Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 10192

 1                           Tuesday, 30 June 2009

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The accused Prlic and Coric not present]

 5                           [The witness takes the stand]

 6                           --- Upon commencing at 2.15 p.m.

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, can you kindly call

 8     the case, please.

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

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

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

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

13             Today is Tuesday, the 30th of June, 2009.  I would like to

14     welcome all the people present, Mr. Praljak, Mr. Stojic, Mr. Petkovic,

15     Mr. Pusic, as well as all Defence counsel, Mr. Stringer and his team.  I

16     would also like to welcome all the people assisting us.

17             The Trial Chamber would like to recall that pursuant to what we

18     said yesterday, Mr. Stojic's Defence will have 45 minutes of extra time,

19     which means, Ms. Nozica, that you have one hour and 45 minutes left to

20     finish.

21             I'll give you the floor right away, Ms. Nozica.

22                           WITNESS:  SLOBODAN PRALJAK [Resumed]

23                           [The witness answered through interpreter]

24             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

25             Good afternoon.  Good afternoon to everyone in the courtroom.

Page 10193

 1                           Cross-examination by Ms. Nozica:  [Continued]

 2        Q.   Good afternoon to you, Mr. Praljak.

 3        A.   Good afternoon, Ms. Nozica.

 4        Q.   We should now have in front of us binder number 2 for the benefit

 5     of the Trial Chamber too.

 6             His Honour Judge Antonetti, on the 22nd of June, asked you about

 7     the obligations that unit commanders had in relation to the

 8     identification of perpetrators of crimes, and that's recorded at

 9     page 41790 and 41791 of our transcript.  He showed you Article 27 of the

10     Decree on District Military Courts, and let me just indicate the numbers

11     of the documents.  That's document P592 and 4D1317.

12             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreters note:  Could all microphones that

13     are not in use please be switched off.

14             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]

15        Q.   This article determines the obligations of company commanders or

16     commanders at higher levels in the chain of command, and now I would like

17     to show you some documents that confirm what you stated regarding

18     Article 27 when His Honour Judge Antonetti asked you some questions.

19             Mr. Praljak, I fully accepted what you said, that you didn't

20     really concern yourself with regulations, that you knew about them in

21     general, and that is why I have several documents that are nothing but

22     regulations at the beginning of the binder.  So please skip three

23     documents and go to P00092.  That's the fourth document in your binder.

24     Perhaps it will be difficult to find this document because the first

25     three are really very thick documents, and you can just flip them over.

Page 10194

 1     The document that I am -- that I need, P92, is the fourth document.

 2             Could I please ask the usher to assist Mr. Praljak to find P92,

 3     because I can see that we have it in e-court.  It should be the fourth

 4     document in binder number 2.

 5        A.   592?

 6        Q.   No, P92.

 7        A.   Oh, yes, yes, I found it.

 8        Q.   So this is the instruction about the jurisdiction of the

 9     commanders in the HVO Central Bosnia Operational Zone with a description

10     of the tasks that pertain to some establishment posts.  We see that the

11     year is 1992, and at the first page or, rather, the next page of the

12     document, it is indicated that pursuant to the order on the establishment

13     of the Central Bosnia Operational Zone and in order to ensure that -- its

14     proper functioning, prompt exercise of command over certain formations,

15     Mr. Tihomir Blaskic promulgates this regulation on the internal

16     organisation of the work of the command of the HVO Central Bosnia

17     Operational Zone, with the description of the tasks that the staff are to

18     perform.

19             Could you please go to page 5.  It's page 5 both in the English

20     and the Croatian versions, and it stipulates what the obligations are of

21     the OZ, Operational Zone commanders.  All the duties are listed here, and

22     under 7 it says -- we're dealing with Article 27 of the Decree on

23     District Military Courts.  Let me just bring this to your attention,

24     where it says takes care of the improvement of discipline and order and

25     takes measures against those who commit crimes, and deals with

Page 10195

 1     disciplinary infractions and mistakes.  It is indicated on the basis of

 2     the fact that this pertains -- this is based on the instruction to --

 3             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreters note:  Could the counsel please

 4     slow down.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, he takes care of the

 6     improvement of discipline and takes measures against those who commit

 7     crimes, once, of course, the name of the perpetrator of a crime is known.

 8        Q.   So, in essence, it is true that a criminal report can be filed

 9     when one has a name, but now let's see how one gets to the name.

10             Could you now look at the next document.  That's P1359.  This is

11     an order signed by Mr. Siljeg, and he says here, on the basis of the

12     order of the chief of the Main Staff, dated the 19th of January,

13     1993 -- for the transcript, I will say that this order has been exhibited

14     and it is P1344.  I didn't think that it was necessary for me to show it,

15     so it's 1344, yes.  And it is stated as follows:

16             "Gentlemen, soldiers, non-commissioned officers and officers of

17     the HVO, you have to prevent all acts that are not in line with

18     international law of war."

19             And then he goes on to say:  "We're not Chetniks, we're not a

20     gang.  We are --" the 30th of January, 1993, and I am referring to item

21     13, item 13, or, rather, 12 and 13 of this order.  That's on the next

22     page, where Mr. Siljeg orders to SIS organs, saying they will put

23     together a plan for the elimination of the acts that run contrary to this

24     order and the rules of conduct, and together with the military police,

25     they will continually implement those measures.

Page 10196

 1             In item 13, it is stated that the SIS and the military police

 2     will arrest any looters and bring them into custody, confiscate and make

 3     a record of the stolen goods, and will oppose any resistance to the

 4     implementation of this order.

 5             Mr. Praljak, this is quite logical, in fact.  It's one of the

 6     measures that were supposed to be forwarded down the chain of command

 7     because it had come from higher up, and this order, issued by Commander

 8     Siljeg to the SIS and military police, it's quite logical in terms of

 9     fighting crime?

10        A.   It's obvious that the chief of the Main Staff issued an order.

11     At that time, it was General Petkovic, and it is quite clear that it was

12     after Vakuf, the 30th of January.  It's probably related to what happened

13     in Vakuf, a bit before that.  And it's logical that he orders that SIS

14     organs should perform their duties, and also the military police.  So you

15     have to make a distinction between issuing orders to SIS and ordering the

16     SIS and the military police to do their job.

17        Q.   Mr. Praljak, since you now drew this distinction between

18     exercising command over SIS and ordering SIS to do something, now I want

19     to ask you whether that formation, so from battalion up to brigade and to

20     the operational zone, so did all those units have assistance for SIS in

21     their command structure?

22        A.   Yes, for the most part formations did have assistance for SIS,

23     and the brigade commander or the commander of the given unit exercises

24     command over them.  But now we have to make a distinction.  He can only

25     order them to do their job in accordance with the regulations, because

Page 10197

 1     they have their job, their tasks, that are stipulated by relevant

 2     regulations.  And when the brigade commander sees that some things do not

 3     work, then he tells them, Please go ahead and do your job.

 4        Q.   Very well.  So you agree with me that this is what Mr. Siljeg is

 5     doing, he's ordering them to do their job?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   Very well.  The same topic, the same commander; the document is

 8     P1491.  This is again HV -- or, rather, MB.  Mr. Praljak, this is an

 9     order issued by Mr. Siljeg.  He's mentioning the HV Brigade.  It's not

10     the Croatian Army; it's Hrvoje Vukcic-Hrvatinic?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   And "MB" would be a mortar battery; right?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   Well, in the preamble of this document, it's exhibited, so I

15     won't stick to it.  It says that some soldiers stole items from Muslim

16     and Croat houses, furniture and cattle.  You spoke about it, didn't you,

17     that such things happened and that they stole from Croat and Muslim

18     houses alike?

19        A.   Yes, that's correct.  They didn't really mind who the house

20     belonged to as they went about looting.

21        Q.   Now, Mr. Siljeg is ordering, in item number 1 -- well, it's

22     irrelevant.  But in item 2, he says the brigade commander, together with

23     the security organ, shall immediately come to the Dobrosa village and

24     will examine the status in the battery, examine the facts, and

25     immediately take appropriate measures, pursuant to regulations on

Page 10198

 1     military discipline within his authority, and shall recommend appropriate

 2     measures to the higher command.  Is this command completely logical?

 3        A.   Yes, this is a good order.  He says the brigade commander and the

 4     SIS, which is duty-bound to carry out an investigation and learn about

 5     the facts, if this was not done by the brigade commander, then there is

 6     an investigation to be carried out.  This is a good order, it's okay.

 7        Q.   Let's be very clear, Mr. Praljak.  He says to the brigade

 8     commander, together with the security organ from the brigade; wouldn't

 9     that be correct?

10        A.   Yes, that's correct.

11        Q.   I'm now going to show you one of your documents, which is 3D596.

12     It's the next one in your binder, Mr. Praljak.  This is another order,

13     this time by Mr. Obradovic.

14             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Excuse me, Ms. Nozica.  I think, really, you go

15     a bit too fast.

16             If you look at page 7, line 7 and following, you say:

17             "Let's be very clear, Mr. Praljak.  He says to the brigade

18     commander, together with the security organ for the brigade; wouldn't

19     that be correct?"

20             Probably you said something about what he said to the brigade

21     commander, because as it stands here, the sentence makes no sense to me,

22     at least.

23             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] The sentence makes sense, both in

24     English and in Croatian.  Let me repeat the question.

25        Q.   That means that the brigade commander must do that together with

Page 10199

 1     the security organ from the brigade, together?  So together.

 2             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Now it's a complete sentence.  But what is here

 3     is not a complete sentence.  Thank you.

 4             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] All right.  Thank you very much,

 5     Your Honour.  I apologise.  Perhaps I have a problem.

 6             Can somebody check whether it's too hot in this courtroom?  I can

 7     barely stand because of the heat, and if that is indeed the case, then

 8     perhaps something might be done about it.  But maybe it's my problem.

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, could you ask the

10     technicians to lower the heating, please.

11             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]

12        Q.   Mr. Praljak, so now I've called up 3D596.  You found it?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   This is an order by Mr. Obradovic, and in this order he again, in

15     item 1, orders that any looting or any other form of theft of personal or

16     other property of citizens in "our" area of responsibility should be

17     prevented.  The perpetrators should be arrested, and proceedings should

18     be instituted against them through this command.

19             In item 3 of this order, again, he says:

20             "Immediately prevent all violent behaviour and any war crimes by

21     members of the 1st Brigade, and any units attached to it, and other

22     persons who happen to be in the area of responsibility of the brigade.

23     All violent offenders shall be disarmed, and proceedings shall be

24     instituted against them through this command."

25             I assume, Mr. Praljak, that you consider that this was fully in

Page 10200

 1     line with Mr. Obradovic's powers, in particular because you chose this

 2     document as a document that you wanted to comment on.

 3        A.   Yes, it is true, I did see this order, I'm familiar with it.

 4     It's the 3rd of July.  It's obviously after the 30th of June, in his area

 5     of responsibility.  There was high treason in the HVO ranks.  Members of

 6     the Croatian Defence Council were killed in the rear, not in combat, in

 7     an ambush.  And I don't know who gave him unlimited authority in the

 8     preamble.  Well, I don't know what this is all about.  But in item 6, for

 9     instance, he says the commanders, in their areas of responsibility, must

10     not allow any searches or detention of people bypassing the military

11     police and the SIS.  So he notes here that the military police and the

12     SIS are the organs who are in the brigade charged with conducting

13     searches and detaining people if any crimes are detected.

14        Q.   That's correct, and this is their job in the brigade.  They are

15     charged with that task in the brigade, among other things, and he spells

16     it out; the military police and the SIS of the brigade.  So it is

17     uncontroversial.  And indeed he's submitting this document, among other

18     addressees, the chief of the SIS of the Knez Domagoj 1st Brigade of the

19     HVO; is that correct?

20        A.   Well, he's not writing to the chief of the brigade SIS, or

21     perhaps he's writing to the chief of the SIS, the person who is in charge

22     of all the people in the SIS.  So you really have to be -- well, he would

23     probably have put the brigade SIS chief -- chief.  Perhaps he's also

24     addressing this to the chief of the SIS, the person who is in charge of

25     the SIS.  So there's a collision here.

Page 10201

 1             The SIS is a structure which is attached to brigades to assist.

 2     There's the assistant to the brigade commander, but that person is

 3     independent in the conduct of his duties and his job, in accordance with

 4     the law.

 5        Q.   Fine.  Let us move on to the next document.  That's the third

 6     document, so skip two documents.  It's a 3D document.

 7             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  If you allow me, Ms. Nozica, my attention was

 8     drawn to number 7 in this order, which says:

 9             "Group the Muslim population in your zone of responsibility and

10     secure them with your men."

11             Mr. Praljak, are you aware of any cases where this was actually

12     done?  And if so, could you tell us about the example?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't comment upon this, Your

14     Honours.  This was on the 3rd of July, and I arrived later.  I can only

15     assume that because --

16             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Excuse me.  No offence intended, but I'm not

17     interested in your assumptions, because we also, of course, can make

18     assumptions.

19             You said you were not there at the moment.  Is this an order for

20     one day, or for one week, or is it an order which one would think that it

21     would be valid until replaced by another order or until the end of the

22     war?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the 24th of July, I arrived and

24     assumed duties as the commander, which means I was not in that area on

25     the 3rd of July.  I was in Boksevica.  I remember I was there as a foot

Page 10202

 1     soldier.  As far as this order is concerned, they were issued at the

 2     moment when a high treason happened in the area.  Around that time, 26

 3     soldiers of the HVO were massacred in the rear, behind the lines, in

 4     Capljina -- or, rather, near Capljina.  And at that time, you couldn't

 5     know who the soldiers were and who the civilians were because all the

 6     civilians were armed.  And I suppose that for security reasons, this

 7     order was issued with a temporary effect in order to prevent further

 8     killings outside of the area of combat or behind the lines.

 9             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you.

10             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

11        Q.   Mr. Praljak, you said that you didn't know who the chief of the

12     SIS was and who the order was issued to.  Let's now look at bullet point

13     11, which encompasses everything that we've said, and it says:

14             "All the unit commanders shall be responsible to me personally

15     for the execution of the order."

16             And under 12:

17             "In case the order is not carried out and if measures are not

18     taken in keeping with the order, the unit commanders will be punished

19     under the law."

20             Does it arise from this that Obradovic believes that all his

21     subordinates shall be considered responsible for the main execution of

22     this order?

23        A.   Ms. Nozica, there's several bullet points in this order, and not

24     every bullet point applies to everybody.  This means that the commanders

25     must not search and bring people in, but they have to make sure what

Page 10203

 1     their soldiers are doing.  Orders have to be obeyed and carried out.

 2     However, one order is carried out by his commanders and the rest of them

 3     are carried out by his assistants, the SIS, the logistics, and so on and

 4     so forth.  Everybody is responsible for one of the bullet points in the

 5     order, is what I'm saying.

 6        Q.   Mr. Praljak, if that is the case, are we talking about the

 7     individuals who are subordinated to the unit commanders?

 8        A.   We are coming back to the unit commanders and the subordinates.

 9     Hold on, Ms. Nozica.  Let's once and for all deal with that.

10             A unit commander has his assistants, an assistant for the IPD, an

11     assistant for the SIS, an assistant for the military police.  In some of

12     the elements, they are subordinated to the commander.  If the commander

13     says, We are going to a field mission or do some reconnoitering in a

14     certain area, then they have to obey, but they have their own respective

15     tasks.  For example, a doctor has his tasks.  A commander can ask for a

16     change, he could issue a proposal, but he could not appoint that person.

17     There is a SIS structure headed by the chief of the SIS, and the SIS

18     chief was the one who approved the appointment and supervises the work of

19     those people.  This is the segment appointment.  I'm afraid that we're

20     talking at cross-purposes, in which you interpret command, orders, and

21     subordination in one way, and I know that your way is not good.

22        Q.   Mr. Praljak, allow me, please.  I have a lot of documents that I

23     wanted to show you.  I wanted to show how things looked in practice.  It

24     really doesn't matter whether my interpretation is good or whether yours

25     is good.  I am interested in what things looked like in practice.  I told

Page 10204

 1     you that at the very beginning.  We started talking about who issues

 2     commands to whom.  Whether of two of us are talking at cross-purposes, I

 3     don't think that we are talking at cross-purposes.  I'm just showing you

 4     documents that may be contrary to your interpretation.  I'm kindly going

 5     to ask you to go through the documents with me.

 6             Yesterday, Mr. Praljak, we saw, when it comes to the SIS and the

 7     IPD, that the commanders of the brigades issued proposals and that it

 8     didn't go, as you say, through the SIS Administration or the IPD Sector.

 9     But let's look at the document together, and then we will either agree or

10     agree to disagree.  It is not my objective at any cost for the two of us

11     to agree.

12        A.   Let me just respond.  A proposal to appoint somebody is not the

13     appointment.  The proposal is a proposal; an appointment is an

14     appointment.  Whoever appoints may be -- dissolve the person of his

15     duties, and this is the responsibility and this is the structure that we

16     are talking about.

17        Q.   Mr. Praljak, yesterday we saw some examples of proposals for the

18     dissolution of tasks, did we not?

19        A.   Yes, we did.

20        Q.   Can we now look at the following document, which is 3D1189.  This

21     is also another one of your documents, issued by Mr. Harah.  The period

22     is August, and the order is about the frequent occurrences of smuggling

23     and other acts of crime, and this order goes very precisely into the

24     details as to who is supposed to do what.

25             Under bullet points 6 and 7, it says that:

Page 10205

 1             "Any willful behaviour on the part of the soldiers, or seizure of

 2     goods from individuals, with a view to achieving material again should be

 3     strictly sanctioned and disciplined and, if necessary, criminal

 4     proceedings should be started."

 5             And again under bullet point 7:

 6             "In case this order is not carried out or is not carried out

 7     consistently, I shall hold the commanders of companies and battalions

 8     personally responsible."

 9             This is very similar to the orders that we saw previously; am I

10     right, Mr. Praljak?

