1 Tuesday, 17 March, 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The accused Prlic not present]
5 [The accused Pusic not present]
6 --- Upon commencing at 9.01 a.m.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, could you call
8 the case, please.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning
10 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case number IT-04-74-T,
11 the Prosecutor versus Jadranko Prlic et al. Thank you, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar. On
13 this Tuesday, 17th of March, 2009, I greet the counsels, particularly
14 Ms. Nozica. I greet Mr. Stringer and his colleagues. And I do not
15 forget to greet all of those who have -- who are assisting us,
16 Mr. Registrar, Mr. Usher, and as soon as the witness has his headphones
17 on, Your Excellency, I greet you, for the ordnance of today. First of
18 all, I'll give the floor to the Registrar who has two IC numbers to give
20 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, Your Honours. 2D has submitted its
21 objections to Prosecution's list of documents tendered through witness
22 Hamid Bahto. It has also submitted its response to Prosecution's
23 objections to its documents tendered through Tihomir Majic. These lists
24 shall be given number IC952 and IC953 respectively. Thank you, Your
1 [The witness takes the stand]
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, thank you
3 Mr. Registrar.
4 The Trial Chamber is going to hand out an oral decision. As you
5 know, the Defence team for General Petkovic requested additional time.
6 The Trial Chamber invited General Petkovic's Defence team to send us,
7 during the night, its written submission, which we have received this
9 The request is entitled "confidential and ex parte." The Trial
10 Chamber deliberated this morning before coming into court and feels that
11 there is no need to listen to the position of other Defence teams or that
12 of the Prosecution regarding the allocation of time which was indicated
13 in the guide-lines. The Trial Chamber feels that given the guide-lines
14 in practice, the Chamber gives 50 per cent of the time to the other
15 Defence teams when a witness via the request of the Prosecution. It is
16 possible that under very exceptional circumstances, the Trial Chamber
17 proves flexible and changes this allocation of time. The Trial Chamber
18 wants to remind everyone that it is up to every single party to put the
19 matter before us long in advance when it has been given the summaries for
20 the requests for additional time so that the Trial Chamber can scrutinize
21 the requests and hand out decisions in the matter.
22 The Trial Chamber indicates that in this particular case, the
23 matter was put before it belatedly, first of all orally yesterday and
24 this was confirmed by a written submission yesterday. Exceptionally, the
25 Trial Chamber has decided to examine the merits of this request and to
1 make a decision on this request.
2 Having scrutinized the request and having looked at the arguments
3 presented, the Trial Chamber feels that it is reasonable to allocate two
4 hours to General Petkovic's Defence team. This same Defence team having
5 requested two and a half hours. The Trial Chamber also allocates other
6 Defence teams with a general time of one hour. So we had allocated one
7 and a half hours, we have now moved on to three hours.
8 Ms. Nozica, you have the floor and you can carry on with your
10 MR. KHAN: Mr. President, Your Honours, before we move to my
11 learned leader, I will for the record say that I am of course respecting
12 the decision of the Trial Chamber, somewhat perplexed on the face of it
13 that whilst this matter was raised yesterday, there was no indication
14 whatsoever that an ex parte confidential motion was going to be filed by
15 my learned friend. And in fact, she had told me that -- my understanding
16 was that we were going to receive this document at 5.00. Now, we've been
17 waiting for that motion and been looking for this motion, and it would
18 have been very helpful if we had been informed, as a matter of courtesy
19 if nothing else, that an ex parte confidential motion was being filed so
20 we didn't have to waste our time and wait in vein for a motion that we
21 are not going to receive. That's the first point of.
22 Your Honour, the second issue is that it seems, again on the face
23 it, somewhat unusual that an ex parte confidential motion for an
24 extension of time has been filed, and Your Honours have considered that
25 without the benefit of any submissions. Your Honours, of course I'm not
1 privy to the actual contents. I'm sure that Your Honours in reviewing
2 the motion would have given the most anxious scrutiny as to whether or
3 not that motion merited being withheld from the other parties to
4 litigation and to allow us a chance to respond to that motion. Your
5 Honours, I can't go behind a motion which has been denied us -- that we
6 have been denied sight of. So all I can say for the record is that I do
7 trust that Your Honours will have given the anxious scrutiny to whether
8 or not it merited an ex parte confidential filing.
9 MR. KARNAVAS: If I may be heard very briefly, Your Honour,
10 because I would depart with my learned friend's comments. I don't think,
11 when it comes to cross-examination because that's what we are speaking
12 of, whether it's the Prosecution or another Defence team, that one has to
13 show and share their hand in advance. This is a common technique and I
14 commend my colleague for having the foresight of doing that. I would
15 have done the same thing, so I don't think that anybody is disadvantaged
16 at that. And I think that that would be the better practice in the
17 future. Thank you.
18 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with your leave, may
19 I just thank you for the time allocated to me and my -- thank my
20 colleague, Mr. Karnavas, who is well known in this courtroom as a person
21 who teaches others as to how witnesses should be examined, so he gave a
22 professional explanation of how all this should be dealt with. Thank
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stringer.
25 MR. STRINGER: Good morning, Mr. President and Your Honours.
1 Ms. Alaburic did give me the courtesy of informing me before trial that
2 before the proceedings began this morning than an ex parte filing had
3 been made. I accepted the fact that it was made ex parte because she
4 didn't have an obligation to disclose to other parties the reasons behind
5 why she needed more time. So in that respect, I tend to align myself
6 more with the position advanced by Mr. Karnavas, that it was appropriate
7 under the circumstances. Having said that, can I just propose that we
8 get on with the examination of the witness. Thank you.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Ms. Nozica, we are
10 not going to waste any time on this because I hope that everyone will be
11 in a position to ask questions to the witness. So Ms. Nozica, you have
12 one hour and 30 minutes left, so please go ahead.
13 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I wish to
14 greet everyone in the courtroom.
15 WITNESS: IVAN BANDIC [Resumed]
16 [Witness answered through interpreter]
17 Examination by Ms. Nozica: [Continued]
18 Q. Good morning, Mr. Bandic. I would like to ask you to look at the
19 second binder. I don't know if you have the documents there with you.
20 The second binder, please. We have come to document P5226.
21 Have you found the document?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Mr. Bandic, this is a document dated the 20th of September, 1993
24 It was submitted by the assistant head to Mate Boban, the president of
25 the HZ-HB, and in this letter he writes about an incident that was caused
1 by members of the Convicts Battalion on the 17th of September, 1993, in
2 Ljubuski. Unfortunately, we don't have the document that is mentioned in
3 the letter, but I would like to ask you whether you remember what kind of
4 incident this was and why it was necessary to send this kind of request
5 to Mr. Boban?
6 A. Good morning, Your Honours.
7 Yes, I am quite familiar with this incident. It was a very
8 serious one. The members of the Convicts Battalion in a way took justice
9 in their own hands, and they took away a member of the HVO who was killed
10 then, as was later established. This was an incident that threatened to
11 bring about an escalation of the conflict in the HVO, so that's why
12 Mr. Lucic wrote directly to Mr. Boban.
13 Q. Tell me, as far as the Convicts Battalion is concerned, and
14 Mr. Mate Boban, did you have any knowledge about the relations between
15 the Convicts Battalion and Mate Boban and can you give us your comments,
16 were those the reasons why Mr. Lucic directly addressed Mate Boban?
17 A. Well, it was basically a generally known thing that the top
18 authority over these units, in this case the Convicts Battalion, was
19 exercised by Mr. Mate Boban.
20 Q. Please let us look at the next document, 2D925. Could we please
21 have a look at that now. This is a document signed by Mladen Naletilic
22 Tuta. He sends this to President Boban, and he says, "Two of our
23 captains are working at the SIS," the mentioned persons there, and then
24 he is asking Mr. Boban to sign the ranks for these persons.
25 What is important is that Mr. Naletilic is signing this letter as
1 the personal advisor to Mr. Boban. Did you know that that is the way he
2 introduced himself and that he was that in a way? Do you have any
3 knowledge about that?
4 A. Madam Lawyer, this is, of course, an unusual relationship between
5 Mr. Boban and Mr. Naletilic. Of course, I know that he introduced
6 himself as the personal advisor or as the General or simply as Tuta.
7 However, it is an interesting document because I know both of the persons
8 on this list. I know that they were sent from the Convicts Battalion to
9 be SIS officers in the administration or at the Mostar centre of SIS.
10 Q. Yesterday we started discussing reports and communication between
11 the administration of the SIS, the centres of the SIS, and SIS officers
12 in units, so I'd like to ask you to look at the next document, is P5614.
13 This is a request, if we can put it that way. It was sent to Mr. Lucic,
14 it was sent by Mr. Petkovic to check some information, some incidents
15 that had happened. First of all, I'd like to ask you whether you knew of
16 the existence of this request, and did you know what this was all about?
17 A. Yes, I was aware of this request. In this case, Mr. Petkovic is
18 asking for information from the SIS administration. There were several
19 such cases.
20 Q. Could we please look at the next document, that is 2D940. This
21 is Mr. Lucic's response to the previous request. Mr. Lucic is providing
22 information about each and every point made in this request, and finally
23 I'd like to draw your attention to this, perhaps it has to do with you.
24 The last sentence in this document --
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] There's one tiny little problem
1 I have about victims. I see on this document that the rape of a lady is
2 mentioned. Shouldn't this document be in closed session? You know, I'm
3 just stepping in the victim's shoes here who possibly wouldn't want to
5 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I do agree with you. I
6 would just like to mention that the document is an Exhibit, so it has
7 been used in this courtroom, but of course I don't mind. On the
8 contrary, this document and the next document, the next document also
9 contains names, and I don't mind both documents being handled in this
10 way, and I think this is fully in accordance with the rule that no
11 victims should be exposed to any kind of unpleasantness.
12 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Could I be shown the name of the woman? Where
13 is the name of the victim mentioned in the document? I'm looking at
14 P05614. Is that --
15 MR. STRINGER: It's in the next document --
16 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Oh, I'm awfully sorry.
17 MR. STRINGER: -- Your Honour, 940.
18 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm awfully sorry, I was mistaken. I withdraw
19 everything, apologise, and shut up.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, the most important
21 thing here is for this document not to be shown outside the courtroom,
22 but of course you can refer to the document. Please carry on.
23 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
24 Q. The last sentence of this document could pertain to you. It
1 "More detailed information can be obtained from our officers who
2 are operating within the GS, the Main Staff."
3 Did that pertain to you, Mr. Bandic? The 8th of October, 1993
4 the date of this document. By then were you an officer at the Main
6 A. Yes. It was a compiled report, and the second part I think it
7 was me, physically. Perhaps it was another gentleman. If necessary I
8 can give you his name, Predrag Covic. I'm not sure if it was him or me,
9 but I think that I was up there then.
10 Q. When you say "up there" what do you mean, Mr. Bandic?
11 A. Well, usually I mean that physically, the Main Staff. I think
12 that at that moment it was in Citluk.
13 Q. I'd now like us to look at document 2D1495. This is a report.
14 2D1495, yes, we have the right number. It is a report from the Stjepan
15 Tomasevic Brigade. We see that it's signed by the assistant commander of
16 the Stjepan Tomasevic Brigade, and he is submitting this to the assistant
17 of the commander for security of central Bosnia, Ante Sliskovic. I would
18 just like this to show what the mode of communication was as far as his
19 officers in the units were concerned and who they sent these reports to.
20 Now, this way of communication where the assistant commander of
21 the brigade for SIS sends his report. As we can see, he is sending it
22 the assistant commander for security of the OZ. We are talking about
23 central Bosnia
24 document? Can you explain what the communication was?
25 A. Madam lawyer, Your Honours, this document should be the pattern
1 that demonstrates how communication functioned between the SIS in units
2 all the way up to the operative zone because this operative zone was the
3 top operative body as far as the security service was concerned, and this
4 military security aspect.
5 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Could we please look at the next
6 document, P2597. It's an exhibit, so we don't have to give any comments
7 on the content. We are just dealing with the form.
8 Q. The date is the 1st of June, 1993. Rama Prozor Brigade, the
9 Security Information Service. Down here it says SIS officer where the
10 signature is, and it's submitted to the SIS of the operative zone and the
11 commander of the Rama Brigade.
12 Can you give us your comments. Was this the right way to
13 proceed, to send these reports by these desk officers? We have a desk
14 officer here. We do not have an assistant commander. Is this the right
15 way to proceed and to communicate?
16 A. Yes, I am personally -- I know Mr. Krizanac personally, yes.
17 Q. For the transcript, what did you say about the way the
18 communication? Here it says, "Yes, I know the gentleman personally." Is
19 this the desirable way to communicate, if I can put it that way, as
20 envisaged by the rules?
21 A. Yes. Precisely. That is what I wished to confirm. This is the
22 way in which there was communication at the desired level and on the
23 basis of the regulations. This is what was aspired for and that is what
24 the rules say.
25 Q. Could you please look at the next document, that is P3260.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I didn't want to ask
2 you these questions because we have little time, but I must ask you the
3 question. We see a report from the Rama Brigade SIS, and we see that it
4 relates to an event which they were made aware of by the observers of the
5 European community, so the report has been written. And I assume - could
6 you please confirm this - I assume that this report will then be sent to
7 the commander of the Rama Brigade, who in turn having received the report
8 probably will request from the military police to investigate and will
9 then put the matter before the Prosecutor in order for proceedings to be
10 introduced. Is that the way it should occur?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that is the right way
12 to proceed. I'm sure of that. In this specific case, I don't know what
13 was done after this, but the SIS of the brigade familiarized the
14 commander of the brigade, and that is their basic task, and also then the
15 SIS of the operative zone. That is the right way to proceed.
16 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Thank you, can we continue. The next document is P3260. This is
18 a report. It says SIS division. It's signed by the commander --
19 assistant commander of the operative zone, and it has to do with the
20 security of eastern Herzegovina
21 operative zone, and the assistant head for security. Is that the third
22 link when a report is compiled by security assistants in the operative
24 A. Yes, precisely. Once again, I confirm that that is from an
25 operative and military point of view, that was the chain. The assistant
1 commander of the operative zone for SIS was the last link in this chain
2 of the military operative chain, and the activity of SIS through units.
3 And then that part goes towards the centre that is professionally in
5 If you allow me, in this particular case it has to do with the
6 Mostar centre. Out of all the centres, it was the one that was at the
7 level that we really desired, or rather, wanted to have envisaged.
8 Q. This report is sent at the same time to the commander of the
9 operative zone; isn't that right? We see that down here as in cc'd?
