1 Tuesday, 7 April 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The accused Prlic not present]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.16 p.m.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, could you please
7 call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon,
9 everyone in and around the courtroom.
10 This is case number IT-04-74-T, the Prosecutor versus
11 Prlic et al.
12 Thank you, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
14 This is Tuesday, April 7th, 2009. I would like to greet the
15 accused, notably Mr. Coric, who is back with us. I also would like to
16 greet counsels for Defence, all members of the OTP, and everyone helping
18 I will first give the floor to our Registrar, because I believe
19 he has an IC number to give us.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, Your Honour.
21 2D has submitted its response to the Prosecution's objections to
22 its documents tendered through Witness Dragutin Cehulic. This list shall
23 be given Exhibit IC986.
24 Thank you, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
1 The Trial Chamber is going to now issue two oral decisions, the
2 first one on the visit of the family of Mr. Praljak when he will be
3 testifying in this case.
4 At the hearing of the 1st of April, 2009, the accused Praljak
5 asked the Chamber to let his family members visit him for the time he
6 will be testifying as a witness as part of his defence. The Trial
7 Chamber notes that it is only the Registry who can organise these visits
8 at the UNDU. The Trial Chamber also notes that the accused Praljak is
9 due to testify for two months, approximately.
10 The Trial Chamber feels that there are no grounds that warrant a
11 prohibition of these visits, due to the fact that his testimony will last
12 a very long time.
13 Second oral decision, decision on the motion made by the
14 Stojic Defence to add Exhibit 2D01533 on its 65 ter(G) list.
15 On April 4th, 2009
16 Exhibit 2D01533, which is an order by Bruno Stojic, dated March 22nd,
17 1993, and addressing the appointment of lower-ranking officers within the
18 Herceg Stjepan Brigade on its 65 ter(G) list in order to show it to
19 Witness Drago Juric.
20 During the hearing of April 6th, 2009, the Stojic Defence told
21 the Trial Chamber that it had postponed the testimony of Witness
22 Drago Juric from April 6 and 7, 2009, to April 27 and 28, 2009. The
23 Trial Chamber notes that Exhibit 2D01533 addresses the power held by the
24 accused Bruno Stojic in relation to appointments and is interesting in
25 light of the interpretation of Article 34 of the Decree on Armed Forces
1 of the HZ-HB.
2 The Trial Chamber believes that the Stojic Defence did not
3 demonstrate that Exhibit 2D01533 is essential to the case of the accused
4 Stojic, as required on paragraph 26 of the 8th guide-line defined in the
5 Trial Chamber's decision of April 24th, 2008
6 that it has already heard enough evidence on this item. Therefore, on
7 these grounds and given that the motion was filed extremely late, the
8 Trial Chamber decides to dismiss Bruno Stojic's motion to add an exhibit.
9 So in a nutshell, the Trial Chamber believed that this exhibit
10 was not necessary, given the abundance of evidence that we already have
11 on this, and it was not necessary to add it to the 65 ter list.
12 Mr. Kovacic, if you are very brief, please start.
13 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I will be brief.
14 The Prosecutor, on the 3rd of April, made a submission,
15 Prosecution response to Praljak's notice regarding the upcoming
16 statements, pursuant to Rules 84 and 84 bis. Your Honours, in procedural
17 terms, this is an erroneous title, because the title of the submission is
18 "Response," although it is a request for the Trial Chamber to hand down
19 some decisions. A response cannot call for any decisions to be made, and
20 for procedural reasons this submission should be rejected. We cannot
21 respond to their submissions, since the Prosecution decided to call it a
22 response. Very simply, we don't see any basis for you to allow us to
23 reply to that. And actually it is a reply to our notice, and the notice
24 does not require a response. The Prosecution could have filed a notice
25 or a motion. This situation is not clear, and we deem that, in
1 procedural terms, this is a mistake.
2 And the second issue is this: The Prosecution do not demonstrate
3 any dignity towards this Tribunal, because the Trial Chamber has already
4 handed down a decision on the right of General Praljak to be able to
5 continue his testimony according to Rule 84 and 84 bis. Thus, the
6 decision has been made, and in that sense the Prosecution could have
7 reacted at the moment when the decision was handed down, and that was a
8 long time ago, many months ago. There was no reason for them to stall
9 their response for such a long time.
10 And the third argument that I would like you to bear in mind is
11 this: We planned for General Praljak's defence based on the previous
12 decision made by the Trial Chamber, which said that they would allow for
13 an additional statement or testimony, and we prepared everything based on
14 that presumption, based on that decision, and now the Prosecution
15 responds and debates whether this was correct or not. There are some
16 other elements there, but I don't want to go into details, because I just
17 want it to be noted that we object to this submission, for formal and
18 legal reasons, and that we do not want to reply in writing, because we
19 simply don't know how to react, because this submission was made contrary
20 to any Rules.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Your position is noted on the
23 The Coric Defence and then Mr. Scott.
24 MR. PLAVEC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, just briefly.
25 Mr. Coric's Defence would like to propose an ex parte session
1 after today's session, and the subject will be health issues and the
2 health condition of Mr. Coric. We are kindly requesting to the
3 Trial Chamber to make the decision as quickly as possible.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We will try to be brief.
5 Mr. Scott.
6 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Your Honour.
7 Good afternoon, Mr. President, each of Your Honours, Counsel, all
8 those in and around the courtroom.
9 Ever so briefly, Mr. President: I'm disappointed and find it
10 unfortunate that for the last some days now, Mr. Kovacic seems absolutely
11 determined to accuse the Prosecution of bad faith on every possible
12 occasion. This is form over substance. The Praljak Defence filed a
13 pleading that they called "Notice." I can't -- the Prosecution can't
14 control, of course, what they put on the face of their pleading -- called
15 it a notice, taking a position, and I think it's entirely appropriate for
16 the Prosecution in such a situation to file a response to information
17 provided to the Chamber, asking -- either stating or asserting that
18 certain action will take place. So I think it was entirely appropriate
19 for us to make our views known. If the problem is that Mr. Kovacic is
20 concerned whether he can make a response or not, then of course it's up
21 to the Chamber to grant him whatever leave the Chamber deems appropriate,
22 but it would be simply form over substance to say that the Prosecution
23 could somehow be held silent and simply not to respond or make its
24 position known in response to a pleading filed by the Defence.
25 Now in connection, Your Honour, one -- 30 seconds more: In
1 connection with Mr. Kovacic's repeated assertions that the issue has
2 already been resolved, I think with the greatest respect, Your Honour,
3 and I do mean this with the utmost respect, I think the earlier
4 commentary in the transcript was that the Mr. President was preliminarily
5 of the view that it would be allowed. I do not believe there is a
6 Trial Chamber decision on the topic of whether Mr. Praljak will, in fact,
7 be allowed to make a second opening statement, and we have stated our
8 position on that, Your Honours. And even if I'm wrong in my
9 understanding of the transcript, that would nonetheless be our position.
10 And given the history in this case to date, which includes, I might
11 remind the Chamber, the denial of Mr. Prlic's attempt to make a second
12 statement, inconsistent with that ruling and inconsistent -- I think the
13 better practice in these proceedings to date, the Prosecution indeed does
14 oppose any second opening statement by the Praljak -- by Mr. Praljak or
15 his Defence. He has done that. The Rules provides for one opening
16 statement. He did so. It's time to move on. If he wants to be heard
17 again, he can take the witness stand, take the oath, and give his
18 testimony like all other witnesses.
19 And that's the position, Your Honour. Thank you very much.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Let's bring the
21 witness into the courtroom.