11        A.   Yes.  He is here calling for some order among his units.

12        Q.   I believe that we are now going to the next document, which is

13     2D3011.  Have you found it?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   We are now talking about the SIS and the relationship between the

16     assistant SIS of the operation zone and the commander of the operation

17     zone.  The date on the document is the 25th of May, 1993, and

18     Mr. Ante Sliskovic, the deputy commander of the Central Bosnia

19     Operational Zone in Vitez, submits to the commander of the operational

20     zone, Colonel Tihomir Blaskic, the following information, and he says:

21             "Here enclosed please find information about the events in the

22     village of Ahmici in Vitez municipality.  This information is based on

23     the operative information and statements provided by the witnesses of

24     these events as well as the inspection of the site.

25             "The information is not complete because we could not obtain

Page 10206

 1     information from all the key witnesses."

 2             Further on, it says:

 3             "We also did not take statements from individuals of Muslim

 4     ethnic origin who fled after the incident in Ahmici ..."

 5             And it also says:

 6             "Once the combat activities are over and once the favourable

 7     conditions are in place, we shall take all necessary measures to

 8     elucidate these events."

 9             It says here "Annex 1."  This is a Prosecutor's document, because

10     you can see the ERN number, but we could not locate the annex that was

11     supposed to attach to it.

12             In the same light, could you please look at the following

13     document, and then I will put my question to you.  The topic is still the

14     same.  The number is P4268.

15             This is an order issued by Mr. Blaskic and sent to Mr. Sliskovic

16     on the 17th of August, 1993, and it says "Continuation of Investigation

17     into the Killings in Ahmici Village."  And it says:

18             "In order to establish the facts and undertake measures in order

19     to carry out investigation, on the event of the killing of civilians in

20     Ahmici," he says, "Continue together and record data on the deaths of

21     civilians in Ahmici in order that the whole of the material be collated

22     and presented to the competent organs of the District Military Court."

23             Under 2 is details of operations, and under 3 it says:

24             "The deadline for the execution of this order is 17th September,

25     1993, when you are to submit a completed report to me so that it may be

Page 10207

 1     forwarded to competent organs for further action."

 2             Mr. Praljak --

 3             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the counsel please slow down, especially

 4     when reading a document.  Thank you very much.

 5             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]

 6        Q.   Mr. Praljak, according to your information, and one dates from

 7     the period when you were there, I'm not going to ask you whether you know

 8     about this specific event.  Do they reflect the relationship between the

 9     commander of the operation zone and his assistant for SIS, in the

10     operation of SIS, whereby he issues him with orders and the assistant

11     reports back to him?

12        A.   Correct.  Both documents are very clear.  The commander says to

13     the organ that is in charge for the investigation to carry out the

14     investigation.  And in addition to submitting material to him, he should

15     also submit material to the District Military Court and all the competent

16     organs.  And this is the complete clarity.  The commander of the brigade

17     or the operational zone has an assistant who -- in the organisation who

18     assists him with the investigation of crimes.  This is the SIS, which

19     also encompasses the military police.  Either in keeping with or not

20     keeping with these two things have the duty to -- listen, look, for

21     example, you come somewhere where a crime took place.  There is no

22     criminal there, of course, the perpetrator is not there.  It will take

23     weeks or months to investigate the matter, or I don't know how long,

24     because whoever committed the crime is in hiding.  And there are two

25     services in place in charge of collecting material evidence of carrying

Page 10208

 1     out crime investigation procedure.  And to do everything that is

 2     necessary and that the military police was in charge of doing, they had

 3     the Crime Investigation Services.  The commander is duty-bound to issue

 4     them with orders to do what they're supposed to do, and that's that.

 5        Q.   Well, that's that.

 6        A.   And just in passing, even if he had not issued the order, it was

 7     their duty to do what they're supposed to do.  But it's neither here nor

 8     there.

 9        Q.   Mr. Praljak, just very briefly, let's go to the following

10     document in light of what you have just told me.  The number is P6846.

11             Mr. Lasic -- I intentionally wanted to show you this to show the

12     practice, and I took a stroll along the time and the space.  The number

13     is correct.  And now Mr. Lasic, as you can see, Mr. Lasic is referring to

14     the order of the Main Staff and says, under 1:

15             "Urgently analyse the criminal acts committed in your units.

16     Engage the SIS organs in these tasks as a priority."

17             There is a spelling mistake in the original, but I believe that

18     I'm reading it well.

19             This is beyond the time and space -- you were not in the HZ-HB,

20     and Mr. Stojic was also not there, but this illustrates the work of the

21     commander?

22        A.   Yes.  He says, Go to the military police and engage the SIS in

23     order to elucidate the matter.  And this is very clear.  The Main Staff

24     is trying once again -- the brigade commander is once again trying to put

25     an end to whatever he has information about, and then he obviously turns

Page 10209

 1     to two things for assistance, and these two things are the SIS and the

 2     military police, and it's very logical.

 3        Q.   Mr. Praljak, I have a very strict Judge here who's my co-counsel

 4     at the same time, and he will not allow me to speed.  And he says under

 5     bullet point 7, he says the persons in charge are commanders of certain

 6     units and assistants for commanders for SIS?

 7        A.   Of course.  They have to cooperate.  It's clear.

 8        Q.   Mr. Praljak, we have only two or three more documents left about

 9     this document -- about this topic, and the following document is 4D517.

10        A.   Yes, I've got it.

11        Q.   It is the 24th October 1993.  We've already spoken about this

12     investigation.  This investigation was carried out by the Prosecutor, but

13     these are just inspection activities that preceded the investigation.

14     And here Mr. Blaskic sends his order to Mr. Rajic, the 2nd Operative

15     Group commander in Vares, and he says that he should initiate an

16     investigation against Mr. Zvonko Duznovic, an assistant for Security and

17     Information Service in the Bobovac Brigade.  The investigation shall be

18     conducted in accordance with Article 107 of the Rules of Procedure and

19     Military Discipline.  And he also says that the officers from the brigade

20     command should be used to carry out the investigation or the officers of

21     the Operative Group 2.

22             Just one more document which is very closely connected to this,

23     which is 4D855, and this will bring us to the end of this topic.

24             And now we see that Mr. Rajic submits the order to the chief of

25     the SIS of the OG-2 and says as follows:

Page 10210

 1             "Conduct investigative proceedings against Zvonko Duznovic,

 2     assistant for SIS in the brigade Bobovac, on grounds of reasonable

 3     suspicion."

 4             And says under 3:

 5             "During the investigative proceedings achieve full cooperation

 6     with the members of the command of the brigade and with other relevant

 7     persons who are familiar with the activities of the aforementioned

 8     official."

 9             Mr. Praljak, these two orders show the chain.  Mr. Blaskic issued

10     his order to Mr. Rajic, and Mr. Rajic, in his turn, issued an order to

11     his assistant for SIS for conducting investigative proceedings?

12        A.   Yes, for conducting investigative proceedings.  It was their

13     right and duty to carry out an investigative proceedings.

14        Q.   Of course, we must not ignore the fact that the true

15     investigation is carried out by the prosecutor who is duty-bound to do

16     that.  That's why I started with the Law on Criminal Proceedings, but we

17     don't have to go through that.

18             And, finally, the last document that you very often mention in

19     your examination-in-chief, which is 4D834 --

20             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the counsel please slow down.  It's

21     almost impossible to follow.

22             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   Have you found it?

24        A.   Yes.  This is the document --

25             JUDGE PRANDLER:  I'm sorry, Madam Nozica, again to interrupt you,

Page 10211

 1     but it is already the third time today that the interpreter is asking you

 2     that, Would the counsel be so kind to slow down.  And I would only like

 3     to repeat it to you and, of course, also to Mr. Praljak, the same

 4     request, and it is the umpteenth time that we are doing this.  Thank you.

 5             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Yes.  Thank you, Your Honour.  My

 6     colleague keeps warning me to slow down because he's following the

 7     transcript, but I suppose Mr. Praljak and I, because we speak the same

 8     language, seem to run away with ourselves and don't wait for the end of

 9     an answer before my question begins.  But I'll do my best to improve in

10     future.

11        Q.   Anyway, Mr. Praljak, you've spoken about this document several

12     times so far?

13        A.   Yes.  The last day of my work, I signed it where Mr. Petkovic's

14     name is, and I require a summary report about Stupni Do and that

15     investigative proceedings be taken against Kresimir Bozic.  So that is

16     the information that we had at that time as to who could be guilty, the

17     guilty party.

18        Q.   I'd now like to ask you to take up the third binder, which will

19     be the last binder that we're going to deal with.  Yes, that's right,

20     that's the first document in binder number 3.

21             Mr. Praljak, let me just make a short introduction.  We have

22     document P6203 in front of us now, and you were asked about this document

23     during the examination-in-chief; in fact, on two occasions.

24     Judge Antonetti asked you about it, and you gave your answers on the 8th

25     of June, and it is on pages of the transcript 39001 to 39003.  And this

Page 10212

 1     same document was shown to Witness Ivan Bagaric on the 21st of April,

 2     2009.

 3             And now I do apologise.  The pages I stated just now relate to

 4     Mr. Bagaric's examination and testimony, not yours.

 5             Now, let me just remind you of what you said about this document,

 6     and this is something that Mr. Bagaric confirmed; that he did not have

 7     the right to command.  And in this document, it says that:

 8             "We do not have the necessary institutions and individuals."

 9             And for that reason, he considered that this order should be

10     placed adapta [as interpreted].

11             Now I'm going to show you the next document, which is 2D717, and

12     this is a letter from Mr. Siljeg of the same date.  And he says that:

13             "The order of the Health Sector with respect to the detainees of

14     the detention centre and Centres for Preventive Isolation should not be

15     considered compulsory, it should be declared null and void, because

16     centres like this do not exist here, and even if they did, they are not

17     under our jurisdiction.  Our concern is only the battle-field."

18             So Mr. Siljeg sent this out to all the subordinate brigades, he

19     sent this order out to all of them; is that right?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   Now, Mr. Praljak, Mr. Bagaric, according to you, was not in a

22     position to command Mr. Siljeg.  And according to Mr. Siljeg, he could

23     not have commanded the brigade within this operation zone either; is that

24     right?

25        A.   No, he couldn't.  Right on both counts.

Page 10213

 1        Q.   Now, when we come to the Medical Corps, and it is P3286, that's

 2     the document number, let's try and answer two questions now using that

 3     document.

 4             Did centres, as they're called here, for detainees, detainee

 5     centres and Centres for Preventive Isolation exist, because that is

 6     something that Mr. Siljeg claims in this paper?  And you said that as far

 7     as you knew, they did not exist.  Now, let's just see if we agree as to

 8     what the chain of command was.

 9             And the next document is P3286.  So this is the head of the Rama

10     Brigade.  The date is the 7th of July, 1993.  And he says:

11             "On the basis of the situation at present in the Rama-Prozor

12     municipality, and securing health control for the Muslims found in the

13     building of the secondary school centre," and issues an order to the

14     Medical Corps to ensure that doctors visit the facility where the Muslims

15     are in detention.  And he says the head of the Medical Corps, Budimir, is

16     in charge.

17             Now, I know, Mr. Praljak, that you, on the 7th of July, did not

18     occupy that post, that is to say, you weren't commander of the Main Staff

19     at the time.  However, let me ask you whether you ever had any knowledge

20     that, nonetheless, certain persons were detained in the area which

21     Mr. Siljeg commanded, let's say, in July, and that when he wrote this

22     previous order, he ought to have known that detainees did exist in this

23     area?

24        A.   I don't know who took the Muslims into custody.  Siljeg does not

25     say that they were not detained.  What he says is that they were not

Page 10214

 1     under his responsibility and authority.

 2             And, secondly, in this document, P3286, I mean, the fact that

 3     Marinko Zelenika is ordering a physician to examine the Muslims that were

 4     detained, that's his right and duty.  It's the duty of the doctor there

 5     to do that.  He can't ask for a doctor to come in from the Health Sector

 6     in Mostar.  That's impossible.  It is the duty of the physician, and the

 7     duty of the commander, once he learnt that there was a need for this, to

 8     tell the doctor to go and see what the need was.  But from that, it does

 9     not arise that he was in charge and had authority over the location where

10     the detained Muslims were.

11        Q.   Mr. Praljak --

12             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Excuse me.

13             Mr. Praljak, I find this a bit difficult to explain.  A commander

14     is in charge or not.  If he's in charge, he can dispatch representatives

15     of his services, such as Medical Service, and give them a task.  But if

16     he's not in charge, how does he, nevertheless, engage his means, his

17     military means, for something that he's not competent or not in charge?

18     It does not -- it is not in line, at least, with my own experience, as

19     far as command and military structures and so are concerned.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot, Judge Trechsel, enter

21     into your structures and where you were, but it is a physician's duty to

22     provide assistance everywhere.  When he's -- if he's a civilian, if

23     somebody loses consciousness, faints on the road, even if he's not his

24     house doctor, he has to help.

25             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Mr. Praljak, this is not the situation of the

Page 10215

 1     good samaritan, nor a person of medical training who sees need for

 2     action, but it is a commander who commands someone who is under his

 3     orders to do something in an area which he says, It's none of my

 4     business.  He seems to split what he likes to do.  He says, I do it.  And

 5     what he -- he doesn't want to take responsibility.  He says, I wash my

 6     hands, I have nothing to do with it.  Isn't it a bit contradictory?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, none at all.  There's no

 8     doctor -- if there's one doctor in the brigade, then your interpretation

 9     is based on the assumption that doctors do exist, that there were

10     doctors, as much as needed in every service.  No, there weren't.  We

11     didn't have them.

12             In that area, Zelenika saw that there was no doctor, and so he

13     told the doctor to go over there and offer his assistance, but that

14     does -- it does not follow that the person to whom that assistance is

15     given, that he's responsible for that.  Wouldn't it be worse if he says,

16     It's nothing to do with me, so don't give any medical assistance?

17     There's no logic there.  So I would do the same thing that Zelenika did,

18     I would act the same way.  I would help, whether it was under my command

19     or within in my remit or authority or whatever, especially within

20     structures that are in no way organised as they are in the Swiss Army.

21     So the principle was:  Do what you can, when you can, when needed, if

22     there's no better solution.

23             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I leave it at that.  Please continue.

24             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]

25        Q.   Mr. Praljak, I went back to these documents because on several

Page 10216

 1     occasions, at least on two, as far as I remember, during the

 2     examination-in-chief, you said -- or, rather, you confirmed that what

 3     Mr. Siljeg said was true and correct; that is to say, that there were no

 4     centres like that and there were no people of that kind in his area.  And

 5     a document was shown to you, which we'll look at in just a moment, where

 6     Luka Markesic, the chief, talks about taking Muslims into custody on the

 7     basis of an order from a higher level.  Now I'd like to show you that

 8     order, which is already an exhibit.  Perhaps you've never heard of that

 9     order and it wasn't there when you were there, but let's just agree

10     whether this is the higher level.

11             And it is P3234 that I'd like you to look at now.  The document

12     goes to explain some of the questions that you were just asked by

13     Judge Trechsel.  Have you found the order?  Yes, you have; right.

14             So this is the 6th of July, that's the date, and as I say, you

15     didn't know about this because it was before your arrival.  But, anyway,

16     it is Mr. Siljeg commanding here and stating that all Muslim men aged

17     between 16 and 60 are arrested and detained, and he says the military

18     police and the SIS of the Rama Brigade shall be held responsible for

19     carrying out the order.  And:  "The order shall take effect immediately,"

20     it says.

21             And let me emphasise that it is already an exhibit.  It has been

22     shown several times.  Let me just ask you:  Is that a higher level, and

23     did you have no knowledge of this?

24        A.   I have no knowledge at all about this.  At that time, as far as I

25     remember, I was at Boksevica, and I cannot say whether or not this higher

Page 10217

 1     level applies to Siljeg.  It says what it says, it speaks for itself, and

 2     I can't offer any further comment.

 3        Q.   Now, Mr. Praljak, let's look at several other documents.  We're

 4     going to skip one, two, three -- five documents.  Let's skip five

 5     documents, and when we come to -- and now we come to P3971.  They're all

 6     short documents, so perhaps you could look at them on your screen.

 7             There we are, that's the document that was shown to you, where

 8     Mr. Luka Markesic, from the Security and Information Service of the Rama

 9     Brigade, is sending out this report to the Presidency of the HVO and the

10     command of the Rama Brigade, and says that the Security and Information

11     Service and military police acted according to an order from a higher

12     level.  And we saw that Mr. Siljeg was issuing an order to this effect,

13     that they carry this out, that the SIS and military police of the Rama

14     Brigade carry that out.  And then he's asking that a selection be made,

15     and that's the document that you were shown; isn't that right?

16        A.   Yes, yes, I was shown it.  Yes, that's right.

17        Q.   And now I'd like to show you another document.  Let's skip the

18     documents in between and go to your own document which you signed.  It is

19     P4260 and it is your -- well, I just wanted us to clarify one point.

20             This document was sent by packet link.  There's no doubt about

21     that; is that right?

22        A.   Probably, yes.

23        Q.   Well, we don't have your signature.  We see, up on the stamp,

24     "Received by packet communications," so that's how I know that.  Now,

25     somebody, in handwriting, wrote "SIS," S-I-S, and then "sent to BP Rama."

Page 10218

 1     Now, I'm interested to know whether you wrote that addition on to the

 2     document, and if not do you know who might have entered that onto this

 3     document?

 4        A.   Well, it's not my handwriting, and I don't know whose it is and

 5     who wrote this.

 6        Q.   But we can see that that's what it says?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   So you didn't send this document out to the SIS of the brigade or

 9     any other SIS, did you?

10        A.   No.

11        Q.   There are three addressees.  It says "To," and then we have three

12     listed.

13        A.   So what's your question?  What do you want me to answer?

14        Q.   I'll repeat my question.  Is it true that you didn't send this

15     document to the SIS of the brigade or the SIS Administration because

16     there are three addressees listed to where it went?

17        A.   Well, I didn't send it on, but if it says who the addressees are,

18     then I assume that the order would have been sent on.  When it reached

19     the Rama Brigade, for example, then it also reaches the SIS of the Rama

20     Brigade, the assistant, of course.  But I'm afraid, Ms. Nozica, that

21     between this order of the 6th of July, Siljeg's order, and this one here,

22     dated the 5th of August, I'm not quite sure -- it's too long a period of

23     time for this order to relate to the higher one, to Siljeg's order.

