090709ED

Page 42814

1 before this one. That's P04496, one document before this one.

2 Q. Mr. Praljak, you've just told us that you don't know how a

3 military commander could be in a position to make a decision to release

4 somebody from prison when he did not have the right to do so and it was

5 not stipulated by the rules. Let me read what I've just read from this

6 document, where it says:

7 "The lack of elaboration in the system governing the ways,

8 priorities, and the question whether to release somebody from prison or

9 not, has not been solved at the level of the South-East Herzegovina

10 Operational Zone or at the level of the ministry. Because the

11 instructions have not been dealt with, we have been forced to make

12 decisions ourselves at the level of local HVO Presidencies and the

13 brigade commands."

14 The document is signed by the very same gentleman, Zara Pavlovic,

15 whom we saw in the next document. So, Mr. Praljak, am I right when I say

16 that it says here, and it is quite apparent from this document, that the

17 instructions, the rules, did not really exist, and that Mr. Zara Pavlovic

18 himself says that decisions had to be taken independently at the level of

19 the local HVO Presidencies and the brigade commands?

20 A. That's what it reads in the preamble, because the instructions

21 have not been issued or done. But then if you read on in this document,

22 Zara Pavlovic himself says that this was discussed several times and that

23 the leadership was informed about it through the Security Service and

24 through Commander Colonel Obradovic. So, in other words, if this was

25 discussed several times and if the top was kept informed about it, the

Page 42815

1 question remains why the top, the leadership, failed to deal with the

2 problem.

3 Well, obviously nothing was done to solve it, and this is the

4 result. Nobody knew what to do in such cases, how to proceed.

5 Q. Mr. Praljak, let me go to 5D021984 [as interpreted], and let me

6 put to you a scenario. This is how I think this document came about.

7 Well, this is my scenario, and you can tell me whether I'm right or

8 wrong. But I think that this document clearly shows that the request was

9 submitted by the VOS chief. The VOS chief submitted this request to his

10 superior, and you told us yesterday that this was Mr. Nedjeljko

11 Obradovic, and that's quite logical.

12 After Mr. Nedjeljko Obradovic received the request from the VOS

13 chief, he wrote -- it's a handwritten note, and we can see that the

14 initials correspond with the full signature that we can see at the bottom

15 of this document, as His Honour Judge Trechsel indicated. He wrote that

16 Zara Pavlovic should establish the guilt. And after Mr. Zara Pavlovic

17 did that, he put his signature under the words "Agreed," because if he

18 had not done so, he would not have affixed his signature and indicated

19 his agreement. And after Mr. Zara Pavlovic agreed to the request,

20 Colonel Nedjeljko Obradovic approved the release.

21 So does that sound logical to you?

22 A. Not really, madam. Nedjeljko Obradovic would have dealt with

23 this by writing up an order within the brigade, with his closest

24 associates, I'm not sure he would have gone through this procedure. He

25 would have established this and would simply have issued an order to

Page 42816

1 release this man. That's my opinion, that's my position. I've now put

2 it forward. We know what your position is, so we can go no further than

3 that.

4 Q. That is quite right, Mr. Praljak. Let us simply move on. The

5 number is 5D02184, page 17, line 4. That is the correct number.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] General Praljak, legally, this

7 might be a bit more complex than what Counsel Tomic just said.

8 I agree with the fact that the circulation of this request by the

9 VOS goes to Obradovic, and then Obradovic asks himself a question and is

10 asking the chief of SIS to give his advice, which is why there's this

11 mention of Zara P. And then the head of the SIS agrees and says, Yes.

12 Very well.

13 But what has been approved? Is it the request, or is it the

14 release? If you approve a request, it does not necessarily mean that

15 Obradovic suddenly is empowered to release him. He may be in favour and

16 approve the request, but that might mean that he just approves the fact

17 that another entity will rule on this.

18 I'm saying that this is a very essential document, and I do have

19 a good reason for that. Because either the brigade commander is

20 empowered -- has the sovereign power to release whoever he wants to

21 released, and since the brigade commander is subordinated to you, it

22 means that you are liable; or the brigade commander just approves a

23 request made within his unit, but this, of course, gives rise to other

24 problems, and this proves that, as is your case, there could be a

25 parallel chain of command between the brigade commander and the SIS.

Page 42817

1 Because in any line of command it's quite difficult to understand that

2 there would be anyone who would have to make a written request for the

3 higher subordinate, whereas Obradovic, the commander, could have resolved

4 the problem himself, just saying, Just release him, without any paperwork

5 involved.

6 You see, there is a lot of questions here that have to be solved.

7 And the counsel is asking questions to you in order to know whether

8 you're not the one liable in the end, behind all this, which is why I'm

9 asking the following question: As commander of the HVO in August of that

10 year, did you have the power to release anyone detained in a jail,

11 whether this person be on provisional detention or whether he be actually

12 sentenced?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not have that power, nor did

14 that power exist at all within the HVO, even assuming that this power was

15 actually exercised by a commander. It never reached me, not in terms of

16 learning about it, and certainly not in terms of approving anything like

17 that, never, and maybe not even then.

18 Nevertheless, the first document, and allow me to say something

19 about it, Your Honour, now that you've asked, the previous document

20 claims that this remains unresolved. There were still some doubts about

21 it. The one thing that I would like to draw your attention to, in the

22 last paragraph, is that Zara Pavlovic says, I quote:

23 "As for prisoners in this area, where there are the greatest

24 number of them, this has been discussed a number of times and the

25 leadership was informed, be it through the Security Service, be it

Page 42818

1 through the commander, himself, Colonel Nedjeljko Obradovic."

2 The proposal by the Security Service is to swiftly deal with the

3 prisoner issue in the area. Therefore, it is quite obvious that the

4 chief of the Main Staff had learned about some problems that had

5 occurred, and he wanted more information on this submitted. I was,

6 unfortunately -- that is the man who requested information.

7 Your Honours, both in peace and wartime, there are problems, and

8 there are two different ways to approach the problem. There is always a

9 structure in place. Nevertheless, there are two problems. One is to

10 meet the problem face on and try to deal with it. The other is, try to

11 get away from the problem and work your way around the problem by piling

12 up paperwork. These two are different in spirit. One is to actively

13 pursue a problem in order to come to grips with it, and the other idea is

14 to create a smoke-screen of paperwork in order to endlessly keep shifting

15 responsibility. That is what I'm trying to tell you.

16 What is at stake here is this: The very problem at the heart of

17 this was never solved within or among the assistants -- security

18 assistants of the Defence Department, simply because there was a fierce

19 personal clash, aversion, you might say, between Valentin Coric and

20 Ivo Lucic. This affected the following: The military police was

21 supposed to be supporting the Security Service because the

22 Security Service, as the name implies, was in charge of security in the

23 military component. Nevertheless, neither at the administration level or

24 the operative level, or indeed the brigade level, no order was received

25 by the security sector for the military police creating a chasm, an

Page 42819

1 enormous one. You have an intelligence officer who comes by some

2 information. Nevertheless, his order for the military police to act on

3 it was not recognised. And that's why brigade commanders had to jump in

4 and save the day, so that was what actually happened.

5 The Security Service, as in any country, the agents and the

6 ordinary policemen have to work together. Unfortunately, there was this

7 problem in the HVO, and it was never dealt with. Attempts to escape from

8 this problem left the commanders in the area in this thankless situation

9 of facing the problem by bypassing the entire system. Bypassing an

10 entire system is never a good way to deal with something. You solve

11 something while something else remains unsolved. So there are two

12 different types of approach here. One is to meet a problem head on.

13 I have no intention of wasting your time. Nevertheless, during

14 the cross I will explain exactly what happened.

15 If you have a strong army, such as the French Army at the

16 beginning of World War II, everything was working perfectly.

17 Nevertheless, one was trying to escape the problem, and that's why the

18 glorious army and glorious soldiers were defeated in a month's time,

19 because they refused to meet the problem head on. They were sitting

20 pretty somewhere 500 kilometres away from the front-line. The paperwork

21 was fine, the procedure was fine. Nevertheless, within a single month

22 the war was lost.

23 This organisation was dead because its spirit was inert. That is

24 what I'm trying to tell you. I was a general. I could easily have

25 afforded to sit somewhere far away at a table with a huge white

Page 42820

1 tablecloth and try to pile up paperwork. Nevertheless, I would be on my

2 way to Rama, although I had a two-star general there. My own commander,

3 Siljeg, must go to the front-line if I tell him so, if a line had been

4 taken by the enemy. That is how I lost two commanders from the command,

5 itself. You need to take an active approach in the middle of a war.

6 Problems crop up. You've got to come to grips with them.

7 Regrettably, because of the entire system in which these people

8 were living, there was a lot of paperwork being produced, responsibility

9 shifted to and fro. Nevertheless, I will be addressing this question

10 more thoroughly during my cross.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] General Praljak, in a nutshell,

12 if I understand you correctly, at the level of the Knez Domagoj Brigade,

13 Colonel Obradovic suddenly finds out that there is a number of people

14 detained. He also finds out that, legally, the situation is very

15 complex. He then reports this to his hierarchy, and his top hierarchy

16 provides him with no solution. So on the field, as a brigade commander,

17 he has to solve the situation, he has to find a solution regarding, for

18 example, the release of this first-class captain called Mirsad Baljic.

19 In a nutshell, is this the situation we had there?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We need to define the word

21 "superior." In this case, it's not his operation's own commander, nor

22 indeed anyone from the Main Staff. He is asking whoever in prison, based

23 on the fact that he needed a captain who was a good captain, back in his

24 unit. It reads here Zara Pavlovic checked him, let him go. That's my

25 explanation.

Page 42821

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] A slight correction to the

2 transcript. On page 17, line 4, the number of the document is not

3 5D02194, but 5D02184.

4 Mr. Kovacic.

5 MR. KOVACIC: [Previous translation continues]... the transcript.

6 Maybe it would be also good to mark that Mr. Praljak, in previous

7 response, when he cited a second paragraph on the second page, it was

8 referenced to document P4496, because in the meantime the previous

9 document was on the screen, so we don't know actually what is that.

10 Thank you.

11 JUDGE TRECHSEL: As we look at it thoroughly, I have a perhaps

12 last question on document 5D02184.

13 The signatures of these three gentlemen have on top of it each

14 time a different word. For Pavlovic, it is "Saglasan", which I think is

15 correctly translated by "d'accord", as one would say in French.

16 "Odobrava" is the word above the signature of Obradovic, which again,

17 I think, approved -- thought to be good would be a correct

18 interpretation.

19 Now, it seems to be your view that both Pavlovic and Obradovic

20 only give advice and do not decide. Why, then, the difference between

21 "Saglasan" and "Odobrava"? I would not understand. Would they be the

22 same, or do you say they are the same here?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. It's quite simple, really,

24 Judge Trechsel. There was someone's appointment. There was a broad

25 spectrum of those who could make proposals or nominate. A request for

Page 42822

1 release from prison was submitted by the VOS chief. Zara Pavlovic was in

2 agreement with this or concurred with this. The VOS chief within the

3 brigade has no power to do that. It is simply not within his power to

4 approve a document like this. That kind of a document for release from

5 prison is approved by Nedjeljko Obradovic. There is one person

6 submitting this document, another person looks into the possible guilt of

7 the man in question, and then someone else from the brigade approves for

8 this request to be passed along to whoever was in charge of that, in

9 purely procedural terms, a prosecutor, a judge, for that person to be

10 released. They submitted a request saying that this person was

11 blameless, as far as the brigade was concerned. But they could have

12 said, He was fine for you in the brigade, but there was something else

13 that he had done. So they could have had information indicating

14 something different. But the procedure itself and the progress of this

15 document is quite logical.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] General Praljak, if we assume

17 that this Mirsad Baljic was not placed in detention by a judge, by a

18 military judge, nor by a civilian judge, or is not under investigation,

19 that he's illegally in detention, any brigade commander noting that

20 someone has been illegally jailed, is this person able to put an end to

21 this illegal detention?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, you can't say illegally jailed.