10 A. Yes, that's right. That is a primary matter.
11 Q. P6555. It is signed by Mladen Zovko Kuhar. Could you please
12 explain to the Trial Chamber whether you know this person, and did he
13 have a post in the Stepjan Turija Battalion?
14 A. Your Honours, I know this person, Mladen Zovko, he was a man in
15 from the SIS in the independent battalion Herceg-Stepjan. But in
16 addition to that, this is a document that is interesting in terms of who
17 Mr. Zovko is addressing. These were very delicate developments in the
18 area at the time.
19 Q. As we can see from this document, it is proposed here -- as
20 Mr. Zovko says, what is proposed is an exchange of territories or,
21 rather, a handover of territories for money. Fahrudin Fazlic,
22 Mr. Seljdic [phoen], those are the names that are mentioned.
23 Mr. Bandic, was that the reason, that's what I wanted to ask you,
24 why this kind of report from the SIS is being submitted to Mr. Stojic,
25 Mr. Petkovic, Mr. Lucic, and Mr. Keza. That was an exception from the
1 rule, wasn't it, in terms of the hierarchy, how reports were being sent.
2 Is that because of the content of the document?
3 A. Yes. This is what I mentioned, that this situation was an
4 exceptional one. Although, there are going to be other situations where
5 this chain would not be observed as appropriate, but indeed this was an
6 exceptionally delicate situation. And that is why Mr. Zovko, as I've
7 already said, acted this way. He was the SIS officer in the battalion.
8 Q. Thank you. Now we are going to change subjects. I just need a
9 brief explanation. Please look at document P7035.
10 This document is an exhibit. We've used it more than once in the
11 courtroom. It is a compilation of information concerning events of
12 crimes on the territory of the HZ-HB. It covers a rather long period and
13 almost the entire territory.
14 The crimes are listed both by kind of crime, type of crime, and
15 the area where it was committed. But, please, could you clarify to the
16 Chamber why Mr. Lucic was submitting this report to the attention of
17 Mr. Miroslav Tudjman and to the HIS, so why was this sent to another
18 state, another service, and could you please explain to the Court what
19 this service was and what it dealt with, if you know, at that time?
20 A. Your Honours, I am familiar with this information. I know that
21 this is a compilation which was made in late 1993. My explanation of
22 this document is the following: Many crimes were committed, as is
23 evident from this document, there were many perpetrators who practically
24 moved back and forth across the border which was quite porous. This was
25 away of attempting to establish cooperation on both sides of the border
1 in order to attempt to prevent such crimes. That is my interpretation of
2 this document.
3 Another interpretation, in my view, because this was a time when
4 negotiations were already beginning, the negotiations which culminated in
5 the Washington Agreement, and the end of the war between the army of BH
6 and the HVO, so it seems logical it to me that -- an overview, a summary
7 should be made of crimes which had taken place in order to clearly define
8 things. So this was an attempt to communicate and establish cooperation.
9 As for your third question, counsel, as regards the work of the
10 Croatian intelligence service, the HIS, if it's relevant for this case I
11 would ask the Court to speak about this in closed session or private
12 session because I'm not authorised to discuss this.
13 Q. Mr. Bandic, there's no need. I just wanted to ask whether one
14 could say in general that this service dealt in such matters. I don't
15 want to delve into it any further.
16 A. Yes, I can confirm that.
17 Q. All right.
18 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Excuse me, Ms. Nozica. Mr. Bandic, I would be
19 grateful if you would elaborate and explain a bit the answer you have
20 given. I have, of course, not been able in the short time to read this
21 lengthy, lengthy document which has 24 pages. I have not found anything
22 in it, by looking through it, which indicates that it has anything to do
23 with cooperation. There's no reference to that. There's no frame about
24 it. And I also do not see the logic which would link this to the
25 negotiations for the Washington Agreement. Maybe you could explain it
1 and clarify this for me. Thank you.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, Your Honour, I'll do
3 my best. I wish to mention that crossing the border between
4 Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia
5 that was difficult to control, something that happened very frequently,
6 and it was quite possible for perpetrators of various crimes to cross the
7 border very easily. That, I believe, is the basis for this
8 correspondence. You will have observed that there are very many people
9 mentioned here. At the time those people had dual nationality. It was
10 very simple for them to cross the border. Also, Your Honour, there were
11 persons who were able to continue their activities within the military or
12 the political arena. That is my own perception. I believe it was very
13 important to have information which was as detailed as possible about
14 everything that had been happening, especially all things that had the
15 characteristics of a crime or an illegal activity.
16 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I will not insist on further. Ms. Nozica.
17 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]
18 Q. In connection with His Honour's question, could you please look
19 at the front page of this document, the last name there, it says against
20 Daris Kapovic Klokan, a member of the HV from Zadar. A warrant has been
21 issued for his arrest because there are grounds to suspect that he
22 committed theft. That he stole personal property and weapons of HVO
23 officers who had been killed. Is this something that corroborates your
24 opinion that that was an important reason to establish cooperation in
25 view of the fact that members of both the HV and the HVO could move about
1 freely on both territories so that appropriate action could be taken?
2 A. Your Honours, I didn't go into details, although I'm quite
3 familiar with many of these details, and this is an illustrative example.
4 Let me add the following hypothetical situation: If a brigade commander
5 was duty-bound to act on this information, then he would not -- he should
6 not have been allowed to continue his activities after the war ended.
7 Q. Mr. Bandic, I'll move on to a topic now which we might describe
8 as the information and actions of the SIS having to do with military
9 prisons and places where prisoners were kept. Please look at the first
10 document having to do with this topic, that's P4756. What I wish to show
11 you is on page 3 in the Croatian text and on page 4 in the English text.
12 Yesterday, I asked you whether you had attended this meeting of the
13 collegium and you said you hadn't, but I wished to ask you whether you
14 are familiar with some of the activities that the SIS undertook in
15 connection with the conclusions reached by this collegium.
16 It says what military prisons existed in the HZ-HB, and after a
17 discussion, the decision was made to visit all places where prisoners of
18 war were kept and to establish precisely, as Mr. Lucic said, who was
19 behind these prisons, who was doing these things, and to what extent
20 certain measures could be taken. That's exactly what was said. A
21 conclusion was reached.
22 Mr. Bandic, are you aware that members of the SIS administration
23 or SIS centre acted on this conclusion and compiled information on
24 Heliodrom, Ljubuski, Gabela, and Dretelj as listed here?
25 A. I'm not familiar with this document in detail. I never attended
1 meetings of the collegium, but I do know that attempts were made - as can
2 be seen from this document also - to draw up a definite list of these
3 prisons, to record them, to make a sort of inventory, and to find out
4 what legal grounds there were for further detention because evidently
5 there was chaos prevailing in all this.
6 Q. Please look at P5133. Have you found it?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. This is a request dated the 16th of September, after this
9 collegium as we can see, and it was addressed to the military prisons in
10 Dretelj and Gabela to the attention of Mr. Tomo Sakota, and operatives of
11 the SIS in Mostar, Mr. Predrag Covic and Mr. Dragan-Zdenko Maric, are to
12 be given full access to the prison. Was it the practice for SIS
13 operatives to enter any prison, whether military prison or prison where
14 prisoners of war were kept, only pursuant to a request such as this one?
15 Was this the practice?
16 A. Yes, that was how things were done.
17 Q. Please tell me, are you familiar with the name of Tomo Sakota,
18 and did you know who this person was at the time when this request was
20 A. Yes. I know Mr. Sakota personally, unfortunately he is deceased.
21 Q. Do you know what duty he performed at that time when this request
22 was submitted for his visit to the Dretelj and Gabela camps or prisons?
23 A. I'm not sure what his title was. I think he was either the
24 warden or the coordinator of both prisons.
25 Q. Please look at P7 --
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I'm trying to
2 understand all of this, the prisons of a military nature or of a civilian
3 nature. This seems very confusing according to all the documents we
4 have. Let's get back to the previous document. Clearly, Mr. Stojic
5 states that there are two military prisons, Ljubuski and the Heliodrom,
6 and that there are other prisons, Gabela and Dretelj, in which detainees
7 are held, but he adds, I don't feel that these are military prisons, and
8 he will not take on the work carried out in these prisons. This is the
9 last document which stems from SIS and is addressed to Gabela and Dretelj
10 that are qualified as military prisons. So I don't understand anything
11 at all.
12 According to you, Gabela and Dretelj, are these prisons military
13 prisons or prisons for civilians?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, to the best of my
15 knowledge, Dretelj and Gabela were for a while military prisons also in
16 one period of time. But I do know that later on there were also
17 civilians there. As far as I know, there was never a clear distinction
18 made as to what were prison, what were collection centres, and it was
19 never fully clear to me either.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you for your answer.
21 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Q. Mr. Bandic, let's go back a little bit. Regardless of what
23 Mr. Lucic called these two prison, let's go back to this document which
24 is from the collegium, and it's a number 4756. Is it clear from these
25 minutes, does it follow from these minutes, where the head of the
1 department said, We have two military prisons, the Heliodrom and the
2 military prison in Ljubuski. Was this beyond doubt the position in the
3 Defence Department as regards those two prisons?
4 A. Yes, that's correct.
5 MR. STRINGER: Objection, Mr. President to the leading question.
6 Counsel is trying to take the witness to a specific place that the
7 witness has not indicated is correct.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, Ms. Nozica, please
9 rephrase your question. Your question was extremely leading.
10 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] No problem, Your Honour. I was only
11 relying on what you read out to the witness. I put the same question to
12 the witness, does this follow from these minutes, but now I'll put my
13 question very precisely.
14 Q. What was the position of the Defence Department and the SIS as
15 regards the existence of military prisons?
16 A. Your Honour, as for the Heliodrom prison and the Ljubuski prison,
17 they were considered to be military prisons. What I was saying here was
18 that it was never fully clear to me what the status of the prisons in
19 Dretelj and Gabela was and, once again, Grabovina, where I was personally
20 when the Neum case took place. I don't know what the status of that
21 prison was either, and the persons connected to the Neum case were
22 brought there, the one we talked about yesterday.
23 Q. When you mention that prison, were those persons we talked about
24 yesterday brought in there and were they civilians?
25 A. Counsel, what prison are you referring to?
1 Q. The one in Grabovina that you just mentioned?
2 A. Yes, yes.
3 Q. Could we now take a look at document P7341.
4 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Ms. Nozica, if I may come back to the document.
5 Mr. Bandic, I would invite you to go one page further, the next page, at
6 least it's the next page in the English version. There is a passage at
7 the end of item 3 which is underlined. In English it starts reading:
8 "The SIS, the military police administration, and the Health
9 Sector shall draft separate reports on the work of the Dretelj and Gabela
10 prisons..." and so forth.
11 Do you attribute any significance to that passage with regard of
12 the question previously addressed; namely, that these two prisons are
13 completely outside of the field and of the area of competence of the
14 Defence Department?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, my understanding was
16 the following: An attempt was made to register this, to record it as
17 regards health simply to assess the situation of the people who were
18 there as regards their physical and mental health, and for the SIS to
19 look at who was there from the security aspect.
20 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Who took this conclusion? Was this a conclusion
21 in which the head of the Defence Department concurred? Was he also one
22 who stood behind this conclusion?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I presume that this
24 was so. I do not know who attended the collegiums meeting, but I believe
25 that this would be a logical path to take.
1 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.
2 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]
3 Q. I asked the document 7341, P7341 to be brought up. We discussed
4 Mr. Sakota, so let's continue with that. This is a report on the work of
5 the coordinator for inmates and prisoners of war in the territory of the
6 Croatian Republic
7 and 25th of December, 1993. It is signed by Mr. Tomo Sakota.
8 Mr. Bandic, did you have knowledge that Mr. Sakota dealt with
9 these issues and that he had been appointed by the president of HZ-HB to
10 assume that position?
11 A. Yes, it was known to me because I personally knew Mr. Sakota, the
12 late Mr. Sakota. I remember that this was at a time of intensive talks
13 and negotiations about the release of inmates, and I know that Mr. Sakota
14 played an important role at the time. And I think if it's pertinent,
15 after that he became a member of staff of the general consulate of
16 Republic of Croatia
17 Q. Let's take a look at the next document, 2D973. This is a request
18 by Mr. Sakota, dated 1995 to the ministry of foreign affairs of the
19 Republic of Croatia
20 "I was a member of the military police only for me in 1993, for
21 Mr. Mate Boban to ask me to take up the post of the warden of the Dretelj
22 collection centre. Soon after that I was appointed warden of all the
23 collection centres in the HZ-HB."
24 Does this confirm what you just said, Mr. Bandic?
25 A. Exactly that. I think that at the time Mr. Sakota's role was
1 very sensitive and very positive and this was the reason why he later was
2 appointed to this position, and I would meet him on several occasions in
3 the consulate general of the Republic of Croatia
4 Q. When you say that position, you mean the position at the
5 consulate general, am I right?
6 A. That's correct.
7 Q. Fine. Let's take a look at the next document. We are dealing
8 with the same topic, that's 2D926. We saw what was the conclusion of the
9 collegium about the drafting of reports. If you know, please confirm
10 whether this document submits those information to the president of
11 HZ-HB, the information concerning this information in the operation zone
12 south-east Herzegovina
14 A. Your Honours, I'm not familiar with the individual documents out
15 of those four, but I do know that the president was informed of that.
16 This was one of the ways of reporting, particularly in delicate
17 situations such, as this one was, whenever the need arose to take this
18 path given that this pertained to very delicate events and developments.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, one moment, please.
20 Ivica Lucic addresses himself directly to the president, Mr. Boban,
21 without referring to his superior. To do so, it's as if an ambassador
22 addresses himself directly to the president without referring to the
23 minister of foreign affair. Was this customary? Was this how things
24 operated at the time?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the situation
1 necessitated, obviously, to communicate in this way, although this was
2 not the ordinary way of doing things. You compare this with the
3 situation of an ambassador and the ministry of foreign affairs and
4 president, but this is valid in well ordered states in times of calm, but
5 this situation was extremely difficult.
6 If you allow me, I would like to emphasise that Mr. Lucic
7 assessed at the time that the authority of Mr. Boban was the greatest and
8 that his influence would be the decisive factor.
9 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Let's take a look at the next document, 2D950, dealing with the
11 same topic. Discusses a request on the -- based on the verbal agreement
12 with Mr. Kraljevic, head of military investigation, detention, Ljubuski,
13 and Mr. Sesar. For you to allow Mr. Stanko Juric, coordinator from SIS
14 administration, to visit Mr. Franjo Brajko and talk to him.