24     I think it's too long a period; that is to say, that Markesic would have

25     written one month later that there was an order from a higher instance,

Page 10219

 1     and he would say, Pursuant to Siljeg's order if it was.  He would have no

 2     reason not to do so.

 3        Q.   Mr. Praljak, I don't know what you're actually saying.  Was there

 4     another order on detention or are you questioning whether Siljeg sent out

 5     this order at all?

 6        A.   No, I'm not questioning whether Siljeg sent it, because the order

 7     exists, so I suppose he did.  But all I am challenging is that during the

 8     space of a month, something else might have happened, and that is that

 9     there was a fresh order from a higher instance to detain the Muslims

10     again.  That's possible, because as I say, it's rather a long period of

11     time, too long, in fact, for Markesic to be writing about what happened a

12     month ago, for instance.

13             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Mr. Praljak, I have not quite understood.  Is

14     this your document?  Did you write this, the order, not the addition in

15     handwriting?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, but we weren't referring to

17     that document now.

18             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Good.  In number 1, you order that all prisoners

19     be withdrawn from the tasks they have been given.  What does that mean,

20     Mr. Praljak?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Let me answer that question once

22     again, then.

23             The previous day, on the 16th of August, and we saw the document

24     which Tolj received, and he was the chief of the Main Staff, he received

25     a piece of information to the effect that prisoners were being taken away

Page 10220

 1     to dig trenches, and he told me that.  And after that, I issued two

 2     orders myself; one for this area, the area where I was, and another one,

 3     a general one, a general order applying to the whole of the HVO.  And I'm

 4     afraid I don't seem to have that, but there is clear proof and evidence

 5     on the basis of statements that it does exist.  Not that they were not

 6     allowed to take them out to dig trenches, but that they were not allowed

 7     to take them out anywhere, that the prisoners of war should not be

 8     touched at all, and that is -- this is the third time that I'm giving my

 9     answer.  And so on the basis of information provided by Tolj, I issued

10     this order.

11             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you.  Mr. Praljak, there is a rule, which

12     I don't know whether it is also familiar to you.  It is also referred to

13     as the three Cs: command, control, correct.  It means that if you give an

14     order, you then have to control whether it's actually carried out, and,

15     if necessary, correct the implementation of the order.  Now, is this

16     familiar to you?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

18             JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] So can you tell the Chamber what

19     you did to control the implementation of this order of yours?

20             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Just a moment, Mr. Praljak.  I hope

21     to help everybody out, but let's look at the next document in the binder,

22     P4285, which is the information.

23             I do apologise, Your Honour, for intervening, but I think we'll

24     move ahead faster if we look at this document now.

25             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  It may exceptionally be acceptable.  Thank you.

Page 10221

 1             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Well, perhaps it's not a bad idea to

 2     correct the transcript and say exactly what Judge asked the question,

 3     because it says Judge Antonetti and it should read Judge Trechsel on line

 4     16.  Just to put that slip right.

 5             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you.  I'm glad that there is opportunity

 6     for you to correct with regard to me also.  It gives more equality.

 7             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.  I am sure I

 8     would do that far more often and notice things like that if I didn't have

 9     to look at the document in front of me.

10        Q.   Anyway, Mr. Praljak, this is the commander, and he is responding

11     to you with respect to your order; the brigade commander, I mean.  Right?

12        A.   Yes.  He says that it was acted upon.

13        Q.   Now, Mr. Praljak, I'd just like to tell you, with respect to the

14     comment you made as to whether another order existed or not between

15     Mr. Siljeg's order and the information sent out by Mr. Markesic, and it

16     is -- you say you don't know whether there was one, so that comment of

17     yours -- on the basis of that comment of yours, can I conclude that at

18     the time you did not know whether there was any order at all, because --

19     about the detention of Muslims between the ages of 16 and 60?

20        A.   No, I did not know about any such order at that time.

21        Q.   Let us move on to our next topic, and I will complete my

22     cross-examination with two more topics.  And one of them is the

23     functioning of the IPD and the SIS, and let us move on to the functioning

24     of the IPD.

25             I will now ask you to look at the document that you, yourself --

Page 10222

 1     well, which was shown to you.  That's 3D01206, 1206.  You have it in

 2     e-court, but I would be very glad if you could find it because then --

 3        A.   Just a moment.

 4        Q.   I actually skipped just one document there, Mr. Praljak, and I

 5     moved on to 1206.  Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.  Quite a few of them, quite

 6     a few of them.

 7        A.   Yes, quite a few of them.

 8        Q.   Yes, quite a few of them, because I don't have enough time to

 9     deal with all of them.  I won't be able to cover everything that I

10     planned.

11             Could I please ask the usher to assist Mr. Praljak, because we

12     skipped quite a few documents.  And I do apologise to everyone in the

13     courtroom.  I really can't deal with all of it.  I was a bit too

14     ambitious in my preparations.  1206.

15        A.   Well, I can't find this document, although I'm quite quick when

16     it comes to finding documents.

17        Q.   Mr. Praljak, well, you have it -- well, it's been put in the

18     binder, but could you please then look at the screen, and then we'll go

19     looking for it.

20             I would kindly ask, Mr. Usher -- yes, okay, you found it?

21        A.   Yes, I found it.

22        Q.   It's binder number 3?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   This is a document that we've already talked about.  In the

25     course of your direct examination, you did.  It was sent by the assistant

Page 10223

 1     commander for IPD, Petar Kalinic, from the command of the

 2     Operational Zone North-Western Herzegovina; is that right?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   He informs the -- actually, it's addressed to the HVO Main Staff,

 5     attention Veso Vegar, but I'm asking you whether this is sent to the

 6     Main Staff too.  Could you please look at the next page?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   Very well.  Mr. Praljak, when it comes to the functioning of the

 9     IPD, I have the same question as I did for the SIS.  The commanders, from

10     the level of battalion up to the brigade and operational zone, and even

11     at company level, have within -- did they have, within their commands,

12     assistants for IPD, to the best of your knowledge?

13        A.   For the most part, yes.

14        Q.   And those assistants for IPD that existed there in the commands

15     of the units, were they subordinate to the unit commander?

16        A.   Subordinated in what sense, Ms. Nozica?  What does it mean, to be

17     subordinate, subordination?  Well, everybody had too few people, but what

18     does it mean, subordinate?  Please tell me.  Ask me, What does it mean to

19     be subordinate?

20        Q.   I'm not going to ask you what "subordinate" is, but I'm going to

21     ask you a direct question.  Did they receive their orders from the

22     commander of the unit that they were part of, and were they duty-bound to

23     obey those orders?

24        A.   No, they did not have to obey them.  They received orders that

25     pertained to the military part; in other words, Let's go out and -- in

Page 10224

 1     the field.  But they did not receive any orders pertaining to their work,

 2     because their work was regulated by other regulations.

 3             Well, I was in the IPD in the Croatian Army, and this was all

 4     copy-pasted there.  So this kind of order, this kind of exercise of

 5     command, is not of this sort.  It's a parallel system.  The assistant --

 6     the brigade commander exercises command over his battalion commanders,

 7     and these are his assistants.  Just like a mayor of a town has

 8     fire-fighters who take care of fighting fires, he tells them or informs

 9     them about the fire, and they go out and put it out, and the police.  So

10     the exercise of command over them is limited.  An action is being

11     prepared.  They give their recommendations and proposals.  So this is

12     cooperation within the scope of strictly-regulated activities and

13     spheres that those people have.  A doctor has to do his job, but he

14     cannot refuse to go out on the battle-field if his brigade or battalion

15     where he's in goes out to the battle-field.

16             So the exercise of command is somewhat different from -- well,

17     those people did their job properly.  Most of them really worked hard.

18     But let me just make myself clear here.

19        Q.   Mr. Praljak, I'm asking you very specifically.  Did the assistant

20     commander for IPD in the units -- were they issued or could they have

21     been issued orders by Mr. Veso Vegar, who was the chief for the IPD in

22     the appropriate sector in the Department of Defence?  Could they have --

23     could he have issued orders to them as to what to do?

24        A.   Yes, of course.  It was his duty to tell them.

25        Q.   Yes.  Just a moment, then.  How could then Mr. Bagaric find

Page 10225

 1     himself in a situation where -- Mr. Bagaric, because we've seen the

 2     document where Mr. Zeljko Siljeg, and I'm going to tell you this is

 3     2D717, where he sends to all the brigades and says, Well, the chief of

 4     the Medical Corps cannot issue any orders to you?  How come now that the

 5     chief of the IPD can issue orders, and did you ever see any orders issued

 6     by the IPD chief to the assistants, commanders in brigades for IPD?  Did

 7     you ever see any such orders, or the SIS chief to have issued any such

 8     orders, or the IPD chief, apart from the professional instructions as to

 9     how they should do their job?

10        A.   I -- well, such orders did not reach me.  But if they didn't

11     issue orders of that kind, then they didn't do their job properly.  So it

12     is a duty of the IPD officer, and that was my duty in Zagreb, to issue

13     orders and to organise seminars for the Red Cross, to organise seminars

14     about the political situation, to disseminate information about the

15     developments in Geneva, to instruct the people to go and to see how the

16     wounded would be taken care of, to make sure that they are visited in

17     their wards.

18        Q.   It's fine, Mr. Praljak.  You told us quite clearly that the

19     commander cannot command.

20        A.   Well, that's not what I said.

21        Q.   Tell me what you said.  The commander --

22        A.   The commander can command him within the framework of

23     operational use.  So he can order him to go out in the field with him,

24     to remain there 20 days, and to do his job there.  That was what

25     the commander of a company, battalion, or a brigade could do.  It

Page 10226

 1     was his duty.  But it was then his duty to do the job in accordance with

 2     the regulations.

 3             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]

 4        Q.   Mr. Praljak, well, that's how it was with all the assistant

 5     commanders?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   Well, it's a little bit different, or I understand it

 8     differently, but maybe it's up to me.

 9             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] I would like to object to this

10     question, because I feel that a link is here trying to be established

11     between two situations that are essentially quite different.

12             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  The speakers are

13     overlapping.

14             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I would like to ask the Court to

15     instruct my colleague not to explain various situations in the course of

16     my cross, because she can do that the moment my cross-examination is

17     ended, because this is obstructing my work.

18             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] I will withdraw.  I will be asking

19     this in my cross-examination.  But here are two different situations

20     which are now being painted as being the same.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Nobody need intervene, because I

22     know perfectly well how the Defence Department, the brigades and areas

23     functioned, the zones functioned.  I know perfectly well what military

24     commands are and what the duties of the military police, the SIS and others

25     are, and any attempt by any lawyer to change my opinion is futile, absurd

Page 10227

 1     and incorrect.  The duties of people who belonged to the part as it was

 2     organised was the same as in Croatia.  I was in IPD, and I exercised command

 3    over the IPD, and that's how it was done down there.  Let me just complete --

 4             MR. KHAN:  Mr. Praljak, one moment.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, one moment.

 6             MR. KHAN:  Your Honour, of course all parties are trying their

 7     best to cover a lot of ground in very limited time.  Now, that being the

 8     case, I would ask that of course my learned friend's objection be

 9     sustained and we get back to her questioning.  We don't need comment or

10     speeches from any witness, even somebody as distinguished as

11     General Praljak.  So perhaps my learned friend can continue with her

12     cross-examination.

13             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] General Praljak, please answer

14     Ms. Nozica's question.  Ms. Nozica is representing Mr. Stojic.

15     Mr. Stojic was head of the Defence Department and minister of defence.

16     In the way we understand the defence system, Ms. Nozica wishes to

17     highlight the fact that the SIS operatives and the IPD reported to the

18     brigade commanders, and they were subordinated to the brigade commanders.

19     Therefore, the minister of defence has got nothing to do with all this;

20     i.e., in the SIS and the IPD.  This is the case Ms. Nozica is putting and

21     developing.  So she's putting questions to you on this topic.

22             Ms. Alaburic is representing her client, and you may wait for the

23     cross-examination to put your question.

24             I was about to say something, but I was waiting for the right

25     time to intervene.  Let me take the case of the officer who's in charge

Page 10228

 1     of the IPD; information, propaganda, training, and so on.  When this

 2     person is in a brigade, can the brigade commander call him and say, You

 3     are an officer, but I would like you to train the soldiers in the field

 4     of the Geneva Conventions, because I believe there is a shortfall in this

 5     area.  The IPD officer then turns around and says, I will obey your

 6     orders, or he will turn around to the brigade commander and say, I must

 7     first of all refer to the Defence Department to see whether I'm entitled

 8     to do this.

 9             Let me give you another example.  Let's assume that the brigade

10     commander tells the IPD officer the following:  There's been an attack by

11     the BiH.  I don't have enough men on the ground.  Please pick up your

12     rifle and go on the front-line, execute the order.  Does the IPD officer

13     then say, I disagree, I need to refer to the Defence Department and

14     Mr. Stojic and ask him whether I'm entitled to do this?

15             So I've given you two concrete examples.  What do you have to say

16     to this?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The second case that you've just

18     presented, Your Honour Judge Antonetti, this case says clearly that the

19     brigade commander, or a commander at any level, cannot, irrespective of

20     the situation, issue an order to his assistant for IPD to take a rifle

21     and go to the battle-field.  He cannot do that to his assistant for IPD,

22     SIS, or any other assistant.  He can issue orders only to his

23     foot-soldiers.

24             And the first case that you mentioned, he can request and bring

25     booklets containing the Geneva Conventions, but likewise he cannot

Page 10229

 1     replace his assistant if that assistant says, No, I'm not going to do it

 2     at this moment, I'm first going to consult my chief who is affiliated

 3     with the Defence Department.  And in that, the brigade commander can file

 4     a complaint in which he's going to say, This is what I asked, he refused

 5     to do it.  And then this complaint will be forwarded all the way up to

 6     me, for example, and then I would request for Mr. Stojic to see how come

 7     that person in question refused to do a very logical thing.

 8             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] General Praljak, you have a

 9     great deal of knowledge, and you have seen how the foreign armies

10     operated; the Warsaw Pact and so on.  As far as you know, did things

11     happen this way elsewhere or was this specific to the HVO or to the

12     Croatian Army?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Militaries of Eastern ideology did

14     not function in the same way.  Western militaries do function in that

15     way.  We copied the way particularly of Western militaries, which do not

16     have a high number of professionals; for example, Germany, Italy, and so

17     on and so forth.  And in those countries, the Ministry of Defence and its

18     elements -- the Ministry of Defence is separated from the purely military

19     part, and it provides support, assistance to the Main Staff, i.e., to the

20     military in everything; information, investigations, the military police,

21     and so on and so forth.  Therefore, just like the Medical Corps, all that

22     is not affiliated with the Main Staff.

23             In Croatia, we tried to organise things in the same way as

24     everywhere else and involve the civilian hospitals to have the highest

25     number of doctors as possible.  They were not necessarily soldiers, just

Page 10230

 1     like the IPD personnel were not necessarily soldiers.  They could be

 2     civilians.  This is how one tries to de-militarise, well, here you have

 3     it, and reduce the possibility or the room for a commander to have too

 4     much power.  That was the case in Eastern countries, where the military

 5     commander was given the possibility to investigate, as the SIS does, to

 6     punish as the military police does, and this gave him too much power.

 7     And in Croatia, there was a lot of debate about that between those people

 8     who joined the Croatian Army from the JNA and those of us who never

 9     served in the JNA.  And Franjo Tudjman said that clearly and loudly, that

10     he was inclined to organise the Ministry of Defence and the army or model

11     the two after the Western example.  And I'm talking about the modular

12     system; You do your job, and when you need assistance, according to the

13     model, people in charge will assist you.  But that has a special

14     structure, a special manner of screening the staff, a special way of

15     appointing staff, it has its chief, and everything that is described as

16     things that need to be done.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] General Praljak, what you are

18     saying makes sense, and one can understand what you are saying, but there

19     is a difference.  In Western armies, if I take the case of the French

20     Army, for instance, an officer who is in charge of propaganda, well, his

21     corps commander can tell him, Go and hand out leaflets in the village

22     controlled by the enemy so that the soldiers desert, and he's going to

23     execute the order.  He's not going to ask the Ministry of Defence what he

24     needs to do.

25             Your IPD operative, who may be a civilian, according to what you

Page 10231

 1     are saying, well, he can be independent from the brigade commander?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I know, it's largely

 3     independent from the brigade commander or the corps commander even in the

 4     French Army.  But it is true that in its parts -- in some parts, he is being

 5     used.  As an IPD officer in the ministry, I provided support by way of

 6     providing information and everything else to the commanders.  But I was

 7     also independent, and I could dissolve them of their duties, to appoint

 8     new ones.  They performed the control of the brigade commanders, they had

 9     control, and they provided parallel reports about the behaviour of

10     certain commanders, and so on and so form.  We're talking about parallel

11     systems here.

12             Likewise, when a unit returns from combat, in the French Legion,

13     then they are examined by a psychologist.  The commander says that in his

14     view, a certain soldier had been exposed to too much stress.  Whether he

15     is going to be given a leave of absence, or whether he will be treated in

16     the barracks, or whether he will be transferred somewhere else for

17     treatment is up to the psychologist.  They examine him, talk to him, and

18     then they say, I know it for a fact this lad has undergone a great deal

19     of shock and he stays.  And this is not what the commander of the brigade

20     decides.  It's the parallel service that decides that.  In other words,

21     services are used.

22             In military terms, for example, we go for a field mission or

23     release false information, release information that we are using a lot of

24     food or that there is more of us than there are, it's the commander who

25     does that, but he has a lot of -- as the SIS, for example, the SIS goes

Page 10232

 1     with the brigade, but the essence of the matter is this:  You don't find

 2     somebody who committed a crime or perpetrated a crime where you heard

 3     that crimes were perpetrated, but then the investigation, the

 4     conversations with people, and then these people have their own informers

 5     within the brigade who are going to convey to them the fact that they had

 6     heard that people had gotten drunk and then they had information, that's

 7     how you learn who the perpetrators are.