23 There is someone there who is in charge of determining the legality of

24 detention. He can say, We've got nothing on this man, let him know.

25 They could submit evidence in relation to brigade, to the extent that he

Page 42823

1 was blameless in the brigade. Nevertheless, it wasn't for

2 Nedjeljko Obradovic, at any rate, to determine anyone's guilt. He could,

3 for example, gather intelligence indicating that the man had done nothing

4 wrong in the brigade. If you've got nothing else on him, let him go.

5 You are keeping him detained with no particular evidence to show for it.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] General Praljak, I would like

7 to know whether you agree with me regarding the following: When someone

8 is in jail, this person must automatically be jailed with some kind of --

9 according to some kind of order.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In a jail, yes, but not in a remand

11 facility. I am, in part, familiar with this situation. You can remand

12 someone in custody if there is a well-founded suspicion. If you arrest a

13 number of people, for example, on the 30th of June there was that

14 enormous act of betrayal, HVO men being killed and so on and so forth,

15 you can remand in custody a number of HVO Muslims because there is a

16 suspicion that they might try to kill you. It is then that the SIS start

17 their investigations as to whether the people in question were guilty of

18 anything or not.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] General Praljak, with this

20 theory of thinking that someone is suspected of being guilty, you could

21 have everyone in detention. I had a very clear question. I was saying

22 that when someone is detained, you must need to have a committal order or

23 detention order, and I insist on that, because you needed to have some

24 suspicion to issue a committal order or a detention order. And with this

25 theory, you could actually have in detention an elderly person, a child,

Page 42824

1 a civilian person, anyone.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, Your Honours, I'm in

3 detention because there's suspicion that I was involved in a JCE.

4 Somebody had those suspicions about me.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] General Praljak, one can be in

6 prison because there were allegations that were part of an indictment,

7 but it's not enough. There was a committal order, which was the arrest

8 warrant, and I'm in a very good position to say that because I signed

9 this arrest warrant. So if you are in detention at the moment, it is

10 because there is what we call a committal order, which was, in your case,

11 the arrest warrant. And if I'm asking you if there was a committal

12 order, I wanted to know whether at that time, when Colonel Obradovic had

13 jurisdiction or competence for that, I was wondering whether someone was

14 issuing an order to allow the detention. Or was that a verbal order by

15 saying, This person is suspected of something, so they will be sent to a

16 detention unit, and there was no committal order? Do you see the

17 difference?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I see the difference,

19 Your Honour -- or, rather, I do see the difference, Your Honour, but I'm

20 thinking hypothetically because I didn't take part in that, so I can only

21 speak hypothetically. And hypothetically speaking, the HVO, on the 30th

22 of June, saw that within its ranks, there was treason, betrayal, and that

23 people -- and people were killed in a -- as a betrayal.

24 Now, as of that point in time, in my view, it was permissible to

25 disarm potential members of this traitor structure and to place them in

Page 42825

1 detention, since there were a lot of them, and it was a question of

2 minutes, hours, because the HVO was disrupted from inside, with 26

3 killed, and a whole series of others -- well, anyway, at that point in

4 time, to my mind, and I'm speaking about my own personal view, it was

5 permissible to place these individuals in detention, or isolation, or

6 whatever it's called. And then they can be convicted of belonging to a

7 treacherous structure, structure betrayal, and then legal proceedings can

8 be taken against them. And if they are found not guilty, they can be

9 released.

10 But at that particular point in time, when you're faced with

11 treason and when you have, in the rear, a whole series of groups killing

12 people, and you disarm them at a certain point, but you don't have proof

13 and evidence of them actually having been the perpetrators, until such a

14 time, until you collect this evidence and proof - well, I don't know what

15 this is like in legal terms - but no army, no commander on earth would

16 allow these people to go ahead and kill your own men.

17 You can explain to me what the legal background is, but I would

18 have acted the same way had I been in that situation, because it is the

19 first duty of a commander to protect his men. So if you have members of

20 your organisation, who were members of your organisation until just a

21 while ago, massacring your own men, what would you do?

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] That is clear, and you have

23 explained it at length. You explained what happened from the 30th of

24 June; namely, that the HVO was faced with a situation whereby soldiers

25 from the HVO had deserted or were traitors, and the answer was to detain

Page 42826

1 them. Very well.

2 Yes, Counsel Alaburic.

3 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, since you are

4 discussing a topic which, in the opinion of General Petkovic's Defence

5 team, is of the utmost importance, I'd just like to draw your attention:

6 It wasn't about the Muslim soldiers of the HVO who had deserted, they did

7 not leave the HVO units; they betrayed their fellow soldiers within the

8 HVO and joined up with the BH Army and then actively took part in the

9 fighting against the HVO, just to have no misunderstanding over the

10 concept of desertion.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Ms. Alaburic, I came later, but now

12 I know about this. They neither deserted, nor did they join up; they

13 killed. They killed in North Camp, they killed 26 people in the

14 surroundings of Capljina, they killed -- they massacred five or six of my

15 men who were taking food. What are we talking about here? It's high

16 treason, high treason with the papers we saw. They were preparing this

17 for months in advance, because Pasalic [as interpreted] says, Link up

18 with our men in the HVO.

19 Now, had this been the French Army, well, they would have shot

20 them within the space of three days. They would have been executed

21 without further adieu.

22 Here, they were detained, and of course what followed, followed.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We'll stop there, because the

24 counsel for Mr. Petkovic will have ample time later on to ask for

25 testimony. So we will proceed with Counsel Tomic.

Page 42827

1 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

2 Q. Now, Mr. Praljak, I'm going to follow on from what we just heard

3 in the courtroom here, and please tell me this: To the best of your

4 knowledge, is it true and correct that most of the individuals who

5 happened to be in Dretelj were precisely disarmed members of the HVO of

6 Muslim ethnicity?

7 A. I don't know, madam, I don't know.

8 Q. Now my second question. His Honour, the Presiding Judge,

9 Judge Antonetti, on page 22 of the transcript, put a hypothesis to you

10 that Colonel Obradovic suddenly learnt about the fact that there was --

11 there were a number of people down there who had been detained. Tell me

12 now, please, Mr. Praljak, how did Colonel Obradovic -- would it be

13 logical that Colonel Obradovic learnt about this suddenly, when he was

14 precisely the man who issued the order to disarm these people and detain

15 them, incarcerate them, at least the ones that Ms. Alaburic referred to,

16 that is to say, the members of the HVO who were of Muslim ethnicity, whom

17 he considered to be a security threat along the lines of what you were

18 describing? Is it logical that then he learnt about this suddenly, or is

19 it more probable that he knew about this from the very beginning, at

20 least the approximate number of people that were over there?

21 If you don't know, just say and we'll move on.

22 A. Yes, we'll move on, but let me just say the following:

23 Everything that I have said are my own hypotheses, my logical thinking,

24 and I'm telling you how I understand the situation. I learnt about many

25 of these events later on. They had taken place before I arrived, and

Page 42828

1 when I arrived I was thrown into a war that lasted for two months, so I

2 didn't have this kind of information. But what you're saying is logical.

3 There you have it, that's my answer, with the caveat that I made.

4 Q. Mr. Praljak, precisely because you said before what you said now,

5 that you didn't know about it then, but you learnt about it later, is my

6 reason for cross-examining you and asking you, each and every time,

7 whether you knew or did not know, so that we can see whether it was

8 information you actually had dating back to those times or whether it was

9 a hypothetical on your part.

10 Now let's look at P03883, the next document, please. This is a

11 request put in by Warden Tomo Sakota. It is sent to Colonel Nedjeljko

12 Obradovic, and the request reads as follows."

13 On behalf of the Military Police Administration,

14 Mr. Valentin Coric, and following the personal intervention of

15 Mr. Vico Vukojevic, with kindly request that you release from detention

16 in the Dretelj Barracks the following person ..."

17 I don't need to read it to the end. Tell me now, please,

18 Mr. Praljak, since you've just told us that you did not have any

19 knowledge from that time, does it follow logically from this document

20 that Mr. Coric could not have personally issued orders to the prison

21 warden, Tomo Sakota, telling him to release anybody from prison, from

22 detention, but rather it was only Colonel Nedjeljko Obradovic who could

23 have ensured the release of someone from prison?

24 A. From this document, it follows that Valentin Coric could not have

25 released anyone, that's correct, but that that be requested of

Page 42829

1 Tomo Sakota. And I saw a document here --

2 Q. And who does Tomo Sakota ask and request that of?

3 A. Well, as far as I'm concerned, this document is completely

4 nonsensical.

5 Q. That's not what I'm asking you, Mr. Praljak. Will you please

6 answer my question. We can see who Tomo Sakota is asking -- is putting

7 in a request for the person to be released from prison. We can all read

8 it. It's a brief document.

9 A. Well, go on and read it, then.

10 Q. Well, you read to whom it is addressed. What does it say? To --

11 A. It says: "Military police, Capljina, to Colonel

12 Nedjeljko Obradovic" or "for Colonel Nedjeljko Obradovic," that's what it

13 says at the top of the document.

14 JUDGE PRANDLER: How many times should I tell you - and the

15 President and Judge Trechsel - that you have to slow down. Is it

16 impossible to listen to us?

17 Thank you, and I hope that you may finally do whatever you have

18 to do, both of you.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I really do apologise,

20 Judge Prandler, I do.

21 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation]

22 Q. Mr. Praljak, before we diverged from the topic at hand, I asked

23 you whether you know that Mr. Boko Previsic was the warden of Gabela?

24 A. While I was down there, I did not know of a single name of any

25 warden of any prison or detention centre or anything else, and that

Page 42830

1 includes Boko Previsic. I didn't know about him, either.

2 Q. The name "Gabela" was not recorded, and I asked about

3 Boko Previsic and Tomo Sakota, as it says in the transcript.

4 Now, Mr. Praljak, did you subsequently learn that Mr. Boko,

5 B-o-k-o, Previsic was the warden after the time that you were in the

6 HZ-HB?

7 A. Many years later, I learned that Boko Previsic was the warden of

8 the prison in Gabela. From the newspapers, that's where I learned that.

9 Q. Tell me, please, Mr. Praljak, did you know then or did you learn

10 later that Mr. Boko, B-o-k-o, Previsic was a member of the 1st Knez

11 Domagoj Brigade?

12 A. At the time he was prison warden, or before that? But I didn't

13 know either, the former or the latter.

14 Q. Did you learn about it later?

15 A. No.

16 Q. Now let's take a look at document P06729, P06729. It's already

17 an exhibit, and let's turn to page 3 in both versions, both in Croatian

18 and English. It is a report sent on the 18th of November, 1993, to

19 Colonel Biskic. For the Trial Chamber, Colonel Biskic explained about

20 the circumstances under which this document was drafted. And it's after

21 your time, Mr. Praljak. On page 3 of that document, underneath the

22 title, "Command and control system in the shelter and security measures,"

23 the warden is -- the head of the prison of war shelter is Bosko Previsic,

24 member of the 1st Brigade of Knez Domagoj from Capljina, and his deputy

25 is Nikola Andron, member of the same unit.

Page 42831

1 Tell me, please, Mr. Praljak, whether you subsequently learnt

2 that in Bosnia-Herzegovina, legal proceedings were taken against

3 Mr. Boko Previsic, who was a fugitive at the time, and that this other

4 man, Nikola Andron, was convicted for the events in Gabela during 1993.

5 Are you aware of that? Do you know about that? And that in the

6 judgement it was established what it says here, that both of them were

7 members of the 1st Knez Domagoj Brigade?