22 [The witness entered court]
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Good morning [as interpreted],
24 sir -- good afternoon. Could you please give me your name, surname, and
25 date of birth.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Davor Korac. 10 September 1959
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What is your occupation at the
3 moment, please?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have a degree in Economics, and I
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Have you already testified in a
7 court regarding what happened in the former Yugoslavia or this is the
8 first time that you're testifying?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is my first time.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Could you please read the
11 solemn declaration.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
13 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
14 WITNESS: DAVOR KORAC
15 [The witness answered through interpreter]
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, sir. You may sit
18 Let me give you some information on what will happen. You are
19 going to answer questions put to you by Ms. Nozica. She might show you a
20 number of documents; I don't know yet. Then after this stage, maybe the
21 other counsel of Defence will also put questions to you, and then the
22 Prosecution -- the Prosecutor will cross-examine you, if need be. And
23 the Judges on the Bench can also put questions to you if they believe
24 that it is useful.
25 Please try and be brief in your answers. And if you don't
1 understand the meaning of a question, just ask the person putting the
2 question to you to rephrase it.
3 Ms. Nozica, you have the floor.
4 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you. Good afternoon,
5 Your Honours.
6 Before I begin, I would like to say that my examination may last
7 longer than an hour. I hope not, but given the Prosecutor's objections
8 that we have received recently, and our replies, with regard to the
9 documents in respect of Mr. Dragutin Cehulic, I believe that the Trial
10 Chamber has seen that for this witness we have three documents that
11 consist of several invoices. The witness has seen all these documents,
12 but at this moment, in order to avoid any risk of future objections and
13 possible decisions on the part of the Trial Chamber which might disallow
14 the admission of these documents, I am prepared to go over all of these
15 documents with the witness, and that's why my examination-in-chief might
16 take longer than originally foreseen, which was an hour.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Nozica, to save time, you
18 can say that you went through a number of documents with the witness,
19 this document, that document. He'll say, "Yes, I saw it," and so forth
20 and so on. There is no need to introduce a huge number of documents just
21 to say one thing, which is why we issued the oral decision earlier, so
22 you would understand that it's pointless to add tonnes of documents that
23 are all of the same meaning.
24 Please continue.
25 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Very well, Your Honours. I will act
1 according to your instruction. But when we come to the topic, we will
2 see why it may be significant to establish the total number of the
3 invoices in question. I will come to that when we come to the documents,
4 and then we will see whether it is necessary to show a large number of
6 Examination by Ms. Nozica:
7 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Korac.
8 A. Good afternoon.
9 Q. I'll start my examination-in-chief in the following way: I'm
10 going to present your particulars, and then at the end you will just tell
11 me whether the particulars are correct or not.
12 You graduated from the School of Economics
13 On the 1st of July, 1991
14 of the Interior of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in Sarajevo.
15 You were the chief of the -- of a department in the Administration for
16 Financial Affairs.
17 Together with your family, you left Sarajevo on the 27th of June,
18 1992, and you moved to Neum. From September 1992 to September 1994, you
19 were a member of the HVO Battalion in Neum.
20 You returned to Sarajevo
21 worked in Sarajevo
22 private company which trades in automobiles.
23 Is all this correct, Mr. Korac?
24 A. Completely.
25 Q. Mr. Korac, from the 1st of July, 1991, to the 27th of June, 1992,
1 you were the chief of a finance department in the Administration for
2 Finances of the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Bosnia
4 A. My immediate superior was the assistant head of that same
5 administration, Mr. Bruno Stojic.
6 Q. Which other departments made part of that administration?
7 A. In addition to my department for finances, there was also a
8 department for property, legal and residential affairs, as well as
9 another department for finances.
10 Q. What was the job; i.e., what did you do in the department that
11 you headed?
12 A. I had several desk officers, several warehouse officers, several
13 accountants who were keeping books, and we also engaged in the
14 procurement and distribution of materiel and technical equipment at the
15 level of the Ministry of the Interior for the territory of the entire
16 Bosnia and Herzegovina.
17 Q. Did your department carry out the annual stock-taking of all the
18 equipment of the Ministry of the Interior?
19 A. Yes, there was stock-taking every year on the 31st of December,
20 and that was one of the main tasks of the administration and the
21 department at the level of the ministry for the entire Republic of Bosnia
22 and Herzegovina
23 Q. Mr. Korac, how long did Mr. Bruno Stojic keep coming to work and
24 keep performing his duties as the assistant minister of the Ministry of
25 the Interior in the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina in the course of 1992?
1 A. I was aware that Mr. Bruno Stojic's family resided in Neum. We
2 all knew that, and we knew that almost every weekend he went to see his
3 family there and that he returned to work on Mondays. And as far as I
4 know, on the first Monday in April 1992, Mr. Bruno Stojic did not come
5 back to work. And that weekend, Sarajevo had been blocked for very
6 well-known reasons, and after that weekend nobody could come back into
8 was then that Mr. Stojic stopped coming back to Sarajevo.
9 Q. Did you or anybody else in the service have telephone contacts
10 with Mr. Stojic after that day?
11 A. Yes. For a certain while after the events in question,
12 Mr. Bruno Stojic's secretary told us on several occasions that the boss,
13 as she called him, meaning Mr. Stojic, kept calling, explaining why he
14 could not come to work, although we all knew what the reason was. And I
15 believe that on two occasions, he wanted to talk to me as well, and I did
16 talk to him. And I believe that this went on until the moment the post
17 office burnt down in Sarajevo
18 interrupted. That was in May, in the first days of May of that same
20 Q. Mr. Korac, did you have frequent contacts with Mr. Bruno Stojic
21 as part of your work?
22 A. I can say that that happened on a daily basis, as a result of my
23 work commitments as the chief of department, but this was also true of
24 other chiefs of departments that we mentioned.
25 Q. Mr. Korac, how will you describe to the Trial Chamber the
1 attitude of Mr. Stojic towards his position as the assistant minister of
2 the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina?
3 How did he take his job?
4 A. Precisely so. While he was affiliated with the ministry, he
5 behaved as an assistant minister of the Ministry of the Interior of the
6 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina. That is -- that was my impression, and
7 that is my conviction as well.
8 Q. Can you explain to the honourable Trial Chamber what you mean
9 when you say that he behaved as the minister of the interior of the
10 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina? What do you mean by that?
11 A. Looking in hindsight, if you had asked me that at the time, my
12 answer may have been different, because it would not have been coloured
13 by the events that took place subsequently. At the moment when it became
14 important, what your name was, where you hailed from, what political
15 options were closer to you and which ones were not so close to you, I can
16 say that in the administration, which had several dozens of employees of
17 various ethnic backgrounds, and if we apply all the other criteria that I
18 use to divide people today that were first used at that time, Mr. Stojic
19 did not have any problem with that, the employees did not have any
20 problem with that.
21 In addition to that, the Ministry of the Interior employed people
22 from public security stations, from security services centres. There
23 were 109 public security stations in the entire territory of
24 Bosnia-Herzegovina, and there was never any problems with their ethnic
25 background. A majority of people that I communicated with had a very
1 positive view of the administration and its leadership. In that sense, I
2 would say that there were no differences based on where people came from,
3 from which organisational unit, in our job.
4 Q. Can you please tell the Chamber specifically if Mr. Bruno Stojic
5 did his job and met all his obligations in the best interests of the
6 Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina?
7 A. Yes, I think that was the case.
8 Q. Mr. Korac, within the MUP itself, the MUP of the Republic of
9 Bosnia and Herzegovina, which body was it that took decisions?
10 A. The ministry was headed by the minister, and the body that he
11 works closely with was the minister's collegium, made up of the minister,
12 his deputy, and the assistants of all the basic organisational units, the
13 administrations within the ministry. Those were the people that he
14 worked closely with, and you could call it the minister's collegium.