 8             Your Honours, after Mi Lai -- - or eight months lapsed before the

 9     American Army learned what actually happened.  I believe that even more

10     time lapsed than when they heard about prisoners.  It is the organs in

11     charge of the investigation who investigate such matters, and that takes

12     time.  It takes a lot of time.  The worse the system, the longer it

13     takes.

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'm looking at the time.

15     I think it's time for the break, but my colleague here wishes to ask a

16     question first.

17             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Mr. Praljak, a while ago there was a hypothesis

18     that a chief of service, I will call him, for instance, IPD, was ordered

19     or asked by his commander to do something which was within the realm of

20     that order and refuses, and then you said there are complaints.  The

21     commander cannot sanction him, but he can complain up to yourself, you

22     said, to the highest commander.  Now, I am a bit surprised, because now

23     we are dealing with a specific specialty represented by this person, and

24     I had thought I'd understood that this hierarchy finally ended with the

25     Defence Department and not with the military supreme command.

Page 10233

 1             Could you clarify this matter briefly?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The top of the chain of command for

 3     a SIS member, of a military policeman, or an IPD officer is in the

 4     Defence Department, not in the Main Staff.  For example, if he refuses to

 5     carry out an order, it is not the brigade commander who can remove him.

 6     He doesn't have that power, because he did not appoint him in the first

 7     place.  He cannot -– he can launch an investigation and request

 8     investigative measures and proceedings to be instituted, but he cannot

 9     remove that person.

10             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you very much.  That's why I was surprised

11     when you said that the complaint could come to you.  Perhaps I'm sort of

12     misunderstanding.  Thank you.

13             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It is now time for the break.

14     We shall stop for 20 minutes.  Forty minutes.

15                           --- Recess taken at 3.48 p.m.

16                           --- On resuming at 4.11 p.m.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The hearing is resumed.

18             Ms. Nozica, as I already said, you now have 40 minutes left.

19             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

20        Q.   Mr. Praljak, I would like to come back to some parts of your

21     answers provided to -- in answer to Judge Antonetti's answers

22     [as interpreted] and your explanation about the position of the assistant

23     commander for the SIS and IPD, and the obligations of the sector -- or,

24     rather, the Administration for IPD and the SIS Administration.

25             Mr. Praljak, based on the documents that we have seen, the

Page 10234

 1     responsibility for the on-site investigation, and I'm using this word

 2     "on-site investigation," not "inspection," because I make a distinction

 3     between the two, the investigation carried out by the prosecutor and the

 4     on-site inspection which has to be carried out after a crime was

 5     committed.  In answer to Judge Antonetti's question about the different

 6     systems, about the different military systems, you said that the on-site

 7     investigations were the job of the SIS in the HVO.  Mr. Praljak, the

 8     documents we've seen speak to the contrary.

 9             First of all, Article 27 of the Decree on District

10     Military Courts charges the brigade commander with that responsibility,

11     and this is entirely confirmed by two documents.  In order to avoid

12     searching for them and going back, we're going to see them in e-court,

13     yet once again.  We've already seen these documents that show that

14     on-site inspection was the responsibility of the commander and his

15     subordinate assistants.

16             The first document is 2D3011.  You can rely on e-court rather

17     than on the hard copy of the documents.  This is information provided by

18     the assistant commander for SIS of the Operational Zone Central Bosnia in

19     Vitez, and submitted to the commander of the operational zone,

20     Tihomir Blaskic.  And the information is about the events in the village

21     of Ahmici.  You confirmed yourself that this was a logical chain of

22     communication.

23             The second document is P4268.  This document, speaking about the

24     same event, an order for on-site inspection, is given by the commander of

25     the operational zone, Mr. Blaskic, to his assistant for SIS, Mr. Ante

Page 10235

 1     Sliskovic.  His order is for Mr. Sliskovic to carry out on-site

 2     inspection.  It arise from these two documents, and there are more than

 3     those, that the on-site inspection is carried out by the commander with

 4     his assistants in the unit.  Would you agree with me that this is what we

 5     can conclude, based on the documents that we've just seen?

 6        A.   I don't agree with your explanation, Ms. Nozica.

 7        Q.   Very well.  We shall not take it any further.  I'm going to ask

 8     you to be very brief in your answers.  We won't take this any further

 9     because it is your legitimate right not to agree with me.

10             Secondly, you said that the assistant commander in the unit for

11     IPD was a civilian?

12        A.   No, I didn't say that.

13        Q.   I apologise.  I misunderstood you, in that case.  In that case,

14     would you please go on and explain?

15        A.   I said that in the Croatian Army, it could have also been a

16     civilian.  I didn't say anything about the HVO.  He did not have to be a

17     civilian.  He could be a civilian serving in the military, and he could

18     serve for a certain period of time or be assigned to a particular task.

19        Q.   Mr. Praljak, in a unit such as a brigade, could the assistant

20     commander of that unit, any assistant in any area of work, could he be a

21     civilian at all?  I'm talking about the assistant commander -- I'm

22     talking about the assistant commander for any area of responsibility, the

23     SIS, the PZ, the intelligence.

24        A.   There were no such cases in the HVO.

25        Q.   Very well, thank you.  You are saying that the assistant for IPD

Page 10236

 1     in any of units could not be a civilian.

 2             Mr. Praljak, I would now kindly ask you, in follow-up to

 3     Judge Antonetti's questions about --

 4             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Excuse me, Ms. Nozica.  I wonder whether you

 5     correctly sum up what Mr. Praljak said.  He was asked whether there were

 6     any civilians, and he said that there were no such cases.  He did not say

 7     that it was not possible that he could not be a civilian, if I understand

 8     correctly.  So perhaps one should ask Mr. Praljak:  In theory, would it

 9     have been possible that a civilian acts as assistant for IPD in the HVO?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know of any such cases in

11     the HVO, but I --

12             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Sorry.

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But I restricted myself and said

14     that in the Croatian Army, for some limited scopes of work, publication

15     of books or broadcast of some films, I used a civilian -- civilians, but

16     I did not transform them, as it were, into military personnel.

17             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I seem to understand that you simply do not know

18     whether, in theory, it would have been possible in the HVO to have a

19     civilian as assistant for IPD.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know.

21             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  [No interpretation]

22             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   Mr. Praljak, do you know, and Mr. Vegar testified about that,

24     that the assistant head of Department for Defence for IPD was a civilian?

25        A.   I don't know.

Page 10237

 1        Q.   Let me just remind you that he was, indeed, a civilian.

 2             But let's now look at another document, which is P872.  If we

 3     first looked at the previous document, which was 3D, then if you skip the

 4     next one, and then we have P872.  It's an order from Mr. Lasic, and he

 5     was the commander of the Operations Zone of South-East Herzegovina, and

 6     relates to command of the IPD structures in the units.  And he says:

 7             "There is an everyday phenomenon that our soldiers spend their

 8     time off in populated areas wearing uniforms and armed.  They go into

 9     cafes, behave in a non-military way, and cause incidents among themselves

10     and with civilians.  Many of them under the influence of drink, alcohol,

11     resort to fire-arms, destroy facilities, conduct robberies, and use

12     vehicles with HVO insignia, without any control or authorisation."

13             So I think that that goes along the lines of what Judge Antonetti

14     asked you about.  Anyway, here Mr. Lasic is issuing an order to all

15     commanders and assistants for IPD, Information and Propaganda, that they

16     are obliged to intensify their work with the men, pointing out possible

17     tragic consequences of such behaviour on the part of individuals and

18     groups.  That's point 1 of that order.

19             Now, the last point of that order says that:

20             "The commanders of the units are duty-bound to inform me about

21     the implementation of this order in their regular reports."

22             Now, Mr. Praljak, is that the kind of order that you said were

23     orders that commanders could issue to their assistants and lower-down

24     units?  Is this one such order which shows what their authority and scope

25     was?

Page 10238

 1        A.   Mr. Lasic here is issuing an order to everybody, telling them to

 2     do their work properly, because the assistants for IPD and the commanders

 3     weren't doing their job.  So parallel systems were introduced because of

 4     control, and "control" is the key word here.

 5             Now, why -- if I might be allowed to explain about this parallel

 6     system.

 7        Q.   No, we won't go into that now.  I want to show what the situation

 8     was de facto.  But if you're talking about parallel control, then let's

 9     see whether from this order that we have in front of us here, we see

10     anywhere that it was sent to the IPD Sector and the assistant head of

11     IPD, for him to be able to exercise that control, as you say.  We can see

12     who it was addressed to, and we see that it was not sent to either the

13     Defence Department or the IPD Sector?

14        A.   No, it wasn't, and he had to exercise control.

15        Q.   The next order from Mr. Lasic is dated the 22nd of April, 1993.

16     It is P2030, from the previous year -- the first one was from the end of

17     the previous year.  This one is from April 1993.  It is also an exhibit,

18     and it's an order, and I'm sure you'll remember that on the 22nd of

19     April, it related to putting up the HVO soldiers in the barracks and so

20     on, and this was on the basis of an agreement by which HVO members were

21     to be put up.

22             THE INTERPRETER:  Could all the microphones be switched off,

23     please, that aren't in use.  Thank you.

24             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]

25        Q.   Now, I'm interested in point 9, where it says:

Page 10239

 1             "The assistant commander of the Operation Zone of South-Eastern

 2     Herzegovina for IPD shall organise meetings with the units and inform

 3     them of their duties and obligations stemming from this order, and the

 4     meaning of this order and similar orders for the future are life in these

 5     territories."

 6             And at the end, Mr. Lasic makes it incumbent upon the commanders

 7     to implement this order by the 22nd of April.

 8             MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] I'm going to ask my colleague to

 9     check the number of the document.  Either that's not the right document

10     or this isn't in point 9 of that document, because we don't have what she

11     read out.  So check the number, please.

12             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I apologise.  You're quite right.

13     It should have been point 11, which comes after point 10 in the document.

14     Thank you for drawing my attention to that.  So it's point 11 or para 11.

15     And there's a gap here, a hole there.  Anyway, it's the second paragraph

16     under point 10.  Is that all right now?

17             MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Yes, thank you.

18             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   Mr. Praljak, since we put that right, tell us, please, if

20     Mr. Lasic in this way is, in fact, ordering the assistant commander of

21     the Operation Zone for IPD, his assistant, telling him what he should do

22     in order to implement this order?

23        A.   Correct, that's right.  He's telling him to do his job and to

24     explain to people what has happened and what should be done.  And it is

25     the duty of the brigade commander to tell his men to do their job

Page 10240

 1     properly.

 2        Q.   Yes, that's right.  Now, Mr. Praljak, when you say it is the duty

 3     of the brigade commander to tell his men to do their duty and do their --

 4     perform their jobs, when we were talking about SIS and IPD, you said that

 5     it was their duty and obligation to act accordingly and that at the same

 6     time it was their duty to do so; isn't that right?

 7        A.   Yes, that is right.

 8        Q.   Now, Mr. Praljak, does that apply -- does the same apply to the

 9     other assistants, assistant commanders; for example, the assistant for

10     mobilisation and so on, is it the same thing?  Is it their duty to carry

11     it out in a professional way?  Does it apply to the other assistants,

12     except the IPD assistant?  To all the others, does it apply?

13        A.   Yes.  In the military sense, yes.  But let me tell you why this

14     was introduced, and I can quote you one or two examples, why this method

15     was introduced.

16             Let's assume that the brigade commander appointed his assistant

17     and that the assistant for SIS -- that there's no parallel structure.

18     And if the brother of the commander of a brigade commits a crime, for

19     example, in the classical chain of command in the Western countries, he

20     could tell the assistant for SIS, It's my brother, forget about that

21     problem.

22             Now, here parallelism was introduced precisely because of that,

23     because the assistant for SIS was not appointed by the brigade commander,

24     because there's this parallel structure, and because he has to reject

25     that kind of order.

Page 10241

 1        Q.   Mr. Praljak, I don't understand your example at all.  And let me

 2     tell you why I don't understand what you said.

 3             If you are talking about a hypothetical situation, then we must,

 4     first of all, establish the facts, and that is that not a single

 5     assistant, either SIS or IPD, were appointed by the commander.  Everybody

 6     below the commander, all the appointments below that, were the obligation

 7     of Mr. Stojic, and that is indubitable.  And we showed how those

 8     appointments were made at the proposal of the brigade commander, in

 9     agreement most often -- let me be precise, most frequently along with the

10     agreement of the Main Staff.  This would be done by Mr. Stojic.

11             We also demonstrated, using the example of the document by

12     Mr. Siljeg, when it came to the Kupres Battalion, that the dismissal was

13     done in the same way; that is to say, that the commander makes a proposal

14     that so-and-so be dismissed from his duty, but that does not exclude the

15     logics of the following: that the commander must point out if one of the

16     assistants is not performing his job properly, then he must propose that

17     he be replaced and dismissed.

18             And, secondly, if the assistant commander in a brigade issues an

19     order to his -- I beg your pardon.  If the brigade commander issues an

20     order to his assistant for SIS which goes against the grain of the rules

21     of service, in hierarchal terms, in the chain of command, should he have

22     addressed the higher level, which is the assistant commander of the

23     operation zone for SIS?  Did this hierarchy assist within the HVO from

24     the assistant commander for SIS of the operational zone right down to the

25     battalions?  Did that hierarchy exist?

Page 10242

 1        A.   Yes, and vis-a-vis the head of the SIS, too, the chief of SIS.

 2     So that testifies to this parallel system.  He refers to his zone, and

 3     this other one refers to the chief of SIS.

 4        Q.   Now, Mr. Praljak, I can't agree with you there, again, because

 5     the SIS Administration or the IPD are not parallel organs, there are no

 6     parallel organs, and we heard testimony from both Mr. Bagaric and Vegar

 7     and Mr. Bandic, and they explained in very precise terms what their role

 8     was.  They were professional organs, and they were not any parallel type

 9     of organ.  And you said, yourself, today that their function was quite

10     different from the command chain, and I'm talking about the chain of

11     command, and I'm going to carry on asking you questions because I wish to

12     demonstrate --

13        A.   If you've made an observation, let me say that they were not

14     professional.  Mr. Bandic bore arms and had to arrest people in given

15     situations.  So what you were talking about, in professional terms, was

16     not correct.

17        Q.   You mentioned Mr. Bandic and said that he had to make arrests.

18     Now, let me ask you a question, and if you can, answer it; if not, never

19     mind.  I wasn't intending to ask you this.

20             When what happened happened in Stupni Do, we saw, from the

21     testimony given by Mr. Bandic, that at that time he, together with

22     Mr. Petkovic, was in Stupni Do and they left together.

23             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Objection, Your Honour.  They were

24     not in Stupni Do.

25             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Yes, I do apologise.  You're quite

Page 10243

 1     right.  They were in Kiseljak, they were in Kiseljak, right, during the

 2     events in Stupni Do.

 3        Q.   Now, to whom did Mr. Petkovic issue an order to carry out

 4     investigative procedures?  Was it to Mr. Bandic or Mr. Rajic, if you can

 5     remember?

 6        A.   Well, to both of them, as far as I remember, because both of them

 7     had to submit reports about what had happened up there.  But this does

 8     not deny the fact of me asking Bandic here whether, if he came across

 9     rape, Would you have the right and duty to arrest the culprit, the

10     perpetrator?

11        Q.   Mr. Praljak, you're not right again.  That order was not issued

12     to both men.  It was issued exclusively to Mr. Rajic.  But

13     Judge Antonetti --

14             MR. STRINGER:  Sorry, Mr. President.  I'm going to object to

15     counsel's just arguing with the witness, which is really what this has

16     sort of evolved into in the last couple of minutes.  He says one thing,

17     counsel disagrees.  It's ultimately for the Trial Chamber to make its

18     decisions, but it's not really appropriate -- it's not proper

19     cross-examination.  It's just really an argument, which isn't helpful to

20     anyone.

21             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with your permission,

22     let me just respond to that, Your Honours.

23             I think I have the right to put my case to the witness, so it was

24     in that framework.  But I'll conclude with this discussion, because it's

25     quite obvious that my questions and my case is not confirmed by

Page 10244

 1     Mr. Praljak, so I don't want to continue discussing the topic.

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] General Praljak, through the

 3     questions that have been put, you have understood that there's an

 4     official issue, whether the minister of defence plays a role when it

 5     comes to conducting investigations and seizures conducted by the military

 6     prosecutor.  If a crime is committed somewhere and the SIS conducts an

 7     investigation, placed under the control of the SIS -- let me repeat

 8     slowly.

 9             General Praljak, the questions which Ms. Nozica has just put to

10     you are essential questions because they have to do with the role played

11     by the minister of defence or the head of the Defence Department.  In the

12     event a crime is committed, does he have a role to play or does he have

13     no role, because this role is a role that should be the one of the

14     brigade commander, and the brigade commander has the police, the military

15     police, and the SIS to do the job?  When a crime is committed, therefore,

16     for the military prosecutor to be seized of the case, the brigade

17     commander needs to conduct an investigation.  He can give instructions to

18     the person in charge of the military police or of the SIS to conduct the

19     investigation.

20             A while ago, we saw a document which was a good illustration of

21     this since the document stated, You have until the 17th of September, if

22     I remember correctly, to address to the competent authorities of the

23     military prosecutor the entire report.  If the minister of defence has no

24     role to play, then this role should be played by the brigade commander,

25     and the brigade commander reports to the HVO commander, i.e., you,

Page 10245

 1     yourself.

 2             So this is an essential question.  Ms. Nozica has put a series of

 3     questions to you, has shown you a whole series of documents, and you're

 4     saying, No, the SIS is part of another chain of command.  Ms. Nozica

 5     said, Well, I do not share your point of view.

 6             We shall finish off with this question.  What is your final

 7     position, Mr. Praljak?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My final position has been stated

 9     several times, and it's quite clear.  What does the chief of SIS -- what

10     purpose does he serve and what does the SIS -- what purpose does the SIS

11     serve?  The chief of SIS appoints people, regardless of who proposed

12     them.  He appoints men, they're his men, and they are duty-bound, on the

13     basis of the laws and rules, to conduct investigative proceedings,

14     regardless of whether the command of a brigade or company issues orders

15     to that effect or not.  If a brigade commander or battalion commander or

16     company commander learns about something he will issue an order, but that

17     is not a necessary condition for them do their job properly.