15 Mr. Bandic, Franjo Brajko seems to a Croatian person who was in
16 VIZ Ljubuski, and this was a military prison in Ljubuski. Would this be
17 an ordinary request? Whenever SIS operatives would talk to somebody in
18 detention centre, would such a request be a prerequisite for them doing
20 A. This was the standard operating procedure as per regulations, and
21 I believe that this was adhered to.
22 Q. And now the last document, 2D929, dealing with this topic. That
23 is addressed to the Heliodrom, Mr. Bosic, the warden. What is requested
24 is an interview with Suad Repko and Milorad Tribun signed by the head of
25 the SIS centre of Mostar, isn't that so?
1 A. Yes, this was the regular path, ordinary procedure to be
3 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to ask to
4 go into private session for a general ...
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are now in private session.
7 [Private session]
22 [Open session]
23 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are back in open session.
24 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Mr. Bandic, let's take a look at the document, it's a report or
1 two reports in succession. The first one is P561 --
2 5619 [as interpreted].
3 STRINGER: Excuse me, is that 5619 or 6519?
4 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Yes, P6519. Well, P in Croatian is
5 homonymous with 5.
6 Q. Have you seen this document, Mr. Bandic?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Did you draft this report, first of all? Did you draft it? You
9 read it, this is an exhibit, there's no need for us to dwell much on it.
10 We do not have much time, but briefly I'm going to ask you whether you
11 drafted it?
12 A. No, I never drafted it and I've never seen it.
13 Q. So you answered my third question there. The second was supposed
14 to be, did you take any part in any way in drafting this report?
15 A. Absolutely not.
16 Q. You said that you've never seen it. I'd like to know whether you
17 know the gist or the contents of this report and the details contained
19 A. Details were not known to me, but I do know the circumstances and
20 I know of that event.
21 Q. At the end of the report it says that it was submitted to SIS,
22 whatever that may mean, whether it's an SIS of a brigade or operation
23 zone or operations group, et cetera. Could you confirm to the Chamber
24 whether the SIS administration at Mostar ever received this report?
25 A. Your Honours, I'm not familiar with this, and I don't know
1 whether this document ever reached the SIS at Mostar.
2 Q. Now, let's take a look at P6671. Mr. Bandic, my questions are
3 the same, whether you drafted this report, whether you did take part in
4 the drafting of this document, and whether you've ever seen this report?
5 A. My answer to all those three questions is no.
6 Q. Mr. Bandic, could you take a look at 2D574. Here we can see that
7 on the 28th of October, 1993, the deputy of a district military
8 Prosecutor did take some activities to detect possible criminal offences
9 or perpetrators in connection with the Stupni Do situation. When did you
10 learn that the Prosecutor was doing these things?
11 A. Approximately one month after this date towards the end of
12 November, and this date is 28th of October.
13 Q. We have another document concerning the investigation, it's
14 2D578, dated the 19th of December, 1993. Here we can see that this
15 document confirms that activities had -- that had been started were
16 continuing. You knew at the end of November that the Prosecutor had
17 undertaken certain actions?
18 A. Yes, something in November and during December some things were
19 done. It was known to me that the military Prosecutor had undertaken
21 Q. And now let's take a look at the document 6137. It is an order
22 signed by Mr. Petkovic addressed to Mr. Rajic. It is an order for the
23 undertaking of an investigation in the Stupni Do incident.
24 Mr. Bandic, did you see that order or this order at that time or
25 at a later date?
1 A. I've never seen this order until now that I've become a witness.
2 Q. Mr. Bandic, pursuant to the document that we saw here, you
3 attended two meetings at the Main Staff of the UN protection force at
4 Kiseljak. I will show you a document, P6049, which predates those
5 meetings. P6049.
6 Mr. Vinko Lucic signs this as a liaison officer with the UN.
7 Could you please explain who Mr. Vinko Lucic was, whether you knew him,
8 what were his tasks?
9 A. Your Honours, I personally know Mr. Lucic. He was a liaison
10 officer, which means the official representative of the Croatian Defence
11 Council for contacts with international community organisations,
12 UNPROFOR. I know him quite well.
13 Q. Let's take a look at document P6963. It is a voluminous
14 document. Towards the end of your binder it's a report of the UNPROFOR.
15 And when you reach the Croatian translation, only the first two pages in
16 the English version refer to the meeting that you had.
17 Have you found it?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. There is mention on the 22nd of November that there was a meeting
20 with Colonel Lucic, investigator from the Main Staff of the HVO Mostar,
21 Mr. Bandic. They wanted to assist concerning the investigation of the
22 incident at Stupni Do, the HVO was ready to cooperate. Could you please
23 explain this item 2 -- well, you can explain the whole report, whether it
24 reflects developments as you remember them. What I'm interested in is
25 item 2 where Mr. Bandic introduced himself after me, that would be 6963.
1 No, this is a document under seal, I've just received information
2 that this document is under seal. I apologise. Thank you,
3 Mr. Registrar.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, is the document
5 under seal, because if it is then it will need be to redacted? We'll
6 move into closed session.
7 [Private session]
11 Pages 38097-38100 redacted. Private session.
20 [Open session]
21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are back in open session.
22 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] We have five minutes to the break
23 right? Am I right? Yes. I'll continue for these five minutes. P6647.
24 Could we have a look at that, please.
25 Q. Mr. Bandic, this document is an exhibit. We are familiar with
1 it, we in this courtroom. It is called, "Combined Operation Kiseljak,
2 Information of Interest to Security." I'm not going to go into the
3 content of the document. The 13th of November, 1993, is the number
4 [as interpreted] of this document. And now I'd like to look at P6828.
5 P6828. Have you found it?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. This is a document provided by Mr. Biskic, and we see who he is
8 sending this to. It says, I am providing information to you in relation
9 to what happened in Kiseljak, and we suggested that personnel changes be
10 made in the command of the HVO in Kiseljak. And what is attached in the
11 information we saw a few minutes ago --
12 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I am sorry, Ms. Nozica, for interrupting you,
13 but I'm still with the last document, the document, I think it is 6647 or
14 perhaps it's ...
15 I see in the transcript you invoke the document, and then you say
16 you are not going into it and you invoke the next document. Now, what is
17 the purpose of this? Why do you mention it? Why do you use your and our
18 time to go to a document, say this is document so and so, I'm not go into
19 it, and then you go to the next. I just would like to understand?
20 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I kindly ask for a
21 little bit of patience. I think that I know very well what I'm doing.
22 Would you please let me finish, and then you will see why I said that.
23 Just a little bit of patience please. Now we are using more time over
24 this document had I just been allowed to continue, please let me continue
25 and you'll see.
1 Q. The document that I've just shown you now, the second one, is
2 6828. In terms of the text of the information, it is identical to the
3 previous document and that's why I didn't want to deal with it.
4 Identical, that's why I didn't want to deal with it. The only difference
5 is that in document 6647, the date is the 13th of November, and in
6 document 6828 as the date when this information was compiled, it says the
7 23rd --
8 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We can barely hear
9 Ms. Nozica, there are other microphones that are on in the courtroom.
10 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Did you take part in writing this document? Could you please
12 tell the Trial Chamber when it was compiled? There are two dates for the
13 same document.
14 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters kindly ask for all other
15 microphones that are not being used to be switched off, thank you. We
16 cannot hear the speakers.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I authored the majority of what is
18 written here. I did that after returning to Mostar. I actually remember
19 speaking to the head. In view of the situation what was going on in
20 Kiseljak, and around Kiseljak, and in relation to Mr. Rajic, our
21 assessment was that it was necessary to compile a thorough piece of
22 information. So this was written up and then what was added was parts of
23 other reports, and that is how this document came into being. The 23rd
24 of November is the date of this document and that is why these two
25 documents show what they show in this way.
1 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, shall we take the
2 break now? I believe that the time would be right. Thank you.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Absolutely. We'll break for 20
5 --- Recess taken at 10.28 a.m.
6 --- On resuming at 10.50 a.m.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Nozica, you have the floor.
8 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
9 Q. Mr. Bandic, I have received information that I only have ten
10 minutes left, so we will skip over the next document, and I'll just ask
11 you briefly with respect to Ahmici, since this village is mentioned in
12 the previous information, do you know who conducted the investigation in
13 connection with Ahmici?
14 A. To the best of my knowledge, it was the military Prosecutor who
15 conducted the investigation.
16 Q. Please look at 4D575. So just skip over one document in your
17 binder. 575. Yes. It says here, this is a document written by
18 Mr. Tihomir Blaskic directly to the commander in chief, Mate Boban, and
19 he says here under 1.2, The Ahmici case is concluded according to your
20 instructions and the video delivered to the chief of the military
21 intelligence service of the Main Staff Zarko Kezo. Did you have
22 information that Mr. Blaskic was authorised by Mr. Boban to conduct this
24 A. Your Honours are, I did not have this information.
25 Q. Very well. Now let's look at the next document, that's P5 --
1 THE INTERPRETER: Or, rather, interpreter's correction: P6841.
2 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] 6841.
3 Q. This is again information. We are still dealing with Stupni Do,
4 and it's signed by commander of OG group 2, Colonel Rajic. I'll ask you
5 only the following without going further into the contents of this
6 document but looking only at paragraph 1. After receiving a written
7 order from Colonel Tihomir Blaskic, dated the 24th of October, to carry
8 out an investigation against Zlonko Duzinovic, assistant for the
9 information and security service of the Vares brigade. It was determined
10 that this investigation should be carried out by Zoran Duno, assistant
11 for SIS OG 2.
12 Mr. Bandic, please tell Their Honours whether this is in fact the
13 method we discussed earlier respecting the duties of the commander
14 regarding investigations of events which might be misdemeanours or crimes
15 or breaches of discipline, and is this the way these proceedings were
16 conducted as Mr. Rajic did in relation with Mr. Duznovic?
17 A. Yes, that was the procedure. But, by your leave, it's strange
18 that Mr. Rajic wrote to the president, Mr. Boban, at that time the
19 president of the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna. It's unusual.
20 Q. Well, he's also write to Mr. Blaskic, but what I'm interested in
21 is the following: Why was the he writing this, who was he at the time,
22 and what was the connection between Mr. Rajic and Ante Sliskovic, the
23 assistant commander for Vitez or, rather, the Vitez military district?
24 A. Well, it's evident from this that Mr. Rajic was addressing the
25 persons he needed to address. It was -- Colonel Blaskic was the
1 commander of the military district, and then there was Mr. Sliskovic.
2 And in this letter we can see that Zoran Duno was designated, his
3 assistant, Mr. Rajic's assistant for OG 2 was designated to carry out the
5 Q. And now that we are dealing with Mr. Duznovic, please look at
6 2D942. This is a report - and we saw from the previous document - that
7 Mr. Duznovic, against whom the investigation was being conducted, and we
8 can see in this document dated the 23rd of February, 1994, that this
9 document is a report according to which Mr. Zvonko Duznovic was found
10 dead. Did you have information about these events concerning
11 Mr. Zvonko Duznovic?
12 MR. STRINGER: Excuse me, Mr. Bandic. I object to this line of
13 questioning. It's irrelevant and it's beyond the scope of the witness
14 summaries that have been provided in respect of this witness, this issue
15 regarding Mr. Duznovic.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Nozica, what is the
17 relevance of this?
18 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the relevance is in
19 that we are showing how because of the previous documents and the witness
20 statement of EA, here in the courtroom as I stated before, we see an
21 example here as to how an investigation was conducted and how in this
22 particular case it was ordered by (redacted), and I think it's quite
23 significant. This can be compared with his statements, as we have
24 already said in the transcript of 24541 to 24862, when he said that in
25 the case of Stupni Do, the investigation was to be conducted by this
1 witness together with his assistant for SIS, Mr. Duno, and it's evident
2 from the previous document that (redacted) issued an order to
3 Mr. Duno telling him to carry out this investigation. So he acted
4 differently from what he said before this court regarding this witness.
5 Mr. Dunic [as interpreted] is connected with events in Stupni Do in a
6 number of documents. I don't think this had to be stressed particularly,
7 but this is a document which deals very briefly --
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please proceed.
9 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]
10 Q. I'll just ask you the following: Do you know something about
11 these events?
12 A. Your Honour, yes, I'm familiar with this event and unfortunately
13 Mr. Duzinovic's death. His name is Duzinovic, not Duznovic. I knew him
14 personally, and I know that proceedings were initiated against certain
15 persons because of this murder. And please excuse me, but let me
16 mention, it's relevant because Mr. Duznovic was SIS's man in the brigade,
18 Q. Mr. Bandic, in connection with Mr. Duznovic's death, I'm reading
19 it out as it's written in the document, if it's misprinted in the
20 document, thank you for the correction. Please tell me the following:
21 We talked about your method of work and how operatives worked, how the
22 people in the brigades were in charge of SIS worked, so could you tell
23 Their Honours according to the information you have, with the exception
24 of Mr. Duzinovic were there also other cases of murders or unsolved
25 murders and other cases concerning people working in SIS?
1 MR. STRINGER: Objection. It's irrelevant and it's beyond the
2 scope of the witness summary that's been provided.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stringer, I believe that
4 this could be interesting. I can't say why. I'd rather listen to the
5 answers. Ms. Nozica, please continue.
6 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, thank you for saying
7 what you did. I think it's very important because we are talking about
8 the conditions and circumstances prevailing at the time and the witness
9 did say that their job was highly unpopular, and I think it's very
10 important to assess the conditions under which people did their work, so
11 I think that this question is important.
12 Q. Could the witness tell us how many persons died or were killed or
13 were -- well, how many persons were killed primarily, and whether these
14 cases were solved, and where these people did their work?
15 A. Your Honours, these are two glaring examples in the Kiseljak
16 area. One was the murder of Mr. Duznovic of the SIS of the Bobovac
17 Brigade from Vares, and the second case was a brutal murder of a SIS
18 member in Kiseljak. His name was Mr. Lujo -- or, rather, Zeljko Bosnjak,
19 also known as Lujo. Two other men were killed together with him, and the
20 status of the other person who was murdered was unclear to me, but
21 Mr. Bosnjak was a member of the SIS.
22 When I arrived on the ground in Kiseljak, I found him there as
23 one of the persons who were in the HVO SIS and he was killed. I think in
24 the summer of 1993.
25 Q. Tell me, did SIS conduct any investigations concerning these
1 murders, and did they submit this material to the Prosecutor's Office; do
2 you know that?
3 A. I'm not aware of the details, but I know that proceedings were
4 initiated in connection with these murders.