8 A. I know of both facts from the newspapers. The only thing I don't

9 know about is the judgement, that it says -- well, I don't have the

10 judgement, of course. So the question remains who appointed them, who

11 appointed them to that function and post, and I assume that that is

12 something that is contained in the judgement as well.

13 Q. I'd now like to move on to the last document, which is P0373, at

14 least the last document linked to this area, this subject matter. It is

15 a document from the Stjepan Radic Ljubuski Brigade.

16 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel please speak into the microphone

17 and switch her other microphone on. Thank you.

18 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] P0373 is the document

19 number, P03793, 3793.

20 Q. The document is from the Stjepan Radic Brigade. It is signed by

21 the head of the brigade, Stanko Primorac, and the SIS of the brigade,

22 Petar Majic. And I'd like to read a brief extract from this document,

23 which reads as follows, the beginning of the document, in actual fact:

24 "Due to the use of prisoners by unauthorised organs and in order

25 to prevent such use, I hereby issue the following order:

Page 42832

1 "Any use of prisoners without the approval of a SIS brigade or

2 brigade commander (chief) is strictly forbidden."

3 Now, Mr. Praljak, the document is dated the 29th of July, 1993.

4 Did you know about this?

5 A. No.

6 Q. Mr. Praljak, I'm going to put my final question to you on this

7 area. I started out my examination about prisons, as I said at the

8 beginning, because you told us that the army had nothing to do with the

9 prisons. From the documents that we looked at yesterday and today, it is

10 obvious that the army did, indeed, have links and something to do with

11 the prison. Now, you said that you had never seen those documents before

12 and that you didn't know about those documents. After they've been shown

13 to you now, do you still maintain by what you said earlier on and the

14 explanations given? You don't have to expound your answers again. We

15 have heard all your explanations. Just tell me whether you stand by what

16 you've already said.

17 A. I wholly stand by what I said, when I said that the army had

18 nothing to do with the prisons.

19 Q. Fine.

20 A. May I be allowed to give the second part of my answer? Nothing

21 to do with the prisons, except for the fact that it had to cover for

22 other people's lack of performing their duties.

23 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, I didn't

24 think I'd receive a different answer from you, but as it's ten minutes to

25 the break and I'm moving on to another area, may we take the break now,

Page 42833

1 have an early break, Your Honours?

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We're going to have

3 a break of 20 minutes now.

4 --- Recess taken at 10.19 a.m.

5 --- On resuming at 10.45 a.m.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The court is back in session.

7 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much,

8 Your Honour.

9 Q. Mr. Praljak, now I would like to show you a document. I believe

10 that you have already seen it, because it's been exhibited. It's P04262,

11 the first or second document after the one we've dealt with just now.

12 Have you found it? This is a document that is signed by

13 Mr. Petkovic, on behalf of the Main Staff. The document is dated the

14 17th of August, 1993. It was sent to all the operational zones, and it

15 is also stated here that this should be delivered to the brigades. The

16 title is "Brigade Military Police," the command authority, and it reads

17 as follows:

18 "It has often been an occurrence for the commanders to go

19 directly to the chief of the military police when the brigade military

20 police is not being efficient. I hereby warn all that the brigade

21 military police is under the direct command of the brigade commanders.

22 It is located in the brigade establishment and has the same status as

23 other brigade units:"

24 Item 2:

25 "The personnel selection is done exclusively from the ranks of

Page 42834

1 the troops of the brigade, and it is the right of the commander to remove

2 or replace all military officers."

3 Item number 3:

4 "Only professional assistance can be sought from the military

5 police chief."

6 Item number 4:

7 "All problems in the brigade police are your problems, and you

8 should deal with them through the command system."

9 Now, Mr. Praljak, regarding this document, I have three questions

10 for you. The first question is whether you were aware of this document.

11 The second question is whether this document is in line with the

12 structure or establishment of the military police. And the third

13 question is whether you agree with General Petkovic.

14 A. As for your first question, I say that I knew about this

15 document. The second question, well, this does not correspond with the

16 establishment of the military police. And as for your third question, I

17 was not in agreement with General Petkovic. I had a very heated debate

18 with General Petkovic regarding this document, because he had made a

19 mistake. He should not have issued a warning of this kind, or an order,

20 but General Petkovic then went on to explain to me that there were

21 clashes between the brigade military police and the military police

22 battalions, and that the military police simply was not efficient and

23 that it caused a great deal of problems for the brigade commanders, and

24 that the problem was not dealt with by the chief of the military police,

25 and he had to bypass the system and issue this order to solve the

Page 42835

1 problem. I didn't agree with the order, but I did not cancel it after I

2 received this explanation from General Petkovic.

3 Q. Mr. Praljak, now I would like us to look at our next document. I

4 have to say that I don't agree with you, that this was not in line with

5 the establishment, but let's leave that for later.

6 Now I would like us to look at P04413. That's our next document.

7 This is a document issued by the deputy commander, Ante Govorusic. Can

8 you tell me, since the document does not clearly indicate, what was he

9 deputy commander of, because we can see the Command of the North-West

10 Herzegovina Operational Zone up there in the heading. Does that mean

11 that he was deputy commander in that command?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Well, I will not be reading this document, because it's a copy of

14 a document that we have already seen, a document drafted by

15 General Petkovic. Could you just read it to yourself slowly, and I will

16 just say that it is clearly visible from the document that this was --

17 this document was sent to the brigades and units, including the

18 Military Police Battalion, that are deployed in the area of the

19 North-West Herzegovina Operational Zone and that this document was issued

20 five days after General Praljak issued his -- General Petkovic issued his

21 order, so it was sent down the chain of command.

22 So, Mr. Praljak, do you agree with me that this document is, in

23 fact, an order or a warning that is sent down the chain of command and

24 was originally issued by General Petkovic, so it is now issued to

25 lower-ranking units?

Page 42836

1 A. Yes, that is correct.

2 Q. Let us now look at P00990. It's our next document.

3 And while we're waiting for the document to come up on our

4 screens, let me just remind you that General Petkovic, under item 4 of

5 his -- or, rather, item 2 of his warning, said that the personnel

6 selection for the military police in the brigade -- that the personnel

7 should be selected from the ranks of the brigade and that it was the

8 right of the brigade commander to remove from office any military

9 policemen.

10 In this document that has already been exhibited, too, we read as

11 follows:

12 "Pursuant to --" or, rather: "In order to improve the structure

13 within the brigade, and at the personal initiative of the coordinator of

14 the HVO Main Staff, Srecko Herceg, and with my approval, I hereby order

15 as follows:

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 42840

1 [Interpretation] And you answer:

2 [In English] "No, no, we did not receive military police reports

3 regularly."

4 [Interpretation] Now, tell me, do you recall having said that?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. First of all, tell me, who do you mean when you say "we"?

7 A. Myself. I did not receive any reports from the military police.

8 Q. Well, then tell me whether you know if the military units and the

9 Main Staff received any reports from the military police.

10 A. I don't know.

11 Q. Well, since you don't know, I will not dwell on this topic. It

12 makes no sense for me to show you any documents. And if you've just told

13 me that you don't know, it doesn't serve any purpose for me to acquaint

14 you with them now.

15 But let me now skip a total of six documents, and let us move to

16 document P05030.

17 Let me just note, for the benefit of the Trial Chamber and you,

18 General, that this document, P05030, is virtually identical to the

19 document that follows, P05366, the only difference being that the second

20 document bears the stamp of the Defence Department, so indicating that it

21 was actually received by the Defence Department.

22 Let me read from the first one, because the copy is better, so

23 P05030. It is your document. The date is the 14th of September, 1993.

24 The document's title is "Order on Resubordination," and it is sent to the

25 Main Staff, the South-East Herzegovina Operational Zone, military police

Page 42841

1 units, and then in brackets "Valentin Coric," and to all brigades of the

2 North-West Herzegovina Operational Zone. And you say, in your document:

3 "In order to ensure successful command and control, and to build

4 up and organise units, I hereby order:"

5 I will only read item 5 because it concerns the military police:

6 "The military police units that have former members of the

7 Mijat Tomic Battalion in their ranks should delete them from their

8 personnel lists. They should not return their equipment and should be

9 sent to Doljani under escort. All former members of the Mijat Tomic

10 Battalion who are not part of the HVO units should be brought into

11 custody and sent to Doljani."

12 And then in item 6, you say:

13 "All commanders of the brigades in units that are under the staff

14 and the commander of the military police units, shall be responsible for

15 the implementation of this order."

16 So I have a couple of questions regarding this document. First

17 of all, the commander of the military police units, are you referring to

18 Mr. Valentin Coric here, because he is among the addressees?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Do you remember this document, are you aware of it? Was this

21 order carried out?

22 A. It's my document. I know about it. I wrote it or, rather, I

23 signed it. It was written following my order. I don't know this was

24 fully carried out, but I tried to see to it that it was.

25 Q. Mr. Praljak, let's move on to the next document, 3D00798. I'm

Page 42842

1 skipping the one document between the two.

2 A. Do you perhaps need an explanation as to why this order was

3 written?

4 Q. No, thank you. It's irrelevant. 3D00798.

5 A. Perhaps Your Honours might permit me to explain what is going on

6 here.

7 Q. Mr. Praljak, perhaps on re-direct your own counsel can return to

8 it. Meanwhile, 3D00798, please.

9 You were shown this document in-chief. This is about the Jeleni

10 unit.

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And then you order here -- you issue an order here, and in

13 paragraph 3 of the order you say:

14 "Paragraph number 2 of this order shall be regulated by UVP HVO.

15 The paragraph number 1 shall be executed by the command of the KB Brigade

16 by the Brigade VP. I request to be notified in writing concerning the

17 execution of this order."

18 In paragraph 2, we see what the task was of the Military Police

19 Administration of the HVO. It was for the Jeleni unit to be withdrawn

20 from the HR-HB. Do you remember this document? You spoke about it. It

21 is not my intention to dwell on it, just to check whether you remember,

22 it's an introductory document.

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And now P05411, that's the next document.

25 This is an order by the commander of the 5th Military Police

Page 42843

1 Battalion, Mr. Ivan Ancic. It reads:

2 "Pursuant to an order from the HVO Main Staff, I hereby issue the

3 following order:"

4 In the order itself, he repeats your own request which you put

5 forward in your own order; am I right?

6 A. Yes, you're right.

7 Q. Mr. Praljak, unless I'm mistaken, and if I remember correctly,

8 while testifying in-chief you said that based on your recollection, the

9 order was carried out and the unit was withdrawn from the HR-HB

10 territory.

11 A. That's correct.

12 Q. Mr. Praljak, I'm done with this topic. I only have a single

13 question remaining that I wish to ask you, and show you two documents

14 along with that.

15 Mr. Praljak, you have told us a number of times about the

16 military police commander, Mr. Zdenko Andabak, and problems that --

17 MR. STRINGER: I apologise to counsel for the interruption.

18 Mr. President, just with respect to the last document, which is

19 P05411, as counsel indicated, I think in the original language version,

20 anyway, there apparently are the words:

21 "Pursuant to an order from the HVO Main Staff, I issue the

22 following order:"

23 And I was looking, and it does not appear to me that those words

24 are found in the English translation, and I wonder if we could clarify

25 that. Thank you.

Page 42844

1 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] That's right. I

2 sincerely thank my learned friend for drawing my attention to this, given

3 that I had failed to notice this myself. Thank you.

4 Q. If I may just go back to what I said a moment ago, Mr. Praljak,

5 you remember saying on several occasions something about the problems you

6 were facing with Military Police Commander Zdenko Andabak. We don't need

7 to go through the whole thing again, because you've told us a great deal.