18             The military police, within the frameworks of SIS, is duty-bound

19     to conduct investigations together with them and prepare them for the

20     military prosecutor or investigator.  That is their basic duty and task.

21     They are attached to the brigades and battalions, of course, because

22     that's where things happen.

23             And so my answer is crystal clear, because that's how it was.  So

24     who files reports, you'll be able to see that, who processes them, who

25     uncovers possible perpetrators.  The chief of SIS and the chief of the

Page 10246

 1     military police deals with that, and there are two structures.  Why would

 2     you have a chief of SIS if they're stopped at the brigade or at the

 3     operation zone?  What purpose would the service perform, then, what

 4     purpose would it serve?  And professional assistance, such as the FBI, or

 5     any other police, or any Secret Service, is there to uncover the

 6     perpetrators and to enable those perpetrators to be taken into custody

 7     and to allow the investigative judge to have the facts at his disposal

 8     and to raise an indictment thereupon.

 9             So it's not the duty of a brigade commander.  If a brigade

10     commander learns that something has happened, he must secure the site,

11     post some soldiers there to stand guard or tell the military police to do

12     that.  That's his duty, for God's sake.  There's no dilemma on that

13     score.

14             Now, the fact that they write orders, that these people have to

15     do their job, their work, that's not true and correct, because otherwise

16     you wouldn't need a SIS organisation or a defence department, a military

17     police.  They wouldn't be needed.  Why have a chief who is not

18     responsible for anything, has no duties, and does nothing?

19             And I wanted to quote examples of why that was put in that way,

20     Your Honours, precisely to show that -- and those services should

21     exercise control over the brigade commanders.  The assistants for SIS had

22     the remit of controlling brigade commanders to ensure that they were not

23     engaged in any untoward actions, and then they were to send back that

24     information to the chief of SIS.  And then Mr. Stojic was duty-bound to

25     inform me, and so on.

Page 10247

 1             So they are parallel systems of control and supervision.  It's --

 2     it was set up because of control and supervision.  If the assistant for

 3     SIS was not doing his job properly, then it was the duty of the commander

 4     to inform people about that, but it was the duty of the SIS chief to say

 5     that the brigade commander wasn't doing his job properly and that he was

 6     interfering, stealing, or whatever.  That's how things should have

 7     functioned.

 8             Of course, there were difficulties within the SIS and within the

 9     military police, and with the commanders of the units themselves.

10     Otherwise, we wouldn't have had so many documents written, warning them

11     to prevent, to incarcerate, to investigate, and so on and so forth.

12             JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Witness Praljak, I have followed

13     everything you have said.  I believe I've understood.  I would just like

14     to check something out with you.

15             Let's take document P2030, P2030.  This document is signed by the

16     Brigadier Lasic.  This is an order that contains several items.  We have,

17     in paragraph 3, the following:  Brigadier Lasic is asking for all of the

18     soldiers and members of the HVO to stop wearing black uniforms.  After

19     having given such an order, what happens next?  Does this brigadier stand

20     idle and wait for the parallel services to step in or does he remain in

21     control of this order?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, Your Honour Judge Mindua, he

23     can follow the movements, he -- so Brigadier Miljenko Lasic is walking

24     around the front-line, and if he sees a soldier in a black uniform, he

25     will take him to task.  But since in the operational zone there are

Page 10248

 1     several brigades, of course, it is the duty now of his assistants,

 2     including the assistant for SIS, IPD, and the military police to tell

 3     him, In such and such platoon there are those people who are in

 4     contravention of your order.  And not only to tell him that, but pursuant

 5     to his order, they must bring those people into custody, recommend a

 6     punishment to him that he would then impose, and they must take off their

 7     uniforms without the assistants.  And if the assistants don't do the job

 8     that they have to do, he cannot do his job, in turn.  He cannot control

 9     four or five brigades which are in his area.  So he became aware of the

10     problem, and then he, quite properly, instructs his assistants to do

11     their job.  One of them -- one of the tasks is to remove the black

12     uniforms because they were saying that we looked like -- well, the troops

13     got those black uniforms, somebody brought them, and this was associated

14     with some Nazi or fascist uniforms, Mussolini's uniforms.

15             JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

16             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] General Praljak, the example

17     quoted by my colleague is an excellent one, because just look at item 11.

18     Look at what is stated in item 11.  Mr. Lasic, who represents the

19     military authority, takes a whole series of decisions.  The black

20     uniforms -- the issue about the black uniforms has been mentioned, but

21     other things as well.  And here he says that the assistant commander for

22     IPD shall organise meetings in the units to brief the troops about the

23     obligations arising from this order.  This person, Mr. Lasic, asks the

24     IPD officers to hold meetings.  They then are not going to turn to

25     Mr. Stojic to ask him what they need to do.  I assume the order was

Page 10249

 1     obeyed.  I don't see that there is a parallel chain of command here, when

 2     I look at this order.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, you can see it, but nobody

 4     wants to see it.  First of all, they don't have to consult Mr. Stojic.

 5     That's not Mr. Stojic's problem.  It's the problem of whoever is in

 6     charge of the IPD.  IPD is aware of the fact who and in what way reached

 7     the demarcation.  It was all -- yeah, and he is asking from the services

 8     that are under his charge to explain to the troops something that has

 9     nothing to do with the military, so the meaning of these obligations for

10     the future of the people living in those areas.

11             So an agreement was reached, a military agreement, in those

12     areas.  But now how to explain to the people the sense of it in the

13     broader political sense?  To do that, one must use the system that is

14     already in place and that is charged with it, and this is the IPD.

15             So, for instance, in the Croatian Army I would organise that, and

16     I would say, This agreement between Franjo Tudjman and whoever has a

17     political significance in this sense, in that sense, because people are

18     not well informed.  This is not what the brigade commander must do, but

19     the systems that are attached to him, including the IPD.

20             Of course, it was always an effort to have teachers, educated

21     people, in the IPD who would then be able to convey to people what this

22     is all about.

23             So this is what he wants from them, and they are the ones to do

24     it; not, however, within the framework of what you call or what you say,

25     their subordination.  They have at their disposal their meetings and to

Page 10250

 1     see what this is all about, and with politicians, and then they can

 2     explain to the people how this agreement came about, and why people were

 3     supposed to withdraw to the barracks, and why General Pellnas managed to

 4     do that, and so on and so forth.  But we know what this is all about.

 5             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Mr. Praljak, I have -- something puzzles me with

 6     this document.  Perhaps there is a mistake in translation.  Would you be

 7     so kind and just read the date of the document?  On the first page, you

 8     have:  "Mostar, 22nd," and the next word?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "April."

10             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you.  I find it strange that this is an

11     order dated of 22nd April, and in three different points, number 6, 9 and

12     12, the commander, Mr. Lasic, orders the order to be completed by 2.00 of

13     the same day.  Isn't that a bit strange?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour Judge Trechsel.

15     This agreement was reached with General Pellnas, who was there, and then

16     he witnessed this attempt to calm the situation in Mostar down, and the

17     agreement that Mr. Pellnas managed to achieve with the parties are --

18     it's implemented with Mico Lasic in accordance with the time schedule.

19     The dead-line for this and that is such and such.  The HVO units are to

20     go to Tihomir Misic Barracks and to Heliodrom.  The BH Army was supposed

21     to go to the Southern Camp, as far as I can recall.  I talked to

22     General Pellnas at that time because he sought a meeting with me, but I

23     didn't want to ask him about this because this was not really -- there

24     wasn't anything of significance.

25             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I am not convinced at all by your answer.  This

Page 10251

 1     is an order.  It's not an agreement; it's an order.  It's called "Order,"

 2     and it doesn't say at what time of that day the order is issued, but it

 3     requests all sorts of obligations to be met by 2.00 on the same day.  And

 4     somehow to me this simply doesn't make sense.  But maybe you have no

 5     answer, and then you say, I have no answer, and that's it.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I have an answer, but you

 7     assume that there are some schemes there and now this doesn't fit into

 8     those frameworks that you are imagining.  It's not necessary to say, in

 9     every order, this is in reference to a conversation and so on.  This is

10     wartime.  People are drafting their documents quickly because they have

11     to implement an agreement by such and such a date.  And it's not

12     necessary, just because we are here in court, Well, you should have

13     drafted it in such and such a way so that everybody in this courtroom

14     understands it.  It's perfectly reasonable because there was an agreement

15     where Mr. Pellnas spoke about it quite well, and if you remember that, in

16     light of that, this order is quite clear, and it was all about the hours

17     because at the time conflict was already looming, the BH Army was all

18     ready to attack, and later on it, on the 9th of May, it actually

19     occurred.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I wanted to add something, but

21     I shall give the floor to my colleague.

22             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  What is meant by "removal of all combat

23     shelters," and how many were there?  That's number 6.

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, on the demarcation line in

25     the Bulevar and so on, this was set by General Pellnas.  Well, if you

Page 10252

 1     expect that the conflict would break out, there are the places where

 2     people were.  Shelters were erected by the BH Army on the left-hand side

 3     and by the HVO on the right-hand side.  And if you remember the

 4     agreement, the BH Army was supposed to move out of the Mostar Hotel.

 5     They refused to do it.  And then Mr. Pellnas went there, and it was an

 6     arduous situation.  And in the end, well, some of them refused to move

 7     out.  So a way was sought to calm the situation down in the town, for the

 8     troops to go back to the barracks, and for the joint military police to

 9     take over control of the town.  And you can see here that Brigadier Lasic

10     is also sending this for the information of the Military Police

11     Battalion.

12             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Okay.  That would be vacation -- vacate command

13     post, not remove them.  Maybe it's a mistake in the translation.  I leave

14     it at that, but I'm not convinced.

15             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] General Praljak, while looking

16     at the document in B/C/S, I have realised the following --

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Judge Trechsel, I don't want to

18     leave this hanging.  What is it that Judge Trechsel is not convinced; the

19     clarity of the agreement that was signed previously and that

20     General Pellnas spoke quite clearly about here?  And this is also sent to

21     the 4th Corps of the BH Army.  The orders were identical.  The identical

22     orders were issued by the BH Army.  And again it was sent for the

23     information of the Military Police Administration, so in accordance with

24     the agreement that was reached through the mediation of General Pellnas

25     and the Spanish Battalion of the UNPROFOR to implement everything that is

Page 10253

 1     written here.  What's unclear about it?

 2             To set up a joint military police teams of the HVO and the

 3     BH Army that would patrol the town.  Well, those patrols were to be

 4     dressed in the same uniforms, without any insignia, to avoid a situation

 5     where somebody would perhaps fire on them because it's impossible to

 6     distinguish Croats from Muslims by their physiognomy.  So I really don't

 7     understand what's unclear here.  If there's anything that's unclear,

 8     please ask me.  In paragraph 4, it says "a joint team."

 9             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I will tell you.  It's the time element.  In a

10     few hours, this order must go to everyone whom it addresses, and then

11     they must -- again it goes to other commanders who must give orders, and

12     these orders must be executed.  And I simply do not see how this is done

13     in a very few hours.  So perhaps it just repeats an earlier order or

14     something like that, but the time-frame to me is not realistic.  That's

15     all.

16             But let's leave it at that now.  Maybe it's not that important,

17     after all.

18             MS. PINTER: [Interpretation] Perhaps I might be of assistance.

19             Under 2D00313, we have an exhibit, a joint press release by Petar

20     Zelenika and Arif Pasalic, and in this press release all those items are

21     listed.  So it's an agreement of the 21st of April, and that document is

22     already an exhibit.  And perhaps we can look it up in e-court and you can

23     see, in the document, that it is an order that is also being sent to the

24     4th Corps of the BH Army for their information, to let them know that for

25     their part, the HVO did what had been agreed the previous day.

Page 10254

 1             I only wanted to help.

 2             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you, and I appreciate that.

 3             Let me put a different question.  Was everything realised by 2.00

 4     on that day?  Was that complied with?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.  Well, in an effort to

 6     achieve this agreement, Mr. Pellnas found me down there, and in an effort

 7     to achieve this solution, I strongly participated in this from the rear,

 8     from behind the scenes, so to speak.  And it was signed by Mr. Zelenika

 9     and Mr. Pasalic, and one had to act very quickly.  Tensions were running

10     high, and I told you what happened with the group of the BH Army soldiers

11     who had come to the Bulevar.  And the situation got complicated again.

12     After all this was complied with, but these are other problems.

13             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Now, as far as the time element

14     is concerned, I would like to provide you with my modest contribution.

15             Now, I stand to be corrected.  I'm looking at the B/C/S text, and

16     I believe this is a telex.  If you look at the font of the words, one has

17     a feeling that this is a telex.  And if you look at the left-hand side,

18     it says "RBiH," an abridged version, "HZ HB, HVO, OZ GIH."  So clearly

19     time is of the essence.  If you type this up, it takes five minutes for

20     an expert secretary, at the very least, and then two seconds later it's

21     transmitted via telex.  We might have had an explanation had we had the

22     original text.  We might realised then that right at the top when you

23     have a telex you have the time, the time it was sent, the day when it was

24     received, and so on.  So had we had the original, we would have seen this

25     mentioned at the top of the page and perhaps on the other side, because

Page 10255

 1     this is a photocopy, we may have seen a stamp.  The reason I'm saying

 2     this is because I've already come across such a case.

 3             Irrespective of this, and our colleague has mentioned this, all

 4     the people arrested should be freed by 2.00 on the 22nd of April.  This

 5     is what I understand.  All people arrested by the HVO and the ABiH must

 6     be exchanged by 1400 hours, on the basis of all-for-all.  So if there are

 7     100 on one side, 100 people should be exchanged.  If the telex is sent in

 8     the morning, at 8.00 or 9.00, then you have enough time and ample time to

 9     execute the order.

10             General Praljak, you have a better understanding of this type of

11     document than we have.  Can you tell us whether this text in B/C/S could

12     be a telex sent by Mr. Lasic?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] By telex or packet communication.

14             Just one more thing, Your Honour.  At the time, there were no

15     prisoners among the BH Army or the HVO because there had been no

16     conflicts preceding this.  Some people, a small number, was arrested by

17     the military police of the HVO and the BiH Army during some minor

18     skirmishes.  There were a lot of reports about some shooting, there was

19     some killings as well, and those people who, during the space of the two

20     or three days, were brought in by the two police forces had to be

21     exchanged, and it could have easily have been implemented within a short

22     period of time.  And a lot of this was indeed implemented within a short

23     period of time.  There was some positions taken in haste, there was no

24     front-line.  This had the initial appearance of a future possible

25     conflict, but it was stopped and nipped in the bud.

Page 10256

 1             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You have 20 minutes left.  This

 2     was pointed out to me by the Registrar.

 3             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

 4        Q.   Mr. Praljak, let me go back to a statement of yours with regard

 5     to this order.  You said that when it comes to bullet point 11, if I

 6     understood you properly, the tasks contained in there had to be performed

 7     by the IPD Sector of the Defence Department, did I understand you

 8     properly, because it says here -- I apologise.  Let's not overlap.  Let

 9     me finish, and then you can take it from there.  It says the assistant

10     commander of the operational zone of the commander for the IPD is

11     organising the meetings.  Who was supposed to organise the meetings, the

12     assistant commander or the Sector for the IPD of the Defence Department?

13        A.   Ms. Nozica, I really do not know whether you do not want to

14     understand, do not wish to understand, or is there something else?

15        Q.   Mr. Praljak, this is not my question.  Tell me this:  Does it say

16     in the document the assistant commander -- and one more question.  Is

17     this at all something that was sent to the IPD Sector -- I apologise.

18     The IPD Sector in the Defence Department, how should have the IPD Sector

19     in the Defence Department supposed to know whether Mr. Lasic issued this

20     order, if it was not even sent to their -- for their information?  Just

21     tell us "yes" or "no."

22        A.   Ms. Nozica, I'm not going to answer your question because my

23     answer should be what you want it to be.  It is not necessary -- it was

24     not necessary for Mr. Lasic to forward this to the IPD.  The assistants

25     would ask for the IPD to tell them what to talk about, what to discuss,

Page 10257

 1     what to discuss, what to relay to the soldiers.

 2        Q.   Thank you very much, Mr. Praljak.

 3        A.   Not at all.

 4        Q.   You've also told us, sir, that the chief of the SIS

 5     Administration appointed the assistants in the units, the assistants for

 6     SIS in the units.  Did he appoint them or was he only proposing them?

 7        A.   He could have proposed their names.  It could have been somebody

 8     else who proposed them, but he appointed them, and he put his signature

 9     on their appointment letters, and thus he became their chief.

10        Q.   Mr. Praljak, could you please look at documents, since we are

11     talking about the appointments and whether he appointed them, and this is

12     contrary to the decision on the internal organisation of the Defence

13     Department.  Let's look at the document P4756.  I have just two documents

14     to show you.

15             I apologise.  I really didn't -- wasn't able to prepare all the

16     documents.  I did not envisage the direction of my cross-examination, but

17     both documents can be brought in the electronic courtroom because they

18     have already been admitted into evidence.  So I hope we will be able to

19     bring them up in e-court.

20             This is the transcript from the meeting of the Defence Department

21     which was held on the 2nd of December, 1993.  On the second page, if you

22     can look at bullet point 1 of the transcript from this meeting - we've

23     already seen it on several occasions - we can see that Mr. Matic

24     represented the Main Staff at that meeting; is that correct?

25        A.   It is.

Page 10258

 1        Q.   Under bullet point 2, it says that the book of rules and

 2     regulations governing the work and organisation of the Security and

 3     Information Service has been adopted, and it is also said here that Ivica

 4     Lucic provided a keynote address, and he also pointed out that he has

 5     encountered problems concerning the appointment of SIS officials at

 6     brigade levels because he had never been consulted about their

 7     appointment, and that in future this will no longer happen because the

 8     decision on the internal organisation of the Defence Department precisely

 9     regulates the appointment of such officials.  He said this, Mr. Praljak,

10     on the 2nd of September.  If he had said something that was not correct,

11     I'm sure that Mr. Matic would have intervened.  Do you agree?

12        A.   I don't know why Mr. Matic would have intervened, because Ivica

13     Lucic did not do his part of the job, vis-a-vis the service, as the

14     department allows him.  He -- they were appointed, and he had to visit

15     every one of them and make sure that he was the one who appointed them.

