question from Mr. Scott, and
19 I'm going to read the portion which relates to this particular report,
20 and then I'll ask you a question.
21 The question was this:
22 "I would like to ask you to be provided with a Defence exhibit,
23 Defence Exhibit D 250. It's in Zagreb. It's a report from the Vitezovi
24 about their work during 1992 and 1993. Take a look at the second page of
25 the Croatian version and the second paragraph there, and I'm going to
1 read it out:
2 "'After the outbreak of the conflict between the HVO and the
3 BH Army on the 24th of October, 1992, the minister of defence,
4 Bruno Stojic, the group returned an order telling them to return to the
5 area of SB. Upon its return, the group tabled a report, and the number
6 of the report is 1078/92, of the 24th of October, 1992.'
7 "General, Bruno Stojic did issue orders, even for such large
8 movements of units."
9 And then it says:
10 "There's an interruption. We've lost the connection. Have you
11 heard my question?"
12 And all we have is Mr. Petkovic's answer:
13 "I'm going to give you an explanation. This was at the time when
14 preparations were underway or, rather, when the operation called 'Bura'
15 was underway in the Neretva River Valley, Storm, 'Bura,' and that was at
16 the end of October and about the 11th of November, and first of all, I
17 set the Vitezovi into motion from their deployment in Grude or, rather,
18 in the area of Herzegovina. Similarly, I set other forces into motion
19 from the OZ of Tomislavgrad which I considered they could set aside and
20 join up for executing this operation. As far as I remember, the return
21 of all the units to their previous positions I regulated with my order.
22 I don't know what order of Bruno Stojic it was for them to return because
23 I remember very well especially the units of the Tomislavgrad Military
24 District and the rest, which were outside the OZ of Mostar, which I
25 returned on the basis of my order.
1 "Now, there is no mention here of the number of the order by
2 Bruno Stojic. Therefore, I cannot claim that Stojic actually issued
3 orders, and I claim that I personally ordered the units to depart and to
4 return, those units who had taken part in Operation Bura."
5 Now, the question is this:
6 "Can you explain" --
7 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I only have two short paragraphs,
8 rather, three, to read out, and then I'll ask two questions, and that
9 will be all. I'll finish with that, Your Honour:
10 Q. "Can you explain how it was that Bruno Stojic, in addition to
11 you, issued an order, or can't you do that?"
12 "I cannot refer to Bruno Stojic's order because I haven't got the
13 number of the order here. All I know is that on the basis of my own
14 order, I moved the Vitezovi and the other units from the Military
15 District of Tomislavgrad. I invited them to join the Bura operation."
16 Now, my question linked to this document is as follows,
17 Mr. Bozic: Do you happen to remember what the Bura operation was at the
18 end of 1992, in the months that are stipulated here, "Bura" being
20 A. I can't be sure, but I think it was during the war against the
21 Serb side.
22 Q. All right, thank you. And now my last question: Mr. Bozic, did
23 you ever hear - and you started saying something about this - whether --
24 or do you know whether -- whether the crimes were processed, crimes
25 carried out against the Croats, in a place called Radesine, because you
1 mentioned them, and Trusina, and Grabovica, and Doljani? What is your
2 knowledge about that today, so many years after the events, after the
3 crimes that were committed against the Croats?
4 A. As far as I know, unfortunately, there were no proceedings
5 against any of the cases that took place either in Radesine or Trusina or
6 Doljani. They were not processed, and as far as I learnt from the media,
7 at Grabovica the direct perpetrators were taken to task but never the
8 organisers or initiators, and my answer to your question is my own
9 assessment and evaluation that I have already put forward when I spoke
10 about the different relationship of individual representatives of the
11 International Community towards the good guys and the bad guys, and
12 unfortunately, what happened was this: I'm not going to call them crimes
13 because it's up to the Court to decide whether it was a crime, but these
14 criminal actions were never processed, and I'm even more worried and
15 concerned about the fact that I know that The Hague investigators worked
16 to establish and uncover all these incidents in the Konjic area, and I
17 know that because I personally helped those individuals, and if need be
18 I can mention their names, the names of The Hague investigators who
19 worked -- who did their work, their research work, in the Konjic area
20 dating back to that period.