5 Q. And now we'll move on to my last topic, Mr. Bandic.
6 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Just one question which perhaps is not entirely
7 relevant, but in the previous document, P06841, at the end we read that
8 the president, Mate Boban, had requested the transfer of, inter alia, one
9 Zvonko Duznovic, to him to Grude. And as it is the same name, I wonder
10 whether he is the one identical with the one who was later murdered? Can
11 you verbalize the answer because otherwise your nodding is not recorded
12 in the transcript.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, you are right.
14 Mr. Boban's intervention concerned several people to be transferred to
16 Kiseljak pursuant to a decision issued by Mr. Rajic, but unfortunately,
17 Mr. Duznovic did not survive to be transferred because he was killed.
18 JUDGE TRECHSEL: So there was on 23rd November, 1993, that
19 Supreme Commander, Mate Boban, requested the urgent transfer of Zvonko
20 Duznovic who was murdered on 22 February, 1994, that is three months
21 later. Is that -- can we -- what do we have to conclude on the authority
22 of orders by Mate Boban, if we look at this?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, many things were
24 illogical in that time and in that place. The authority of Mr. Boban was
25 unchallenged; although, towards the end of 1993, it was already
1 considerably weakened and his replacement was also being discussed.
2 Mr. Duznovic was there throughout this time and unfortunately he was
3 killed as is stated here, in February 1993.
4 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.
5 THE INTERPRETER: 1994, interpreter's correction.
6 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]
15 We'll now look at a similar document, that's P3988, dated the 6th
16 of August. We have no signature here, but we see it's a report by the
17 prison warden of that date, and it was received on the 18th of August,
18 1993 by the SIS in Mostar, and the last document --
19 MR. STRINGER: Excuse me, Your Honours, for the intervention.
20 I'm being told that these last two exhibits are confidential.
21 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, thank you. I omitted to
22 do this. These are documents 3906 and 3988. If we can agree, I won't
23 read out the contents and we don't have to show them in e-court. I'm
24 only interested in the dates on these documents so they need not be seen
25 outside the courtroom.
1 Q. And the last document bears a date, it's 4177, that's the
2 document number. P4177. The document was signed by Mr. Luka Markesic,
3 and the date is the 14th of August, 1993, and it was received in the
4 Mostar SIS on 18th of August, 1993.
5 Mr. Bandic, do you have any information as to why these documents
6 were received in the Mostar SIS, one on the 17th of August, 1993, two on
7 the 18th of August, 1993, although they were all compiled quite sometime
8 before those dates?
9 A. Counsel, Your Honours, I know the answer in part. I know part of
10 the reason, I'm not familiar with the details of course. I think that
11 that was when I was on the ground in central Bosnia, but I remember that
12 this was an important case. It was a high-profile case. There were
13 conflicts at the level of the operative zone and the brigade in Rama
14 regarding the SIS, and he personally went up there to resolve the
15 situation to see what was going on. And after that, he withdrew
16 Mr. Markesic from his post as assistant for SIS in the brigade.
17 I think that for awhile Mr. Markesic was on leave, and then an
18 attempt was made to establish a centre in Rama, and Mr. Markesic was
19 appointed to it. The reason the documents arrived when they did is, I
20 assume, that Mr. Markesic gave them to Mr. Lucic personally, and
21 Mr. Lucic took them to Mostar with him. Or perhaps they were sent to
22 Mostar, which I think is the reason why the dates are more or less the
23 same, whereas the documents were compiled two or three weeks prior to
24 that, but the dates are the same as to the time of when they were
25 received. So this has to do with the brigade SIS and the SIS of the
1 military district.
2 Q. Well, let's look at the last two documents. 2D1506. It is a
3 document from which we can see that on the 25th of August, after these
4 documents had been received and after the meeting, as you said, with
5 Mr. Lucic, that Mr. Markesic is replaced and discharged from the duty to
6 assume another duty. And then the next document, 2D1505. 1505, dated
7 the same day, a decision whereby Mr. Luka Markesic is appointed to the
8 duty of -- in the SIS centre, to the position of head of SIS centre Rama.
9 Is this what you discussed, Mr. Bandic?
10 A. Your Honours, this is exactly what was going on. I personally
11 knew Mr. Markesic during the war, and this was a sort of a recognition of
12 his work in that particular case. The head of the administration judged
13 him to be right. He withdrew him from the brigade and at his proposal,
14 Mr. Bruno Stojic, head of the Defence Department, appointed him as head
15 of the SIS centre Rama, but unfortunately that centre never functioned.
16 Q. My last question, Mr. Bandic. Have you ever head of
17 Mr. Mate Zadro being an employee of SIS administration, that he withdrew
18 his salary from the SIS administration? Have you ever heard of anything
19 like that? We've seen the lists, the payroll lists, but do you know
20 anything about that?
21 A. I never heard of that. Usually, people who were connected in any
22 way at centre level or administration level, I knew them almost
23 personally, almost all of them, but I do not know Mr. Zadro and I'm not
24 aware of any of his connections with the SIS.
25 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] My question -- last question
1 referred to page 10434 concerning the statement of the witness under the
2 pseudonym of CC. My questions have been exhausted. Mr. Bandic, thank
3 you for answering them. Your Honours, my examination-in-chief hereby
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Alaburic.
6 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] I'm trying to organise myself.
7 Your Honours, I'd like to greet you.
8 Cross-examination by Ms. Alaburic:
9 Q. [Interpretation] Greet you, Mr. Bandic.
10 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] And greet everybody in the
12 Q. As I said yesterday on one occasion, Mr. Bandic, we had occasion
13 to meet two, two and a half or three years ago. We conducted
14 conversations over the telephone. I would like you to ask you to confirm
15 to the Bench whether this is correct?
16 A. Yes, that's true. But it's not completely fleshed out with all
17 the details that we discussed.
18 Q. No need to go into details. I did not take part in proofing you
19 for this testimony, and neither I nor anybody else from Mr. Petkovic
21 A. That's correct, but we did discuss for my possible appearance
22 here as a witness for the Defence Mr. Petkovic.
23 Q. Yes, three and a half years ago I talked to you as a person that
24 may have some knowledge about events concerning the indictment; isn't
25 that correct? After that one meeting and conversation, we have never met
1 in the meantime; is that correct?
2 First of all, Mr. Bandic, I'm going to ask you about one of the
3 last questions of Mr. Bruno Stojic's Defence team. You mentioned how
4 Mr. Zeljko Bosnjak and Mr. Duznovic were murdered, about the difficult
5 circumstances in which SIS personnel worked. I would like you to tell
6 the Chamber whether a claim is true, and that claim is contained in
7 P6828. This is one of the reports that we discussed as documents of
8 almost identical content, the operative combination of Kiseljak. There's
9 no need for us to -- reading that document. I'm going to read out a
10 section concerning Mr. Bosnjak and since you are an author of part of
11 that information, I would like you to confirm whether this is true.
12 Whether it's true that Mr. Bosnjak involved in illegal activities
13 and that he associated with antisocial persons who followed his conduct,
14 conflict with Mr. Rajic culminated in August this year when Mr. Rajic
15 engaged some of his people and liquidated Bosnjak and his cup-bearers;
16 Mr. Petsurepa [phoen], aka Legija; and Ivica Petsurepa, aka Pezar
17 [phoen]. Could you tell us whether this is true?
18 A. I don't know which report you are referring to, but the facts are
20 Q. The report is one of those documents which have identical
21 contents of which you admitted authorship. Is this true concerning Mr.
23 A. I don't have this document in front of me, so this is why I say
24 that I don't know which document you are talking about, but the
25 information that you quoted is true, that such information was gathered
1 in connection with this event and those persons.
2 Q. Could you tell us, please, whether SIS had any information about
3 Mr. Duznovic being involved in illegal actives in the area of Vares?
4 A. I personally have no knowledge about that. But I presume that,
5 and this is what SIS does and Mr. Duznovic was an SIS operative, I don't
6 know whether he had engaged in any criminal activities.
7 Q. Fine. Now, Mr. Bandic, let's clarify some details concerning
8 your positions, your functions. I hope that we will be quick about it.
9 In listing the positions at the beginning of your testimony, you
10 confirmed a question of Mr. Stojic's Defence that from the end of 1992 to
11 1994, you were in SIS administration; is that correct?
12 A. Not correct completely. I was not in the administration from
13 April because it was established in July 1992.
14 Q. So it's reflected so in the transcript, that's incorrect?
15 A. That's correct. Because between April and July I was in military
17 Q. Fine. Could you tell us whether from October 1992 and autumn
18 1994 you were part of the SIS administration?
19 A. That can be said in this way.
20 Q. Soon afterwards you said that in -- from summer 1993 you were at
21 the Main Staff; is that correct?
22 A. I don't know the exact date believe me, but somewhere around that
24 Q. Could you explain please, for us, that at the same time that you
25 were in the SIS administration and the Main Staff?
1 A. Simple, I did not have a document appointing me there, but
2 because of the nature of my work and constant company of Mr. Petkovic, I
3 physically was located at the Main Staff for awhile. I'm not sure
4 whether I ever received appointment decree to work at the SIS
6 Q. With respect to the documents, were you an SIS personnel at the
7 Main Staff?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. So that you're not an employee of the SIS administration in the
10 SIS administration at the same time?
11 A. It doesn't preclude, this is not mutually preclusive.
12 Q. Fine. You told us that you were in the escort of Mr. Petkovic,
13 General Petkovic, on his visits to central Bosnia and Sarajevo
14 correct? Could you please repeat your answer?
15 A. That's correct.
16 Q. Please tell us, did you follow Mr. Petkovic when he travelled to
18 A. No, no. Mainly these were visits to central Bosnia.
19 Q. Please tell us, if you were detailed to work at the Main Staff
20 and you were supposed to escort General Petkovic, how is it that you
21 escorted him only when he visited central Bosnia and Sarajevo
22 A. It's only logical in my opinion, Mr. Petkovic, General Petkovic
23 attending peace negotiations outside Bosnia-Herzegovina because these
24 were political and military negotiations, and in my capacity I could not
25 have been involved in those. And when he visited central Bosnia
1 stated earlier, on top of by virtue of the nature of my job, I was
2 seconded to Mr. Petkovic as an assistant.
3 Q. Mr. Bandic, did your operative work as SIS operative, did include
4 the area of central Bosnia
5 other areas?
6 A. There were no limitations. It was the territory of
7 Bosnia-Herzegovina; wherever HVO forces were, this was part of my area of
8 responsibility. This was not exclusively restricted to central Bosnia
9 I personally, for instance, never went to Posavina.
10 Q. Apart from central Bosnia
11 officer elsewhere in Bosnia-Herzegovina?
12 A. All the other areas. I visited the area of Tomislavgrad, Livno,
13 south-east Herzegovina
15 Q. Could you please take a look at the first set of my documents.
16 Let's go through them quickly. Some of them are known to you. The first
17 one is 2D003939 [as interpreted]. 939, 2D939. This is a payroll list of
18 Security Sector employees for July 1993. You are referred to under item
19 2, Mr. Ivan Bandic. Would it be logical to conclude that in July 1993
20 you received a salary as an employee in the Security Sector of the
21 Defence Department?
22 A. Yes, that's logical.
23 Q. Fine. Let's take a look at the next document, P5467. This is
24 Mr. Bruno Stojic's proposal to Mr. Gojko Susak, recommending a promotion
25 of HVO officers for a comission with the Croatian military and suggestion
1 that Mr. Bandic, who is a major brigadier in HVO and proposed to assume
2 the rank of major in the HV. Does this refer to you Mr. Bandic?
3 A. That's correct, yes.
4 Q. Would it be logical to infer that the end of September you were
5 head of the administrative department of the SIS in the Defence
7 A. That's correct. I would like to supplement this with the
8 following: Since you've noticed that at different situations I'm
9 introduced by different titles. Sometimes assistant head or chief or
10 head of administrative department. Believe me, I personally don't know
11 all the titles that were attached to me.
12 Q. Let's take a look at another document, 2D942. 2D942. It is a
13 report that SIS assistant commander of the Kiseljak Brigade sends to you,
14 to the SIS administration in Mostar. My question is, were you at the
15 time of this report being submitted, that's February, 1994, whether you
16 were a member of the SIS administration at Mostar?
17 A. I believe so. At that time, yes, I believe so.
18 Q. Fine. Given your statement that you were at the Main Staff,
19 please take a look at the next document, 4D1311. It is an Article by
20 Mr. Ivica Lucic entitled "Security and Intelligence Services in
21 Bosnia-Herzegovina." On page 9, somewhere down the middle of the page in
22 the English version that would be the first quarter of the second large
23 paragraph that was translated, I'm interested in one statement by
24 Mr. Ivica Lucic, where he says that there were no SIS personnel at the
25 Main Staff. Could you tell us whether this statement is true or untrue?
1 A. I cannot find the article. I don't think that this is true.
2 Q. Fine. Let's take a look at the next document. 4D1652. That's
3 your interview to Globus magazine dated the 2nd of December, 2005
4 the content of Mr. Ivica Rajic had been --
5 A. There is only the title page.
6 Q. Impossible.
7 A. I've found it.
8 Q. In that article, you say at the end of the first column,
9 beginning of the second column, the author introduces you as a person
10 who, during the conflict with the Muslims, was sent to central Bosnia
11 a formal liaison officer with the -- for the Main Staff of the HVO who
12 informs on the events of Kiseljak, Vares, Zepca, in Usora, then sends
13 information to the Main Staff. Is it true that you had some tasks,
14 intelligent tasks in central Bosnia
15 as a person who has connections with the Main Staff because it would be
16 inappropriate for you to introduce yourself as an intelligence officer
17 whenever you had contacts with UNPROFOR representatives or whoever else
18 you got in contact with?
19 A. I reiterate, for a time I was in the SIS administration. For a
20 time I was at the Main Staff, and of course this was not determined
21 officially when I would be in the administration, when I would be in the
22 Main Staff. My task was for somebody of -- who has experience to be of
23 assistance to HVO commanders, in this case to Mr. Petkovic, whenever we
24 went out into the field in central Bosnia
25 Q. Now, let's take a look at the next document. P03177. It is an
1 official note compiled by crime investigation officer, Stefan Petric, on
2 an interview with you dated 3rd of July, 2000, in the premises of
3 Croatian MUP. First of all, have you ever seen this document?
4 A. I've never seen it.
5 Q. And did you talk to a MUP official of the Republic of Croatia
7 A. Yes, I did.
8 Q. Please look at page 2, the first paragraph, it says:
9 "In September 1992, the said person was sent to the area of
10 central Bosnia
11 interest, and the cover for his work was the position of assistant head
12 of the Main Staff for security within which he was in charge of the
13 security of General Milivoj Petkovic. He remained in central Bosnia
14 this way all the way up to the signing of the accords in 1994."