16     If not, he would have -- he should have changed them or provided his

17     consent.  He says, I didn't do my job because somebody else did it, and

18     then Matic should have intervened, according to you, but this is not

19     correct.

20        Q.   Mr. Lucic did not do his job properly, somebody else did his part

21     of the job, and now we're moving from de jure to the de facto.

22             Let's look at document 2D944.  This is also already an exhibit.

23     This is a list of HVO units and SIS members, dated 19 November, and I am

24     looking at this document just because of the date.  The year is 1993.

25             Can we turn to the last page, both in English and in Croatian,

Page 10259

 1     the last page, please?

 2             Mr. Lucic, in the month of November, in this report, which is

 3     submitted to Mr. Biskic, as we can see, he says here:

 4             "The majority of SIS personnel and units, their zones, brigades,

 5     battalions and MTDs, were appointed in violation of the valid decision on

 6     the internal organisation of the Defence Department dated 20 May 1993,

 7     which prescribed the procedure for appointing personnel to individual

 8     posts in -- and they don't have legal decisions to support their

 9     appointments.  The proper procedure envisages that the assistant minister

10     for security either appoints or proposes SIS personnel to be appointed to

11     certain posts in the manning table.  This procedure has mostly been

12     violated so far in the way that brigade commanders appointed SIS

13     personnel without seeking the approval of the assistant minister for

14     security."

15             Mr. Praljak, at the very beginning of my cross-examination we

16     stated, as far as I remember, that the practice, when it came to

17     appointment and many other things, was contrary to what was prescribed

18     because of the times and the practice could not follow the procedure; is

19     that correct?

20        A.   Judging by this document, it must be correct.  I know that there

21     are problems there.  But look here, from the month of May until the month

22     of November, he did not do his job.  In the month of September, he said

23     he would do it, he would follow the procedure, so he was -- what he was

24     supposed to do was to tour the brigades and act in accordance with the

25     regulations.  This means that this man violated regulations and didn't do

Page 10260

 1     his job properly.  And since he didn't do his job properly, what you are

 2     saying now is that the brigade commanders -- but, Ms. Nozica, this is not

 3     correct.  People were supposed to do their job.  If they didn't do it

 4     properly, it is inappropriate to say that the system was different,

 5     because they did not implement the system.

 6        Q.   Mr. Praljak, I didn't say anything -- I didn't say anything about

 7     the system.  I just followed up on your remark that they were appointed

 8     by the assistant.  Your remark was that the assistants for SIS in the

 9     units were appointed by the assistant for SIS or the chief for SIS of the

10     head of the Defence Department.  I showed you the documents that show

11     what they show, and they show us that the practice was completely

12     different.

13             And just one more document that I would like to show you, which I

14     owe you.  I have not prepared it.  It is P6137.  This is an order on

15     investigation about the events in Stupni Do.  You told us that the order

16     was also provided to Mr. Bandic, the order for investigation.  I just

17     want to -- you know this, you remember this order.  It was, as we can

18     see, provided to the OG commander, Ivica Rajic, as well as the commander

19     of the Bobovac Brigade, Emil Harah.  It arises from this order, as we can

20     see, that this was not provided to the SIS Administration and especially

21     not to Mr. Bandic; is that correct?

22        A.   Correct.  Milivoj Petkovic provides a very precise order about

23     what the military part had to provide him with.  I adhere by my words

24     that the SIS has to do its job, irrespective of the order given to it by

25     Milivoj Petkovic.

Page 10261

 1        Q.   I'm going to show two more documents referring to the IPD.  I

 2     have sidetracked a little, but now I'm coming back to the IPD.

 3             Let's now look at the way the assistant commanders for IPD in the

 4     brigade report and who they report to.  If we can look at document 2D653.

 5     You can also refer to e-court.  I would like to see the top of the

 6     document, please, in the Croatian version.

 7             It says here the assistant brigade commander for IPD,

 8     Marin Zadric, who informs about an event which is not unimportant.  It's

 9     an important event.  He informs the Main Staff, the operations zone -- to

10     operation zone the Rama Brigade and Mr. Dinko Zebic.  Do you know where

11     his position was in the month of April?

12        A.   No, I can't remember.

13        Q.   He also informs Mr. Siljeg, and Veso Vegar as well.  Mr. Praljak,

14     can you remember whether the information in question from the IPD, the

15     lower levels of the IPD, did it also arrive at the Main Staff?  Can you

16     confirm this?

17        A.   Yes, it was their duty to inform -- I apologise.  Ms. Nozica,

18     they were duty-bound to inform units in the vicinity of the Main Staff

19     what was going on.  That was their duty.

20        Q.   And the last topic, Mr. Praljak -- I don't have much more time

21     and I'm not going to be able to show you a lot of documents, but I

22     believe that I have to still show a few.  If we can bring up 3D1184,

23     please.

24        A.   Yes, yes.

25        Q.   This document was shown to you during direct examination.  This

Page 10262

 1     is a weekly report.  The following documents are directly referring to

 2     the work of the SIS.  This is a weekly report which was submitted, as we

 3     can see from the stamp, to the SIS in Mostar, to the Defence Department

 4     there, and it was sent by Mr. Markesic, who at that point in time was

 5     employed at the SIS Centre Rama; is that correct, Mr. Praljak?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   In addition to the SIS Centre, at the time there are also

 8     assistant commanders for SIS in the area in all of the units that existed

 9     and were deployed in the area?

10        A.   I suppose so, but I can't tell you with any degree of certainty.

11        Q.   Let's look at the following document, the next one in your

12     binder, which is 3831.  I believe that Judge Antonetti has already shown

13     you this document.  These are all reports, the way they were sent and

14     received, and who they were addressed to.

15             Here, you see that in the original somebody added the words

16     "Weekly Report."  Mr. Luka Markesic is the signatory of this report.  The

17     date is 31 July, and at that time he was in the Rama Brigade.  He was in

18     charge of SIS there, and he reports about the events to the SIS of the

19     OZ, the commander of the OZ, and the Rama Brigade commander; is that

20     correct?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   So it would be true that this is the way the brigade's SIS

23     service functioned?

24        A.   But you see, Ms. Nozica, there are obviously procedures and how

25     things should have been, and you see that at 1.00 after midnight, I was

Page 10263

 1     the one who held the meeting with the military police and in the previous

 2     document as well.  Of course, he has to -- and if you saw this, he speaks

 3     about the security on the front-line.  In other words, these things are

 4     all intertwined.  It is not right that he informed his SIS about the

 5     security on the battle-field, whether I was behaving well and if I was

 6     good for the area, whether the situation had improved, the state of

 7     crime, whether the military police is functioning properly?  Of course,

 8     that -- irrespective of the fact that he sent it to the SIS

 9     Administration that should have been specially engaged, he was duty-bound

10     to send this to the brigade commander, because all of us, for crying out

11     loud, we were all responsible if something didn't go well.  You couldn't

12     turn a blind eye and say, Okay, this is not functioning, but we will let

13     things rest.  Things should be different, but they're not.  I've already

14     spoken about the things that he's speaking about at the end, that the

15     military police should be brought in.  Yes, that's true, but where from?

16             It is true that maybe one couldn't do more, but at least let's

17     stick to the way things should have functioned.

18        Q.   Mr. Praljak --

19             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Excuse me, a very short question.

20             Mr. Praljak, did you receive this report at the time?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I did not, Your Honour.  I knew

22     about this because I was up there, so I, of course, knew about it.

23             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  You also knew about the group of 17 Muslim

24     prisoners sent to Bugojno to dig trenches?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, nobody informed me about that,

Page 10264

 1     and this was a time when --

 2             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm speaking generally -- in

 4     general terms.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Something surprising,

 6     General Praljak.  This report, which was sent to the SIS operations zone,

 7     very good, but if this report had been sent to the Department of Defence,

 8     a legal specialist at the Department of the Defence who reads this

 9     report, would he have realised that 17 Muslims had been sent to dig

10     trenches, and then he could have warned the commander of the HVO to say,

11     Look, there's a problem?  Now, the fact that the report has stopped at

12     the operations zone level, was that not a source of loss or lack of

13     information in respect of the higher authority?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.  On the 31st of July,

15     Mr. Luka Markesic was the assistant for SIS in the Rama Brigade, and,

16     ex officio, he sent that to the SIS of the operations zone, and the SIS

17     of the operations zone, in a report of theirs, will send it to the chief

18     of SIS.

19             As you were able to see in the previous document, when

20     Mr. Markesic became the head of the SIS Centre for Rama, that is to say,

21     when he was promoted to a higher post, he sent the report to the SIS

22     Administration, the SIS Administration, that is to say, Ivo Lucic, who

23     then probably had his lawyers and so on and then acted according to the

24     information that they gained in conducting interviews and so on and so

25     forth, because apart from the fact that he notes that 17 -- somebody took

Page 10265

 1     17 people off, it was his duty now to investigate and see who the man was

 2     and name him, first and last name, or to ask the assistance of a higher

 3     service in the operations zone to send out more people to investigate.

 4     That's the crux of the matter.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Now, if this document had been

 6     sent up to the upper echelons, they no doubt would have realised that

 7     there was a dual problem in paragraph 4, because it is mentioned that a

 8     woman was killed there during a mop-up operation.  So that already raises

 9     the problem.  That woman, was she a civilian, was she a combatant?  It's

10     a problem.  If she was a civilian, why was she killed?  So already that

11     should have put people on alert.  And then we see that there were houses

12     that apparently were set on fire by unknown perpetrators.  Now, that,

13     too, raises a problem.  If there is a military operation, how is it that

14     during that military operation fire could be set to houses, unless the

15     soldiers themselves did that?  So someone in his office, I don't know

16     where, reading this would say, Well, several problems are raised by this

17     report.

18             Now, if it stops at the operations zone level, where is the

19     control?  You say that the SIS and IPD, their main task was to exercise

20     control over the action taken by the brigade commander.  Now, if it stops

21     at the operations zone's level, how is that control exerted?  If we

22     follow what you are saying, which is a logical standpoint, of course,

23     well, this type of report should have gone directly to the Department of

24     Defence so that, if needed, if Mr. Stojic was informed, the minister of

25     defence would have called you and said, General Praljak, what's this

Page 10266

 1     operation about, what's going on?  If things are working well at the

 2     level of Mr. Stojic, how can control actually take place?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, Your Honour, I didn't

 4     actually say that, that it reached Mr. Stojic and that Mr. Stojic could

 5     control that.  The SIS Centre in Rama was set up precisely in order to

 6     uncover, in a certain operation -- well, I saw that two houses were on

 7     fire.  That's not contentious.  But now we come to the problem, and the

 8     [indiscernible] of the matter, who and how set fire to those two houses?

 9     So I'm going to ask the commander, and he's going to say he used an

10     inflammatory bullet because it was twilight, getting dark, So that I

11     could see, and then I set fire to the roof.  And that is militarily

12     understandable.

13             But how was this woman killed that you came across here?  It was

14     precisely the task of this man -- he's a very honest and decent man and

15     did his job well, so the problem wasn't in intentions, but in that he

16     just had one man, probably, and an old car, and that the number of

17     problems were such that he wasn't able to uncover this, although there's

18     a document which we don't have here where one or two killings were

19     uncovered straight away and the perpetrators arrested.

20             So, Your Honours, it wasn't a question of what they wished to do,

21     their intentions, but what they could do, given the circumstances.  It's

22     easy to say, Well, Mr. Stojic should have done such and such, but what

23     could he have done?

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You say the question is not

25     what we want, but what we can do.  Unfortunately, in international

Page 10267

 1     humanitarian law, there are obligations, duties, that military officers

 2     are bound to.  They are not responsible on the basis of what they can do,

 3     but under the obligations that arise from the relevant texts.  That's the

 4     problem here.

 5             Anyway, Ms. Nozica has only three minutes left.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, Judge Antonetti, Your Honour,

 7     on the basis of prescribed duties -- well, on the basis of prescribed

 8     duties and obligations, the American soldier -- because Mi Lai wasn't

 9     taken to task, but the people who did that, not the commander.  So I

10     state that 24 hours 'round the clock, I tried to do something.  Now

11     you're going to blame me and hold me guilty because I don't have wings,

12     but I am assigned a task and then that is monitored to see how I carry

13     out the task; orally, in writing, because I want to.  Well, you're not

14     going to take the mayor of Paris to task because there are ten killings

15     every day, whereas the provisions say that killings are not permitted.  I

16     did my job very honestly and diligently, but because of the law of

17     gravity, you can't stay up in the air if they throw you off a third --

18     the third floor of a building.  I would fall, too.

19             Markesic did his best, and we did catch dozens of people.  They

20     were put into prison and prosecuted.  But, for heaven's sake, and I can't

21     be held responsible for the catastrophe facing the world because I could

22     not have uncovered it.  Well, how should I have done that, if I issue

23     honest orders or if I perhaps beat people up?  Or hold on a minute --

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We have understood what you are

25     telling us.  You are telling us that you cannot control everything 24

Page 10268

 1     hours a day.  This is something you have said already and which you are

 2     saying again.  It's on the record.

 3             I believe my colleague would like to ask you a question.

 4             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Indeed.

 5             Mr. Praljak, I may misunderstand the top part of this document,

 6     but it seems to me that it was also sent to the commander of the

 7     operations zone; is that correct?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You mean P831?

 9             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  3831.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it was sent to the SIS of the

11     operations zone, the commander of the operations zone, and the commander

12     of the Rama Brigade.

13             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you.  Now, today, earlier, we have again

14     seen all those wonderful orders about how commanders must intervene to

15     prevent crimes.  This document rather clearly speaks of a war crime,

16     taking prisoners to work on trenches.  What did the zone operator do, the

17     commander of the operations zone?  Did he do his duty?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I'll repeat this for the

19     hundredth time.

20             On the 31st of July, Your Honours, at least 15.000 soldiers of

21     the BH Army, from the 24th onwards, attacked me 'round the clock, 24

22     hours.  You say there's no war, I don't have 20 dead a day, I don't have

23     sabotage units infiltrated.  Well, let's discuss it this way:  I don't

24     know what the zone's commander undertook, because we don't have a name as

25     to who took the prisoners out for trench-digging.  It was SIS's duty, so

Page 10269

 1     SIS is still searching.  It made an observation, concluded something, and

 2     for the operations zone command or Rama Brigade command or Praljak to do

 3     something, this man has to say who did it, who committed the act, and

 4     launch an investigation.

 5             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  And in other cases, we have seen that commanders

 6     order such an investigation, but apparently not here.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Judge Trechsel, Your Honour, the

 8     SIS Centre ex officio would do this.

 9             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Well, did it, did it?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was their duty to.  Well, yes,

11     they were conducting an investigation, he says, I talked to these people,

12     I investigated that, I asked about this.  So when he's tabling this

13     report, he knows about the fact, and he is duty-bound to continue his

14     investigations further.

15             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Sorry, sorry.  There seems to be no trace of

16     such an investigation, you just say so; correct?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] How do you know there is no trace?

18     Because we don't have such a document, is that why?  Now, at 1.00 a.m. I

19     convened the military police.  I shouted at them to get moving and take

20     action about unrest of this kind and unruly behaviour of this kind.

21             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I thought you did not know about these prisoners

22     being taken to work in trenches.  Did you know?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, no, I didn't know,

24     Your Honour.  I know about -- knew about the general quantity of

25     disruptive behaviour, and the fighting we were engaged with, and the

Page 10270

 1     dozens of wounded that we had to see to, and everything else.  All this

 2     looks quite different if you look at it in a laboratory with a -- in a

 3     test-tube, rather than knowing the situation as it was.

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] General Praljak, irrespective

 5     of war crimes, this document also mentions something which, in military

 6     and technical terms, should have alerted the commander of the operations

 7     zone.  It says that the middle of the text that there was an anti-tank

 8     mine that had been buried "on our territory," and a civilian had been

 9     killed and an 11-year-old child had been injured, as well as a soldier,

10     which means, in military terms, that the "enemy," in inverted commas, had

11     managed to place an anti-tank mine on your territory controlled by the

12     HVO, and this had caused some damage.  The operations zone's commander

13     should have wondered how it was possible for the lines to be infiltrated

14     for someone to pose such a mine.  This could have been an issue, in

15     military terms, unless one thinks that this mine had been there for a

16     very long time.  I don't know.

17             This document is extremely well drafted and addresses all the

18     issues.  It should have been used by the commander.  This is what the

19     Judges would like to know, whether such a document is a document which is

20     useful for the commander or not.  This is a question one could put to an

21     operations zone commander.  Well, you might not be able to answer because

22     you are not one of the addressees of this document.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was there at that time, Your

24     Honours, and our positions were hollow; that is to say, we didn't have

25     enough soldiers.  The operations commander was at the front-line,

Page 10271

 1     pursuant to my order, for many days with a rifle in his hands.  And 1500

 2     soldiers came in from Bugojno.  They didn't look like human beings at

 3     all.  And 15.000 refugees came from Bugojno, who didn't look like humans

 4     at all, in a small town which just has 3.000 inhabitants normally.  And

 5     so our lines were hollow.  I would take a step forward and two steps

 6     back, or one step forward, one step back, and this went on day and night.

 7             You have to put up 15.000 people, take them towards Croatia.

 8     1.500 soldiers were distraught, not all of them, but a large number

 9     had lost their nearest.  So this was a situation that the French

10     Ministry of Defence would have to deal with, with all the resources it

11     has at its disposal, that kind of institution of that size and capacity.

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Nozica, I told you that you

13     had three minutes left.

14             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I will do my best.

15        Q.   Mr. Praljak, you said that the SIS in the operational zone, the

16     major addressee was supposed to inform the SIS Administration in Mostar;

17     is that so?

18        A.   Yes, the logic dictates that that would be the case.

19        Q.   And the commander of the operational zone, whom did he have to

20     inform, according to the logic of the matter?

21        A.   About what?

22        Q.   Well, we were talking about the document, and you said, speaking

23     about this document, that the operational zone SIS was supposed to inform

24     the SIS Administration?