21 Q. Mr. Bozic, it would be very interesting to hear about your
22 experiences. Unfortunately, my time has expired, so thank you for your
23 answers during my redirect. Thank you.
24 A. Thank you, too.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kovacic for Mr. Praljak.
1 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] I hope, Your Honours, that you will
2 allow me to put some leading questions because things will proceed much
3 more quickly if I do.
4 Re-examination by Mr. Kovacic:
5 Q. Your name is Mr. Slobodan Bozic, isn't it?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Sometime in December 2005, you made a statement to an
8 investigator who was working for the Praljak Defence; is that right?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. You have that paper in front of you. Will you please look at
11 that document, especially the last page which you signed.
12 A. Yes, I had my signature verified with the notary.
13 Q. Is this your statement, and do you abide by it as a whole, and is
14 it entirely correct and complete in answer to the questions put to you?
15 A. Yes, I abide by my statement fully.
16 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Let us state for the
17 record the number of this statement, which Mr. Bozic handed in. It is
18 3D 03261, and it has been distributed to everyone in the courtroom.
19 Your Honours, I have no further questions for this witness, and I
20 will ask for this statement to be tendered into evidence.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, in accordance with
22 Article 92 ter, you have asked a number of questions to the witness, and
23 you have asked for the document to be put into the file. The other
24 Defence counsel that have looked at this document, well, do they have any
25 questions to raise in the form of cross-examination?
1 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the Defence of
2 General Petkovic is the first, according to our internal order. We have
3 no questions for this witness in connection with this statement. Thank
5 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your
6 Honours. The Defence of Mr. Coric has no questions either. Thank you.
7 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. We
8 have no questions.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, we're going --
10 MR. KARNAVAS: No questions, Mr. President, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let me end with the two others.
12 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. No, we
13 have no questions. Thank you.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, let me ask my colleagues
15 before giving you the floor, Mr. Scott. Let me ask my colleagues whether
16 they have any questions to raise.
17 No questions.
18 Mr. Scott.
19 MR. SCOTT: Good evening, Your Honours. Without giving any
20 indication at all that we accept the evidence of this witness on this
21 point or agreeing with any of it, which much of it we don't, we have no
22 questions for the witness.
23 Thank you.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Well, thank you to
25 all of the persons who took part in this. The Chamber will give its
1 decision on this document after having discussed it among ourselves.
2 Witness, I had some fears at the beginning of the week. These
3 fears have now suddenly disappeared, and thanks to the speed of everyone
4 concerned, this will allow you to go back home, back to your activities
5 and country. And on behalf of my colleagues, I'd like to wish you a very
6 pleasant return trip. I hope this will take place as pleasantly as
7 possible, in spite of the storm, the rain and the wind. I'm sure this
8 won't get in your way. And I wish you every success with your
9 professional activities and duties.
10 Let me ask the usher to take you out of the room now.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I wish
12 you, too, success in your work, good health to everyone, and
13 General Petkovic's early return, and I thank the Trial Chamber for making
14 it possible for me to answer all questions as a witness of justice. Now,
15 to what extent I was a credible witness is something that only you can
16 decide. Thank you.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
18 [The witness withdrew]
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
20 Ms. Nozica, now, for your witness tomorrow, unless he's already
21 here, which would surprise me somewhat -- he isn't here, is he?
22 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, yes, it would really be
23 too much of an effort if he hadn't already arrived. He is here and he
24 will come into the courtroom, and I will be examining him tomorrow for
25 two hours.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You have set aside two hours,
2 the other Defence counsel have one hour, and Mr. Scott will have two
3 hours too.
4 Since we now have a few minutes left, we could take a look at the
5 following week. There's no problem there. We will have the witnesses on
6 time, will we, Ms. Nozica?
7 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours. As far as I can
8 remember, next week we'll be working for three days. I think that is so.