15 Q. We've heard this quite many times in this courtroom, but maybe it
16 would not be amiss to repeat once more. Who was the actual minister at
17 the time, the Minister of the Interior of the Republic of
19 A. At the time, it was Mr. Alija Delimustafic.
20 Q. Alija Delimustafic, Delimustafic; right?
21 A. Yes, Delimustafic. Alija Delimustafic.
22 Q. It's fine now. Can you tell us the names of other assistants?
23 You said that the minister and the assistants made up the ministry's
24 collegium. Can you tell us the names of some of the assistants, please?
25 A. If my memory serves me, there was the Communications
1 Administration, the assistant was Mr. Akif Sabic; then there was the
2 Crime Administration, headed by Mr. Momcilo Mandic; the
3 Police Administration headed by Mr. Avdo Hebib, I believe; the Personnel
4 Administration headed by Selimovic, Hilmo Selimovic.
5 Q. Thank you very much. I think this is quite sufficient for our
7 Can you now tell the Chamber about the relationship between
8 Mr. Bruno Stojic and the members of the collegium? What were their
9 relations like?
10 A. I think they worked quite well together. As far as their
11 professional commitments were concerned, there were no delays or anything
12 like that. Sometimes discussions were quite lively, which is on occasion
13 necessary to get a job done properly, but there weren't any clashes
14 between the members that one could observe. I believe I can say that
15 their cooperation was obviously fair.
16 Perhaps I should add this: This was a period at which certain
17 things began happening, and many people later regretted that those things
18 had ever happened. Nevertheless, at the time some of the members of this
19 collegium worked together on a private basis and even socialised outside
20 their work. They socialised quite frequently, as a matter of fact.
21 I think the media followed this as well, the Sarajevo-based newspaper
22 "Us" wrote about this on a weekly basis.
23 Mr. Stojic, Mr. Mandic, Mr. Delimustafic would meet and
24 socialise. One week, one of them hosted this little get-together, and
25 the next week it would be someone else. They socialised. They would
1 meet in public places, which in some way demonstrated that what we were
2 watching on the TV news every night was not necessarily all true. It was
3 a good thing to read about this in the papers every now and then, knowing
4 that you were working in an environment in which people were socialising
5 even on their own free time and of their own free will, and not just
6 because they had to because of their work. The message that this was
7 sending to everyone was that it was all right to live with people who
8 were in many ways different. They were on very good terms. I'm not sure
9 if they were friends, but they were certainly companions, if I can put it
10 that way.
11 Q. You say or suggest that some sort of message was sent across by
12 this, by them socialising. We've talked about this in the courtroom. We
13 talked about all these divisions along party lines, along ethnic lines.
14 Is this a message that got through? Did the public understand and take a
15 positive lesson from this, that all these ministers and assistant
16 ministers were socialising also on their own free time and that they
17 weren't just linked to each other professionally but also socialised on a
18 friendly basis, if you like?
19 A. Yes, I think you could put it that way. For example, I had a
20 colleague who I was working with. He was different in one way or another
21 and I was different from him, but still we spent time together, we
22 socialised. Had our superiors been sending out a different kind of
23 signal, maybe that would have made it impossible for us, at a lower
24 level, to socialise and hang out together.
25 Q. And now I'm going back to your professional work, to your line of
1 duty. How was MTS procured in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina?
2 A. That was one of the commitments of the administration headed by
3 Mr. Bruno Stojic. The work of my department was part of this overall
4 effort. Obviously, initially there would be an order to obtain certain
5 types of MTS, and this order would be issued by the assistant minister,
6 Mr. Stojic. There would be requests and orders previously from the
7 minister's collegium. Those orders and requests were in keeping with a
8 document. I'm not sure if I'm interpreting this correctly.
9 Nevertheless, procurement was always based on a programme of purchasing
10 equipment and modernising the equipment of the MUP throughout the
11 Republic of B
12 There would be a report that was drawn up invariably, containing
13 a summary or an overview of the needs of public security stations across
14 the country or security services centres, as well as the MUP itself, the
15 Ministry of the Interior, the MUP being a very demanding service not just
16 in terms of numbers but also in terms of actual equipment. A document
17 like this would normally be produced on a mid-term basis and would span a
18 four-year period routinely. Goods and equipment were then obtained based
19 on this.
20 There would be a budget that was allotted to this sort of
21 activity, and this was down to the finance people. That was no longer my
22 job. But I was there, I was working there, and I knew something about
23 what was going on also at a government level, and then there would be a
24 budget that was approved. It had to be ratified by the Parliament, as
25 far as I know. And then based on this budget, there would be
1 procurement, renewal, modernisation, and this applied to the Ministry of
2 the Interior in its entirety. All sections would benefit from this.
3 Q. You've told us a little about the modernisation programme right
4 now. I think that was the phrase you used.
5 A. "Equipment and modernisation." I think that's what the programme
6 was called.
7 Q. And the programme applied to which period? Tell us, please, if
8 you can remember.
9 A. The programme that applied at the time spanned the period between
10 1990 and 1995, as far as I remember.
11 Q. Mr. Korac, could you please take the smaller binder in front of
12 you. I would like to go through a number of documents covering some of
13 the subjects that we have been discussing. The smallest binder that you
14 have in front of you.
15 The first document is 2D00836. Mr. Korac, what we see there is a
16 letter dated the 16th of July, 1991, signed by Mr. Bruno Stojic,
17 addressed to the Cabinet of the MUP and members of the collegium or the
18 advisory board, a report on the possibility of a more rational use of the
19 building of the Police Social Centre. That is how the heading reads.
20 Can you, first of all, please, tell us where was this police
22 A. It was and it still is right in the center of town, in the
23 immediate vicinity of the Ministry of the Interior building. The
24 ministry was at Borisa Kovacevic Street, I'm not sure what the street's
25 name is today. Perhaps 100 metres, as the crow flies; no more than that.
1 Q. To the best of your knowledge, and I believe you've read this
2 letter in its entirety while being proofed, was this the usual procedure
3 for an assistant minister of the interior to communicate with the
4 minister's cabinet and members of the advisory board?
5 A. I think at a stage like this, and given the nature of the
6 activity in question, this was a perfectly normal procedure for
7 announcing an initiative. What I see here is perfectly clear. There had
8 been a considerable investment, and the building had been revamped, if
9 you like, several years before. It was used by the ministry. There were
10 a lot of things going on there. There was a cinema hall. It had a hall
11 for festivities of all kinds. It had a gym, all sorts of things, and it
12 was hardly ever used. Sometimes there would be a ceremony that was held
13 there, an occasion marked, or perhaps consultations took place there.
14 Mr. Stojic is a natural talent. He was an economist and he was
15 proposing here that instead of all this expenditure, instead of spending
16 all this money, some money might be saved or poured back into the state
17 coffers, and then those funds could be used to modernise the entire
18 operation, the equipment and the building and everything. Obviously, the
19 money in question is not a lot, but --
20 Q. 2D88 -- 2D00814, please, that's the next -- 841, that's the next
21 document. This is a proposal for analysis, sent by Bruno Stojic,
22 assistant minister of the interior, on the 10th of December, 1991,
23 addressed to the Republican Institute for Public Planning. There is an
24 attachment here for drafting an analysis, the development of All People's
25 Defence and Social Self-Protection, 1991, with an assessment of the
1 possibility of development throughout 1992. Could you please explain to
2 the Trial Chamber why there was a need to draw up an analysis such as
3 this one? Was the MUP under any obligation to provide an attachment like
4 this, as done by Mr. Bruno Stojic in the case before us?