25        A.   Well, the Main Staff.

Page 10272

 1        Q.   Very well.  But here we see, when it comes to the actions that

 2     are to be taken when the obligation is in place, whose obligation.  You

 3     said that this was a document from the SIS Centre.  Well, this is not a

 4     document from the SIS Centre.

 5        A.   That's not what I said.

 6        Q.   That's what I understood.

 7             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreters' note:  The speakers are

 8     kindly asked not to overlap, because we will stop interpreting.

 9             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   On the 31st of July, 1993, Mr. Luka Markesic was the chief in the

11     Rama Brigade SIS, and Mr. Praljak, I will conclude by saying that this

12     document was sent to the Rama Brigade commander.  That's not

13     controversial.

14             Can we look in the e-court.  Just once again, you said it was the

15     obligation of the SIS Centre to undertake an investigation, but let us

16     look again - that's my last document and my last question - whose

17     obligation it was under Article 27 of the Decree on District

18     Military Courts.  It's the document P00592.  I will read it.  You don't

19     have to read it.

20             Your Honour Judge Antonetti, I said it just for the transcript,

21     it says:

22             "The commander of a military unit and of a military establishment

23     is duty-bound to take all measures to prevent the perpetrator of a crime

24     being prosecuted ex officio, not to be able to conceal himself or

25     abscond, to preserve all the evidence of a crime," and so on and so

Page 10273

 1     forth.

 2             So you have already been shown this, and you answered when

 3     Judge Antonetti asked you about this.  And in light of the fact that the

 4     commander of the brigade was informed about all those events, was he then

 5     duty-bound to ensure that the investigative actions are taken, as is

 6     indicated here?

 7        A.   He could have done it, but he was not duty-bound.  It says here a

 8     perpetrator of a crime, if a commander observed or caught them.  Well,

 9     you can see what it says here, that he doesn't hide or abscond.  The

10     brigade commander cannot even catch him, because the act -- the crime

11     happened three or five days ago.

12        Q.   Just one follow-up question, and then I'll complete my

13     examination.

14             And is it not that the brigade commander was supposed to order,

15     and perhaps he may have done so - we don't know that - to his assistant,

16     Find this person, interrogate that person?  Was that the duty?

17        A.   What person?

18        Q.   Well, the person who committed something in his area of

19     responsibility, something that constitutes a crime.

20        A.   No.  This was the duty of the assistant for SIS to do that.

21             JUDGE PRANDLER:  It is high time that you would accept, first of

22     all, that the three minutes are over, number 1.

23             Number 2, the -- actually, what we have heard from the

24     interpreters, that they will stop interpreting if you continue this

25     overlapping, and I am fully with them.  So please kindly obey the orders.

Page 10274

 1             Thank you.

 2             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Nozica, Judge Prandler has

 4     just said that your three minutes were over.  You need to finish.  If you

 5     have one last question, put it straight away, and then we shall have the

 6     break, since we need to keep an eye on the time.

 7             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I accept fully what

 8     Judge Prandler said.

 9             This completes my cross-examination, but I would like to

10     apologise.  It's impossible, Your Honour Judge Prandler -- well, I

11     apologise to all the interpreters.  Sometimes it is impossible to control

12     over every word and to say it as slowly as one should because, after all,

13     this is a job that sometimes gets us carried away, even us lawyers, who

14     should really be aware of it, and let alone the witnesses.  It's

15     impossible to do it.  I'm trying to, and I obviously am not succeeding,

16     so I apologise once again.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Ms. Nozica.

18             I would also like to say that I am at fault sometimes because I

19     speak too fast, and I'm also responsible for this.

20             We're going to have a break now.

21             Mr. Stringer.

22             MR. STRINGER:  Just one quick item, Mr. President.  I could offer

23     perhaps a clarification.

24             There was some testimony earlier about Exhibit P02030, 2030.  It

25     was the document that Judge Mindua had asked about, and then

Page 10275

 1     Judge Trechsel had a number of questions about the time-frame, execution

 2     of Miljenko Lasic's order.  Ms. Pinter directed the Trial Chamber to a

 3     press release.  I thought I would -- I could also direct the Trial

 4     Chamber to P02054.  The general made a reference to General Pellnas who

 5     was involved at the time in those events, and 2054 is General Pellnas's

 6     report about that time-frame, the 19th, 20th, to the 22nd of April, and

 7     it provides additional background about the events that led up to the

 8     document that Judge Trechsel and Judge Mindua asked about.

 9             So thank you.

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you for your

11     clarification.  We shall scrutinize Exhibit P02054, which is

12     General Pellnas's report.

13             We shall have a 20-minute break.

14                           --- Recess taken at 5.47 p.m.

15                           --- On resuming at 6.08 p.m.

16             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Nozica, you wanted to say

17     something?

18             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Yes.  Thank you, Your Honours.

19             I tried to complete my examination in the time that was allotted

20     to me, and at the same time the objections to my speed were quite

21     justified, and I failed to thank Mr. Praljak for his answers.  And I'm

22     sorry for failing to do so before.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Ms. Nozica.

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Alaburic, you have the

25     floor.

Page 10276

 1             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honours.

 2     A very good afternoon to you and to everyone in the courtroom.

 3             Since I do not have as much time as I expected, I prepared my

 4     cross-examination last week, but I will have to reorganise it now because

 5     of the circumstance, and I will have to skip documents that are in your

 6     binders.  We will deal with binder number 1, the first topic, borders of

 7     the former Yugoslavia.  And if I have enough time, I will go back to some

 8     of the documents in this set at the end of my cross-examination.

 9             Now I would like to skip this and go to the next topic behind the

10     second blue tab, and that's the conflict between the BH Army and the HVO.

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, Ms. Alaburic.  I'm

12     sorry, you're telling us that you didn't have time.  You have been

13     granted 45 minutes.  If you feel you need some extra time, we will take

14     it off your time credit, because you have been granted a certain number

15     of hours.  It's for you to decide.  If you would like to have an extra

16     hour, this will be taken off the extra time which has been grant -- or

17     the time granted to you to hear all your witnesses.

18             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, thank you very much

19     for this offer.  And if you allow me, I would like to postpone my final

20     decision on this until the end of my cross-examination, because

21     unfortunately you now brought me into a situation where I have to choose

22     between the testimony of my own client and General Praljak, so I have to

23     think about the repercussions of both options.

24             So let us now move to the second set of the documents.  The topic

25     is the duration of the conflict between the BH Army and the HVO.  It

Page 10277

 1     seems to me that this quite important and should serve well by way of

 2     introduction.

 3                           Cross-examination by Mr. Alaburic:

 4        Q.   Could you please look at the first document that you have,

 5     document 2D1183, 2D1183.  That's the Law on Special Rights enjoyed by

 6     persons who receive military rewards and citations.

 7             Please go ahead, Your Honour.

 8             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Ms. Alaburic, I would be most grateful if you

 9     could say which binder it is.  I seem to have found it now.  It's in

10     binder 1, the first one in orange colour.  Is that where we are?

11             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, it's in binder

12     number 1, but it's not the first topic.  The first topic is borders of

13     the former Yugoslavia, the republics from the former Yugoslavia.  But it

14     is the second topic.

15             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you very much.

16             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   General Praljak, I'm only interested in Article 1 of this law,

18     where it says that the defence -- the war of defence and liberation in

19     Bosnia and Herzegovina lasted from the 18th of September, 1991, until the

20     23rd of December, 1995.  General Praljak, could you tell us, if you know,

21     what happened in September 1991, on the 18th of September?

22        A.   It was the attack on the village of Ravno.

23        Q.   And do you know what happened on the 23rd of December, 1995,

24     which is the last day of the war?

25        A.   I think it was the signing of the Dayton Agreement.

Page 10278

 1        Q.   Very well.  So if we now calculate how long the war in Bosnia and

 2     Herzegovina lasted, in accordance with the legislation, that would be

 3     four years three months, or a total of fifty-one months.  I think I

 4     calculated this correctly.

 5        A.   Yes, you did.

 6        Q.   Let us look at what was going on in 1991 between Croats and

 7     Muslims.  In 1991, were Croats and Muslims in any kind of a war conflict?

 8        A.   No.

 9        Q.   In 1992, if we disregard the sporadic incidents, in particular

10     the one in Prozor in October 1992, can we then say that, as a rule, in

11     1992 there were no conflicts, armed conflicts, between Croats and

12     Muslims?

13        A.   Yes, that's correct.

14             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Excuse me.  A question of mathematics.  My

15     calculations make 41 and a half months.

16             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour Judge Trechsel, well,

17     I rounded off the figures.  That's why I said "51."  But if you say it's

18     51 and a half, well, that's not the problem.

19             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  No, 48 and a half.

20             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.  Four years,

21     that's 48 months.

22             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I'm sorry, I've got the wrong date.  I deeply

23     apologise.  My time.

24             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]

25        Q.   Let's move on to the year of 1993.  If we disregard the events in

Page 10279

 1     Gornji Vakuf and in Central Bosnia in January, can we agree that the open

 2     conflict between the BH Army and the HVO did not exist up until sometime

 3     in mid-April 1993?

 4        A.   Yes, we can agree.

 5        Q.   Can we also agree, General, that from mid-April 1993 until the

 6     30th of June, 1993, that there were conflicts, but at the same time there

 7     were intense negotiations to achieve a cease-fire and a peaceful solution

 8     for the conflicts?

 9        A.   Yes, we can agree on that.  Those efforts on our part continued

10     even later on, but were in vain.

11        Q.   If I understand your evidence correctly, on the 30th of June,

12     1993 -- well, you mark that day as a watershed of sorts, and you say that

13     a total, all-out war began on that day; did I understand you correctly?

14        A.   Yes.  After that, there was no going back until the military

15     situation was resolved, until it could be seen whether the BH Army would

16     achieve its goals or not.

17        Q.   In this courtroom, other persons said the same, and I will just

18     list Witness BC, who at page 18337 of the transcript, said that this

19     event in late June fundamentally changed the situation.  Would you agree

20     with this assessment by Witness BC?

21        A.   Yes, that's correct.  One could say that in Central Bosnia, it

22     was a little bit earlier, from their point of view, but generally

23     speaking that was the day after which, unfortunately, the war escalated.

24        Q.   So we're in the year 1994.  Can we agree that the conflict went

25     on up until the end of March 1994, more or less, and that the Washington

Page 10280

 1     Agreement was signed then?

 2        A.   Yes, that's correct.

 3        Q.   That would mean, General Praljak, that from approximately 1st of

 4     April, 1994, the BH Army and the HVO, and the civilian authorities, were

 5     working together and were working intensively on finding ways to work

 6     together; is that so?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   And in 1995, which is defined here as a war year, the cooperation

 9     between Bosnia-Herzegovina and the HVO was completely unobstructed, they

10     fought the same enemy; is that correct?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   I'm sure that Judge Trechsel will correct me if I'm wrong, but

13     according to my calculation the conflict between Croats and Muslims

14     lasted approximately for 12 months, from mid-April 1993 until the end of

15     March 1994.  Would that be the case, General?

16        A.   Yes, and the all-out war actually lasted even less.

17        Q.   Now, if we take only this period and correlated it to the whole

18     of the war period, we will see that the conflict between Croats and

19     Muslims in Bosnia and Herzegovina existed in the course of the 23 per

20     cent of the overall war, which would mean that in 77 per cent of the

21     wartime period, Croats and Muslims were allies, fighting a common enemy.

22     General, your mathematical mind has probably come up with the figures

23     already, and could you agree with my calculations about the time when

24     cooperation existed?

25        A.   Your calculation is good.  But, Ms. Nozica [as interpreted], you

Page 10281

 1     also have to say that the conflict between Croats and Muslims did not

 2     take place in the entire territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina.  There were

 3     a number of areas where the HVO and BiH Army were not in conflict.

 4        Q.   We'll come to that.  I know, General Praljak, that my learned

 5     friend Ms. Nozica made quite an impression on you, but let me remind you

 6     that my name is Ms. Alaburic.  I know you know that and you misspoke when

 7     you called me "Ms. Nozica."

 8             Okay, well, let's look at the next document.  I would like us now

 9     to analyse the cooperation with the Croatian Army.  Let us look at

10     4D1297, 4D1297.  These are conclusions reached at a meeting in Jablanica

11     attended by the HVO and BiH Army on the 29 [as interpreted] February

12     1995.  The representatives were Tihomir Blaskic and Rasim Delic.

13             General, the year 1995 was the year when the Federation of Bosnia

14     and Herzegovina was already in place; is that correct?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   Let's look at bullet point 3 in these conclusions.

17             I would like to correct the date on the record.  The conclusions

18     were reached on the 22nd of February, not 29 February, as has been

19     recorded.

20             Let's look at bullet point 3.  It says:

21             "Measures shall be taken to initiate a meeting between the chief

22     of the Main Staff of the HV, Army General Janko Bobetko, the chief of the

23     Main Staff of the HVO, Major General Tihomir Blaskic, and the commander

24     of the General Staff of the BH Army, General Rasim Delic, to agree on

25     joint tasks in the struggle against the Serbian-Montenegrin aggressor,

Page 10282

 1     and this will be within the context of terminating UNPROFOR's mandate."

 2             General, am I to conclude from this that in February 1995, the

 3     representatives of the HVO and the BiH Army wanted military cooperation

 4     with the HV, with the Croatian Army, in the struggle against the Serbian

 5     and Montenegrin aggressor?  Was that indeed the case?

 6        A.   Yes, that was the case.  This resulted in an operation that

 7     prevented Bihac from experiencing the destiny of Srebrenica.

 8        Q.   Can we now look at bullet point 10, where it says:

 9             "To continue the joint struggle against the Serb and Montenegrin

10     aggressor, the joint command will have the role --"

11             I'm interested in this joint staff.  Was that joint staff ever

12     established?

13        A.   Yes, it was.

14        Q.   Could you please look at the following document, which is 4D1454.

15     This is a memo coming from the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of

16     Bosnia and Herzegovina, covering the conversation that took place in

17     Sarajevo on the 14th of June, 1994, or, rather, the talks held in

18     Sarajevo on 14 June 1994.  General, you were present at that meeting.  Do

19     you remember the meeting?

20        A.   Yes, I do.

21        Q.   At the end of the document, could you look at bullet point 3,

22     where it says:

23             "The concept of the defence of the Confederation."

24             And it says:

25             "It has been agreed to form a joint team which will start working

Page 10283

 1     as soon as possible.

 2             "General Anton Tus will head the team on behalf of the Republic

 3     of Croatia."

 4        A.   Correct, yes.

 5        Q.   That's how it was?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   So according to this document, General Praljak, in June 1994

 8     there were already talks about the establishment of a joint staff, a

 9     joint team, and a joint operation involving the BiH Army and the Croatian

10     Army; was that the case?

11        A.   Yes.  This was with the blessing and after a lot of persuasion by

12     the American side.

13        Q.   General Praljak, during your testimony so far, you have told us

14     that the then president of the Republic of Croatia, Dr. Franjo Tudjman,

15     proposed a military agreement to Alija Izetbegovic at the outset of the

16     conflict in 1992.  Was that the case?

17        A.   Yes.  He even proposed that much earlier, as we could see in

18     Filipovic's book.  Even earlier than that, Bosnia-Herzegovina was urged

19     to adopt cooperation between Slovenia, the Republic of Croatia, and

20     Bosnia-Herzegovina.  However, this was to no avail.

21        Q.   If I recorded your words properly, you told us that

22     Alija Izetbegovic had not accepted that proposal because he did not want

23     to antagonise the Serbs; is that correct?

24        A.   Yes, it's correct.  This was the card that he still wished to

25     play, a possible agreement with the Serbs.

Page 10284

 1        Q.   General, in 1994 and 1995, if there had been a military

 2     cooperation between the two armies of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Croatian

 3     Army, or, rather, would you say that that cooperation which existed was

 4     successful, and is it true that the Americans stopped the Croatian Army

 5     at the very entrance into Banja Luka?

 6        A.   Yes, that's true.  If there hadn't been the agreement in place

 7     and the green light was not given by the Americans, Bihac would have

 8     fallen and the Croatian Army, which was cooperating with the HVO and the

 9     Bosnia and Herzegovina Army, would not have succeeded.  As things stand,

10     it did succeed to suppress the Army of Republika Srpska and did reach

11     Banja Luka, and it was fully prepared to record a full military success.

12     However, there was a telephone call to President Tudjman to stop the

13     army.  The Dayton Accord was signed, and the Serbs were given 49 per cent

14     of the territory, which is absolutely inconceivable.

15        Q.   General, I have a question for you now which for some other

16     witness might be a call for speculation.  However, given your knowledge

17     of the situation on the ground, I believe that your answer will not be

18     speculation, but rather an assessment that will be given some weight in

19     those proceedings.  My question to you is this:  If, in 1992,

20     Alija Izetbegovic had accepted the invitation for military cooperation

21     with the Republic of Croatia, would the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina

22     against the Army of Republika Srpska have been different than it was in

23     the 51 months?

24        A.   Absolutely correct.

25             MR. STRINGER: [Previous translation continues]... General.  Just

Page 10285

 1     for the record, Mr. President, we do object to the question.  It does

 2     call for speculation, and it's really not testimony that's useful.  Reams

 3     have been -- could be written about what could have happened, what might

 4     have happened, if this or that had happened, and so this sort of

 5     speculation is not helpful.

 6             Thank you.

 7             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I expected this kind

 8     of objection.  That's why my question was preceded with the introduction.

 9     I still believe that this is not speculation and that General Praljak has

10     demonstrated his analytical capabilities and inclinations, and that he

11     also showed us that he is very knowledgeable and well informed about the

12     situation.

13        Q.   One more question about this.  If the military cooperation with

14     the Republic of Croatia had started in 1992, is it absolutely certain

15     that there would never have been a war between the Croats and the

16     Muslims?  What do you think about that, General Praljak?

17        A.   I don't believe that the first question was a call for

18     speculation.