8 Do you remember that or not? That's my question.

9 A. Yes, I do remember, but I don't think I've said a great deal, and

10 I certainly didn't finish saying what I had to say.

11 Q. That doesn't, in itself, matter. You said the essence of that

12 particular problem was he was not obeying orders, as to what orders and

13 what nature of orders he wasn't obeying, that doesn't matter right now.

14 A. No. The fact of the matter was he deserted. He escaped from the

15 positions that he was supposed to be holding.

16 Q. Mr. Praljak, you did mention another Mr. Andabak in relation to

17 the Convicts Battalion, but that gentleman's name was Ivan Andabak, as

18 opposed to this one; right?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Mr. Praljak, do you know what became of Zdenko Andabak later on,

21 after the war was over?

22 A. No, I don't.

23 Q. Can we please go to the last two documents in this binder. We

24 can skip the penultimate document and go straight to the last one, the

25 final document, which is the last one of any relevance. This document

Page 42845

1 was produced by the BH Defence Ministry, dated the 19th of September,

2 2006. The number is 5D05084. It's entitled "Order." It is signed by

3 Minister Nikola Radovanovic. 5D050 -- 5D, 5D, not P.

4 The document reads:

5 "Order: To establish rank in the Armed Forces of Bosnia and

6 Herzegovina."

7 Mr. Zdenko Andabak, a duty in the joint command of the former

8 federation army, the Training Centre Command, he is awarded the rank of

9 colonel, as we see further down. The time spent holding this rank is

10 calculated as starting on the 30th of May, 1994.

11 Mr. Praljak, did you know that the self-same Mr. Andabak that

12 you -- that had given you all that grief finally ended his career as a

13 colonel in the armed forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina, working in the

14 Training Centre Command?

15 A. I didn't know that, and I consider that to be an exceptionally

16 regrettable fact.

17 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Praljak.

18 Your Honours, thank you. This completes my cross-examination.

19 There is one thing that I still owe Your Honours, which I'm about

20 to make good. On day 2 of my cross-examination, I referred to something,

21 Mr. Praljak using the expression "in flagrante." I'm not going back to

22 the entire topic, but I couldn't give you the page numbers in which that

23 occurred, which I will now. The transcript reference is 42458, lines 2

24 through 7.

25 Thank you very much, Your Honours.

Page 42846

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Ms. Tomic.

2 Mr. Ibrisimovic.

3 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

4 To be quite honest, it's been 35 days of Mr. Praljak testifying.

5 It's difficult to raise any issues at all without repeating ourselves. I

6 did hint yesterday, in the light of his answers to your questions on the

7 16th of June this year, that we would not be asking any questions of

8 General Praljak.

9 Thank you very much.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] General Praljak, I have a

12 question. I thought Mr. Pusic's counsel would put this question to you,

13 but I'll put it to you.

14 We know that on the field, the HVO and the ABiH made prisoners.

15 In a war, any conflict, there are always prisoners, unfortunately. We

16 know that on the HVO side, there was an office, and that on the ABiH

17 side, there was also an office. So during the conflict, there were many

18 exchanges of prisoners.

19 When you were on the field, either de facto or de jure, did you,

20 yourself, ever have to take part in these negotiations, quote/unquote,

21 "to exchange prisoners," or did you never have anything to do with this?

22 THE WITNESS: I never had anything to do with that. I never had

23 an opportunity to discuss any exchange of prisoners at all.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Which is why Mr. Pusic's

25 counsel put no questions to you.

Page 42847

1 Very well. Mr. Stringer, are you ready?

2 MR. STRINGER: Yes, Mr. President. And greetings to you and

3 Your Honours, Counsel, every one else.

4 Yes, we're ready to begin. We have some binders we can

5 distribute and start straight away.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Before starting, I

7 would like to tell General Praljak that we are about to embark on the

8 Prosecution's cross-examination. The Prosecutor is doing his job, just

9 like everyone else. And the OTP, they have the burden of proof. So any

10 cross-examination made by the OTP is an examination where questions can

11 be leading. The Prosecution is going to put forth its case, of course,

12 and there can be some very difficult questions, very delicate questions.

13 You might not be very pleased with the kind of questions put to you.

14 Now to make sure that we don't run into problem, we tell you,

15 once again, what the instructions are. Please stay cool. Please listen

16 to the question. Take your time before answering. Even if you don't

17 like the question, you must answer, even if you don't like the question,

18 because these answers will be scrutinised by the Judges when they'll have

19 to pour over the thousands and thousands of pages in the transcript.

20 This is no secret here, you know, but you know that Judges look at the

21 questions and they also look at the answer. If the answer seems to have

22 been made when the witness was very heated up or something, the Judges

23 will look at it even more.

24 Up until now, you've answered very properly all questions, even

25 when they were delicate questions, as we've just seen. So I'm just

Page 42848

1 repeating my instructions because you must understand that the OTP is

2 just doing its job, has no biases. It is there to -- it has the burden

3 of proof, it's on them. They have the onus. This onus is on them, so

4 they have to do their job. I'm sure you understand this very well.

5 Ms. Alaburic, what did you have to say?

6 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, thanks for giving me

7 the floor.

8 I was convinced that I could use some time while Mr. Stringer is

9 preparing for his cross. I do have to say something that I believe to be

10 part of my professional commitment and something that is in the best

11 interests of my client.

12 The way in which other Defenses were allowed, during the

13 cross-examination of General Praljak, to extend their cross-examination

14 by using the time allotted to those Defence teams for their Defence cases

15 confirms that we are going back to the rule indicating that each Defence

16 has the right to dispose of its own time and to decide how much of its

17 own time it will use to hear a particular witness.

18 Along these same lines, I would like to again draw your attention

19 to Judge Antonetti's words on page 2 of today's transcript. I quote:

20 "We shall complete this once you have finished asking questions."

21 This sentence, without a doubt, meant that Mr. Coric's counsel

22 had as much time as she pleased at her disposal. Your Honours -- Your

23 Honours --

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] No, I would not want you to

25 waste any time. I'm not allowing what you're saying.

Page 42849

1 Let me tell you what happened, exactly, this morning. I took the

2 floor to give the floor to Mr. Coric's counsel, and my fellow Judge next

3 to me told me that there might have been an ambiguity, hinting that the

4 counsel might have finished. So I took the floor once again to tell

5 Counsel Tomic that she still had time -- she still had time, according to

6 the time that was allotted to her in the first place. So she continued,

7 and each time she was putting questions, time was deducted. And the

8 Registrar is now going to give us what additional time she has used up.

9 This is all we said.

10 We issued a decision saying that she would be allotted 45 minutes

11 extra on top of the four hours, and we said everything that was beyond

12 four hours and 45 minutes would be deducted from her total time. This is

13 all we said. So please don't interpret our words. We were just telling

14 her that maybe she might have thought that she was finished, but she

15 wasn't really finished, because she had to continue with what had been

16 said yesterday.

17 I know you take every advantage, you know, to raise this question

18 of time again and again over, but I'm just cutting you off because I

19 don't want you to waste any time.

20 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that was precisely my

21 understanding of your words, precisely my understanding, and that's

22 exactly what I'm trying to say. We are back to this rule that a Defence

23 may use the time allotted to it for its own Defence case to extend its

24 time examining another Defence's witness. That was the overall rule that

25 applied throughout the Prlic Defence case. There is no problem with

Page 42850

1 that. All the other Defence teams understood the same thing. It never

2 for a moment crossed my mind to oppose the idea that my learned friend,

3 Dijana Tomasegovic Tomic, should be given a chance to defend her client

4 in the best way, but I'm trying to point out here is the following fact:

5 During the Stojic Defence, a different rule applied. The Petkovic

6 Defence believes that the Stojic Defence was privileged in relation to

7 the Prlic Defence and the Praljak Defence.

8 Another thing that I believe to be of paramount importance:

9 Given the fact that the Petkovic Defence was prevented from using its own

10 time in this same way to extend the examination of certain Stojic Defence

11 witnesses, I would like to say that in this way, my client was denied the

12 right to a fair trial and equal treatment in this trial. We have also

13 been denied the right to use our own time and choose our own way of

14 examining witnesses. I'm talking about the only witness on the

15 establishment and functioning of the Defence Department to be heard in

16 this courtroom, the only expert -- the only high-ranking official in the

17 Defence Ministry, the deputy minister, and the only high-ranking SIS

18 official to appear, Mr. Babic.

19 I consider it my duty to get this on the record and to be

20 publicly declared. We have no intention of doing anything about this.

21 We do, however, believe that the Petkovic Defence has been denied, to a

22 large extent, the chance to use the appearance of appropriate witnesses

23 to clarify all these points.

24 Thank you very much.

25 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I was the

Page 42851

1 first to stand up, if I may just speak before Ms. Nozica.

2 Just in order to avoid any misunderstanding, my name was

3 mentioned here.

4 During the examination of General Praljak, the Trial Chamber was

5 consistently applying the same criteria. I was given a chance to use up

6 my own time, and so was Ms. Alaburic. I think she agrees with the fact

7 that that was, indeed, the case, in relation to the testimony of

8 General Praljak; yes, I did emphasise that, just in order to avoid any

9 insinuations that I was somehow being favoured, in terms of how I was

10 using up my time, as opposed to the treatment that Ms. Alaburic got.

11 Thank you very much.

12 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, just a single

13 sentence, please.

14 This is the second time we see this happening about this theory

15 being bandied about, the privileged position of the Stojic Defence. I

16 would like to ask my learned friend just to put an end to this story. If

17 she believes there's something that's relevant and that needs raising,

18 she can launch a complaint, a formal one, file a motion, or anything like

19 that, whatever she wishes to do. I fail to see that the Stojic Defence

20 was privileged in any way. We were all in this courtroom throughout my

21 Defence case, and I think we're all aware of the fact all too well.

22 There was no privilege involved.

23 Thank you very much.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] As far as counsel is concerned,

25 you have used an additional 58 minutes, so this will be deducted from

Page 42852

1 your total time.

2 I will give the floor to Mr. Stringer, but for those who have

3 forgotten, it is the Chamber that will decide on the way witnesses are

4 being examined, and they can use their discretionary power to give more

5 time or to allot more time for the one or the other. This is part of the

6 Rules.

7 Mr. Praljak, you wanted to say something, and then I will give

8 the floor to Mr. Stringer.

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Judge Antonetti, Your Honour, I

10 have understood your instructions and guide-lines, I understand them very

11 well, and I state, once again, that there is no question which I consider

12 is difficult to answer and that I cannot answer if I show the will.

13 Now, let me just say that there are simple questions with yes or

14 no answers, then there are other questions that require more explanation.

15 Unfortunately, sometimes I feel that the question has been put in such a

16 way that if you answer it in simple terms, you would paint the wrong

17 picture, but that's what comes from this procedure. And, anyway, having

18 felt that you have a broad subject to deal with and are asked a very

19 narrow question calling for a yes-or-no answer, in fact, means that it

20 can be taken as my agreeing with things I don't agree, and it is only

21 then when I resist and feel that if I give a simple answer, that it would

22 be the truth that suffered. So that's what I wanted to say, and may I be

23 allowed to leave?

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, go ahead. It seems to be

25 an emergency. Go ahead.

Page 42853

1 [The witness stands down]

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stringer.

3 MR. STRINGER: Well, my witness has left the courtroom,

4 Mr. President, so I don't have anything to say at the moment.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I thought that you

6 wanted to take the floor on the time allocation issue. Apparently not.

7 MR. STRINGER: No. I think, just for the record, to make it

8 clear that Ms. Alaburic did have the possibility to use her own time if

9 she wanted to extend her cross-examination of General Praljak, and that

10 she elected not to do that. So just -- I know that she's talking about

11 other witnesses and past practices, but just so the record's clear, she

12 used the four hours she was entitled to. In addition, she got an

13 additional 45 minutes. That was all accounted as cross-examination time,

14 and she elected not to do what counsel for Mr. Coric did. So just so the

15 record is clear, she's made a decision not to use her own time in respect

16 of this particular cross-examination.