9 We have a break for one day. The witness will be here. He will be
10 examined for three hours. That is what I assume. He hasn't come yet. I
11 assume that everything will be in order. The direct will take about
12 three hours, and for that reason I expect that we will be able to
13 complete his testimony over those three days.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] With Mr. Bandic, have you been
15 able to consult with him, to talk about his schedule, because he had
16 his -- well, Defence counsel for General Petkovic had expressed the need
17 for Mr. Petkovic to be here when Mr. Bandic comes, so that automatically
18 delayed things, so were you able to look at this issue of the forecasted
20 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I have been in
21 contact with my colleague Ms. Alaburic. We have moved Mr. Bandic's
22 testimony. As far as I can remember, we have postponed it to somewhere
23 between the 15th and the 16th, but we are ready to make new schedules.
24 We wish good health for Mr. Petkovic, that he may return as soon as
25 possible. If he should return later than the date that we have planned,
1 we will be informed about it. Mr. Petkovic's Defence counsel will inform
2 us of this, and we will delay the witness until Mr. Petkovic is able to
3 join us in the courtroom.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Well, we have had some
5 good news about Mr. Petkovic, and through me the Chamber wishes to wish
6 him a speedy recovery, and we will ask Ms. Alaburic to express those
8 I would -- Mr. Prosecutor, yes, go ahead.
9 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, I didn't want to interrupt the Chamber's
10 agenda, and I was only rising that -- if it was at the end, that there
11 was something I'd wanted to address briefly, but only if the Chamber --
12 only if you, Mr. President --
13 Thank you, Mr. President. I did want to use a couple of moments
14 of time. Mr. Khan addressed the Chamber at some length this afternoon,
15 and I did indicate at that time, I think correctly so, that I would not
16 have any comments unless they were in response to Mr. Khan, and I'm now
17 going to use only a small part of the time that Mr. Khan used in stating
18 his concerns to the Chamber, and I just want to say this, that in certain
19 respects --
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, Mr. Scott. First
21 of all, I'm sorry to interrupt you. The Chamber wanted to express its
22 wishes for prompt recovery to Mr. Petkovic first.
23 Ms. Alaburic, would you like that to be done confidentially, and
24 I will redact that, or is there no mystery about this?
25 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, first of all, I wish
1 to thank you for your best wishes, which I will convey to
2 General Petkovic. In view of the fact that we didn't enter into the
3 details regarding his condition, I don't think there's any need for
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.
6 Mr. Scott, and so you want to react to what Mr. Khan said. I
7 don't know what about. I certainly hope you're not going to light the
8 fires of the issues again.
9 MR. SCOTT: I do, as well, Your Honour, and I've taken that,
10 believe it or not, into consideration because given the hour and probably
11 the desire for those in the courtroom to perhaps be able to leave a bit
12 early this evening.
13 Nonetheless, and my comments will be short, I do disagree with
14 some of the comments that Mr. Khan made, with great respect. I think it
15 is the role of a judge to exercise control over witnesses, when a witness
16 is unresponsive, when a witness is not assisting in the search for the
17 truth. I think it's absolutely the correct role and function of a judge
18 to intervene, and in fact, there have been several times this week in
19 which both you, Mr. President, and Judge Trechsel have intervened when
20 the witness -- when a witness has been unresponsive, when there has been
21 wasted time by the witness, and I absolutely support both you, Mr.
22 President, and you, Judge Trechsel. And if Judge Mindua were to do it
23 and if Judge Prandler were to do it, my response would be the same. It
24 is absolutely an appropriate -- in fact, it is one of the express
25 functions of a judge to control the courtroom and to direct the witnesses
1 when the witness is not behaving appropriately, and I think the
2 interventions that both you made, Mr. President, and Judge Trechsel made
3 were absolutely appropriate, and I thank you for it.
4 Thank you.
5 MR. KARNAVAS: I do want to say something, Mr. President, in
6 light of one of the words that was used by Mr. Scott.
7 "The witness is acting inappropriately." I don't believe in any
8 instance that this witness acted inappropriately. Well, that could -- I
9 leave that up to you, Judge Prandler -- I mean Judge Trechsel. I mean, I
10 do understand that there is a need to control. However, there's also the
11 need to be perceived of being even-handed and to strike a particular
12 balance at times, and I do think that when members of the Bench use a
13 particular tone or use particular words, you know, in certain ways, it
14 could give the wrong impression.