5 A. This wasn't exactly my line of work, not just when I worked in
6 the MUP, but even before that time, I wasn't in charge of anything like
7 this, but I do know that any economic entity, any social entity, any
8 state entity, any federal entity, definitely had to deal with these
9 issues, what we called at the time "All People's Defence and Social
10 Self-Protection." They were also under an obligation to deal with issues
11 that had to do with what was termed "Defence Preparations." The Ministry
12 of the Interior was one of the two most significant players in these
13 defence preparations, in addition to, of course, the federal army.
14 Therefore, the ministry had every obligation to make plans to
15 monitor developments and to make proposals for analyses like that to be
16 drafted. I say more general level, the objective being to possibly have
17 to defend the country from any attacks, attacks from abroad, obviously.
18 Everyone had to deal with these issues, defence issues, in one way or
19 another, but if you had an economic entity, or perhaps in the state
20 ministries there was special sections for All People's Defence and Social
21 Self-Protection, therefore it was probably even a special obligation for
22 the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina,
23 not just to be ready to face eventualities such as this one, but also to
24 work hard to improve its own capacities, in terms of personnel, in terms
25 of equipment, to keep modernising all the time so that it might be ready
1 to respond to a possible threat or attack from abroad, attack on the
3 Q. Can you please now go to page 2. This is a draft proposal for
4 the analysis. Let me just point you to page 1, the second-to-last
5 passage. There is mention there of the budget for 1991, and you said
6 that within the programme for modernisation and equipment, this is
7 something you've been talking about, and then the budget was approved in
8 relation to each and every year; right?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. What about the last paragraph? There is a proposed programme for
11 the modernisation of the services of the public and social security in
12 relation to 1991 to 1995, and you said it was between 1990 and 1995. You
13 made a mistake there; it's actually from 1991 to 1995.
14 A. Well, yes. It's a matter of parentheses, isn't it?
15 Q. The document goes on to say that the programme talked about
16 various needs, the need for weapons, for equipment, and then there is a
17 list of various necessities, equipment needed by the Ministry of the
18 Interior to be able to continue its activities?
19 A. Yes, indeed.
20 Q. At the end of this paragraph, it says that the programme should
21 be adopted by the Assembly of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and
22 that the ministry had already submitted for review this proposal, and
23 that the proposal was being reviewed by the government. Is that the same
24 procedure that you were telling us about, in terms of procurement,
25 equipment and everything else, and this was used as a basis for all the
1 procurement that occurred back in 1991 and 1992; is this how it was
3 A. The Ministry of the Interior based their expenditure on a budget,
4 and obviously there had to be plans on how this money was to be used.
5 Needless to say, again, this wasn't exactly part of my work, it wasn't
6 something that I was dealing with directly, but I know that even
7 nowadays, whenever there's a government proposal, you have parliaments
8 and assemblies adopting budgets. I expect the same procedure applied at
9 the time. The BH Assembly would adopt a budget in relation to whichever
10 year was coming next. For example, in 1991, what was drawn up was a
11 budget proposal for the following year, and then it would be submitted to
12 the finance ministry, to the government, and there would need to be a
13 couple of things that were harmonised. Not everything was necessarily
14 approved, but what you eventually obtained was a budget that was normally
15 a result of some sort of a compromise between what was needed and what
16 was possible.
17 Q. Another document about this, 2D00840, another document about the
18 same subject. Mr. Korac, it is precisely for this reason that I've been
19 showing you these documents, because you were telling us this is exactly
20 the sort of thing that is being done nowadays. I just want to know if
21 this was the same thing that was done at the time, back then, the period
22 we're talking about, whether the same procedures were -- I've been
23 cautioned to slow down. I'll repeat this.
24 That is precisely the reason I've been asking you all these
25 questions, because I want to make sure, based on your knowledge, whether
1 at the time the same procedures were followed and the same regulations
2 that applied in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. That's why I
3 would now like you to move on to the following document. That's the one
4 that you have in front of you. Again, this is another document signed
5 Mr. Bruno Stojic, and the document is dated the 21st of December, 1991
6 And again he's addressing the finance ministry, asking for additional
7 funds to be used for the ministry's work.
8 In this letter, Mr. Stojic points out that funds were needed,
9 additional funds. Now he talks about the various sectors, expenditure,
10 common funds, special-purpose funds, the public security service, that
11 sort of thing. And then if we go down to the last paragraph, he
12 expresses a hope and desire that the proposal would be adopted, as had
13 been the case hitherto.
14 Mr. Korac, what about this document dispatched by Mr. Stojic; was
15 this document, too, in keeping with all the procedures that applied at
16 the time on procurement and general expenditures of the Ministry of the
17 Interior of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
18 A. I believe that a request of this kind is normal and correct,
19 especially bearing in mind that if the budget was spent, which did not
20 happen in January or February, usually it happens towards the end of the
21 year, and in this case it is in November of that year, and the ministry
22 did not have any more funds left, so it had to turn to the state, and I
23 believe that the most normal and customary way was for them to address
24 the Ministry of Finances in order to see whether there could -- there
25 were any funds to be had in any of the reserves, or maybe this should
1 have been something else, like the -- reconsidering the budget, but it
2 was late, November was late to reconsider the budget, so he turned to the
3 Ministry of Finances and this was a legal way to request additional funds
4 for regular business. And here we can see that we're talking about the
5 material spending, funds for joint spending, funds for the special
6 purposes of the public security service, funds for special purposes of
7 the Internal Affairs Training Centre, which was part of the ministry. So
8 we're talking about the whole Ministry of the Interior which required
9 additional funds.
10 Q. When both you and I receive signals from the courtroom, that
11 means we both have to slow down in order for everything that the two of
12 us say be properly recorded.
13 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] And now I would like to inform the
14 Trial Chamber that I will be asking the witness about three documents
15 that contain invoices for the purchase of a Golf car, and I am referring
16 to the testimony by Witness Josip Manolic on the 4th of July, 2006, and
17 his statement provided on pages 4386 through 4389. The Prosecutor showed
18 the witness document P134 on that occasion.
19 Q. Mr. Korac, in the course of 1991-1992, were Golf vehicles
20 purchased for the MUP of Bosnia and Herzegovina?
21 A. Yes. The purchases were made in keeping with the programme of
22 equipping and modernisation that was in place at the time.
23 Q. According to the best of your recollection, during the period
24 1991 and 1992, while you worked at the MUP, how many Golf vehicles were
25 purchased pursuant to this plan of programme and -- of equipping and
1 modernisation, as you call it?
2 A. I know that there were several batches of supplies up to the end
3 of 1991, and then up to the end of June 1992, maybe up to 300 vehicles
4 were purchased for the Ministry of the Interior, in the entire territory
5 of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which were covered by the programme that we
6 have already discussed.
7 Q. You have just mentioned it in passing, but I would like to seek
8 some clarification from you. Does the programme -- did the programme
9 actually specify who the vehicles were purchased for?
10 A. Yes, of course. The programme was a sum of all the needs of all
11 the public security stations, and I believe that there were a total of
12 109 of them in the entire territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina. There were
13 also nine centres of public security, and there was also the ministry
14 which comprised the school for the training of the ministry employees.
15 When all the needs were summed up, ones that had been coordinated,
16 because you have to know that a public security station may request ten
17 photocopying machines and the assistant has the right to say, You only
18 need two, and then they compromise on five, this plan of equipping and
19 modernisation is also the basis for the distribution of all the purchased
20 equipment, because the equipment is usually procured based on a document
21 of that kind.
22 Q. You have used photocopying machines as an example. Would that
23 apply to Golf vehicles?