17 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, since I didn't speak

18 about my right to use my own time at all to extend the cross-examination

19 of General Praljak, because it is not contentious that I had that right,

20 I was accorded that right, just as the other Defence counsel were

21 accorded those rights, but what I do find contentious is that this was at

22 my own initiative -- at their own initiative that the Trial Chamber

23 offered this, whereas I was never offered it for any witness of the

24 Stojic Defence.

25 And I would just like to remind you of what requests we lodged.

Page 42854

1 We wrote our requests during the night so that the Trial Chamber could

2 see all our arguments before they come into court the next morning, and

3 that after that I was not allowed to use my own time.

4 So I'm just complaining and objecting and saying that all Defence

5 teams should have equal rights to examine witnesses. That's all.

6 [The witness takes the stand]

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

8 Mr. Stringer, you have the floor.

9 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President.

10 Cross-examination by Mr. Stringer:

11 Q. Good morning, General.

12 A. Good morning. Shall I address you as "Mr. Prosecutor" or how

13 would you wish me to address --

14 Q. However you wish.

15 A. -- or use your surname?

16 Q. General, I want to take you back to the very beginning of your

17 testimony on the 4th of May, 2009, and specifically I want to ask you:

18 Do you recall testifying and telling the Chamber that -- and I'll just

19 read from the transcript, page 39504:

20 "I was discharged from the Yugoslav Army as unable to serve. I

21 had problems with my leg and other problems. I underwent several

22 operations because of many accidents that happened to me. I fell a

23 number of times."

24 And then continuing on a different part of the transcript, on

25 page 39541, answering a question that came from His Honour

Page 42855

1 Judge Antonetti, you indicated that you were discharged from the Yugoslav

2 People's Army after three months because you had a leg injury, an ankle

3 injury, that you had had a childhood accident involving a cart, and

4 that's why you didn't spend more than three months in the JNA.

5 Do you remember that testimony on the 4th of May and the 5th of

6 May, which was the day that you answered Judge Antonetti's question?

7 A. Yes, I do remember my answer. I don't remember the date on which

8 I gave it, but I believe what you're telling me.

9 Q. Now, isn't it actually true, General, that you only served in the

10 JNA for three months and you were discharged because you were a

11 malingerer, that is, you faked having a mental illness, and it's on that

12 basis that you were discharged from the JNA?

13 A. I never suffered from a mental illness. I am mentally healthy.

14 Q. My question is whether you got out of the JNA by faking mental

15 illness. Your discharge from the JNA wasn't based on any leg injury. It

16 was, in fact, based upon your being a malingerer, someone who faked

17 mental illness, as a way of getting out of the JNA; isn't that true?

18 A. That is not fully correct. I was very restricted and limited in

19 the JNA, because I was on the operating table seven times during my life

20 because of various fractures, I was that kind of child, and they wanted

21 to amputate my right leg during childhood. And I have a slight limp on

22 my right leg because I'm missing some bones. It is true that I was

23 somewhat nervous with respect to doing service in the Yugoslav People's

24 Army, and it is true that I emphasised part of that nervousness and that,

25 among other things, that is to say, because of my leg situation when I

Page 42856

1 arrived in the army.

2 Q. Let me take you to the first document, then, that's in the binder

3 in front of you, P10943, which is an interview published in "Globus" on

4 the 17th of April, 1997. This is an interview that you gave "Globus" and

5 was published in April of 1997. Do you recall giving this interview,

6 General? If you look through, you'll see pictures of yourself as part of

7 the publication.

8 A. Yes, I do remember giving that interview.

9 Q. And if you look, this is on page 4 of the English, and in the

10 original language version - we've given you a blown-up copy there - I'm

11 looking at the section under the title called "An Ideological Convert."

12 Let me just read out the words -- your words as reflected in this

13 article. You're asked about your army service, and you said:

14 "I got out of the army as incompetent. The idea was risky.

15 Neurosis nuclearis [phoen] or nucleic neurosis, it is a form of disease

16 when you become nervous, even when there is no impulse of neurosis."

17 I'm skipping down a line. You said:

18 "I started preparations for avoiding the army service half a year

19 before my departure for the JNA. I made a script; I was reading the

20 professional literature; I talked to the doctors;" et cetera.

21 And you started describing the various things that you did in

22 order to show them that you had a mental illness. You say that you got

23 involved in an altercation with a Siptar, which I take to mean an

24 Albanian person. You talk about an incident where you broke a chair.

25 You say you spent weeks in observation. And then I'm in the middle of

Page 42857

1 page 5 now. You say:

2 "The male nurse knew immediately that I was a malingerer."

3 So, again, General, when you told His Honour Judge Antonetti that

4 you were discharged from the JNA because you had a leg injury, that

5 wasn't true, was it? The fact is, as you've said here, you got out of

6 the JNA by being a malingerer?

7 A. I state once again that I was released from the hospital with a

8 diagnosis where my leg is mentioned. It is true that I added to my

9 nervousness, and if you like, I did not want to serve in the JNA. I

10 could have malingered on any subject, and had I been able to do that, I

11 would have. I would have tricked the Yugoslav People's Army in a worse

12 way than this to avoid doing my military service. But it's not true that

13 I was not nervous, so I'm giving you a precise answer. There's no doubt

14 that I would have used every opportunity to leave the army, to leave that

15 army, but my diagnosis was established medically and it also mentions my

16 leg, because I didn't have to do guard duty or do much foot-walking and

17 so on.

18 Q. So do you deny what's reported here, the words attributed to you?

19 Do you deny telling this reporter -- do you deny the words attributed to

20 you in this article when you said, I was a malingerer?

21 A. No, I don't deny having said that to the journalist, but I added

22 all this malingering bit so as not to leave the impression -- and so as

23 not to say that there were, in fact, problems.

24 Q. All right. So, in other words, you said something that was

25 untrue to the journalist in order to make a better story? Is that a

Page 42858

1 better way of putting it?

2 A. No, I didn't say it was untrue. I just added a bit. So I told

3 the truth, but not the whole truth.

4 Q. Very well. Now, I just want to go a little bit deeper into this

5 article. And if you continue turning the pages of the "Globus" article,

6 General, you're going to see an old photograph of you and some of your

7 childhood class-mates that I thought was worth bringing to everyone's

8 attention.

9 It's on the last page of the original language version, and I'm

10 looking at page 11 of the translation, although, Mr. President, the

11 photo, of course, is not in the translation.

12 This article, General, it has a photograph from your childhood in

13 Siroki Brijeg, and in this photograph we see you together with

14 Mr. Gojko Susak. Do you see that on the screen?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And this, of course, is the same Gojko Susak who was then to go

17 on and serve as the minister of defence for the Republic of Croatia;

18 correct?

19 A. Correct.

20 Q. So based on the fact, General, that you have virtually no

21 military experience in the JNA, and that you had served in the Croatian

22 Army for only a short time before being elevated to the National Security

23 Council of the Republic of Croatia and to the rank of general in the

24 Croatian Army, what really -- what we can conclude from that is that your

25 very rapid ascension within the Croatian military hierarchy is based upon

Page 42859

1 a personal connection you had with the defence minister of Croatia,

2 Mr. Susak, as opposed to based on any professional experience and

3 qualifications you may have possessed.

4 A. Had I had any ambitions like that, Mr. Prosecutor, I would have

5 become the minister of defence of the Republic of Croatia, not

6 Gojko Susak.

7 Secondly, I'm highly educated in military matters, and I can tell

8 you a lot more than other generals could. I am highly educated in many

9 matters. And in that respect, my promotion and advancement was no

10 quicker than it would otherwise have been normally, given the wartime

11 conditions, because I have a great deal of knowledge. And I can prove

12 that in a hundred different ways.

13 And I was in love with this little girl on the right here all the

14 time. Mirna, her name was.

15 Q. Your counsel can come back to that in re-direct, if they wish.

16 I'm going to pass over that.

17 General, I want to take you now to your testimony on the 23rd of

18 June in this courtroom. And to start with, I'd ask if the -- I think you

19 have it in your binder, but I'd ask if the technical people could put the

20 map up on the screen.

21 A. Could you show this photograph taken at the seaside just to see

22 the level of nutrition of people in Herzegovina of this time? Show this

23 photograph of my friend and me. Thank you, yes.

24 Q. General, your counsel can come back to that one as well.

25 I'd like to move on. As I indicated, I want to talk to you about

Page 42860

1 something you said on the 23rd of June and the map that you brought to

2 court, 3D00543.

3 If we could put 3D00543 in e-court.

4 General, you have it in your binder. It's in the binders that

5 have been distributed as well. And just to remind you, General, this is

6 the map that you testified you made showing the respective positions of

7 the HVO and the ABiH in the Prozor-Gornji Vakuf area on the 12th of

8 January, 1993.

9 Do you recall this map?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And on the 23rd of June, you testified that this was to prove

12 that the BH Army in Gornji Vakuf took all the dominant heights,

13 completely blocked the passage through Vakuf, rendering it impossible for

14 the brigade commander to get to his headquarters. And you might recall,

15 General, that I actually intervened and asked you to clarify what the

16 green arrow toward the middle of the page was, which indicated the

17 Neretvica Brigade. Do you recall when I intervened because it was

18 pointed out -- or you were asked specifically why no HVO units were

19 indicated as being present on the Makljen Ridge. Do you remember that

20 intervention that I made?

21 A. Yes, I do remember something along those lines.

22 Q. So, again, just for starters, the fact that this map doesn't show

23 any HVO presence on Makljen on the 12th of January, 1993, makes the map

24 erroneous, doesn't it? The map is not correct, in that it omits HVO

25 presence at the Makljen Ridge; would you agree with me on that?

Page 42861

1 A. No.

2 Q. Well, is that because as you told Judge Antonetti, on the 23rd of

3 June, page 41860 of the transcript, who specifically asked you --

4 Judge Antonetti said:

5 "Yes, General, why is it this arrow pointing to Makljen Ridge,"

6 he's referring to the Neretvica arrow, "when there is no presence of HVO

7 in Makljen?"

8 And you said:

9 "The HVO was at Makljen, but it's not marked."

10 And then Judge Antonetti said:

11 "There were soldiers in Makljen?"

12 And you answered:

13 "No, not soldiers. There was a check-point, a police

14 check-point, at Makljen. There was no need for these troops to be

15 stationed at Makljen, but cutting Makljen off and taking this check-point

16 would --" I'm sorry, "... taking this check-point in effect would have

17 caused the whole situation in Prozor to fall through."

18 So what you said in response to Judge Antonetti's question on

19 this was that there was, in fact, a check-point, a police check-point, at

20 Makljen. Do you recall that testimony?

21 A. Yes, I do remember that. At the top of Makljen, there was a

22 police check-point at the ridge.

23 Q. Now, in fact, there was not only a police check-point, but there

24 were big guns, artillery of the HVO, that it used in this very same

25 period in connection with the Gornji Vakuf operation; isn't that true?

Page 42862

1 A. Whether during the operation, the artillery was brought in, I

2 don't know that, but there was no artillery up at Makljen. There was no

3 need for that, and it wasn't a good position for it. There was no -- it

4 wouldn't have served a purpose.