15 As I understood Mr. Khan, I support his submissions in the sense
16 that what he was trying to say, at least as I understood him, was we all
17 need to strive to strike the appropriate balance, and when remarks are
18 being made by members of the Bench to the witnesses, because the public
19 is watching and because it may have a chilling effect particularly on
20 Defence witnesses, it's -- we all need to be rather careful on how we
21 phrase our remarks and the tone that we use. I don't think that it was
22 meant in any way to disrespect, and I did notice, Judge Trechsel, that
23 you shook your head. Obviously, you disbelieved the witness. Maybe you
24 think he was trying to lie. Maybe you've discredited him already in your
25 mind and you don't intend to give him any weight. I don't know. But it
1 certainly says -- the behaviour that I saw, based on my saying I thought
2 he acted -- he did not act inappropriately, gives one the perception, and
3 it's all about perceptions, and we're not playing poker. This is -- you
4 know, these gentlemen are here, and they watch everything, and they talk
5 to us, and they put a great deal of pressure on us to react. And we
6 don't react every time they perceive a particular slight or an injustice,
7 but what I am trying to say, Judge Trechsel and Your Honours, is that
8 perceptions do matter. And, you know, I'll be the first one to admit
9 that my tone at times is inappropriate or that my word choice at times
10 could be much better, but I don't think that when one of us stands up and
11 makes a particular submission that it's done out of ill will. We're
12 simply trying to convey our thoughts because our clients are extremely
13 concerned, and I think that's all that was meant, and I don't think that
14 the witness acted inappropriately. He may not have acted as responsively
15 as some might think he should have. That's for them to decide. I don't
16 know. A lot of things get lost in translation. A lot of these people --
17 this gentleman is still a suspect. He remains a suspect, so it could be
18 that he's also trying to choose his words very carefully. Who knows?
19 But, in any event, I do think that the submission made by
20 Mr. Khan is one that is shared, at least by me, and I don't think that it
21 was meant in any ill way. It was not meant to disrespect anyone.
22 Thank you.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
24 Now, what I wanted to say was when you are a judge in this type
25 of case, a very extended case, years and months are going by, it's very
1 long, very exhausting, and we are overwhelmed by a mass of documents.
2 You're well aware of that. You know that we have to take decisions about
3 admissibility of documents. We look at each document in turn. You saw
4 that in the decisions, sometimes Judges do agree, sometimes they don't
5 agree between themselves, and that, of course, compels them to be very
6 careful indeed when looking at the documents. So when you look at these
7 documents with such attention, well, that means that the Judges have
8 knowledge of the basis. We see witnesses coming in years -- up to 15
9 years after the events, and you know that sometimes you can't rely on
10 people's memories. I, myself, am sometimes at a loss as to what I said
11 in a meeting 3 years ago, let alone 15 years.
12 And so what do we have? We have the witness's memory. And we
13 have the documents. On the basis of the documents, we try to understand
14 the scope, meaning of the document, to understand what the objective of
15 the document was; and what we see, thanks to the help of the lawyers, is
16 that we are faced with issues relating to translation.
17 Yesterday, I called your -- the witness's and everybody's
18 attention to the way in which certain words had been translated in B/C/S,
19 and we have to be extremely wary of this, and I'd like to urge the
20 lawyers who speak both languages to be very careful, and when they see
21 that there is something wrong, to draw our attention to this because
22 translation can sometimes have serious consequences.
23 And I, myself, and my colleagues here try to uncover the truth by
24 raising questions. Sometimes we're able to do that; sometimes not. In
25 any case, we must not give in. Every time there is a document and a
1 witness, we look at the document and we ask the questions that we believe
2 are appropriate.
3 We can make mistakes. Perhaps we ask questions sometimes that
4 are not relevant. It's very difficult. You realise, of course, that we
5 discover or look at these documents at the very last moment. As
6 Ms. Nozica handed over her binder, there were a number of documents there
7 that we had never seen before, and we have to, of course, react quickly,
8 at which stage, of course, we take a close look at these documents.