24 A. Of course. Why not?
25 Q. Very well. Tell me, please, how were the vehicles procured?
1 According to you, there was this programme of modernisation and
2 equipping, which displayed the needs of all the segments within the
3 Ministry of the Interior of Bosnia-Herzegovina. After the programme was
4 drafted, how were Golf vehicles procured? How were procurements done, in
6 A. Depending on what is being purchased and the -- let me limit
7 myself to this particular case. The existence of the programme and the
8 elements in the programme called "Cars" doesn't mean that the
9 administration will embark on the procurement. If a conclusion is
10 reached by the collegium that the time has come for some materiel and
11 equipment to be purchased, then professional services, and in this case
12 this was the Department for Materials Ordered and Finances, and
13 particularly the -- its Detachment for Materials Ordered, they started
14 collecting offers. Although there were no legal requirements or
15 conditions in place for this to be three bids, in principle we always had
16 to have at least three procurement bids that had to be accompanied by an
17 elabora [phoen] that contained all the financial aspects, and when those
18 arrived they would be handed over to the assistant minister, who would
19 then get together with other colleagues and the minister, they would
20 discuss the bids and they would make their decision based on all the
21 accompanying materials.
22 Q. Should I understand that, that the final decision was in the
23 hands of the collegium of ministers?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Who was the authorised person to sign payment orders for a
1 procurement of this kind?
2 A. I believe it was only the minister who was allowed to sign such
3 payment orders, or he could have authorised somebody else. But I believe
4 that he was the only authorised person to execute such payment orders.
5 Q. We have three documents here that contain certain invoices
6 relative to the purchase of Golf vehicles. Could you please look at
7 document 2D00839. Could you please tell the honourable Trial Chamber
8 whether the invoices that you can see in the document, whether they
9 refer -- and I'm starting with invoice number 9100286 up to
10 number 9100315. Do all these invoices refer to the purchase of the Golf
11 vehicles that we have discussed?
12 A. Yes. Since I have already had an occasion to look at the copies
13 of the invoices, I can say that, yes, the invoices in question refer to
14 the purchase of the vehicles for the Ministry of the Interior in the
15 course of 1991 -- 1991. Here we can see clearly who was selected as the
16 seller. This was Adria Auto, based in Dubrovnik. The buyer was the
17 Ministry of the Interior of Bosnia and Herzegovina. You can see the date
18 of the invoice. You can see the basic data of the car, the price, the
19 chassis number. You can see all that. And in the heading of almost
20 every document, you can see who the vehicle was intended for, and this
21 was all in keeping with the programme for equipping and modernisation of
22 the Ministry of the Interior.
23 Q. You're looking at invoice number, and I'm going to give you the
24 last three digits, 286; is that correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Can you see what is written in handwriting because the
2 interpreter could not discern clearly what is written here?
3 A. I believe it is for Bihac, for the public security station in
4 Bihac. Indeed, it is not easy to read, but since I was very familiar
5 with the procedure and this particular purchase, I know where it was
6 intended for.
7 Q. Let's look at 287. That's the next invoice. Was that another
9 A. Yes, it was another car of almost the same characteristics. The
10 only things that differ were the chassis number and the engine number,
11 and I believe that its destination was the Police Administration. That's
12 what you can see in the heading of the invoice.
13 Q. Can you please look at the following invoice. The number is 288.
14 A. Yes. Again, the same vehicle. The date is 16th September. It
15 says "Golf vehicle." It gives you the price and everything else. It
16 says "Garage" here, and I believe that the reference is made to the
17 garage that existed within the building of the Ministry of the Interior.
18 And those vehicles were used by the ministry, for the official purposes
19 of the ministry.
20 Q. Could you please look at the following invoice, which is 289.
21 A. Yes. In the heading, you can't see a destination, but you can
22 see something that looks like the DIN number of the registration plate.
23 Q. Of what town?
24 A. Sarajevo
25 Q. Very well. Could you please look at invoice number 290.
1 A. Yes. The same or similar vehicle, same period, the month of
2 September, so it would be the same batch. This is the fifth
3 administration, i.e., administration within the ministry.
4 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Ms. Nozica, would you be so kind as to explain
5 to the Chamber what the interest and relevance of the next document is,
6 which looks to us like the previous one, and the next again like the
7 previous one? What's the interest in having X number of identical
8 documents? I would be really grateful if you could pick out one of those
9 that have anything special to them. I think that would be quite enough.
10 Thank you.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Nozica, I fully agree with
12 my fellow Judge. We know that the Ministry of Interior bought Golf cars.
13 We know that they were sent to different police stations, administrations
14 and so on. All this is explained, so let's not waste any time talking
15 about every invoice a lot and every car that is sent to each and every
16 police station. Ask a question, you know, to shed some light on this.
17 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
18 I believe that it was clear, when I referred to the part of the
19 transcript, i.e., part of the examination of Witness Josip Manolic.
20 Josip Manolic quoted from documents that I mentioned, document 134, P134,
21 part of the statement by Mr. Boban, who says that Mr. Bruno Stojic
22 purchased through the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of
23 Bosnia-Herzegovina a total of 150 Golf for the HZ-HB. I believe that it
24 is very relevant to see that during that period of time a total of
25 260 Golfs were purchased, as one can see from the documents, and I also
1 believe that it is very relevant to establish where the Golfs were
2 dispatched to.
3 I fully accept your suggestion. I did not intend to read all
4 260 invoices, because we have a witness here who looked at all of them,
5 but I just wanted to present to the Trial Chamber how we can establish
6 where the Golfs were sent to, and that's why I asked the witness to
7 explain some of the invoices.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I agree with you, Ms. Nozica.
9 The simplest thing is to ask the question in the following manner: Tell
10 him that a witness, Mr. Josip Malovic [as interpreted], said that
11 150 vehicles had been bought and sent to police stations. "You took part
12 in this, Mr. Witness, so can you confirm it?" And then the witness can
13 answer, "Yes, and as a matter of fact the invoices that we have just seen
14 together prove this."
15 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] With your leave, I would like to
16 proceed to see whether 150 Golfs were, indeed, sent to where Mr. Boban
17 said that they were, or maybe the situation was entirely different.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, Ms. Nozica. But
19 whether its 150, 200 or 300, that's pointless.
20 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I appreciate that, and I will go
21 through the documents very quickly.
22 Q. Witness, have you had an opportunity to look at all the invoices
23 contained in 2D839?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Can you confirm to the Trial Chamber that these are indeed
1 invoices that were issued on the 16th of March, 1991?
2 A. 16th of September.
3 Q. I apologise. 16th of September. Can you also confirm that each
4 of the invoices or at least -- or most of them mentions the destination
5 of the vehicle?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Can you please look at the somewhat thicker binder which contains
8 2D837. Can you confirm for the sake of the Trial Chamber that these are
9 invoices for the purchase of Golf vehicles that were also purchased
10 within the framework of the same project that you mentioned?
11 A. Yes, these are the documents that I previously went through, and
12 they are about the same purchase. It's a different lot, that's all.
13 These were invoiced on the 31st of December and then distributed based on
14 a predetermined distribution plan, which was also a basis on which these
15 vehicles were purchased. They were distributed to the Security Services
16 Centres, and this is a note that's handwritten on most of these invoices.
17 Q. Mr. Korac, can you confirm, for the benefit of the Chamber,
18 9100346 through 9100578? I'm talking about these invoices. You have
19 gone through these, each of these, and can you now confirm that that is
20 the purchase that we're talking about when vehicles were purchased?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Can you further confirm that while looking at most of these
23 documents, in the heading we see who the cars were eventually dispatched
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Just another document on this same subject. That's in the
2 smaller binder, 2D00838.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I hadn't intended to
4 ask any question because it's a well-known topic, but there's one
5 question regarding budget techniques, for those who know about finance.