15 Mr. Bandic, my question is whether it is true that you said that
16 you had your own independent tasks in central Bosnia and that Milivoj
17 Petkovic was just a cover for your activities?
18 A. Your Honours, since we are talking about a document that has to
19 do with the time while I was still a member of the Croatian service, I
20 cannot speak about that unless I get permission from the authorities of
21 the republic of Croatia
22 legal institutions, and I can speak about all the things that are
23 referred to in this note only with permission provided to me by the
24 competent authorities of the Republic of Croatia
25 Q. Mr. Bandic, in mid-2000, you were not in the Ministry of Foreign
2 A. Yes, I was in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
3 Q. Let us look at the next document, P8852. This is --
4 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
5 MR. STRINGER: Counsel, I apologise for the interruption. I
6 apologise to counsel for the intervention, but I should alert the Trial
7 Chamber, this witness is going to be asked -- I don't know what counsel
8 has planned for the remainder of her cross-examination, but I can assure
9 the Trial Chamber that it's the Prosecution's intention to conduct an
10 extensive interrogation of this witness in respect of his activities as
11 an operative for the Croatian government in 2000, in 1997, 1998, when he
12 was attached to the Croatian embassy here in The Hague, and any number of
13 other positions that he held after leaving Bosnia-Herzegovina during the
14 time of the conflict.
15 So I think that it -- maybe the Trial Chamber needs to sort this
16 issue out now, because if the witness is going to decline to answer
17 questions about these issues, then it's going to be our submission that
18 his entire testimony should be stricken because we are not in a position
19 to ask the witness legitimate questions that go to his credibility and
20 his willingness to tell the truth in this Tribunal.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stringer, you are raising a
22 legal issue and in this courtroom I have no answer to give you. In many
23 jurisdictions, in democratic countries, United States, France
25 to talk about their activities unless -- well, first of all, they have to
1 respect confidentiality. But in order not to be bound by confidentiality
2 they need authorisations, and they can be -- end up by legal proceedings.
3 And I think that this is the case in the United States, notably. So this
4 is a new problem. Perhaps Mr. Karnavas has some light to shed here.
5 MR. KARNAVAS: A couple of points. Couple of points, and let's
6 be serious about it. First of all, first of all, we are talking about a
7 period that is outside the indictment that the Prosecution wants to go
8 into. Seconds of all, if we may recall the testimony of Galbraith who
9 was heavily involved, heavily involved with the US government in shipping
10 arms into Bosnia-Herzegovina at a time when there was an embargo, and it
11 was clearly involved in the very thick of violating UN -- the UN embargo.
12 Okay. And when pressed, his position was he couldn't speak about it.
13 We also heard testimony from a Prosecution witness which we
14 believe was an operative from one of the middle eastern countries, I'm
15 not going name it because I don't want to indicate who the person was,
16 but I think that we didn't press the issue because obviously it's an
17 non-starter to start with. So I think that at this point in time, it may
18 be good now that the Prosecution has indicated where it wishes to go, and
19 I commend them for doing that, and I would agree that under other
20 circumstances they may be entitled to pursue those lines of questioning,
21 and if not that they can move for the entire testimony to be stricken.
22 At this point in time, it may be useful to first excuse the
23 witness from the courtroom, and then to have a brief discussion and to
24 figure out where we are going to go from here. Because one, it would
25 impact on the cross-examination of my colleagues, my cross-examination,
1 if there is to be any, and I'm not suggesting that there will be one way
2 or the other. But of course the Prosecution is entitled to have some, I
3 would suspect, some guide-lines as to where it wishes to go, and the
4 sooner the better as opposed to waiting until the end of the
5 cross-examination by my colleagues. Thank you.
6 JUDGE TRECHSEL: That's actually what I just wanted to say,
7 Mr. Karnavas. I think, Ms. Alaburic, do you plan to go a lot into
8 matters which the witness will probably say that he cannot answer, or
9 will you -- do you have other areas which are negotiable? That are open
11 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I did not ask the
12 witness at all about his actives in the HIS. In the HIS, he worked from
13 the autumn of 1994 until the first of March, 1995. And my question
14 pertains to his activity in central Bosnia
15 the spring of 1994. I just used this official note as a basis for my
16 question, but the question I am putting to him only pertain to his
17 activity that he described during his examination-in-chief. My
18 colleague, Senka Nozica, asked the witness about his activities as an SIS
19 official, about his reports, about his activities in central Bosnia
20 my question pertained to the same topics and the same period, and I do
21 not intend to question the witness at all about what he did in the HIS.
22 Perhaps, if some subjects related to the trial of General Blaskic
23 crop up as interesting, I will just base my questions on newspaper
25 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honours, but I
1 should like to say something in relation to what the Prosecutor said. I
2 want to have the witness's statement to be perfectly clear. He said that
3 he was prepared to testify if he is given permission, because the
4 Prosecutor said "if he is unwilling to testify." He said that he is
5 perfectly willing to testify, but he has to get permission from the
6 service that he worked for.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, unless I'm mistaken there
8 are two separate issues here, there is the cross-examination by
9 Ms. Alaburic which focused on his activities within the SIS, and then the
10 Prosecutor is telling us that during his cross-examination he would like
11 to ask questions on various activities that were carried out after the
12 time when he was member of the SIS, and this is precisely where the
13 problem lies. So the Judges will have to discuss it, we'll have to
14 discuss it amongst ourselves. We'll see whether the Prosecutor will be
15 allowed to ask the questions, but we are not yet there so we'll be able
16 to discuss it beforehand. In order not to waste any time, I suggest that
17 Ms. Alaburic carries on with her line of questioning which are not
18 focused on the secret activities of the witness.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, since the Prosecution
21 will only start asking you questions tomorrow, so until then, could you
22 perhaps contact representatives of your government in order to know
23 whether you have the authorisation to tackle issues relating to your
24 activities within the services that are covered by confidentiality in
25 your country, and by tomorrow morning you might be able to tell us, Well,
1 I was given the authorisation, I was not given such an authorisation, or
2 I didn't get any answer. Is that possible at all, sir?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I appreciate your
4 interest and the interest of the Prosecutor, of course, concerning all
5 these details, and I am prepared to discuss that at any point in time of
6 course, and with the full consent of the competent authorities of the
7 Republic of Croatia
8 possibility to communicate during the course of the day with the
9 competent authorities so that I could have this permission by tomorrow
10 morning. I kindly ask you to understand me. As far as I am concerned
11 personally, there is no obstacle whatsoever to my speaking about this and
12 explaining this entire period; however, I do have to get permission from
13 my authorities.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We are going to close the
15 hearing at 13.45, so you have the entire afternoon to make a phone call
16 to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Zagreb, you can mention the issue,
17 they will get in touch with the presidency of the republic, and they will
18 be able to let you know very quickly whether you have this authorisation
19 or not. I'm not going to tell you how to do it. I'm just going to --
20 have just indicated how you could proceed, and then tomorrow morning
21 you'll be in a position to let us know that this is what I did, this is
22 what they said. Did you understand me, sir?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course, Your Honour. I shall do
24 that. I shall do whatever I can to get the permission. I know what the
25 course to be taken is so that I would get permission in writing to
1 testify about all the facts that you are interested in here.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] An additional question, when
3 you came to testify here, did you ask your authorities an authorisation?
4 I assume you did?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So when they
7 authorised you to come, they knew that the Prosecutor would lead a
8 cross-examination, didn't they?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I don't know. I assumed they
10 did know. My testimony has to do about the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, so
11 the period is roughly 1991 to 1994.
12 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I may be of
13 assistance, I think that we have a bit of confusion there, perhaps I
14 created it, but we have two different organs here. The witness did come
15 here with a strictly formal permission provided for his testimony, and we
16 had to do this in writing twice when he was supposed to come and testify
17 here; however, we are not talking about the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
18 that is supposed to give its permission or its consent. It's a different
19 organ, a different authority that has to give its consent. So that's
20 what the witness is referring to, this response in writing. So I don't
21 think that he can resolve the matter just by phoning the foreign
22 ministry. That is my understanding of it.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, however, the witness is
24 an expert and knows how to deal with such matters, because since the
25 Prosecutor said that when cross-examining he will ask him questions about
1 his credibility or he will test his credibility, and from what I
2 understood he wants to ask him questions about his time at the Croatian
3 embassy here in The Hague
4 the witness could say No, I will not answer because this is closely
5 linked to the diplomatic interests of my country. So this is a real
6 issue which, of course, has to do with the Croatian foreign affairs
7 ministry, but also Defence Ministry in terms of secret service
8 activities. So the best for us is to ask Ms. Alaburic to carry on and
10 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if you allow me
11 before that, I would like to say something about the topic that we've
12 been discussing to indicate how complex Mr. Bandic's situation is.
13 I know roughly what the topic would be of Mr. Stringer's
14 cross-examination. This is indeed something that has to do with his
15 activity of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. However, in the Republic of
17 president of the republic, and of course in the interest of cooperating
18 with the ICTY in the best possible way, the witness cannot theoretically
19 communicate with all the authorities in charge and all the persons who
20 are supposed to take part in making this decision.
21 So could the witness, well, please try to do this, but if he does
22 not manage to do it, it is due to these objective circumstances that I've
23 just describe. In this context, can we just look at another document.
24 The document is P8852.
25 Q. Please look at page 5 -- or, actually, let's say what the
1 document is. It is the report of Major General Ljubo Cesic Rojs, dated
2 the 21st of May, 1998, to the then Croatian President Dr. Franjo Tudjman,
3 about what had happened at the 5th Sabor of the HDZ that was held on the
4 16th of May, 1998, in Mostar. We are not going to deal with all of this,
5 but let us look at page 5 of the B/C/S text and page 9 of the English
6 translation. It says that Bandic, that's you, is involved in key matters
7 within the service as the chief of operations of SIS, and he is
8 particularly engaged in operative work vis-a-vis central Bosnia
9 parenthesis Kiseljak, Sarajevo
10 Rojs' report correct?
11 A. It is not correct.
12 Q. What do you mean by not correct?
13 A. Well, Your Honours, these are very arbitrary qualifications
14 because these were political conflicts, and I really don't know anything
15 about that, and I really did not -- I was not affected by it in any way
16 because I was not politically engaged.
17 Q. Mr. Bandic, I'm not asking you about the content of the document
18 as a whole. I'm just asking you about this statement that I quoted in
19 terms of your engagement in central Bosnia
20 specifically; is that part correct?
21 A. The nature of the context is not correct because Mr. Rojs cannot
22 know what my work was.
23 Q. Very well. We are not going to deal with this any longer then.
24 Tell us, Mr. Bandic, did you personally ever write a report about your
25 operative activities, and did you submit it to a commander or Chief of
1 the Main Staff?
2 A. I do not recall ever having written something like that or that I
3 was ever asked to do that. If I was asked to provide some information
4 orally or some explanation, then I certainly did try to do that.
5 Q. Very well. In your interview to Globus that we looked at a few
6 moments ago, 4D1652, that is the reference, in response to the direct
7 question put by the journalist about the investigation concerning Stupni
8 Do, you said that Petkovic did not order anything to me because he was
9 not my superior; is that a correct statement, Mr. Bandic?
10 A. Yes, it's correct. It is correct in the sense of him not having
11 ordered me to do anything and that's not the way our relationship
12 functioned anyway. General Petkovic practically never gave me any
13 orders. We had a relationship of confidence and friendship. If he ever
14 required information about a particular case, I provided it to him.
15 Q. Tell us, was General Petkovic your superior?
16 A. Formally, yes. Well, General Petkovic, as far as I understand
17 things correctly, was certainly my superior. Not my immediate superior,
18 but he was my superior because I was a military person, but he what not
19 my immediate superior. That's how I understand it. He was my commander,
20 wasn't he?
21 Q. Let's clarify this a little. He was your commander. As an
22 employee of the SIS, were you a member of the HVO?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. As you say that as of mid-1993 you were in the Main Staff, does
25 that mean that General Praljak was your commander?
1 A. Well, yes, General Praljak too, and General Petkovic also. I
2 considered them my commanders. I was a member of the HVO and I wore a
4 Q. In the period we are dealing with regarding Stupni Do, Mr. Roso
5 was the chief of the Main Staff, does that mean Mr. Roso was also your
7 A. Ultimately counsel, I consider the commander of the armed forces
8 to be my commander. That's how I understood it.
9 Q. Mr. Bandic, there's only one commander of the armed forces and
10 that's the Supreme Commander, Mr. Mate Boban, do you agree with that?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Do you agree that the armed forces also include the forces of the
13 military police?
14 A. I think so, yes. I'm not a military expert, believe me. I can't
15 go into detail of the military structure. I only know the basics. But
16 I'm not familiar with military matters.
17 Q. Very well. You spoke about your communication with Mr. Ivica
18 Lucic and the reports you wrote to him as the chief of the SIS. Did you
19 consider Ivica Lucic to be your superior?
20 A. Yes, my immediate superior.
21 Q. And to whom was Mr. Ivica Lucic responsible for his work?
22 A. I think it was the head of defence who was his superior.
23 Mr. Lucic was responsible to the head of the defence office, later the
24 minister of defence.
25 Q. Very well. Mr. Bandic, let's look at this very briefly. In the
1 Main Staff, was a post or section or department envisaged for SIS,
2 General Praljak is telling me that he will deal with this more
3 extensively, so just tell me according to the establishment of the Main
4 Staff, according to any documents, can we find any trace that in the Main
5 Staff, according to the establishment, there should be a staff member or
6 a service of the SIS?
7 A. Madam Counsel, I don't know what the detailed structure was. But
8 I do know that Mr. Kraljevic, who succeeded me, was also a SIS employee
9 in the Main Staff. How and through which establishment we were appointed
10 there, I don't know, but physically there was an area, a space, a room
11 there. First in Citluk and then in Posusje.
12 Q. Mr. Bandic, you are a lawyer, do you draw a distinction between
13 the terms "employee in the Main Staff" and "employee at the Main Staff"?
14 I wish to correct the interpretation. My question referred to employee
15 in the Main Staff [In English] Attached to the Main Staff.
16 [Interpretation] Do you draw a distinction?
17 A. Personally, no, I don't.
18 Q. Look at my second set of documents, the last two documents. The
19 first is 4D14324.
20 THE INTERPRETER: Or rather 4D1324, interpreter's correction.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Forgive me, I can't find my way
22 around this.