9 It could well be, and I agree with Mr. Karnavas and Mr. Scott,
10 indeed, we are all under the pressure of time. Time is speeding by.
11 Sometimes there is some ill temper. Myself, I sometimes am somewhat
12 impatient because of the pressure of time, and we try to concentrate on
13 important issues, and sometimes we simply don't understand why certain
14 questions are raised, what their purpose is, and after 25 or 35 minutes,
15 finally we end up by understanding; sometimes not, on the other hand.
16 Perhaps that is one of the routes of some ill humour, but that's
18 The trial is a very long one. We're overwhelmed by the number of
19 documents. The implications are considerable, as you well know, and we
20 also need your assistance, both the OTP and the Defence, to try to
21 elucidate the truth. In any case, we make every effort, and we certainly
22 hope that the climate will be better, that we are here to solve problems.
23 We do solve some, perhaps not all, but we do our very best so that
24 everyone can take the floor, that the counsel get the impression that the
25 work they do is taken into account by the Judges, and that OTP also gets
1 the impression that it is listened to, and who more than this Chamber has
2 given to the OTP the same amount of time as Defence, so OTP has time for
3 cross-examination. We try to listen to absolutely everybody.
4 The best system, of course, would be for Judges to directly ask
5 the accused questions. Now, the Regulations do not allow that. I,
6 personally, am looking forward to Mr. Praljak and Mr. Petkovic as
7 witnesses. I'm preparing for that, and that's been going on for some
8 time, and you will see at that stage that the questions will concentrate
9 on what is essential, and I will do my very best so that what comes out
10 is relevant.
11 I, myself, and my colleagues make every effort to carefully
12 listen to all parties and to take decisions when the time comes on the
13 basis of as much information as possible. We could simply rest on our
14 laurels and wait until people intervene, and then a few months from now
15 there will be a judgement that will come out of the blue, as it were. We
16 could do that, but that is not how I see justice, not international
17 criminal justice. I think that Judges should ask questions as set out in
18 the Rules of Procedure. We don't want to destroy cross-examination.
19 Cross-examination does have value, but there can be neutral questions
20 from the Judges, there can be ones that are complementary to the
21 cross-examination or to direct questioning, or even after redirect, so
22 that everyone is in a position to appreciate the scope of the questions
23 raised by the Judges.
24 Perhaps my colleagues would like to add something to that.
25 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Almost immediately, I would have left it at
1 that, but I think it might be misinterpreted if I did not answer the
2 attacks waged against me by Mr. Karnavas, in particular.
3 I thoroughly disagree with his appreciation of the way this
4 witness responded, and I invite him to look at the transcript and
5 critically examine how many times the witness did really answer the
6 questions put by the Prosecution and how many times he simply did not.
7 But I want to say something more constructive. I would really
8 invite Defence teams to prepare their witnesses also for
9 cross-examination and to tell them what we have heard so many times from
10 Mr. Karnavas' mouth; namely, that unpleasant as it may be, that the
11 cross-examiner, who may be Defence counsel or the Prosecution, has the
12 right to ask questions that narrow down to a clear alternative, where the
13 answer is yes; no; I don't know; I don't remember. It would really,
14 I think, make the work of this Court much easier if witnesses would
15 conform to that.
16 I quite agree that there are cases where it is not really
17 possible to say yes or no. I absolutely accept that. But basically as a
18 rule, it is -- and as the Defence in cross-examination have insisted on
19 this, I think it is correct that the Prosecution equally insists on
20 exactly the same attitude by counsel, and sometimes - this has happened
21 quite a number of times - when there is no response to the admonitions of
22 the Prosecution, someone from the Bench will help out and recall that
23 this is not a bad will of the Prosecution but that it is what the rules
24 of the game ask.
25 That's all, thank you.
1 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, there was no intention to attack you.