6 These invoices are dated December 31st. Was it because the budget that
7 had been decided for 1991 be completely -- be finished in order to use up
8 all the funds that had been allotted to these lines, to these; otherwise,
9 there would have been a problem, probably, to transfer the purchases to
10 the next year? In a word, aren't these invoices dated December 31st in
11 order to just use all the spending that had been planned in the first
12 place when the budget was drafted earlier?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't know whether
14 that was the intention, but when dealing with budgets, if there are any
15 funds that are unused, the funds do not just go back, they're not
16 returned. Therefore, it is only logical that the funds would be used in
17 the same year for which they are earmarked.
18 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Thank you. I asked you to look at 2D00838, please. Witness,
20 there is a total of ten invoices there. The date is the
21 10th of March, 1992. Can you please tell the Chamber about these ten
22 Golf vehicles? Were they purchased as part of the equipping and
23 modernisation plan?
24 A. Yes. This is the third lot or batch, or one of the batches of
25 these vehicles that were delivered in March 1992. We're talking about
1 the same funds. We're talking about the same provider. This is part of
2 the same deal. It is just that the invoices don't make it perfectly
3 clear who they were sent to or allocated to.
4 Q. Finally, in order to see what the source is, 2D843. That is the
5 source for all these documents. Have you got it?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. This is a letter by the director of the Federal Ministry of the
8 Interior and the Federal Police Administration, Mr. Zlatko Miletic,
9 sending this to the office of attorney-at-law Senka Nozica. He specifies
10 here that he had received a request from my office in order to forward
11 these invoices to Senka Nozica, attorney-at-law, representing Mr. Stojic,
12 which he did. Do you know Mr. Zlatko Miletic, and do you know for a fact
13 that this was his position at the time, as specified here?
14 A. I don't personally know him, but I know he held the position at
15 the time. Mr. Miletic is a well-known person in those circles. I'm a
16 well-informed citizen, like many others, and I know that this indeed was
17 the position he held at the time.
18 Q. Mr. Korac, having gone through all these invoices, could you
19 perhaps tell the Chamber whether these vehicles were distributed or
20 delivered across Bosnia-Herzegovina to each and every public security
21 station, to Security Services Centres across Bosnia and Herzegovina
22 A. Yes, the vehicles that I've looked at, the vehicles that we're
23 talking about, were distributed in keeping with the procurement plan,
24 which was also the distribution plan. It was for public security
25 stations and security services centres or stations across Bosnia
2 Q. Mr. Korac, were you involved in the drafting of the regular
3 annual list of the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Bosnia
5 A. Yes, that was part of the work of my administration, the
6 administration headed by Mr. Bruno Stojic. We had to do an annual
7 stock-taking, listing all of the items, equipment. And I'm not just
8 talking about basic things, such as cars, but also weapons, stationery,
9 money, requests, and so on and so forth. In one word, yes.
10 Q. Tell me about these Golf vehicles in 1991. Was stock-taking of
11 all these vehicles at the end of 1991, and were these vehicles included
12 in the lists?
13 A. All of the equipment, including motor vehicles and these Golf
14 vehicles, all items and goods that were eventually distributed and
15 delivered to public security stations, security services centres, by the
16 31st of December found their way into the lists and were later included
17 in the report of the stock-taking commission, and that was the final
18 document that was produced in relation to any big expenditures over the
19 previous year.
20 Q. Were there any discrepancies once the job was done, in terms of
21 was the documents reflected and what was really the case?
22 A. You're asking me about these vehicles; right?
23 Q. Yes.
24 A. No, none. Even as far as the basic equipment were concerned, and
25 then cars were part of this, there were no discrepancies between what the
1 books reflected and the real situation. But every time an inventory was
2 drawn up, every time there was some stock-taking, damaged or out-of-date
3 items would be listed, and I assume some items were set apart, but not a
4 great quantity. For example, there was supposed to be something that was
5 at the Jajce Public Security Station, and yet this something was stolen.
6 There was nothing like that that occurred in any of these reports.
7 Q. Did you have some information indicating that some irregularities
8 occurred in the way that cars were distributed?
9 A. This certainly wasn't something that I encountered in my work.
10 It wasn't my duty to monitor these irregularities, but I never heard
11 anything like that. I never witnessed anything like that. I heard no
12 rumours at all to that effect. I received no information indicating that
13 anything had been embezzled or that any funds were mis-administrated by
14 the Ministry of the Interior, nothing at least within the remit of the
15 Materials and Finances Administration.
16 Q. Did you ever hear that Bruno Stojic, having left his position as
17 assistant minister of the interior of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
18 in a formal or an informal way, was accused of any irregularities
19 committed during his term of office?
20 A. Once Bruno Stojic had stopped travelling to Sarajevo in early
21 April 1991, I would be physically present, I would be at the Ministry of
22 the Interior in Sarajevo
24 three months. I never came across any instance of anyone at all
25 launching an investigation into Mr. Bruno Stojic's work or, indeed,
1 questioning its regularity.
2 Q. Our last document is 2D0842. This is a letter from the Ministry
3 of the Interior, the Sarajevo-based ministry. The date is the
4 17th of September, 1992. If we look at this letter, at the beginning it
5 says that the government ordered the Ministry of the Interior to look
6 into issues that have to do with the criminal responsibility of
7 Branko Kvesic, Momcilo Mandic and Bruno Stojic, if any, and then the
8 letter goes on to state what exactly the MUP had found. Without
9 speculating, can you tell us this: Why the three names? Why do you
10 think these three names are there?
11 A. Each of these persons held a position of responsibility and
12 authority. Each, at least the way I see it, could have been or indeed
13 was in a position to handle public resources or perhaps resources
14 belonging to the Ministry of the Interior, and that was a considerable
15 amount. Each or any of these persons could potentially have found
16 themselves in a situation where they could embezzle or misuse such funds
17 as were available. That is why, I think, the government wanted them to
18 look into these three persons. This was probably favoured by the fact
19 that none of these three persons were in Sarajevo at the time. They had
20 long stopped coming to work.
21 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters note, could there please be a
22 pause between questions and answers. Thank you very much.
23 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Finally, the last paragraph of this document, document number 3,
1 "At the Ministry of the Interior, at this time we do not have any
2 specific information as to irregularities committed by Bruno Stojic, the
3 former assistant minister of the interior. Nevertheless, a revision is
4 underway of certain segments involving material and financial
5 transactions within the administration headed at the time by
6 Bruno Stojic. A special report will be drawn up on this matter."
7 Mr. Korac, do you know whether any steps were taken following
8 this letter, any measures taken against Bruno Stojic? Were any
9 irregularities or anything illegal at all found in his work as the
10 assistant minister of the interior of the Republic of Bosnia
12 A. I'm looking at the date this document bears, and I was no longer
13 at the ministry myself. I did go back to Sarajevo eventually in 1996.
14 Ever since my return, and I have been socialising with people from this
15 professional environment, I have been spending time with journalists as
16 well, and they have spent an enormous amount of effort looking into cases
17 such as this one, I never, ever heard anything at all about any
18 investigations into possible irregularities that occurred in Sarajevo
19 and Bruno Stojic's name was never associated with any of these, not
20 during his time with the Ministry of the Interior. There was never
21 anything like that, not as far as I know. To the best of my knowledge,
22 no one ever brought up his name associated to anything like that. No
23 irregularities were ever found, nothing to do with Mr. Bruno Stojic's
24 work during his time with the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of
1 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Mr. Korac.
2 This concludes my examination-in-chief, Your Honours. Thank you.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
4 D3, please, Mr. Kovacic.
5 MR. KOVACIC: Thank you, Your Honour. We don't have any
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] D4.