5 Q. Can you take a look at the next document, please, P01107.

6 P01107. General, this is an order from your -- well, from Commander

7 Colonel Siljeg, dated 12th of January, the same date as your map, and

8 it's an order. He refers in paragraph 1 to the attack forces of the

9 operative zone, ordering them to route the enemy forces, the BH Army,

10 with the objective of taking control of towns and roads and preventing

11 the enemy from threatening the Croatian population in Bugojno and

12 Gornji Vakuf.

13 And if you turn to item 3 in this document, page 3 of the

14 English, paragraph 3 pertains to the use of the artillery. And then

15 item 3.4, if you look at that paragraph, General, you'll see at the end

16 that Colonel Siljeg is referring to -- I'll just read the sentence:

17 "Firing position for the T-130 in the Ometala area for the VBR on

18 Makljena and for the PAT and tanks in Prozor."

19 Just so we know, General, what is the VBR that is referred to

20 here? Isn't that a multiple rocket-launcher?

21 A. That's correct, a multiple-barrel rocket-launcher which is placed either

22 on a truck or is pulled by a truck. And as it says here, quite correctly,

23 this is preparation for an operation. So the VBR will be brought to Makljen,

24 and PATs, tanks to Rama. So he's not even bringing it into combat yet,

25 rather, he is taking it to Prozor. So regardless of the fact that I arrived

Page 42863

1 up there on the 16th, the information that I received was correct, and this

2 testifies to it. So these are preparations for an operation, and the VBR

3 will be brought up to Makljen on a truck or pulled by a truck.

4 Q. Very well. So to the extent that your map and your testimony

5 indicates there was not or would not have been a multiple rocket-launcher

6 position on Makljen on or after the 12th of January, that's incorrect;

7 would you agree with me?

8 A. He goes on to say here that it should be -- a VBR should be

9 brought into Makljen and tanks into Rama. Now, whether that was the case

10 on the 12th, that's debatable. I stand by what I said. It might be

11 wrong with respect to a matter of hours or whatever.

12 Q. Can we then go to the next document, P01162. This is a report of

13 Colonel Siljeg dated 16 January, so this is four days later.

14 Now, on page 2 of the English, at the top, he says:

15 "We began more intense operations on all enemy movements and

16 regrouping."

17 And then skipping down a few lines, he mentions Rama Brigade

18 forces, and he makes reference to 107-millimetre multiple rocket-launcher

19 on Makljen, 120-millimetre mortar from Mount Makljen, and a T-55 battle

20 tank from Makljen. And so, again, General, to the extent your map

21 indicates that there was no HVO presence at Makljen on the 12th of

22 January, isn't that misleading, because, in fact, the HVO had multiple

23 big guns on that feature that it used during the Gornji Vakuf operation?

24 A. On the 16th of January, obviously, yes, because that's when the

25 operation started, but the main feature up on Makljen, which is a hill,

Page 42864

1 is called "Crni Vrh," it's the Crni Vrh feature, 1033. And Siljeg says

2 Crni Vrh has been taken control of, which means that the BH Army forces

3 from the main feature at Crni Vrh were in control of Makljen. And the

4 HVO, before the start, only had a point up there or, rather, a police

5 check-point; whereas once the operation was launched, then that's normal,

6 bringing these in. And that's how Crni Vrh was taken, obviously. That's

7 what it says here.

8 Q. The next document is P01183. This is from Commander Siljeg on

9 the 18th of January, where he says, and I'm looking at the second line of

10 the text, he says:

11 "We hereby inform you that given that this morning we have

12 launched an attack on Gornji Vakuf from the direction of Makljen, there

13 is heavy fighting going on over there ..."

14 So again, General, to the extent that your map and your testimony

15 indicated that there was no HVO position or military presence at Makljen

16 during this period of time, that's not correct, is it?

17 A. No, it's quite the reverse; what I said is completely correct.

18 Because if the BH Army, and the previous document said that, was not in

19 control of Crni Vrh, Makljen, why, then, was fierce fighting going on

20 there? If the HVO previously controlled Makljen and Crni Vrh, then there

21 would not be fierce fighting going on there. So what I said, my

22 statement is correct, and it's correct that the HVO was not up at

23 Makljen, which is a hill, the main feature, but that it was taken over by

24 the BH Army, and that's why the operation started, because it had its

25 positions up there, and it had complete control of the HVO.

Page 42865

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] General Praljak, I remember

2 having asked this question, and at the time I wanted to ask you some

3 questions on Makljen because we had heard about it.

4 Why is it that on this map -- and in fact it would have been

5 useful for you to tell us that the position of the HVO and BiH were there

6 at a specific date, you should have pointed out the day, but I would like

7 to know why you did not mark this map and stated that the HVO was there

8 after Crni Vrh was taken. It's the hill that is above Makljen. Why did

9 you not mention it? Is that because the map has been drafted or has been

10 drawn after the events?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First of all, Judge Antonetti,

12 Your Honour, the map was drawn up on the basis of documents subsequently,

13 the documents that I had in the Detention Unit, and on the basis of

14 consultations. Secondly, the map was confirmed by a major of the British

15 Army. And, thirdly, you would have to draw a new map for every single

16 day. Well, not only day; military maps change from one hour to the next.

17 So this is the initial starting position for which I claimed, on the

18 basis of talks I had and so on, that the cause of the beginning of the

19 HVO action was to pull out of an encirclement. That was the initial

20 point.

21 Now, later on, subsequently, the fact that VBRs were brought in

22 and tanks, you have to follow the situation from one hour to the next,

23 and you ought to bring in Siljeg to tell you how the situation evolved

24 over the days.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] General, in military terms, if

Page 42866

1 I understand you correctly, in Makljen the HVO was controlling traffic,

2 there were check-points, and on the next hill in Crni Vrh there was the

3 presence of the ABiH, and you attacked this position and actually

4 captured it. Is this what happened, militarily-wise, after which, of

5 course, you controlled Makljen as well as the other elevation that had

6 been previously held by the ABiH?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it did happen, yes.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. This is what the

9 document says, orders that this elevation at 1.300 metres was captured.

10 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President.

11 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'll let you go on, because you may be asking

12 the question that I would have asked.

13 MR. STRINGER: I have one more document on this point,

14 Judge Trechsel, and then --

15 JUDGE TRECHSEL: My document -- my question refers to this

16 document.

17 Mr. Stringer has put this to you and then said, Doesn't this show

18 that the Makljen was in possession and held by the HVO with heavy

19 weapons? And you have then answered that this was not so; on the

20 contrary, quite the reverse. Page 66, line 3, following. And you say,

21 line 5:

22 "Then was fierce fighting going on there."

23 And you refer this "there" to Crni Vrh and Makljen.

24 Now, if I look at the text that I have in an English translation,

25 which, of course, may not be correct, I read it differently. In the

Page 42867

1 text, Colonel Siljeg says:

2 "This morning, we have launched an attack on Gornji Vakuf from

3 the direction of Makljen. There is heavy fighting ongoing over there,

4 and therefore we cannot perform the evacuation."

5 In my reading, "there" does not refer to Makljen, where there is

6 nothing to evacuate, anyway, but to Gornji Vakuf. And so I think it's

7 not at all what you told us, but what Mr. Stringer suggested.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. The evacuation of

9 the wounded was supposed to take place from Bugojno, and it has nothing

10 to do with this. This -- well, Siljeg is writing to the brigade in

11 Bugojno, saying, We cannot -- or, rather, You cannot, because of the

12 fighting, take the wounded which were usually transported to Croatia via

13 that road, you cannot evacuate them. The wounded in Bugojno are the

14 result of the fighting between the BH Army and the HVO, on the one side,

15 and the Serbs. Bugojno is at peace. There's still fighting only the

16 with the Serbs. There are wounded, and they are being taken away. But

17 here the fighting started. There is no military reason -- Serb lines

18 were 20 kilometres. The BH Army did not have any military reason to be

19 on Makljen or Crni Vrh, which is a dominant height. Well, yeah, okay,

20 yes.

21 JUDGE TRECHSEL: That's not the question at all.

22 You pretend that "heavy fighting" refers to Makljen. I read this

23 document as saying that heavy fighting occurred in Gornji Vakuf, which

24 was under attack by the HVO, as Colonel Siljeg says.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know what kind of

Page 42868

1 translation you get. You go to Vakuf from the direction of Makljen, and

2 this is where there is fierce fighting. There's fierce fighting at

3 Makljen. I don't know if the translation is bad or you cannot get the

4 clarity of it all, but there is fighting at Makljen, because the BH Army

5 controls Crni Vrh and everything in Vakuf.

6 And it is important to note here that Siljeg says the greens,

7 that's the term for the Muslims, You in Bugojno should keep calm and try

8 to convince them that nothing should happen.

9 Well, at any rate, I still stand by the map, and the testimony,

10 and everything I said about Gornji Vakuf, and I'm ready to provide

11 additional explanations as you ask questions.

12 MR. KOVACIC: I think it is done with document, but regarding the

13 possibility of wrong or -- yes, wrong and maybe -- wrong translation, and

14 maybe that was the reason of confusion, when you read -- first of all,

15 the translation is unrevised, so it is not yet confirmed, really. And

16 when you read, in second and third line that:

17 "This morning we have launched an attack on Gornji Vakuf from the

18 direction of Makljen, there is heavy fighting ongoing over there ..."

19 I think that more correct translation would be:

20 "We have launched an attack on Gornji Vakuf from the direction of

21 Makljen, where heavy fighting is going on ..."

22 But perhaps somebody should read the entire document in Croatian.

23 So I'm not telling you it's entirely wrong, but it is not very precise,

24 and it might allow different interpretations.

25 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Would you please read the first two sentences on

Page 42869

1 the -- or the first -- actually, it's one sentence, the first sentence of

2 this order.

3 MR. KOVACIC: In the original document -- Mr. Praljak.

4 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Mr. Praljak.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And I quote:

6 "On the basis of your report, in which you demand an evacuation

7 of the wounded from Bugojno, we hereby inform you that since this morning

8 we have been in the throes of an attack on Gornji Vakuf from the

9 direction of Makljen, where there is heavy fighting, and the evacuation

10 cannot be carried out."

11 Full stop.

12 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you. As I see military activities, when

13 you attack point B from point A, then the heavy fighting is on point B.

14 If point A is under heavy attack, which is necessary that there is

15 fighting, you will not start an attack. But I leave it at that. I just

16 want you to know that I do not find your answer convincing, that's all.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, this last

18 document, if we understand the document well, there is a request to

19 evacuate wounded people from Bugojno. And Colonel Siljeg is answering,

20 saying that it is absolutely impossible to proceed for the following

21 reason: Because we have launched an attack on Gornji Vakuf from Makljen.

22 This is what he is answering.

23 Now, if you connect this document with the previous document we

24 saw earlier, when Crni is being captured, if I understand well, before

25 Gornji Vakuf, then there would have been an attack of the other position

Page 42870

1 held by the ABiH in Crni Vrh, and Gornji Vakuf would have been attacked

2 at a later stage secondly, or were the two attacks simultaneous?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All the elevations that were taken

4 by the BH Army were attacked simultaneously, the elevations taken to

5 control the HVO in Gornji Vakuf. So first Crni Vrh, and Crni Vrh is far

6 from Vakuf. It takes a while. One needs to fight for a long time

7 between Crni Vrh and Vakuf.

8 Perhaps my answers are not very convincing, but your military

9 knowledge, Judge Trechsel, is highly debatable.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. General Praljak,

11 please don't talk about the competence of Judges regarding military

12 matters, because they could prove you wrong.

13 Now, what I would like to say, but it's not in the English

14 version, you said, We attacked Crni first. Is this what happened, you

15 attacked Crni first? In the French interpretation, I heard "we first

16 attacked Crni."

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Siljeg launched the attack in the

18 direction of Crni Vrh, not from Crni Vrh. You have to take Crni Vrh and

19 then the next elevation, the next elevation, based on the disposition of

20 their units and as the units retreated. It's a war. There's a dynamics

21 of movement. It depends on whether somebody fled, is fighting back, or

22 surrendered to you.

23 Likewise, the dominant heights that the BH Army held in Vakuf

24 were also under attack. The repeater -- well, they had taken everything.