23 MS. ALABURIC:
24 Q. [Interpretation] Towards the end of this second set, you have
25 4D1324, and Mr. Predrag Covic, who signed this document, is introducing
1 himself as the officer for the SIS attached to the Main Staff, and the
2 date is 26th of December, 1993. His name is Predrag Covic. Mr. Bandic,
3 is this the same Predrag Covic which you mentioned as a SIS employee
4 attached to the Main Staff?
5 A. Yes. Yes, Madam Counsel, he is one of the three of us who were
6 attached to the Main Staff. In addition to me, there was Mr. Covic and
7 Mr. Kraljevic.
8 Q. Very well. Mr. Bandic, to whom did Mr. Covic send this report?
9 A. To the assistant of the minister, Mr. Biskic. I don't know who
10 the other person is.
11 Q. So the Main Staff is not among the addressees; is that correct?
12 A. Well, that's evident from this document.
13 Q. Look at the introduction, the preamble. It says: "Pursuant to
14 your oral order of the 26th of December," and so on and so forth, I
15 visited the ground. So does it follow from this that Mr. Biskic issued
16 an order to Mr. Covic for him to act on and that this is what this report
17 is about?
18 A. Yes, that's what it says here.
19 Q. Please look at 4D1325, that's also a piece of information by the
20 same author, Mr. Covic, dated March 1994, and it's an assessment of the
21 security situation in the Main Staff of the HVO. We don't have time to
22 go into detail, but tell me, this Mr. Covic, is he in fact reporting on
23 his, we could call it, security surveillance of the Main Staff, and is he
24 informing his superiors in the SIS administration concerning the
25 situation, the activities, and the problems in the Main Staff?
1 A. Madam Counsel, I have never of course seen this document. I
2 didn't see it at the time. I was not in the Main Staff of course.
3 Mr. Covic was. It's unusual to see that there are no addressees here. I
4 assume this is being sent to Mr. Lucic, that's the only way I can
5 understand this document.
6 Q. Employee of the SIS attached to the Main Staff, this term. Does
7 it mean in fact that this employee is authorised to monitor the work of
8 the Main Staff and report on the situation in the Main Staff?
9 A. Madam Counsel, I don't know why you are so concerned with this in
10 or attached to. I don't see what the difference is, but quite simply, he
11 is authorised to compile information on the situation prevailing there.
12 Q. Very well. Let's move on to the third set of documents.
13 Witness, you told us when --
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [No interpretation] There is a
15 problem, I'll resume.
16 Let me put my question again. We've just seen a whole series of
17 documents in which clearly the SIS is interested in the way the military
18 apparatus quote unquote functions. The military brigade of the HVO is
19 mentioned and the Main Staff of the HVO is mentioned. Based on this, I
20 have the following question: The minister of defence, was he not the
21 person that turned to the SIS to collect information on the way in which
22 the military apparatus operated?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I cannot answer this
24 question, although I would wish to be able to do so. I don't know
25 whether he issued such an order, but certainly the chief of the SIS
1 administration asked the SIS employee to compile such information. I
2 don't know whether the head or the chief of the SIS administration --
3 well, I don't know who he got his orders from. I'm not aware of that. I
4 don't know.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
6 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Mr. Bandic, according to the regulations governing the work of
8 the SIS, was it envisaged that the SIS had to deal with monitoring the
9 situation in the HVO units and the military police units?
10 A. That was one of the main tasks that the SIS dealt with, but I
11 would wish to add, Madam Counsel, since you mention the military police,
12 in the military police there was also the SIS which was unusual.
13 Q. Well, let's move on to the next topic.
14 Mr. Bandic, you told us when we were reading one of the
15 provisions governing the work of the security services, that in
16 Herceg-Bosna, the regulations of the former intelligence services of the
17 former state were copied more or less. Do you remember saying that
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Now I'd like to put to you some documents from which it clearly
21 follows that in the General Staff of the Army of Yugoslavia, the security
22 administration was in the General Staff of the Army of Yugoslavia. Do
23 you know anything about the organisation of the Army of Yugoslavia?
24 A. Madam Counsel, I don't have the faintest idea of how the former
25 army was organised. I was only trying to say that when these regulations
1 were drawn up, the material from the former state was used, and the
2 former military services, but also others in democratic countries of
4 Q. Very well. Mr. Bandic, do you know that the staff of the Supreme
5 Command of the armed forces of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina also had
6 their security service?
7 A. Yes, I am aware of that.
8 Q. Very well. But the HVO Main Staff did not have its own security
9 administration, the security administration was within the Ministry of
10 Defence; is that correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Tell us to the best of your knowledge, Mr. Bandic, the model
13 according to which the SIS in Herceg-Bosna was organised? Was it similar
14 or identical to the model according to which the SIS in the Republic of
16 A. Yes, one could conclude that.
17 Q. Very well. In view of your answer, I won't waste time on
18 comparing the regulations. Instead, I will put to you a statement made
19 by the late Franjo Tudjman as the president of the state when he was
20 conducting a conversation with officers of the Croatian army referring to
21 the SIS, and I will ask you to comment on whether the same rule can be
22 applied in Herceg-Bosna. The document is P131, 131. The transcript of
23 the 4th of March, 1992.
24 A. Excuse me, counsel, I can't find it.
25 Q. It's good that you told me. Your Honours, as this is a large
1 document, it is separate. It's been provided separately. So one of the
2 documents is only this transcript.
3 Witness, in the upper right-hand corner in the Croatian text you
4 will find the following numbers, they are called ERN numbers, so look at
5 the number ending in 948. And for Their Honours with respect to the text
6 in English, it's 99 forward in the English text.
7 So, Mr. Bandic, let's analyse this text. This refers in a way to
8 the conflict between the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Croatia
9 and the Main Staff of the Croatian army. Tell me, were you aware that in
10 1992 and 1993 there were some problems in delimiting the powers and
12 A. I'm really not aware of that. I know nothing about it.
13 Q. Very well. Let's look at this part. There are very many
14 interesting details. I will have to cut this short. I hope I will do it
15 in a fair way but anyone can read the document. It says, The minister
16 also has part of my authority to administer the army and the Chief of the
17 Main Staff to administer and the command, if I delegate that. And then I
18 will skip over four -- or three or four paragraphs and I will go on. The
19 SIS is under the minister here, down there it's under the commanders, but
20 to the greatest extent, it is subordinated along the vertical line more
21 than, let's say, operations and training.
22 I will skip over a paragraph and go on quoting, So this means
23 that the political sector of the personnel service, the moral and
24 political and security service of the military police, and as regards the
25 other services, the sectors of the ministry from securing the budget,
1 procurement, and the supplies for the ministry, they have to deal with
2 the Main
4 Mr. Bandic, I conclude from this that the model was that at the
5 state level the SIS is subordinated to the Ministry of Defence rather
6 than the Main Staff, and the entire organisation should be such that SIS
7 employees also work in the units of the Croatian army because their task
8 is to monitor the situation in the Croatian army; is this correct?
9 A. Madam Counsel, my knowledge of this is minimal. I cannot assert
10 with confidence how it was. President Tudjman was attempting to set up
11 an organisation, but I am not familiar with this and I cannot draw any
13 Q. Well, tell me, is that how it was in Herceg-Bosna?
14 A. It could be concluded that the model was similar, that it was
15 attempted in a similar manner to transfer such things into Herceg-Bosna.
16 Q. Could you please take a look at the next document, 4D1310, part
17 of an interview with Mr. Miroslav Tudjman, former HIS director. I'm
18 interested in one answer, you can find it at the bottom of page 3. This
19 is the only one that has been translated. It is dated 2000, a time when
20 in Croatia
21 introduced, and, prompted by that, the interviewer asks, How do you
22 comment the proposed changes in military security and intelligent
23 services. And Miroslav Tudjman answers, We see that there are HV Main
24 Staff demands that the SIS is brought back under the wing of the Main
1 This is a legacy of the JNA where KOS was under the Main Staff.
2 This is something which belongs to the past. This was dealt with back in
3 1991 when those who are now trying to do so again, wanted for both the
4 political department and the military police to be both the police --
5 military police, I correct myself, and the political department and the
6 SIS be part of the General Staff. It is known, however, that because of
7 a civilian oversight, this should be put into the Ministry of Defence
8 system because this is a solution we can find in other western European
10 My question to you, Mr. Bandic, is, we've seen Army of Yugoslavia
11 and Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina who have security services within their
13 then Herceg-Bosna, modelled after the solution in Croatia, wanted for the
14 Ministry of Defence, through the SIS, to conduct and preform civilian
15 oversight over the military?
16 A. Madam Counsel, after what you've read and after your question, I
17 cannot answer by simply saying yes or no. I would like to appeal to the
18 Bench to allow me to explain this context.
19 Q. Since I don't have much time, I would rather not dwell on the
20 context, sir. Could you please answer whether SIS was a mechanism of
21 civilian oversight over the military?
22 A. A mechanism of civilian oversight over the military, well, I
23 don't know the term.
24 Q. The second row from the bottom, Miro Tudjman is discussing
25 civilian oversights. Have you ever heard about civilian oversight?
1 A. Esteemed Counsel, yes, of course. We are discussing a person who
2 is an expert in security services. He was the head of security service
3 of the Republic of Croatia
4 thing. Another thing, the relevant period is 2000, that's five years
5 after the war. When Croatia
6 structures, and it's very difficult for me to draw any parallels between
7 the statements of Professor Tudjman and the time and the circumstances
8 prevailing when, in Herceg-Bosnia, the system was attempted to be created
9 that would function.
10 Q. Mr. Bandic, Mr. Tudjman discusses here the situation in 1991. He
11 says that politically it has been overcome in 1991, and this is why I'm
12 asking you this question, but we can proceed.
13 Please take a look at the next document, 4D1308. At the same
14 time, the then minister of defence who was a member of the liberal party
15 says in the first paragraph that you can see in the left most column, The
16 counter-intelligence or security part of the service is absolutely within
17 the Ministry of Defence because of the possibilities for civilians
18 oversight which is conducted through parliament, that is, through the
19 Ministry of Defence. And this is why it is placed in the Ministry of
20 Defence and so should be in Croatia
21 Please tell us, Mr. Bandic, this is the same matter, civilian
22 oversight. Could you agree that security services are one of the ways
23 whereby civilian authorities can exert control over the military?
24 A. Madam Counsel, I can agree that control is needed, absolutely,
25 but again, this context is 2000, after profound political changes had
1 occurred in Croatia
2 position and opinion. I cannot comment on that.
3 Q. At the time when Gojko Susak was minister of defence, were things
5 A. I don't know. At the time I was not in position to define the
6 relationships and how the relationship between the General Staff and the
7 Ministry of Defence in Croatia
8 Q. Let's skip one document and let's take a look at 4D1281. 4D1281.
9 It is a schematic of the SIS, the Security information Service, which was
10 drafted pursuant to a document referred to herein. Can we agree that the
11 security sector, in that part which concerns the SIS, is -- consists of
12 SIS administration and SIS centres in operational zones; is that correct?
13 A. That's correct.
14 Q. Can we agree that what is indicated, I hope that you have a
15 colour print-out, the blue section, if not, you can see it on the screen
16 in colour, can you agree that these are SIS operatives in military units
17 in HVO units?
18 A. [No interpretation]
19 Q. When we see the lines, as the way they are connected, is it
20 true -- I apologise, that the head of the Defence Department and
21 assistant head of the Defence Department for security, or that is head of
22 the SIS administration -- Mr. Bandic, can you repeat your answer to my
23 previous question, whether this blue field denotes SIS operatives in
24 military units as per operational zone?
25 A. To the best of my understanding of this schematic, this is so.
1 Q. Thank you. Is it true that SIS operatives in the military units
2 were appointed as per regulation and dismissed by the head of the Defence
3 Department in cooperation with the head of the SIS administration and at
4 lower level the head of SIS administration de jure or as per regulations;
5 was that so?
6 A. De jure, it was so, I think.
7 Q. So de jure by law, if a SIS operative failed to preform their
8 duties conscientiously, head of the Defence Department could dismiss him,
9 and at lower levels SIS administration head; is that so?
10 A. I would not concur. I think that this was at the commander
12 Q. I'm asking you about the law, the letter of the law, de jure?
13 A. I'm not sure.
14 Q. Fine. Let's take a look at the rule book on the work of the SIS,
15 which is a document.
16 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise, if my
17 learned colleague wants to adduce this document as exhibit, let's have it
18 at IC because we will be receiving it in black and white, but the witness
19 has testified to the colouring of this document and this can open a door
20 to misinterpretation. Could we have this document printed in colour as
21 an exhibit?
22 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] If I may, this document will
23 always be in colour, and if you get hold of a colour printer, you will
24 print it in colour. This document, after all, is an exhibit, and we used
25 it when cross-examining Mr. Davor Marijan.
1 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I agree. I don't want to argue
2 about that. But the question to the witness was whether the blue field
3 denotes assistants SIS affairs of commanders. It's all about the context
4 of the question and answer, and if my learned friend says it's in colour,
5 then we will make sure that we use it as such.
6 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Mr. Bandic, let's take a look at P4211. It's a rule book on the
8 work of the SIS. Article 5 for starters. It says here, verification and
9 control of the legality of work of the SIS is safeguarded and carried out
10 by the head of the Defence Department and the commission appointed by the
11 president of HZ-HB.
12 A. This is written here.
13 Q. In examination-in-chief, if I remember correctly, you said that
14 you did not know whether the commission has been established at all?
15 A. It was not known to me.
16 Q. Could you tell us, please, whether this means that head of the
17 Defence Department was the only person who authorised to -- ensuring and
18 implementing the verification and supervision of the legality of the work
19 of the SIS?
20 A. I cannot say so because I don't know whether the commission was
21 set up. I don't know anything about the commission.
22 Q. I'm not asking you, Mr. Bandic, about the commission, but the
23 competencies of the head of the Defence Department, pursuant to Article 5
24 of this rule book, which has been enacted by the head of the Defence
25 Department himself?
1 A. Madam Counsel, it is clear from this provision that the head of
2 the Defence Department and the commission do so, but I reiterate that I
3 don't know whether that commission was ever established or not.
4 Q. Very well. Let's take a look at Article 10 which says, The work
5 of the administration shall be managed by its chief who shall be held
6 accountable for its work and the work of the service to the head. Let's
7 first agree on what the term "service" denotes. Could you please tell
8 us, Mr. Bandic, whether we can define this term service as the SIS
9 administration, SIS centres, and operatives of the SIS in military units
10 and military institutions? Would that, put all together, would
11 constitute the service?