8 MR. STEWART: No, we have no questions either, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] D5.
10 MR. PLAVEC: [Interpretation] No questions, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] D6.
12 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] No questions. Thank you.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] D1.
14 MR. KARNAVAS: Good afternoon, Mr. President. Good afternoon,
15 Your Honours. Good afternoon to everyone in and around the courtroom.
16 We have no questions, but we do wish to thank the gentleman for coming
17 here to give his evidence. Thank you very much, sir, and safe travels.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
19 Let me ask the Prosecution, will there be a cross-examination?
20 MR. LAWS
21 Your Honours. And good afternoon to everyone in and around the
23 Mr. President, yes, there will be some questions. We appreciate
24 that this not a central issue, but there will be some cross-examination,
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Let's break for
2 20 minutes. Afterwards, the Prosecution will have the floor, and if need
3 be, Ms. Nozica will have time for redirect. Then we'll have a second
4 break, and we will resume ex parte with Mr. Coric.
5 --- Recess taken at 3.42 p.m.
6 --- On resuming at 4.05 p.m.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Laws, you have the floor.
8 MR. LAWS
9 Cross-examination by Mr. Laws:
10 Q. Mr. Korac, before today did you know that Mate Boban had praised
11 Bruno Stojic for obtaining over 150 Golfs and weapons for Herceg-Bosna?
12 A. I was informed about that claim regarding the vehicles during my
13 proofing sessions.
14 Q. Very well. And you heard Ms. Nozica refer to that conversation
15 in the course of this afternoon's testimony, I think.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Thank you. Can I get with you, please, two things clear. The
18 first thing I want to get clear is the date of that conversation, and the
19 second, just what is said. And to do that, you'll find in front of you a
20 very small bundle of documents. The first of those is P00134. And this,
21 we're going to see, is the source of the conversation to which you and I
22 have just referred. All right?
23 The first page is simply there to tell us who was present; it's
24 Mr. Tudjman, and, at the foot of the page, Mr. Boban. And the date is
25 the 10th of March, 1992. All right, can you see that? Now, that's at
1 the time when Mr. Stojic --
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. -- is still working at the MUP, is it not?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And if you would turn on with me, please, we have the next page,
6 page 103, is simply there to show us that it's Mate Boban who is
7 speaking. And over the page, page 104, we have Mr. Boban referring to
8 appointments and talking about appointments that have been made for the
9 lottery and other institutions. All right?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. If you turn the page again with me, you'll find that we have a
12 paragraph which, in the English, starts: "Luckily, we had a man for
13 financial affairs in the Ministry of the Interior." Can you see that
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And it reads:
17 "Luckily, we had a man for financial affairs in the Ministry of
18 the Interior, Bruno Stojic, a devoted man, whom they wanted to dismiss in
19 writing because of this, and this man has given us so far, in our
20 territory of Herceg-Bosna, over 150 new Golf cars, not to mention the
21 weapons, but I can say it because this is the party."
22 All right. And that's the conversation that you have been
23 referred to both in your proofing session and today.
24 Now, in March, as you've just said, Bruno Stojic is still working
25 at the MUP; yes?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And you can produce invoices which show where the cars were
3 purchased from?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And those invoices show that the cars came from a motor car
6 dealership in Dubrovnik
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And they relate to the MUP spending well over 80 million dinars
9 at a time when money was very tight within the MUP, do they not?
10 A. I don't know. I can't comment. I don't know whether the money
11 situation was tight or not. It was what it was.
12 Q. Well, forgive me, Mr. Korac, but you've been asked to produce a
13 document that shows Mr. Stojic trying to generate additional funds by
14 renting out a police social club, and it perhaps is a fair observation to
15 make that it's going to take quite a lot of rentals on a club of that
16 kind to buy 270 Golfs. So for me to say to you that money is tight and
17 this is 80 million dinars is a fair observation, isn't it?
18 A. You will remember that I said that the funds that could be
19 obtained in rentals were insignificant in comparison with the
20 expenditures on the part of the ministry, and of course you could not
21 purchase 200 and I don't know how many vehicles. But whether the
22 financial situation was in line with the overall situation in society,
23 I can agree that the extraordinary circumstances in the state implied
24 that there was also an extraordinary financial situation in the ministry.
25 Q. All right. Well, we're not going to waste too much time on that.
1 That's where they came from, but as to where they were actually
2 going, Mr. Kovac, are you saying that the best record we have is the
3 handwritten annotations on the top of some of these pieces of paper; is
4 that your understanding, that that's the best record of where the
5 vehicles were going to go?
6 A. Of course not. The destination of anything, and especially
7 something that was valuable, such as any car was, had an accompanying
8 form. Every annotation of a vehicle was accompanied by the record of the
9 hand-over of such a vehicle which was part of the accountancy record.
10 The accountant in the department prepared all the necessary documents,
11 which means that anything that was purchased and paid and became the
12 ownership of the Ministry of the Interior in this case meant that the
13 thing was indeed procured and that it was distributed pursuant to a
14 regular legal procedure. I can claim that because I was a participant in
15 the procedure, I can testify to that, and I believe that the documents in
16 question can still be found in the files of the Ministry of the Interior,
17 documenting each and every piece of goods purchased.
18 Q. Well, we would expend there to be a very substantial document
19 trail in relation to the movement of these vehicles, wouldn't we? We're
20 agreeing about that?
21 A. Of course there is.
22 Q. Well, the reason that I ask is this: Part of the purpose of you
23 being called to give evidence today, as we understand it, is to tell us
24 where these vehicles went, and that's why I've asked you whether the best
25 record available is the handwritten entry on the top of some of these
1 pages, and it's by no means all. There are dozens of these pages that
2 are blank, aren't there?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. So your evidence is that there are proper records, but you
5 haven't got them with you and they're not in the binder that you've been
6 asked to look at; is that the position?
7 A. The crown of every financial transaction is the accounting record
8 of a business event. One such event is the purchase and distribution of
9 a resource, and at the end of the year there is the legally-prescribed
10 stock-taking of all the resources that had been purchased prior to the
11 stock-taking exercise and that should be in the ministry. If something
12 is not in the ministry and there is a record of its purchase, or if there
13 was mismanagement and if the thing went missing, then this is easily
14 established by the stock-taking exercise. Since we have established
15 prior to this that on the 31st of December, 1991, there were no
16 discrepancies, and I stayed with the ministry until June of the following
17 year, and in the report produced by the government as the owner of all
18 the resources, including the Golfs, the government requested from the
19 Ministry of the Interior to account for the money that was supposed to be
20 spent for the vehicles, and as a result of that there was no inquiring
21 into anything that may have been illegal, based on which I can
22 conclude -- not just me but everybody else can conclude that the funds
23 had not been mis-appropriated. Every vehicle has a license. You don't
24 have to have a take-over record, because it's a well-known fact that the
25 ownership is well known, and it is also well known who is supposed to be
1 looking after every vehicle.
2 Q. Forgive me, sir. That was, if you don't mind me saying, a
3 lengthy answer to what was meant to be a reasonably straightforward
4 question. There are proper records of these transactions and where the
5 vehicles went to, but you don't have them with you and they're not in the
6 binder that you've been asked to look at; is that the position? I think
7 you can answer that question simply "yes" or "no," can you not?