2 You keep saying that I've waged attacks against you. I think making an
3 observation is not an attack, nor is making a record an attack, and so if
4 it was perceived in that fashion, I truly apologise. That wasn't the
5 intention, certainly.
6 I firmly believe that Judges are allowed and should be allowed to
7 ask questions. I don't have a problem. I don't think Mr. Khan has a
8 problem or anybody else. We did make an observation, but an observation
9 doesn't turn out to be an attack. But, you know, as I've indicated, we
10 are dealing in a courtroom where perceptions do matter, at least to some
11 of us, and to our clients especially, and it behooves us to at least
12 bring certain matters to everyone's attention so that we could have a
13 fair trial, not just -- you know, both perception-wise, but also at the
14 end of the day. But I certainly apologise if my observations seemed to
15 be an attack. Normally -- I certainly didn't object earlier, and I
16 certainly don't intend to -- my comments to be an attack.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] To follow up on the
18 intervention of my colleague, who is absolutely right: When you speak to
19 your clients -- to your witnesses, I mean, I think you need to explain to
20 them how their testimony is going to happen. I think you have to explain
21 to them that they are going to be cross-examined, that the Judges will
22 ask questions that are different in form to the question asked by the
23 Prosecutor, but that during the cross-examination the Prosecutor will
24 develop his own thesis because he's looking for specific answers, and
25 sometimes he will want a yes, a no, or I don't know. The Prosecutor
1 through his questions is trying to develop his own case, his own theory,
2 and you have to inform your witnesses about it. Of course, the witnesses
3 you call are intellectuals. Many of them were ministers or high-ranking
4 officials. These people are intelligent people, and it is obvious that
5 for an intellectual to say just yes or no is always difficult because as
6 an intellectual they always stand to explain a yes or a no or maybe to
7 qualify their statements. You have to explain to them. You have to tell
8 them that the Prosecutor will develop specific arguments. If they agree,
9 they say yes; if they don't, they say no. And if the Prosecutor is
10 looking for additional information, then he will ask follow-up questions,
11 but you can trust the Judges, of course, and they will also ask follow-up
12 questions, if need be.
13 But you have to prepare your witnesses because it is exhausting
14 for a witness to stay here for six sessions, four hours a day,
15 twenty-five hours of questioning, non-stop questioning, that is. This is
16 very tiring, of course. I'm convinced that the witness, when he leaves
17 this Tribunal after a whole week, he's exhausted, intellectually,
18 psychologically, because he's always listening to the questions that are
19 put to him. He may be tense, and it's very tiring for him. That's why
20 you have to try and minimise his stress as much as possible at the very
21 beginning. I try to do so. I try to explain to the witness how things
22 are going to unfold, but it's very difficult. If it was only 15 minutes
23 or 20 minutes of questions, it would be okay, but it's more than that,
24 and, also, there is the cross-examination, and the cross-examination is
25 difficult for a witness. That's why you have to explain to your
1 witnesses how things are going to happen because they have to know what
2 they can expect.
3 Well, I think you do. I think you do prepare your witnesses, but
4 this is a recommendation from the Bench, and you have to explain even
5 better because otherwise the Prosecutor will say, You haven't provided an
6 answer to my question. Then you will jump on your feet and say -- and
7 object to what's going on. It's better if the witness says no or
8 something else, and then of course there can always be follow-up
10 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Yes, I heard that Mr. Praljak wanted
11 to say something, but he let me speak first.
12 I feel as if I have been called on to say something, as this is
13 the case -- the Defence case for Mr. Stojic. I just wish to say that we
14 absolutely do that with all the witnesses. We prepare them for
15 everything that may happen in the courtroom, but we don't bring here
16 abstract witness. We don't bring a concept of a witness. We bring here
17 a human being who shows his reactions as a human being, and for me this
18 is absolutely reasonable. We had similar witnesses during the
19 Prosecution case; again, the reactions were similar to the
21 But I have to observe that I notice a remark by His Honour
22 Judge Trechsel which does concern me, and that is whether this witness
23 answered directly or not, and I was concerned by this, as it was in the
24 transcript. There's a certain opinion expressed by Judge Trechsel. But
25 when talking about what you just mentioned, Judge Antonetti, we have to
1 assess not only the way the witness answers but also the way in which the
2 question is put to him.