25 The map is crystal clear, the situation. And then as days went by, the

Page 42871

1 fighting progressed.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One last question. In terms of

3 military warfare, did the attack start from Makljen? This is what

4 Mr. Stringer was trying to highlight. Did everything start from Makljen?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. It's obvious that there were

6 other attacks before the 18th. Attacks were launched on some other

7 elevations, but this one was launched on the 18th.

8 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Mr. Praljak, will you please look at the

9 preceding document, 1162. I have, of course, only the English version,

10 and there what I would like to refer to is on the second page, but it

11 starts with reference to Mount Crni Vrh. It's the first page in the

12 Croatian document.

13 And two days before the document we have now been talking about,

14 we have this report which says, Mount Crni Vrh was taken, which was an

15 important stronghold. So what makes you tell us that two days later,

16 there is still an attack on Crni Vrh going on? This does not hold water,

17 Mr. Praljak.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour Judge Trechsel,

19 Crni Vrh is about 15 kilometres from Vakuf as the crow flies, and

20 probably there was a counter-attack. And 15 kilometres, well, that's not

21 the only elevation. They have a whole series. Now is starting --

22 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Please spare us your fantasy of, "probably this

23 was or that was" hypothesis. Nothing like that is borne out from the

24 document. But I will give back to Mr. Stringer now.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute. Before

Page 42874

1 what happened. You've seen that sometimes documents are ambiguous,

2 sometimes there are documents that are difficult to understand, which is

3 why we put questions.

4 Here we're talking about military matters, and we're trying to

5 understand what went on. Some might have the same competence as you,

6 some might have less, some might have more, but that's not the problem.

7 We're trying to intelligently understand what is written in all these

8 documents.

9 According to the Prosecution, an attack was launched on

10 Gornji Vakuf, and we're trying to place the forces on the field as they

11 were. Earlier, my fellow Judge was trying to understand how far Makljen

12 was from Gornji Vakuf. We have to know this. You just told us that it's

13 about 15 kilometres away. Very well; if you say so. If the Prosecutor

14 doesn't agree with you, he'll say, No, it's not 15; it's 5, or 10, or

15 whatever. We'll see.

16 But please, stay cool. Keep your cool. This is the very

17 beginning. And we're just talking about Gornji Vakuf.

18 Myself, just like my fellow Judges, like everyone here in this

19 room, is trying to understand whether the HVO attacked, whether the ABiH

20 attacked. Your case, up until now, was that it was the ABiH that

21 attacked first. And now, using the military documents, we're trying to

22 check whether this case holds water or not. Do you understand this?

23 And we need your active participation. We need you to answer the

24 questions. Do you understand this?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour Judge Antonetti, you

Page 42875

1 are a supreme French diplomat, in addition to being a marvellous judge,

2 but that's not what this is all about.

3 First of all, when you come to things like this, the map was kept

4 here for a minute, and then we proceeded to discuss without the map and

5 to get to a solution. If you want to talk about military issues, we

6 should have a big map here, I should be in a position to make markings on

7 the map, we should have five maps, so that -- well, of course, based on

8 the documents, I could then tell you how the situation evolved on the

9 basis of my knowledge.

10 Secondly, without getting embroiled in legal matters, I know full

11 well the depth of my ignorance here, but I know also things that I know.

12 His Honour Judge Trechsel cannot tell me twice and expect me not to

13 respond, and give me his arguments about how a military action proceeded

14 and then to tell me that I'm not telling the truth, that I'm lying, and

15 that this is not in line with the documents. Well, it doesn't work with

16 me. To put it quite simply, it doesn't work.

17 I really have a high regard for Judge Trechsel, and if he were to

18 fall into the river tomorrow, I would leap in and save him, as I have

19 done several times. But when it comes to my principles, my testimony,

20 and my life, there is no compromise, there can be no compromise. I will

21 answer the questions, and I would like to be given two maps here of the

22 area around Gornji Vakuf and to bring back the map that we had before so

23 that we can see where the BH Army units were deployed.

24 The problem, Judge Antonetti, is quite clear, Your Honour. An

25 English major testified here that the BH Army put a noose around the

Page 42876

1 HVO's neck in and around the town of Vakuf. No army can bear that, and

2 this is why an attack was launched on the elevations, the attack which I

3 stopped on the 23rd and the troops did not enter Vakuf.

4 These are the facts, and now questions, details -- every detail,

5 every question, I will deal with it, but this game of cat and mouse,

6 attack on A and then B, well, Slobodan Praljak is not the one to stand

7 for it. Clinton, Obama, and even if God himself came here, I would say,

8 No, Lord, I do not agree with you. And when it comes to everything else,

9 finding the truth here, I do not respect any authority in advance. You will

10 sign the judgement under your authority at the end. It is your right and it

11 gives you power. But until that time there is only the authority of logic.

12 I’m just telling the truth here to the best of my knowledge. I'm here to

13 tell the truth, and when the logic is all wrong, it's skewed, then I want to

14 say it. Believe me, Your Honours, with full respect to you, as persons --

15 well, this is a case in logic, methodology, epistemology, there are

16 things that I know, and I will not keep silent. I will answer any

17 question, I will admit to malingering, I will admit to everything, apart

18 from those things that are simply not true.

19 And could we please have a break now?

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Prlic.

21 THE ACCUSED PRLIC: [Interpretation] It's not about merits of the

22 case, but this is an unpleasant situation, and I might help to solve it.

23 I am from that area. When we say "Makljen," we mean the ridge

24 between the two mountains. Makljen is also a fairly big mountain, and in

25 this document, which was quoted by Judge Trechsel a moment ago, two lines

Page 42877

1 above what he quoted, it is stated that shots were fired from Makljen on

2 Crni Vrh, and then it goes on to say that a T-55 - it's probably a tank -

3 fired on Crni Vrh from Makljen. And Crni Vrh, the way I understand it,

4 is the highest -- it's the summit of the Makljen Mountain. So it's the

5 same as if you were to say somebody took Mont Blanc, and that means that

6 they took the Alps.

7 I'm just trying to help you all get some knowledge of the

8 situation. I'm not talking about the operations, because I don't know

9 much about that, but I do know about the lay of the land. And if I

10 helped you in the situation, then the purpose of my intervention has been

11 fulfilled.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you for this

13 information.

14 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Shortly, mainly a correction to the transcript

15 on page 73, line 24, we read:

16 "There is 50 kilometres between Crni Vrh and Gornji Vakuf."

17 I think it ought to read "15," not "50."

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct.

19 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm grateful for the assistance of Mr. Prlic. I

20 was referring to the next line, actually, where it simply says: "Mount

21 Crni Vrh was taken." Now, maybe there are other understandings, and I

22 read it in a certain way.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] General Praljak asked for a

24 break, and I think we need a break, so we'll resume in 20 minutes.

25 --- Recess taken at 12.28 p.m.

Page 42878

1 --- On resuming at 12.51 p.m.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The court is back in session.

3 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I thank you for

4 giving me the floor.

5 Following this whole discussion that we had, I went back to the

6 transcript just to reassure myself - page 73, lines 7 through 9.

7 Judge Trechsel literally said, I'll quote in English, just to make sure

8 there's no confusion, that was recorded:

9 [In English] "Spare us your fantasy of -- probably this was --

10 that was a hypothesis ..."

11 [Interpretation] And so on and so forth, another sentence that I

12 believe has nothing to do with this.

13 What I'm trying to say here is the use of this word that

14 Judge Trechsel used, vis a vis the accused, after the accused, in a

15 previous answer, stated nothing but two facts about mileage, so this is

16 in no way something that can be termed anyone's fantasy. Given the

17 nature of the reaction that this received, I can only say that I can

18 understand the statement in the following way. It actually expresses a

19 certain position and a certain conviction on the part of the Judge, the

20 position or the conviction that was put forward during a trial. This

21 might be an indicator of prejudice in terms of the conclusions being

22 made. Any sensible person could have read it this way. We don't even

23 need to talk. I have arrived at my conclusion, everything else is

24 fantasy.

25 I will give it some serious thought, whether I can perhaps ask

Page 42879

1 for Judge Trechsel to step down from the Chamber. I do believe that a

2 Judge who is part of the Chamber should not be allowed to address the

3 accused in this way before the OTP's cross has even begun.

4 Perhaps this was a piece of awkward phrasing by the Judge. Maybe

5 it was a bit too emotional. I'm not going into that. Perhaps the Judge

6 can explain. Nevertheless, the way it looks now on the transcript really

7 seems like someone is jumping to conclusions there and as if the Judge

8 already had his own solution made up in his head.

9 Thank you very much.

10 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you, Mr. Kovacic, for giving me an

11 opportunity to comment.

12 I would concede that the wording is perhaps not very well chosen,

13 absolutely, but I want to make it clear that this refers to line 5, where

14 Mr. Praljak said:

15 "Probably there was a counter-attack."

16 The facts were that we have a report of the 16th where

17 Colonel Siljeg reports, We have taken Crni Vrh. And two days later he

18 reports from Makljen, We attack Gornji Vakuf. Then Mr. Praljak said that

19 the heavy fighting, of which the colonel also wrote in his text, that

20 this was probably at Makljen because, always what Mr. Praljak said, they

21 were fighting to, first of all, free Crni Vrh. Now, as we have a

22 document in which Colonel Siljeg reports two days earlier that he has

23 taken Crni Vrh, and no document whatsoever which would suggest that there

24 had been a counter-attack, this reply from Mr. Praljak, I think, can be

25 called a fantasy or, as I have added, a hypothesis. It is a hypothesis;

Page 42880

1 however, it is not supported by the document. That is all which I

2 mentioned, and I find it difficult to regard this as depicting any form

3 of bias.

4 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] I thank you for this explanation,

5 Your Honour. Perhaps that constitutes a sufficient clarification. I'm

6 not sure I understand fully.

7 Nevertheless, the fact remains, the way your remark was phrased,

8 "Please spare us your fantasy," objectively it caused those present to

9 feel the way I have just described, and that is no fantasy, because we

10 are talking about facts derived from documents, which can in no way be

11 described as fantasy.

12 As for those documents, if you allow, each of us present here can

13 choose to read them in a different way.

14 Just by way of an example, the whole discussion was triggered by

15 3D00543. Questions were asked that were not entirely in keeping with

16 what we see on the map, and the discussion followed from that.

17 Mr. Praljak tried to say just that. As a matter of fact, at no point in

18 time did he manage to finish saying everything that he wanted to say.

19 The map is dated the 12th of January, and as he told us when he

20 first presented this map himself and, in part, explained today, it was

21 drawn based on such documents as were available in detention. This is an

22 attempt to display facts based on a number of different documents. The

23 snake-like arrow pointing towards the Makljen Pass, the lowest one, the

24 southern-most one in the map, if you like, is also a fact derived from a

25 document, an army document, showing that the army was planning to move in

Page 42881

1 that direction, or that was my understanding. Had all of that been

2 clarified properly, we'd all been privy to all the details and probably

3 none of this would have come to pass.

4 The point, however, is this: One must have patience. We are all

5 aware of the fact that we are dealing with an enormous amount of

6 documents. These three documents do not give us the whole picture. We

7 know that. We've heard evidence to that effect, and we're about to hear

8 more. Therefore, I'm afraid that this might be an indication of a

9 premature conclusion, because we've not heard a witness on this yet.

10 Thank you.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the document that we

12 see on our screens, P01162, the item that reads: "Crni Vrh has been

13 taken," right underneath it reads:

14 "Enemy forces attempting a breakthrough towards our unit's or our

15 force's positions were fired at and repelled in a vigorous way."