12 A. Yes, in its totality.
13 Q. Very well. In following from Article 10, if I'm reading this
14 correctly, head chief of the SIS administration is responsible or
15 accountable for the work of the whole service to the head of the Defence
16 Department; is that correct?
17 A. Yes, you can understand it by reading this provision, this
19 Q. If we said that the service is comprised of SIS operatives in
20 military units, it means that the chief of the SIS administration is
21 responsible to the head of the Defence Department for their work as well?
22 A. This is not so.
23 Q. But the article states so?
24 A. Well, counsel, in Article 7 mention is made of specialised
25 security tasks. In Article 8, discusses information gathering, and
1 Article 9 discusses what the operatives are supposed to do.
2 Q. Fine. But what about Article 10?
3 A. It is -- what is known to me are military matters and expert
5 Q. We will come to that, this is a completely different matter.
6 Let's take a look at Article 11 then. It refers to SIS centres, and it
7 states here that they coordinate and direct the work of all employees in
8 their area. Please tell us, Mr. Bandic, whether this means that SIS
9 centres are authorised to coordinate and direct the work of SIS
10 operatives in the military units?
11 A. Madam Counsel, I've just -- I've said that this coordinate and
12 direct is the professional part of their responsibilities.
13 Q. Yes, we will come to that. Let's skip a large chunk, but we do
14 not have the time to deal with everything, and let's take a look at
15 Article 51. Let's check whether you defined correctly what the service
16 comprises. In Article 51 it is state that all documentation shall be
17 stored in the service administration, at SIS centres, and in possession
18 of operative employees who, among other things, are part of the military
19 units; is that correct?
20 A. Madam Counsel, I did not understand your question, because units
21 are not mentioned.
22 Q. Employees or operatives are mentioned and they are in units?
23 A. Centres are referred to.
24 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Shall we take a break or should I
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I suggest we go for a break
2 now. You probably have one hour left.
3 --- Recess taken at 12.28 p.m.
4 --- On resuming at 12.53 p.m.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. The hearing resumes, and
6 before I give the floor back to Ms. Alaburic, I wanted to tell
7 Mr. Stojic's Defence team the following. As you are aware of, tomorrow
8 the witness will let us know what was the outcome of his proceedings with
9 the authorities, but regardless of this, we ask the -- Mr. Stojic Defence
10 team, by virtue of Rule 70, to hand in a request for protective measures
11 in order to limit the scope of the cross-examination should it be
12 necessary. So I invite you to do this so that when it comes to the scope
13 of the cross-examination, you know precisely what is the position of the
14 Croatian authorities, but it is up to you to do whatever needs to be done
15 but you have the --
16 MR. STRINGER: It's the Prosecution position, but maybe I'm
17 jumping the gun, but Rule 70 doesn't apply to this witness's testimony.
18 He's already testified. He's already given evidence. There's been no
19 confidential information that's been given to which Rule 70 might apply.
20 So I -- certainly if they want to ask for protective measures at this
21 extremely late time, Mr. Karnavas is right, this has been dealt with many
22 other witnesses who come with a diplomatic background, but of course this
23 is raised and dealt with and resolved by the Trial Chamber months in
24 advance of any witnesses actually coming to testify here.
25 So now this witness is going to go away tonight, and he is going
1 to talk to some people at his embassy about the one thing he is not
2 supposed to talk about with anybody, which is his testimony, so we are
3 already running off the tracks, if I may suggest that, because of the
4 fact that this issue was raised by the witness sitting in the stand for
5 the first time while on cross-examination. So we are already in trouble,
6 if I might suggest that. I think it's also incorrect, with respect,
7 Mr. President, to suggest that Rule 70 applies at all to this witness's
8 status or to the evidence that's already been given in open session.
9 So if there are protective measures that will be sought, that's
10 certainly fine, but it's not within the context of Rule 70, and certainly
11 the Prosecution is going to take its own position in respect of the
12 applicability of protective measures at this late stage of the witness's
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stringer, a very quick
15 reply to the legal issue. There are many situations in the jurisprudence
16 of this court where state's operatives benefitted from protective
17 measures by virtue of Rule 70, General Clark being one example, and I
18 could give you other examples. Secondly, you could -- you can benefit
19 from protective measures at any time. Nothing stipulates that it has to
20 be beforehand. It can be at any time. And thirdly, you said it yourself
21 when you announced that you were intent on asking him questions on issues
22 that haven't been tackled during the examination-in-chief or
23 cross-examination. You, yourself, have -- the position originates from
24 you. So the Trial Chamber has made its decision and has invited the
25 Defence teams who invited the witness to come and testify to do have to
1 is possible in order for this to be settled.
2 Ms. Alaburic.
3 Yes, witness, you raised your hand I hadn't seen you, I do
4 apologise. Yes, Witness?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Mr. President, thank
6 you for giving me the floor. It does are to do me with me after all, so
7 may I be allowed to be of assistance, if I can. I'm not asking for
8 immunity here on account of my diplomatic status. That is not why I'm
9 asking for a closed session. I'm not intervening because of that. I
10 would just like to say that there are things regarding which I do not
11 have permission. It is when I worked for the Croatian secret service. I
12 cannot testify without the permission of the appropriate authorities.
13 It's just a question of procedure. The answer will be there. I cannot
14 call the president or the prime minister or the minister, Your Honours.
15 Of course, they will respond to my call but there is a procedure that has
16 to be abided by. I did not contact anyone so far.
17 After I complete my testimony, I planned to meet up with my
18 colleague, the ambassador here, since we are friends and we know each
19 other but that would be after my testimony. Thank you for having allowed
20 me to speak.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
22 Ms. Alaburic.
23 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
24 Q. Mr. Bandic, let us go back to our rules. Let us look at Article
25 62, the document is P4211. The rules on the work of SIS. Sorry, 63
1 actually. Article 63. Let us try to be as brief as possible. Article
2 63 says in paragraph 1:
3 "Assistant commanders for SIS shall be required to perform the
4 tasks of commanders of units within whose structure they belong which
5 pertain to the scope of work of the service," as defined by the
7 I'm trying to cut things as short as possible.
8 Mr. Bandic, this provision shows that the SIS officers in
9 military units are duty-bound to carry out the tasks assigned to them by
10 the commander of the unit that they belong to; is that right.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Please look at the next paragraph, With respect to the
13 implementation of tasks from the scope of work of the SIS, the employees
14 shall be responsible to the competent -- to the superior centre or
15 administration. This provision shows that all SIS officers, including
16 those in military units mentioned in the previous paragraph, shall be
17 responsible for their work to the appropriate superior centre or
18 administration; is that right, Mr. Bandic?
19 A. In the professional domain, yes.
20 Q. In the professional domain, are you actually referring to SIS
21 work, that's what you meant by professional domain?
22 A. Madam Counsellor, I'm trying to understand things and to explain
23 them to you, and to me there is a double link. One is the military
24 operative, one at battalion level, brigade level, military district
25 level, so officers there are responsible to their commanders.
1 Q. Mr. Bandic, sorry for interrupting, but please show me in this
2 rule book where does it say that SIS officers in military units shall be
3 responsible for their work to the commander of the unit?
4 A. Counsellor, that goes without saying. The commander is the one
5 that issues orders within the unit.
6 Q. Can I interpret your answer to mean that the rules do not
7 stipulate this, but you believe that this goes without saying?
8 A. It goes without saying as far as I'm concerned.
9 Q. If the same rules established that SIS officers shall be
10 responsible to the centre or the administration, can you explain to us
11 then how come this is regulated by these rules?
12 A. Madam Counsellor, Your Honours, this was not my line of work. I
13 really did not take part in the writing of these rules.
14 Q. All right.
15 A. If you want detailed explanations of each and every article, you
16 can always call a person who took part in this, who was simply in charge
17 of this. Thank you.
18 Q. All right. Then we are going to skip that. Let us look at
19 paragraph 65 -- or rather, Article 65. Article 65 says the commander of
20 a unit may issue an order to an employee of the SIS for the performance
21 of tasks related to SIS work. Was that really the way it was?
22 A. Just as I said a few moments ago, as far as I'm concerned it goes
23 without saying.
24 Q. All right. Let's look at the next provision. The employee shall
25 submit a report on the order executed not only to the commander who
1 issued the order, but also to the centre or administration of the
2 service. Is that the way it really was?
3 A. Madam Counsellor, I'm telling you once again, I did not write
4 these provisions. We can interpret them. We can analyse them now. I'm
5 familiar with the legal part, but I cannot tell you what things were like
6 in the field. Things can be read the way you have read them just now.
7 Q. All right. I'm going to ask you whether that's the way the
8 things were in practice; namely, that a SIS officer in a military unit
9 sent his report not only to the commander, but also to the superior
10 centre or SIS administration. Is that the way things worked in practice
11 as a rule, of course, not in each and every individual situation?
12 A. I'm not aware of that. But it is possible that there were such
14 Q. All right. Let us look at Article 66 together. It says, In the
15 event an order is issued to an employee of the SIS, which is beyond the
16 scope of the work of the service, the employee shall immediately inform
17 the person in charge in the SIS, and he, in turn, shall take appropriate
18 measures prescribed by the decree in these rules. Tell me, Mr. Bandic,
19 does this provision defend SIS members in military units from any kind of
20 orders that would ask them to do something outside the scope of SIS work
21 and that in such situations they can ask for protection from the person
22 in charge of SIS, would that be the right way to interpret this
24 A. I think so.
25 Q. Very well.
1 Let us look at Article 68. It says, Employees of the SIS in
2 commands and units shall inform the administration and centre in the
3 prescribed manner about all developments influencing the state of
4 security in counter-intelligence protection. Tell me, was that the way
5 things were in practice, one of the tasks of SIS officers in military
7 A. I think that was the case, that it was one of the tasks. But I
8 think that in practice it didn't really work.
9 Q. Tell us, to the best of your knowledge, did military commanders
10 know that SIS officers had the task to report about the situation in the
11 unit that they were in, that they were supposed to report to the centre
12 or administration of the SIS, did military commanders know about that
13 task? Did they know that SIS officers were sending report to the SIS
14 administration or centre about the situation in that military unit?
15 A. I'm not aware of that. I don't know whether they knew.
16 Q. All right. I have prepared two more documents in this respect,
17 however, in view of your answer who the members of the SIS were, I'm
18 going to complete this topic that pertains to regulations and I'd like to
19 move on to my next topic, and that is your statement, Mr. Bandic.
20 If I understood you correctly, as you were answering the
21 questions put to you by the Bruno Stojic Defence, you said that the
22 appropriate procedure was not observed in the appointment of SIS members,
23 and all the way up to sometime towards the end of 1993 SIS officers held
24 their posts without having been appointed by authorised officials and in
25 a way that was prescribed by the regulations. Do you remember having
1 stated that?
2 A. Yes, I do.
3 Q. Please look at the next number of documents after the blue piece
4 of cardboard, document P938. Bruno Stojic, and command of the operative
5 zone of central Bosnia
6 officers and among them number 12, Ante Sliskovic, head of security.
7 Have you found that?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Tell us, Mr. Bandic, how do you interpret this, does this
10 document show that Mr. Sliskovic really held that position, that he was
11 appointed to that position by Mr. Bruno Stojic?
12 A. Madam Counsellor, this is the first time I see this document.
13 Under number 12, head of security, this is a notion that I find confusing
14 because as far as I know, Mr. Sliskovic was assistant head of SIS for the
15 military district. I don't know what head of security means here, of the
16 security centre that we've already discussed. We've already said that
17 there were problems in its establishment up there.
18 Q. Mr. Bandic, Mr. Ante Sliskovic was in the command of the
19 operative zone, not at the SIS centre; right?
20 A. That's right.
21 Q. All right. Please look at the next document, January 1993, Bruno
22 Stojic. Dismisses from duty in the Banja Lukic Brigade from the
23 positions of assistant commander for SIS and all duties and brigade
24 logistics, the assistant commander. The document is P10306. P10306.
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. This document shows that Bruno Stojic could already in the
2 beginning of 1993 relieve of duties SIS commanders in brigades. Did that
3 really happen to the best of your knowledge?
4 A. Madam, this is the first time I see this document yet again.
5 What I find interesting is -- well, I don't know who Josip Maric was,
6 although he was in SIS, although I had spent time there already, so
7 according to this, yes, but I really do not know that this was a frequent
8 occurrence. I really don't know. Especially I don't know who this man
9 was. I personally find this interesting that I never came across him. I
10 never met him.
11 Q. P835 is the next document, let's have a look at it. This is a
12 document on the appointment of persons to the Rama Brigade in Prozor.
13 It's signed by Bruno Stojic, November of 1992. Point 3 says Luka
14 Markesic is appointed head of security, chief of security. Tell us,
15 Mr. Bandic, is that the same Luka Markesic that you spoke of during your
16 direct examination?
17 A. Yes, I believe it's one in the same person.
18 Q. All right. Please look at the next document. 2D1446. Again,
19 this is a document signed by Bruno Stojic on appointment into the command
20 of the 1st Herzegovina
21 just going to ask you to look at SIS officers very quickly now. Number
22 16 says Zarko Pavlovic, chief of SIS. Have you found that?
23 A. Sorry, could you please help me once again.
24 Q. 16.
25 A. I find it a bit illegible.
1 Q. 16, Zarko Pavlovic, chief of SIS.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Is that the same Zarko Pavlovic that you said during your
4 examination-in-chief could not be resolved, is that one in the same
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. 17, look at that desk officer of SIS, Ljubo Ilic. Did you know
8 this desk officer of SIS?
9 A. Mr. Pavlovic, I did know. The gentleman that we are talking
10 about now, Mr. Ilic, that's someone that I do not know of and do not
12 Q. All right. Number 65, Borislav Jurkovic, desk officer for
13 security in the 1st Battalion. Tell us, did you know that security
15 A. Madam, I did not know him. Indeed, I did not have occasion to
16 meet a great many people from different units.
17 Q. Please look at number 94 now. Desk officer for security, Mile
18 Tomic in the 2nd Battalion. Have you found him? Do you know him?
19 A. I didn't know him.
20 Q. And now for Their Honours and for the transcript, SIS desk
21 officers are under numbers 124, 143, and 165. I'm trying to cut things
22 as short as possible, so we are not going look at each and every one of
23 them now.
24 Tell me, Mr. Bandic, after these documents, could you at least
25 change in part what you said during your direct examination, namely that
1 desk -- that officers of SIS in military units were appointed by
2 unauthorised officials apart from regular procedure?
3 A. I stand by what I said, there were many such cases.
4 Q. To the best of your knowledge, if you were to count how many were
5 appointed through a decision by Bruno Stojic and how many were not, could
6 you give Their Honours at least a ball-park figure, because on the basis
7 of your statement, it seemed that no one had been appointed in accordance
8 with procedure?