3 I am also a temperamental person, and if a simple question is put
4 to me in a reasonable manner, even though it may be unpleasant, I will
5 provide a simple answer. But if an individual is attacked by the
6 question, then as a lawyer I have no right to expect him to be calm.
7 So rest assured that we give our witnesses all the necessary
8 information, but once they enter the courtroom, they are there in front
9 of you, and it would be quite wrong to expect them to be puppets who have
10 learned their lesson. They react in the way they feel they should.
11 JUDGE PRANDLER: Thank you, Mr. President.
12 Since this a question of the Judges and the procedure had come up
13 today and this evening, quite a very important question as it is, I would
14 also like to add my own voice on that issue.
15 Definitely, I do agree in general what both the Presiding Judge
16 Judge Antonetti said this afternoon, I mean now when we are discussing
17 this issue, and also in general what Judge Trechsel explained. I do feel
18 that, of course, the Judges have a right to ask questions, as
19 Judge Antonetti used to say, at any moment, according to the Rules of
20 Procedure and Evidence, although myself, as you know, I would also prefer
21 to have the questions mainly to be put, if necessary, at a later stage,
22 mainly towards the end of the hearings and the audience in general.
23 On the other hand, I also would like to say that I didn't find
24 the remarks and position explained by Mr. Karnavas here as offensive
25 against Judge Trechsel, although, of course, he may have criticised some
1 of the positions and questions which were raised, but on the other hand I
2 also would like to emphasise that the Judges' questions should not be, in
3 a way, analysed as if they were one-sided. You have to believe us, that
4 we are here for the administration of justice and with equal goodwill
5 concerning -- and towards the parties concerned, and if we are asking
6 questions, it is always led by the desire to establish the truth.
7 And as Judge Antonetti also mentioned this afternoon, even if we,
8 as we are humans, and everybody may make some mistake or a reference
9 which could be misinterpreted, it shouldn't be taken as a kind of bad
10 faith on behalf of the Judge or Judges concerned, but it is - again, I
11 would like to emphasise - it is our good-faith duty to ask questions in
12 order to establish the truth and in order to administer justice.
13 So it is what I would like to underline, and although we know the
14 saying that it is important not only to be fair but to look like to be
15 fair, as well, also in this case I do admit that truth in that saying;
16 but on the other hand, we should not always try to find in our questions
17 and statements a kind of -- a bit of ill wish that would bring us against
18 the interests of the accused. It is not our intention, not the intention
19 of the Bench, and you may trust in our good intentions, as we trust in
20 the good intentions of all the parties concerned here in this
21 [indiscernible], as we used to say.
22 So it is what I would like to explain, and I really feel that we
23 shouldn't lose so much time with procedural questions. As you know, I am
24 very much concerned about that, and I would like to have that the process
25 is going to be led and going to be continued to the satisfaction of the
1 parties concerned.
2 Thank you.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
4 Mr. Praljak wanted the floor, I believe.
5 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour
6 Judge Antonetti. Good afternoon to you other Judges.
7 If you remember, a few months ago I asked something about some
8 technical matters, the statements collected by my team, statements from
9 the witnesses. My excellent Defence counsel, Kovacic and Nika, do give
10 me answers, but sometimes I doubted -- well, I didn't know how and in
11 what way the statements that took a lot of effort to collect, 180
12 statements, for example, and then this had to be repeated again because
13 the Registry didn't want to give us certificates saying they were
14 authentic statements. They say, Now, you in the Balkans have a right to
15 go to a notary and so on to get them certified, and then we'll see. So
16 we had to do this all over again, and as this requires a lot of time,
17 money, and effort -- now, Judge Antonetti, I asked you during my -- well,
18 the time for my Defence case is drawing near. Am I going to -- well, I
19 counted 33 seconds to say good afternoon or good morning, this is you, is
20 that your statement, goodbye. Many of the statements have already been
21 translated. The Prosecution has staff members who understand Croatian.