8 A. Yes. The answer is yes, it's not in the binder, no.
9 Q. Thank you very much. Lastly, you've told us a little bit about
10 when Mr. Stojic left Sarajevo
11 cars is dated the 10th of March of 1992. The biggest of the orders is
12 dated the 31st of December of 1991, but the last order whilst he would
13 have been in Sarajevo
14 that he was in the habit of going to visit his family in Neum over the
15 weekend and was not able to get back into Sarajevo because of the
16 blockade which occurred at the beginning of April of 1992; is that right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Would you just turn over, in the small bundle of documents that
19 you have there, to the document that is labelled P00163. This is a
20 document that's dated the 16th of April of 1992, and it appoints a number
21 of people to the Command of the Grude Forward Command Post of the
22 Southern Front, and it's over the name of General Bobetko. Can you see
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. At number 7, one of the names is that of your former boss,
1 Bruno Stojic. Can you see that?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. You told us, towards the beginning of your evidence, that
4 Mr. Stojic, in the period at the beginning of April, was making telephone
5 calls to the MUP, saying that he was unable to return to work because of
6 the blockade, although, as you said, I think, you already knew that; is
7 that right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Did he mention any other engagements that he might have had in
10 Grude at the time?
11 A. No.
12 MR. LAWS
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Nozica.
14 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
15 I would like to clarify two issues with the witness.
16 Re-examination by Ms. Nozica:
17 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Korac, you had an occasion to see the
18 documents that the federal ministry of the interior in Sarajevo submitted
19 to Mr. Bruno Stojic's Defence regarding the Golf vehicles; is that
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Did you see, among the documents, that only these invoices were
23 submitted; no other documents accompanying the hand-over of the vehicles
24 was submitted to us?
25 A. I saw a list of documents that are listed as having been found in
1 the offices denoted by numbers and in the cupboards in the corridors,
2 also denoted by numbers. Among the lists, there are the hand-over
3 records for the vehicles and so on and so forth, which are not part of my
4 binders. In other words, the gentleman who submitted the documents also
5 mentioned that those were found in the cupboards.
6 Q. But the documents were not delivered to us?
7 A. They're not here.
8 Q. And now I would kindly ask you to tell me this: When it comes to
9 the destination of the --
10 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Excuse me, Ms. Nozica.
11 Witness, how can you affirm that something has not been delivered
12 to Ms. Nozica and the Defence of Mr. Stojic, on what basis?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the basis of the record of the
14 contents of the documents contained in a binder.
15 JUDGE TRECHSEL: And at which binder would that be, please? Can
16 you be more precise? Are you talking about the binder you have in front
17 of you?
18 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I may be of
19 assistance, I can refer you to a document that the witness is referring
21 JUDGE TRECHSEL: The witness should really --
22 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the Judge, please.
23 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I appreciate your wish to assist, but I think if
24 I were a party, I would perhaps object, that counsel should not testify.
25 Witness, the binder you were talking about, is it the one that we
1 all have seen here or were you talking about another binder?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I obviously refer to the list of
3 invoices. I thought that that would be it. However, this is a list of
4 invoices as part of the documents located in office number 24, and the
5 document number is 2D843.
6 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you. That is enough, thank you.
7 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honours. This is
8 as much as I wanted to say as well.
9 JUDGE TRECHSEL: No problem.
10 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Witness, you said that you were involved in the annual
12 stock-taking in 1991?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. After the stock-taking, did you establish or were you in a
15 position to establish the situation of every segment of the MUP of Bosnia
16 and Herzegovina
17 including the Golf vehicles?
18 A. Of course. The resources, such as vehicles, bear the chassis
19 numbers, and that's how they are recorded in the stock-taking list.
20 Every organisational unit involved in the stock-taking, and this refers
21 to every public security station --
22 THE INTERPRETER: The witness should slow down.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When they are involved in
24 stock-taking, they have to identify every vehicle by the chassis number.
25 And only one such vehicle can exist in the entire world, and if it --
1 there's no discrepancy between the books and the actual situation, that
2 means that the vehicle is still where it is supposed to be and where it
3 is supposed to be used.
4 Q. This is a very professional explanation. I would kindly ask you
5 to tell us very concretely. Can you answer my question? Does this mean
6 that every such vehicle was delivered to the public security station to
7 which it was supposed to be delivered according to the programme, or to
8 the police station or the security services centre which is mentioned in
9 the invoice as the place of where that vehicle had to be delivered?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. My learned friend asked you how much money was spent to purchase
12 the vehicles. I will ask again, although I thought it was clear. The
13 funds in question that the Ministry of the Interior of Bosnia and
15 approved by the Government and the Assembly of the Republic of Bosnia
17 A. Of course. If that had not been the case, then there would not
18 have been any funds.
19 Q. And, finally, my learned friend also asked you whether after
20 April 1992, you knew that Mr. Stojic had taken over some other tasks and
21 jobs. My question is this: Did you meet Mr. Bruno Stojic after your
22 departure -- apologies. After your return to Neum towards the end of
23 June, did you have occasion to talk to Mr. Bruno Stojic about his
24 professional engagement?
25 A. Yes. A few days after my return, i.e., after my arrival in Neum,
1 together with my family, which included also my sister-in-law and their
2 parents, who arrived in Neum together with me, and that was on the
3 27th and 28th of June, already on the 2nd or 3rd of July, which means
4 maybe a week later, Mr. Bruno Stojic visited me in my parents' house.
5 And having exchanged a few sentences, we started talking about some
6 unfinished business that he started in Sarajevo, which had still been --
7 had not been completed until that very moment, due to the war, and now I
8 understood from that conversation that Mr. Bruno Stojic encouraged me, in
9 a way. I was seized with the feeling that I had abandoned Sarajevo
10 tried to eliminate that feeling. He told me very clearly that we would
11 soon go back, as soon as the hardships were over. And the hardships were
12 not done to either me or him, so he told me that we would soon go back to
14 I felt guilty for having left Sarajevo, and I was a pessimist
15 because I thought that we would be able to go to Sarajevo only in
16 September. My wife was more optimistic. She thought that we would go
17 back in July. And we were only able to return in 1996.
18 Q. If I understood you properly, in the conversation that you had
19 with Mr. Stojic at the beginning of July 1992, you understood Mr. Stojic
20 as telling you that you would be able to return to your previous jobs
21 very quickly?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. What jobs are you talking about?
24 A. In my case, it was the chief of the Department for Materials and
25 Finances, in the Administration for Materials and Finances, and I believe
1 that when he spoke about himself, that he meant that he would go back to
2 his position as the assistant minister for the Administration of
3 Materials and Finances of the Ministry of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
4 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. This brings my
5 re-examination to an end.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, on behalf of the
7 Trial Chamber, I would like to thank you for having come here to testify
8 for Mr. Stojic and to contribute to justice. I wish you the best for
9 your return home, and I will ask our usher to please escort you out of
10 this courtroom.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
12 [The witness withdrew]
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
14 Before we have our last break, because afterwards we will have an
15 ex parte hearing with one of the accused and with the Prosecution, I
16 would like to tell me Ms. Nozica that we will meet again on Monday,
17 April 20th, with Ivan Bagaric; is that it?
18 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. According to the
19 plan, that's how it should be. This is -- this is what was planned. I
20 believe that it will be so, as far as Mr. Stojic's Defence is concerned.
21 If there are any changes, we will inform you in due course.
22 Thank you very much.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. If there are no
24 comments from any party, we will adjourn. We need 30 minutes for the
25 break in order to change our tapes, so we'll break for -- just have a
1 break, and we'll resume with an ex parte hearing with only one of the
2 accused and the Prosecution.
3 I wish everyone the best for the days of rest that we have ahead
4 of us. I think we need this rest, because we still have a lot of work to
5 do. I think today the Trial Chamber has filed three or four decisions.
6 It's working at a very, very fast pace, and we need a rest every once in
7 a while in order to be able to take all these decisions in a
8 fully-informed fashion.
9 Now we'll break for 30 minutes.
10 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 4.34 p.m.
11 to be followed by an Ex Parte Hearing. The
12 hearing will reconvene on Monday, the 20th day of
13 April, 2009, at 2.15 p.m.