9 A. Madam, I never said that no one was appointed. I cannot give you
10 a figure. I cannot give you a percentage, but yet again I would like to
11 point out that after the administration was established, after we tried
12 to establish centres in a way we worked on a recapitulation. We tried
13 quite simply to compile a list to find out who these persons were,
14 because these people had already been appointed for almost a year and a
15 half. I mean, a year and a half before we tried to establish who the
16 said officers were. There is a period that we are talking about because
17 we had found a situation that we found --
18 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Half a year, not a
19 year and a half.
20 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Can we cut things as short as possible?
22 A. I'm just trying to say that we found a certain situation, and
23 only then was procedure observed and did they receive the kind of
24 documents they were supposed to receive.
25 Q. All right. Mr. Bandic, I would like to put a few questions to
1 you now in relation to your answer given during the direct examination.
2 In response to the question on whether SIS officers had the same kind of
3 authority, like organs of the interior did in proceedings before district
4 military courts. If I may be allowed to remind you, in response to the
5 question put by the Bruno Stojic Defence, your answer was yes. After
6 that the question was repeated and you changed your answer in the
7 following way, you said that these duties of the organs of the interior
8 before military district courts were enjoyed only by SIS members and
9 military units, that is to say, that these responsibilities were not part
10 of the responsibilities of SIS officers in the centre, and the
11 administration. Do you remember that answer?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. All right. In the next set of documents, could you please look
14 at document 4D1317. Again after the little blue cardboard. The first
15 document there.
16 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this is a document
17 that I prepared because I wanted to draw a comparison for you between the
18 relevant provisions of the Law on Criminal Procedure applied in the
19 civilian judiciary and the provisions in military courts that apply in
20 the military judiciary. So it's the first document after the next little
21 blue cardboard.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Madam, I cannot, well, it's a
23 different document here, the one after the little blue cardboard.
24 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Maybe you are looking at the wrong little blue cardboard. Yes,
1 yes, look at that first page now. Yes, that's right. And now the next
2 document. Do you see this document in two columns, Mr. Bandic?
3 A. No, no, no.
4 Q. Now, we are going to give it to you. Yes, you can see it on your
5 screen, yes, on your screen. You are a lawyer, Mr. Bandic, I think that
6 you will be able to clarify certain matters for the Honourable Trial
7 Chamber. On the left-hand side you have Article 148 of the criminal
8 procedure act which discusses duties of all state organs, enterprises, to
9 report criminal offences which are prosecuted ex officio. Please take a
10 look at paragraph 3 of that article. It is said that:
11 "State organs and enterprises and other institutions should in
12 such criminal report to list evidence known to them," then they are
13 duty-bound secondly to take measures to preserve traces of criminal
14 offences, and thirdly, to safe-guard items which were the subject of or
15 the instrument of commission of such criminal offence and other physical
17 This was a piece of legislation in effect throughout former
19 state organs, self-government organisations, et cetera, et cetera, I'm
20 cutting a list short?
21 A. Yes, I am a lawyer, but unfortunately, I did not deal with
22 criminal law, but this is a provision known to me.
23 Q. Let's take a look at an identical provision which regulates these
24 matters before military courts. It's Article 27 of a decree on military
25 courts, which spells out the duties of commanders, military institutions,
1 et cetera. The commander of a military unit must take all necessary
2 measures to prevent the perpetrator of crime, to prevent his flight, to
3 safe-guard physical items which may be used as evidence, and to collect
4 all information that might be useful for criminal Prosecution and
5 criminal proceedings, the military commander is duty-bound to inform the
6 district military Prosecutor and the immediate superior officer of any
7 such matters. Have you seen this?
8 A. Yes, I've seen it.
9 Q. Can we agree that this goes for a general obligation of the
10 competent state or military organs to take whatever they can to help
11 detect the perpetrators of criminal offences and help prosecute them?
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. Thank you. Let's turn the page. In Article 151 and 154, and
14 there are some other articles, what is discussed is what organs of the
15 interior are supposed to do with respect to criminal procedure. Your
16 Honours, you may read it. These are typical activities of a police in
17 any country which -- and they are authorised and duty-bound to perform
18 such tasks.
19 Let's list some of him. Detect and find perpetrator of a
20 criminal offence, undertake measures to prevent his flight or him being
21 unavailable, to secure evidence items which may be used as proof, collect
22 all information which may be useful for a successful criminal
23 prosecution, et cetera, et cetera. In the right-hand column, Article 25
24 on the Decree on military -- District Military Courts, it is said that
25 the tasks of the interior shall be done by the authorised personnel of
1 the security organ of the armed forces. This is what you discussed in
2 your examination-in-chief, isn't that so, Mr. Bandic?
3 A. That's correct.
4 Q. Your claim is, if I understood it correctly, that some SIS
5 officers had authorities and powers of organs of the interior and some
6 did not; is that correct?
7 A. Madam Lawyer, my understanding of that is that in operative and
8 military sense, and in this case as an authorised person within the
9 security organ, together with the security assistant of the operation
10 zone, it was their duty to act with respect to any criminal offences.
11 Q. And you as an employee of the an SIS within the SIS
12 administration did not have such powers?
13 A. Madam, if I am in an immediate situation, and let me note for the
14 benefit of the bench that I was such an authorised person in the previous
15 regime in the ex-Yugoslavia, but I never had the powers of arrest, of
16 apprehending and bringing in people, and I am discussing -- talking about
17 pre-war period and the war period.
18 Q. But if I were to understand your testimony, you were authorised
19 to talk where certain persons, for instance, those two who took part in
20 the HVO action at Stupni Do, you were authorised to make an official
21 note, to forward that official note to your superior, Ivica Lucic, for
22 further procedure?
23 A. Yes, I had authority to conduct interviews and produce a note,
24 maybe just -- maybe even take a statement.
25 Q. Let's take a look at Article 151, Criminal Procedure Act. The
1 powers of the organs of the interior are defined as such to collect
2 information from citizens to search in appropriate matter, to collect
3 evidence --
4 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I have to intervene, I apologise. I
5 would like the witness not to be implied or imputed. He said that he had
6 powers to interview and produce an official note, and this Article 151,
7 paragraph 2, discusses what the official organs of the interior had
8 powers to do. As far as I can understand, the witness in
9 examination-in-chief said exactly that, it was envisaged that organs of
10 the interior could investigate and everything else that SIS organs had no
11 authority to do, neither did they have capacity to do it. So if it is
12 imputed that he had said that, then let's read out paragraph 2 of Article
13 151 to see what organs of the interior did in connection with documenting
14 criminal offence.
15 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] What my colleague is saying, she
16 is going to deal with in her redirect. I'm not going to deal with this.
17 Q. I'm going to ask you my concluding question with respect to this.
18 So your thesis is that SIS administration was not in charge of the
19 detecting crimes, criminal offences, collecting evidence, and submitting
20 and lodging criminal reports and criminal prosecution and initiating
21 criminal proceedings against perpetrators. Is this your thesis?
22 A. Yes, it is.
23 Q. Let's look at the next document, P128. It is a report on the
24 work for 1992. The part which concerns the SIS.
25 A. Madam Lawyer, could you assist me.
1 Q. The next document following this juxtaposed overview immediately
2 after the document that you have in your hands, the next -- the very next
4 On page 8, this is a report covering 1992, a report on work of
5 the HVO. On page 8 is a section of the report which concerns the SIS,
6 Security and Information Service. In English, I will give you the page
7 number very soon, unfortunately I haven't noted it.
8 Mr. Bandic, please take a look. It is stated here towards the
9 end of the second paragraph, midway down the page, After systematising,
10 analysing data which are collected through operational work and through
11 interviews, consolidated reports were produced for the head of the
12 Defence Department and the president of the HZ-HB. Have you found this
14 A. I am sorry, I couldn't find it.
15 Q. In English, it's also page 8, paragraph 2.
16 A. Well, I have no pagination.
17 Q. Yes, there is. Take a look at the screen, please, the last
18 paragraph, the last sentence.
19 A. We are not discussing the same document. There's no pagination.
20 Q. Mr. Bandic, please be kind and focus on the screen. The last
21 sentence in this first large paragraph saying:
22 "After systematising and analysing data collected through
23 operative work and through interviews, consolidated reports were produced
24 for the head of the Defence Department and the president of HZ-HB."
25 Have you found this, sir?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Please tell us, systematising and analysing data gathered through
3 operations, could you please tell us what activities these are referred
4 to. How is this done, how do you collect or gather data through
6 A. Very simple, madam counsel, and this is the work that is the
7 basis for our service. If somebody submits a document through a
8 connection or an informant, then this is operations, and then through
9 interviews by producing official notes.
10 Q. Interviews. This is what -- we saw that organs of the interior
11 are authorised under the Criminal Procedure Act, they are authorised to
12 interview and talk to citizens, see if they have some knowledge about
13 certain criminal offences?
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. It says here that comprehensive reports were made by the SIS; is
16 that correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And following from this report it, says that such comprehensive
19 reports were submitted to the head of the Defence Department and
20 president of the HZ-HB; is that correct?
21 A. Of course. If this is stated here, I can just confirm.
22 Q. I'm going to skip one paragraph. Please take a look at the
23 paragraph which is at the bottom of that page. The part which said that
24 the service, in accordance with its capability, it has also participated
25 in the monitoring and detection of organised crime, can you see that?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Please tell us, this is a part of the report which was drafted by
3 the SIS administration. If it's true what you said, that SIS
4 administration was not in charge of activities concerning the detection
5 and prosecuting criminal offences, how come that this claim has found its
6 way to this SIS administration's report?
7 A. Madam counsel, my understanding is simple. It says here the
8 service, and this is referring to the whole service, criminal offences
9 are referred to about which the service collected and analysed data, but
10 the data came from the field through the centres, et cetera. When I said
11 the administration, please understand me that I'm referring to ten people
12 or so who have no capability of going out in the field. This was a place
13 where we tried through operational and analytical work to cover this part
14 of our responsibilities.
15 Q. If I understood you correctly, Mr. Bandic, SIS operatives and
16 employees at the SIS administration did not conduct operative work in the
17 field, but they processed the data they received from the ground
18 concerning prosecution of criminal offences; is that correct?
19 A. No, not just that exclusively. I did go out in the field
20 personally, but I'm talking about the administrative and operational
21 capacities. I want to avoid you understanding that there was a large
22 number of people who could work also in the field, et cetera.
23 Q. But from your answer, it follows that you at times would go out
24 in the field and collect information; is that correct?
25 A. Yes, that's correct. I collected such information.
1 Q. SIS employees at SIS centres, they were closer to what was going
2 on on the ground than people in the SIS administration?
3 A. Yes, that was of course so.
4 Q. And could you please tell us whether they collected evidence in
5 the field and tried to contribute to successful detection and prosecution
6 of perpetrators of criminal offences?
7 A. This was one of their tasks. One of their tasks.
8 Q. Very well. Let's take a look at the next document. Mr. Bandic,
9 I think it is in a separate set of documents, there are three documents
10 because of their volume were set aside. This is P4699. It's a HVO work
11 report for the first half of 1993. I'd like to draw your attention to
12 the SIS administration's report which starts on page 17 of the Croatian
14 Please take a look at page 18. There is a very important remark,
15 one of the key topics in this whole trial in the opinion of General
16 Petkovic's Defence team. Have you found it? In English version that's
17 page 11.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. The service in a timely manner registered many irregularities
20 within HVO units, skipping the rest of the sentence. And I'm quoting the
21 next sentence, As a separate problem in certain units, we found a large
22 number of troops, non-Croats who were mainly Muslims. The importance of
23 this warning was confirmed when the ABiH army attacked the HVO at Bioelo
24 Polje when HVO soldiers of Muslim ethnicity walked over to the ABiH ranks
25 and were the strongest force of the Muslim army in the attack against
1 Grbavica. My question is, was the HVO created as a military force of
2 Croats, Muslims, or all citizens or citizens without any ethnic
4 A. Your question, Madam Counsel, is -- touches the main topic, but
5 it necessitates a wider elaboration, and it necessitates an explanation
6 of how things came to a head in this way that it was described here. By
7 the Bench's leave, I would delve into a wider explanation, this is a very
8 delicate political matter.
9 Q. Mr. Bandic, I fully agree with you, and I think it would be very
10 good to do that if we had sufficient time. But all I'm interested in at
11 this point is what your perception was. Did the authorities in
12 Herceg-Bosna truly wish to create the HVO as the giant army of the Croats
13 and Muslims, was it a multinational, multiethnic army up until mid-1993?
14 A. Yes, I saw the HVO as a multinational army. And the army of BH
15 also had different nationalities in it at that point.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Alaburic, you can continue
17 tomorrow, you have time left, and the Registrar will tell us how much
18 time you actually have.
19 We would just like to complete the oral decision that was handed
20 down this morning as regards the cross-examination that will be conducted
21 by the Prosecution. I shall read this out slowly so that no mistakes are
23 Let me stipulate, Ms. Alaburic, that you will have 26 minutes
24 left for tomorrow.
25 The Trial Chamber in its oral decision completes the already --
1 the decision that has already been handed down as follows.
2 The Trial Chamber, after having recorded the comments made by the
3 Prosecution and the witness's statement, would like to complete the oral
4 decision in the following manner: Asking, thereby, the Stojic Defence
5 team to carry out the necessary measures on behalf of the witness since
6 the witness is a witness of the court, and according to the response
7 provided by the Croatian authorities, to seize us of a motion pursuant to
8 Rule 70 of our rules of procedure if necessary.
9 To sum up, Ms. Nozica and Mr. Khan, it's for you to phone up the
10 authorities in question because the witness is now in a position where he
11 is a witness of the court. We have addressed matters of substance and
12 therefore he cannot discuss a case file with his authorities. But you
13 may, and you can therefore call up the authorities and explain the
14 problem to them. If the authorities have nothing against this witness
15 talking about his activities which he had after he worked for the SIS.
16 So please file a written motion pursuant to Rule 70 of our rules, please.
17 The witness, therefore, will not find himself in a delicate position.
18 Witness, I'm sure you've understood what I've just said. You
19 musn't phone anyone up since you are now a witness of the court, and we
20 do not wish to put you in a delicate position. The lawyers that have
21 asked you to come and testify will do that on your behalf. They have all
22 afternoon and all night to do so. We will now adjourn and meet again
23 tomorrow at 9.00.
24 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.44 p.m.
25 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 18th day of
1 March, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.