22 So I get good answers but not good final answers, and I don't know what's
23 going to happen in actual fact.
24 So even if we are talking about procedural law, and I'm not
25 involving myself in that, I don't pretend to do so, but there's a lot of
1 time lost on that, which means that not everything has been -- got
2 through, so I wanted to ask that we don't get mixed up and entwined in
3 witnesses and who has how much time and so on, that we could decide these
4 matters in advance.
5 Thank you.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, indeed, you've
7 submitted the motions for the admissibility of certain statements. The
8 Chamber, and I don't have the decision with me, but the Chamber has
9 rejected the various statements that you wanted to be admitted into
10 evidence. The Chamber decided in its decision that it was premature.
11 We'd rather have your witnesses here, and those witnesses will cover the
12 main elements of your arguments.
13 Then you said that you would testify, so we'll hear your
14 testimony, which will probably corroborate a certain number of issues,
15 and then you will request the admission under 92 bis; maybe not of the
16 180 because that's a huge number - I don't know how many there are - but
17 those which will come and complement the statements of your own witnesses
18 or maybe of your own testimony.
19 For the time being, we have 92 bis motions, but we don't really
20 know in what kind of structure these statements will come and be
21 tendered, so for the time being we decided that we would tell you this is
22 a premature motion. We will wait until we hear your own witnesses,
23 hoping that those witnesses will come and complement your own case, your
24 own thesis. You said there were 180. I'm not entirely sure. I haven't
25 checked the number. If there are 180, that would be a record because I
1 don't think that in any case before, any party, whether the Prosecution
2 or the Defence, has ever submitted 180 under 92 bis. It would be a world
3 record, indeed. But if it's necessary for your own Defence, why not?
4 Let's wait and see.
5 Read the decision that we issued in which we explain what we want
6 to do, and once we've heard your witnesses, once we've heard your
7 testimony, maybe Mr. Kovacic and yourself will again ask for the
8 admission of those 180, explaining that such statement is corroborating
9 such and such an argument as it relates to such and such part of the
10 indictment, and then we will review our decision.
11 This is what I wanted to say to reassure you, but also to let you
12 know that we are very attentive to this matter.
13 On a personal note, I'd like to tell you, Mr. Praljak, but also
14 talking to everybody else, the accused has the right to remain silent in
15 these proceedings. Most of the time, you remain silent. In a two-month
16 or three-month trial, silence, why not? But in a multi-year trial, I
17 understand your position. Remain silent and sit back and wait, it must
18 be for you very difficult, and I do understand sometimes you feel the
19 need or the desire to take the floor and express your feelings, express a
20 complaint. I do understand. I understand fully because in a criminal
21 case the [indiscernible] is very difficult. The balance is very
22 difficult. Everybody must have the feeling that he can be listened to.
23 However, unfortunately, I didn't draft the Rules. I wasn't there
24 when the Rules were drafted, but there is in the Rules a sacred
25 principle, i.e., that the accused can remain silent and must remain
1 silent. In other countries, in my country, for instance, when the
2 accused is here, judges are allowed and free to ask questions to the
3 accused. Here, another system was put in place, i.e., the accused must
4 remain silent except when he testified as a witness. Of course, it means
5 that you cannot take the floor freely, that you can only speak within the
6 framework of the decision issued by the Trial Chamber. You've tried to
7 quash that decision, but it was confirmed by the Appeals Chamber, and
8 I can understand that you feel frustrated.
9 It must be difficult for you to be there, to attend your trial,
10 to hear the witnesses, to attend the cross-examinations, and to have to
11 remain silent. That I fully understand, but that's the way it is,
13 I hope you understand, too, it will get better after you've
14 testified. We've used a D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6 system. If with started
15 with D3, of course, it might have been better for you. Unfortunately,
16 that's the way we did things.
17 That's all I wanted to say to you, Mr. Praljak.
18 Okay, we will break now. Tomorrow we will resume at 2.15, and I
19 will have the pleasure to see you all again tomorrow.
20 Have a good evening.
21 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.26 p.m.,
22 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 11th day of
23 February, 2009, at 2.15 p.m.