19             If, in 1992, we managed to liberate Stolac and Mostar and stop

20     them at Livno with the newly-created HVO, if we had been together with

21     the BH Army and the Croatian Army, and in Bosnia-Herzegovina you're

22     talking about at least 250.000 to 270.000 armed men, I'm absolutely

23     certain when I say that the Army of Republika Srpska would not have been

24     able to prevail.  It would have been defeated much sooner, there's no

25     doubt about that, just like it was defeated in 1995, but of course with

Page 10286

 1     the proviso that the world powers had accepted that.  However, when they

 2     said stop, we had to stop because they were conducting the course of the

 3     war, they were masterminding the war.

 4        Q.   Can we now summarise the 12 months of conflict between the

 5     Muslims and Croats in Herceg-Bosna.  I tried to calculate how much of

 6     that time would apply to my client, as the leader of the Main Staff, and

 7     I established that General Petkovic was in the position for three months

 8     and eight days.  You were in that position for three months and sixteen

 9     days, so a few days longer, which is neither here nor there.  And then

10     General Roso was the commander of the Main Staff for over five months, or

11     almost half of that period of war.  Would that calculation be correct?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   General Praljak, I apologise for putting to you some questions

14     that I, myself, would --

15             JUDGE PRANDLER:  Ms. Alaburic, I'm sorry to interrupt you.  You

16     have now cited the number of months whereas actually General Petkovic and

17     General Praljak were in the position of the chief of staff, and also you

18     mentioned General Roso.  Now, somehow so far I had in mind about some

19     other fears.  Are you sure that it was three months and eight days,

20     et cetera, because I -- for example, what I knew -- what I remember, and

21     I stand to be corrected, General Praljak was almost there as chief of

22     staff for six months.  So I wonder if I may get some verification on this

23     issue.

24             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour Judge Prandler, I

25     don't have the dates before me, but I believe that I will be able to

Page 10287

 1     assist you.

 2             The date of the beginning of the conflict, as has been defined

 3     here, is mid-April 1993, when my client, General Petkovic, was the chief

 4     of the Main Staff, and he remained in that position until 24 July 1993.

 5             MR. STRINGER:  Excuse me.  Just for the record --

 6             THE INTERPRETER:  Ms. Alaburic's mike is on.

 7             MR. STRINGER:  Just for the record, Mr. President, the

 8     Prosecution does not accept the characterisation of the time-frame for

 9     the conflict, as counsel's describing it now, from April of 1993 until

10     March of 1994.  Obviously, there are significant events alleged in the

11     indictment, crime-based events, that extend earlier in time, obviously,

12     as well as political events related to the joint criminal enterprise,

13     that go even earlier -- reach earlier back into 1992 and even possibly

14     1991.  So I'm not going to object every time counsel talks about a

15     time-frame, but it's not something that the Prosecution accepts.

16             Thank you.

17             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I completely

18     acknowledge my learned friend's objection, and I don't want to waste any

19     more time about the explanation.  I believe that in the indictment, it is

20     very clear that the beginning of the conflict is mid-April 1993.  This is

21     my case.  The witness has confirmed that, and I am developing my case

22     further.  And now I am in a position to answer Judge Prandler's question.

23     We said the time-frame for General Petkovic, three months and eight days.

24     General Praljak was in the position from 24 July 1993 until 8 November

25     1993, until 8 November 1993, and the remainder of that time, up to the

Page 10288

 1     end of March 1994, the position was occupied by General Roso.

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, go ahead.

 3             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]

 4        Q.   This is what I want to do ask you:  Irrespective of the

 5     time-frame, during the conflict or during the war between the army of

 6     Bosnia-Herzegovina and the HVO, tell us, General Praljak, which of the

 7     two militaries expanded the territory under its control?

 8        A.   Exclusively, the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina is my answer.

 9     And the second part of my answer, with all due respect to Judge Prandler,

10     I am really surprised that after three years of the proceedings, you

11     don't know the exact date when one of the main accused in the case was

12     the chief of the Main Staff.  I apologise, Mr. Prandler, for having said

13     that.  I don't know how you came up with six months, whereas the exact

14     fact has been repeated at least 30 times in this courtroom.

15        Q.   Let's follow the logic --

16             JUDGE PRANDLER:  I am sorry to interrupt you again.

17             I didn't claim that it was six months.  I was only asking

18     Ms. Alaburic if her figures -- I don't believe I have it now before me.

19     She mentioned about three months and a few days, and in her own

20     time-frame, and it is what I said, that according to my recollections the

21     tenure of yours, Mr. Praljak, was, of course, not, as far as I remember,

22     not three months and some other days, but we talked about five months

23     altogether, if we take your designation in July and your leaving, I

24     believe it was in November.

25             So thank you.

Page 10289

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 24 July to 9 November, in the

 2     morning, 1993.

 3             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone for the counsel, please.

 4             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]

 5        Q.   Let's follow that logic, General Praljak.  If the Army of Bosnia

 6     and Herzegovina expanded the territory under its control, it would be

 7     logical to conclude that the BiH Army was conducting offensive

 8     operations; would that be correct?

 9        A.   Yes.  They were conducting offensives against the Croatian

10     Defence Council in order to achieve its political goals that they could

11     not achieve fighting the Army of Republika Srpska, and the political goal

12     was territory.

13        Q.   If the BH Army was launching offensive operations, that means

14     that the HVO was defending itself from the BH Army; that would be

15     logical, wouldn't it?

16        A.   Yes, correct.

17        Q.   Tell us, please, General Praljak, while you were the number-one

18     man in the Main Staff, did the Main Staff plan any military operation

19     which would then be carried out throughout the territory, or on part of

20     the territory of Herceg-Bosna, or any other territory in

21     Bosnia-Herzegovina?

22        A.   No, we didn't have a single offensive operation except for

23     retrieving some features like Rastani and some other features that we had

24     lost control of, the south of Mostar and so on.  That's all we did.  We

25     regained control of what we had lost in the previous two or three days.

Page 10290

 1        Q.   Right, thank you.  Now, I'm going to ask you the same question

 2     for the period when General Petkovic was the number-one man of the

 3     Main Staff, with the exception of Operation Bura or Tempest and the

 4     operation against the Serbs.  During his day, at the level of the

 5     Main Staff, was any military operation planned or executed?

 6        A.   As far as I know, and I do know, the answer is, no, not a single

 7     operation against the BH Army, but "yes" against the Army of Republika

 8     Srpska.

 9        Q.   Thank you.  Now, General Praljak, I'd like to move on to another

10     area.  I haven't prepared any documents for that area, but we're going to

11     quite simply discuss the topic of whether the war --

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You can imagine that I'm

13     listening to your questions very closely, indeed, and even more so in the

14     case of the answers.  Now, you have just said something that appears to

15     me important, and I think we must explore this a little more.

16             Ms. Alaburic asked you whether you had prepared offensive

17     operations against the BH Army, and you said, "No ."  And then you

18     answer, "Yes," as regards operations against the Republika Srpska.

19     That's line 16, page 98, you say:  "Yes."  So if there were offensive

20     operations against the Republika Srpska, I presume that there were

21     meetings of the Main Staff, there were maps, positioning of units, arrows

22     and so on and so forth, We'll go over there, we'll take over this.

23     Without needing to be Clausewitz, I think at minimum there must have been

24     some military typical elements about the operations against the Republika

25     Srpska.  So as far as you know, were there any orders, specific orders,

Page 10291

 1     relating to offensive operations against the Army of the Republika

 2     Srpska?  And if there was offensive -- there were offensive operations

 3     against the BH Army, the same kind of documents must have existed?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You would have to come across some

 5     documents signed -- well, you saw how many documents we looked at, and if

 6     you can find a single document signed by Praljak ordering an attack

 7     against the BH Army, well, do so.  But we didn't attack Republika Srpska,

 8     but the Army of Republika Srpska, which had taken control of the

 9     territory.  So they had taken control of Mostar, and I planned an

10     operation to take control -- A, to take control of the right bank and, B,

11     to take control of the left bank.  General Petkovic made plans to take

12     control of the other place.  These were the liberating actions.  But

13     nothing of that kind was undertaken against the BH Army, not in any area.

14             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]

15        Q.   General Praljak, the next topic that I think you can provide us

16     with valuable answers about is called "War on Domestic Territory or

17     Occupation."  Judge Antonetti frequently in the courtroom quoted the

18     example of the US Army attacking Iraq and what would then be the rights

19     and duties of a commander of the American Army, in that respect, who led

20     the action to attack Iraq.  Now, so let's call that model 1, the American

21     Army in Iraq; a successful attack, the occupation of Iraq or part of

22     Iraq.  The second model is this:  That the war is being waged on US

23     territory, including a war on the capital, Washington, D.C.  So let's try

24     and compare those two situations.

25             The first model, the American Army in Iraq, would we agree,

Page 10292

 1     General, you and I, that from the military aspects, regardless of whether

 2     it was legitimate, lawful, permissible and so on, that it was a classical

 3     type of occupation?

 4        A.   Yes, but let's not go into that.  It was the US Army.  Whether it

 5     was a war for humanitarian reasons, a war for prevention, everybody has

 6     their own opinions, but it's not vital.

 7        Q.   General, the notion of occupation is not a value judgement.  It's

 8     a concept which means that some army, after some conflict or in some

 9     other way, gained control over a territory; only in that sense.  That is

10     why I'm saying we're not evaluating the operation itself.

11        A.   All right.

12        Q.   Would we then agree that the commander of the US Army in Iraq at

13     that point in time was the sole representative of the so-called occupying

14     force or, rather, the USA?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   Now I'll tell you what the legal position is, and you can tell us

17     what the military practice is.  The legal position, that the commander of

18     the occupying forces has the position of a military governor and then is

19     responsible for the entire area of responsibility, regardless of whether

20     the perpetrator of some crime was within his chain of command as a

21     subordinate or not.

22        A.   Yes, I know about cases of that kind, Manila, for instance.

23     Well, the occupying zones in Western Germany, and so on, that's how it

24     works; on paper, of course, and I say "on paper."

25        Q.   All right.  So this is indubitable, according to the legal

Page 10293

 1     position and the military doctrine.

 2             Let's look at the other model now.  The American Army is fighting

 3     on the territory of the USA.  It's something we can't conceive of, but

 4     let's just try and imagine that for a moment.  Would it be logical that

 5     during that war waged on US territory, civilian authorities are

 6     functioning, that there is a US president, a minister of defence, and

 7     other state organs which now function under different conditions, war

 8     conditions?

 9        A.   Yes, correct.  But, Ms. Vesna Alaburic, there were wars on US

10     territory.  Wars were waged; the North against the South, the Americans

11     against the British Army and the queen, with the Boston Tea Party and so

12     on.  So there were wars fought on the territory of America, very bloody

13     ones full of war crimes of inconceivable proportions.

14        Q.   Well, yes, I agree, but that was far off in history, when

15     conditions were quite different.

16        A.   Well, they weren't different conditions.  Human beings didn't

17     change and haven't changed at all.

18        Q.   Now tell us, is it logical that in the United States of America,

19     regardless of a war, there is a police force which is in charge of

20     preserving law and order?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   Tell us, please, is it logical that in the USA, regardless of the

23     war conditions, that you have prosecutors' offices, courts, and everybody

24     in charge of bringing criminals to justice go ahead and perform their

25     duties and jobs?

Page 10294

 1        A.   It is their duty -- their duties, not their job; their duties.

 2     Every military and state setup has its duties, as does this Tribunal.

 3     The Judges here don't need to receive an order from the Judge in charge.

 4     They are their duties, their obligations.  We all perform duties that we

 5     have to do --

 6        Q.   Let me repeat my question.

 7             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I'm sorry, Mr. Praljak, there is no Judge in

 8     charge.  There is no one that can give an order to Judges, so I just do

 9     not want a false image to remain standing in this courtroom.

10             Thank you.  I don't blame you for the example, but I had to put

11     it right.

12             THE WITNESS:  [No interpretation]

13             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  This was not translated, but I wonder whether it

14     is so essential.  I think you understood what I meant, I had understood

15     what you meant, and I would -- I don't think it needs being repeated.

16             Ms. Alaburic.

17             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Judge Trechsel, Your Honour,

18     somebody else will decide whether we're going to be in any of the

19     courtrooms, in which courtroom we're going to be in, whether we'll be

20     sitting in the morning or the afternoon, whether we'll have the necessary

21     infrastructure for us to do our work properly, whether you're going to

22     have sufficient assistance to perform your job properly, so the situation

23     is nonetheless complex.

24        Q.   Anyway, General, let's move on.  I'll repeat my question using

25     the concept of duty.

Page 10295

 1             In the USA, under war conditions of that kind, would it be

 2     logical to expect that the prosecutors, the courts, and the law

 3     enforcement organs perform their duties?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   Tell us, please, whether the supreme commander of the armed

 6     forces of the United States of America is somewhere close to this

 7     military command that we're interested in, from the aspects of

 8     responsibility and accountability for events?

 9        A.   He need not be.

10        Q.   Well, he need not be, but is it logical to suppose that he is

11     closer than with the example of the situation in Iraq?

12        A.   Yes, of course.

13        Q.   Now, tell us, General, would it be true and correct that a

14     military commander cannot be responsible for questions from the remit of

15     other state organs or, rather, cannot be responsible if the police does

16     not perform its work properly, if the courts don't perform properly, if

17     the prosecutors' office do not perform properly?

18             MR. STRINGER:  Objection, Mr. President.

19             The witness is not qualified to give testimony to the Trial

20     Chamber about international humanitarian law.  It's for the Trial Chamber

21     to decide the applicability of the law and how it applies to this case.

22     And so it's not useful for the witness to tell the Trial Chamber what the

23     law is.

24             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, might I be allowed

25     to respond?

Page 10296

 1             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Personally, I believe that

 2     Mr. Stringer's objection is fully justified.  You're dealing with highly

 3     legal topics now that require a lot of legal expertise, although I do

 4     recognise that Mr. Praljak is knowledgeable on a broad range of subjects,

 5     but asking him whether a general in the situation you described could

 6     only be considered responsible or not about whether the police do their

 7     job or not, this is rather a complex issue, and perhaps we could deal

 8     with this differently.  But if you deal with it from a legal standpoint,

 9     inevitably Mr. Stringer had to make an objection.  So try and deal with

10     this from a different approach, perhaps.

11             I think that what you want to show up is the fact that a military

12     commander, in certain circumstances, may not be in a position to fulfill

13     his responsibilities or duties arising from the law, and that he can

14     perhaps understand and answer.  But in this particular case, your

15     question was rather too elaborate, in legal terms.

16             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, might I be allowed to

17     respond to you and Mr. Stringer.

18             My question was not of a legal nature at all, and I don't expect

19     General Praljak to tell me what the situation is according to Croatian

20     law and international humanitarian law.  It is my job to know

21     international humanitarian law, and it is my job to ask this witness

22     questions and to receive answers from him either about the facts or

23     qualified opinions for something that is legally relevant.

24             Now, my conclusion is that these questions are exceptionally

25     important --

Page 10297

 1             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I do not share your conception of your task

 2     here, Ms. Alaburic.  We have before us not an expert, but a witness.  I

 3     admit that these -- this so-called testimony by Mr. Praljak has gone

 4     rather far astray from what normal testimony is, but it remained in the

 5     area, let's say, of politics and things like that of a general nature,

 6     but I cannot but agree with your learned colleague Mr. Stringer that

 7     legal questions must not be included, even more so as the witness,

 8     himself, in the beginning has very clearly stated that he is maybe an

 9     expert in everything, but not in legal questions.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Vesna, allow me to -- just five

11     minutes, we've only got five minutes, so let me say something.

12             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Mr. Praljak, you have to follow the lawyer, and

13     not vice versa.  You are not the one who rules the proceedings here,

14     contrary to what might have become almost a custom over the last few

15     weeks.

16             Ms. Alaburic, you have the floor.

17             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   General Praljak, just leave me one minute, but go ahead with your

19     answer.

20        A.   Well, I'm not going to talk about law, Judge Trechsel.  I'm going

21     to talk about the facts.

22             When an offensive is being launched in Afghanistan or Pakistan

23     against al-Qaeda, and that they are militarily planned, what happens is

24     that there are two million refugees, so that's the link between the

25     civilian population and those others, two million-odd refugees, hundreds

Page 10298

 1     of dead civilians.  That is the upshot, because it is cannot be

 2     otherwise.  That's the first point.

 3             Number 2, the situation will be all the worse, and this is

 4     contrary to the law, if the previous quantity of crimes was greater.  Let

 5     me give you an example.

 6             When Hitler ordered the commander of Paris to destroy Paris, the

 7     Nazi commander of Paris, Wermacht, that man refused to do that, and he

 8     handed Paris over and the army over to the liberators.  I think it was

 9     the 2nd or 3rd Army of the French Army, of the French Armed Forces.

10     Unfortunately, the people that had lived through an occupation killed

11     several hundred German soldiers who had surrendered.  They threw them

12     into the Seine and they were killed.  And later on -- and some high

13     intellectuals were asked about this, whether there was -- whether there

14     were good trials or bad trials, about 10.000 collaborators were killed.

15     Unfortunately -- so we have two points here:  A, the quantity of chaos,

16     and, B, the previous quantity of misery that people had experienced and

17     lived through.  They are the laws of society which neither Praljak nor

18     Their Honours have managed to change, because they keep repeating

19     themselves, history keeps repeating themselves.  And then what happens is

20     what I'm telling you about.

21             I have known these facts for many, many years, because I was

22     interested in them, and precisely because I knew those facts, I tried to

23     calculate them and to fight against them.  But nobody, either in Iraq,

24     where there are three million refugees, nobody has been able to prevent

25     it yet.

Page 10299

 1             So that's all.  You have a minute.

 2        Q.   Let me just say that I'm not asking General Praljak to --

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation]  Well, we shall continue

 4     tomorrow, because you can see it's now 7.00 p.m.  We shall have to

 5     adjourn.  We shall resume the hearing tomorrow afternoon, quarter past

 6     2.00, and General Praljak will be in a position to continue answering

 7     questions.

 8             So let me bid everybody a good night, and see you tomorrow at a

 9     quarter past 2.00.

10                           [The witness stands down]

11                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.00 p.m.,

12                           to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 1st day of July,

13                           2009, at 2.15 p.m.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25