16 They did take Crni Vrh, which is some 15 kilometres from Vakuf as

17 the crow flies, but here the BH Army attempted yet another breakthrough

18 to approach those forces that were there. Sniper fire killed two scouts

19 from the Rama Brigade, two of those men who were reconnoitering the area

20 to see if there were any enemy forces ahead. We should take this hour by

21 hour and fact by fact. Unfortunately, it's not possible to just simplify

22 this altogether and explain a complex military operation, with all its

23 details, in just a couple of words. Nevertheless, it reads, Well, the

24 fact that Crni Vrh was taken does not mean that much, because this was

25 followed immediately by a small-scale counter-strike by the enemy, if we

Page 42882

1 can call it that.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] General Petkovic wants to take

3 the floor. Go ahead.

4 THE ACCUSED PETKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. A

5 technical matter. When we say "Crni Vrh," Your Honours, I think you said

6 that you were at Makljen, that you visited Makljen. If you face Prozor

7 from Makljen, Crni Vrh is the one to your left, the distance being about

8 7 or 8 kilometres. 1303 is one of many trig points at Crni Vrh. You can

9 fight around Crni Vrh for a whole day without taking Crni Vrh in its

10 entirety. This is a single trig point in Crni Vrh. It's a large

11 mountain that stretches for, I think, between 7 or 10 kilometres. It

12 starts at Karamustafici in Vakuf and stretches all the way towards the

13 south-east. You were at Makljen, and looking towards Prozor, Crni Vrh

14 was probably on your left. That is the large mountain. 1300 is a single

15 trig point, a single elevation there, technically speaking. You can

16 actually see that on the map. There are five or six references on that

17 map, Crni Vrh, Crni Vrh, Crni Vrh. It's a whole mountain starting near

18 Vakuf and extending towards the south-east.

19 So much for me. Thank you.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, General Petkovic,

21 for this clarification regarding the elevation. There is, indeed, an

22 elevation 1303, and there could be other elevations in one single

23 mountain.

24 I would like to go back to what Counsel Kovacic just said.

25 I think, Counsel Kovacic, that you have to make a distinction

Page 42883

1 between facts and the responsibility of the accused. I believe that a

2 Judge can say to an accused, You said this and that, and I don't agree

3 with that and that, without having to draw immediately conclusions as to

4 the responsibility of an accused. I personally asked questions to

5 Mr. Praljak because sometimes I don't agree with him, sometimes I said to

6 him or I made him understand such. So we may disagree on a point, and in

7 this very instance the accused can understand that a Judge disagree, and

8 it is the accused's duty to make sure that the Judge understands that

9 he's making a mistake; hence, the need to take the stand as an accused.

10 So I wanted to clarify this, because you have to make a

11 distinction between the position of a Judge on facts and a position of a

12 Judge in terms of criminal responsibility, which is not at all the same

13 thing. A Judge is perfectly in a position to draw a conclusion on a fact

14 and say, As far as I can see on the map that General Praljak has showed

15 us, it's 1.300 metres. And then we can say that the witness can say,

16 There is a mistake, that is an elevation, but there are other elevations

17 within the same mountain, without assuming that the Judge has drawn the

18 conclusions that all accused are guilty. This is the distinction that we

19 have to make.

20 So, Mr. Praljak, once again, when you feel that Judges do not

21 share your point of view, you keep your cool and you try and prove

22 otherwise. This is the whole point of an adversarial procedure. And the

23 fact that you are taking the stand means that we are going to have more

24 information about this case. So when you see that through Judges'

25 questions, they are going into one direction, and, according to you, you

Page 42884

1 feel that it's the wrong direction, you should very calmly say, Well, you

2 said this and that, but according to this and that document, it's not the

3 case, and you can tell the truth.

4 Mr. Springer.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour Judge Antonetti, I'm a

6 passionate person, and so is Judge Trechsel, and I --

7 MR. STRINGER: Excuse me. The President's given me the floor,

8 and I'm not, at the very beginning of this cross-examination, going allow

9 the general to do what he's done so many times before with the others.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. You'll come back to

11 that, General Praljak. I have given Mr. Stringer the floor, so he's

12 going to ask you questions.

13 Please, Mr. Stringer, ask your questions.

14 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President.

15 Q. General, this is not the Gornji Vakuf part of the

16 cross-examination. We're going to come back to it at a later time. I'm,

17 at this stage, focusing on specific things that you've said at various

18 times of your testimony. And for the moment I'm focusing on this one

19 aspect of your testimony that related to Gornji Vakuf concerning this map

20 and the testimony that you gave us indicating that on the 12th of

21 January, 1993, the only presence of the HVO, in your testimony, was the

22 police check-point on Makljen. Okay, that's the point I'm focusing on.

23 Now, I've shown you a series of documents, starting from the 12th

24 of January and extending for a few days after, indicating that, in fact,

25 the HVO had artillery pieces, multiple rocket-launchers, at the Makljen

Page 42885

1 feature which it used to launch an attack on Gornji Vakuf. Now, just to

2 tie this off, I want to take you to one more document, and then,

3 hopefully, we can round this off. It's the next document in your binder.

4 It's P01214. I think it's the document actually that your counsel,

5 Mr. Kovacic, made a reference to a few moments ago.

6 This is dated the 19th of January, 1993. It's a communication to

7 the Command of the 4th Corps, reporting on the situation in Gornji Vakuf.

8 This is obviously -- I say the 4th Corps. This is the 4th Corps of the

9 Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and what it said here is that:

10 "The situation in Gornji Vakuf is very complex. The attack of

11 the HVO units on this city is carried out from the direction of Prozor,

12 from the area of Makljen Pass."

13 And it goes on to say that:

14 "The city and our city defenders are under fire from all

15 artillery weapons...," et cetera.

16 And then - and this is something I think you referred to in your

17 testimony - this order, then, in paragraph 1 directs that the

18 Neretvica Brigade and adequate forces from Prozor are to be engaged in

19 taking over Makljen, and to hold that pass. All right?

20 Now, is it correct, then, that on the map you brought to the

21 courtroom, showed to the Judges, the green arrow here in the centre, the

22 squiggly arrow, and the indication "Neretvica" there, is a reference to

23 the operation of the ABiH that was carried out pursuant to this order to

24 take the Makljen feature?

25 A. Correct.

Page 42886

1 Q. All right. And so this is from the 19th of January, 1993;

2 correct?

3 A. Right.

4 Q. So what you've done here, General, is to include here -- well,

5 let me put it this way: Would you agree with me, sir, that it would not

6 be necessary for the ABiH to deploy the entire Neretvica Brigade and

7 other adequate forces from Prozor if the only thing that they had to take

8 on the Makljen feature was an HVO police check-point?

9 A. They should have engaged the HVO forces. They should have

10 reached the pass.

11 Q. First of all, I've been told that the transcript doesn't indicate

12 the general's answer to my last couple of questions, so let me ask those

13 to you again, General.

14 This is looking at your map, 3D00543. The wavy green line is a

15 reference to the operation of the Neretvica Brigade, is that correct,

16 that was carried out pursuant to the order which is P01214?

17 A. Correct. The road taken by the Neretvica Brigade to get there

18 and what it was supposed to do was drawn based on that order.

19 Q. So what you've done on this map is actually to reflect events not

20 just from the 12th of January, but also one week later, on the 19th of

21 January, where you've indicated the operation of the Neretvica Brigade;

22 right?

23 A. That's right, the positions were marked, as well as what the

24 Neretvica Brigade was supposed to get to.

25 Q. But, of course, what you didn't do, General, and what makes this

Page 42887

1 so misleading, and which makes your testimony so misleading, is the fact

2 that you omitted to include on the map all of the HVO artillery and guns

3 that were on the Makljen feature from this period between the 12th of

4 January to the 19th; isn't that true?

5 A. That's true, no maps were drawn showing the actions after the

6 12th. One was drawn in relation to the 12th and based on this order

7 marking the direction of the Neretvica Brigade's deployment.

8 Q. But the arrow marking the direction of the Neretvica Brigade's

9 deployment reflects events taking place one week later on the 19th;

10 correct?

11 A. That's correct.

12 Q. So what's missing here and which you would agree with me is

13 vitally important to understanding is the fact that what's missing is all

14 of the HVO big guns that were on the Makljen feature which gave rise to

15 the need for the Neretvica Brigade to go there in the first place?

16 A. The HVO did not have big guns. They were relatively small guns.

17 It's true that the Neretvica Brigade was thrown into action once the

18 combat was already underway, that's true.

19 Q. When you told Judge Antonetti, in response to his question, that

20 the only thing the HVO had on Makljen was an HVO police check-point, when

21 you were describing the content of this map that you produced, that

22 wasn't correct, that wasn't true, because you omitted to tell us about

23 the HVO artillery that was on that position; isn't that correct?

24 A. No, that is not correct, sir. I said specifically that when the

25 HVO operation began, the guns were brought in. It was sent to Prozor, a

Page 42888

1 certain number, and then a grenade launcher was also deployed at Makljen.

2 You have a time continuum here. On the 12th, there is no HVO artillery

3 there. Siljeg is only introducing it. The map in relation to the 12th,

4 the only inaccuracy it shows is the snake-like arrow showing the

5 introduction of Neretvica. For the sake of precision, there should have

6 been a remark there that read the 19th of January. That is the only

7 error. Everything else is accurate. But if you can't draw ten maps, you

8 have me here to answer any questions.

9 Q. I'm not going to argue with you about it. But isn't it more

10 correct to say that for the sake of precision, if you're going to make a

11 reference to the Neretvica operation of the 19th of January, you also

12 need to include the positions of the HVO artillery that were on the

13 Makljen feature at that time, the 19th?

14 A. Mr. Prosecutor, that would be your task. You have to prove an

15 HVO attack. You should be producing 20 maps with a timeline to each of

16 them, and then I would answer your questions. As in many other cases,

17 the position I'm facing here is that you haven't done your job properly.

18 You simply write something up, and it is up to us to defend ourselves by

19 proving our innocence. Draw all those maps based on documents, accurate

20 maps, hour by hour, day by day, instead of me having to draw maps for you

21 based on some general statements that you are making, in order to prove

22 my innocence. You are turning the tables around here, and it's not

23 right.

24 Q. You brought this map, you gave it to the Judges. You took it

25 upon yourself to do that. Now, the fact is - and I'm going to come back

Page 42889

1 to my question from previous - to be more precise and to be more

2 accurate, you should have indicated the position of the HVO guns on

3 Makljen on the 19th of January. Isn't that true?

4 A. Yes, that's true, I could do that, but I didn't.

5 Q. Thank you.

6 A. You do it yourself.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] General Praljak, we have a

8 document on the screen and it comes from the enemy, from the 4th Corps,

9 sent to Pasalic by the Supreme Command of the ABiH. In this document,

10 there is a description of the situation, from their side, of course, on

11 January 19, 1993. First point, the situation in Gornji Vakuf is very

12 complex; no one can deny this. Then they say there's an attack of the

13 HVO units from Makljen. We all agree on that also. Then there is no

14 attack of infantry yet. However, he says that the city is under

15 artillery fire, but I believe that in terms of facts, it's the rest

16 that's more important. He is saying that HVO forces come from

17 Tomislavgrad, Livno, and other cities from Herzegovina. That's what it

18 said in this document. Then there is the order, obviously, to do

19 something about the situation. There is an order given to the

20 Neretvica Brigade to engage its forces.

21 This is a very important document, you know, as far as -- when it

22 comes to knowing who attacked first, whether it's the HVO or the ABiH.

23 When reading this document, in terms of facts, any reasonable trier of

24 fact might infer or could infer that it's the HVO that attacked because

25 they brought troops from Tomislavgrad, Livno, and other towns in

Page 42890

1 Herzegovina that captured the Crni Hill, placed its artillery, and is

2 starting to shell the city.

3 Now, what can you say about this? What can you say about the

4 fact that using this -- by reading this document, it does look like it's

5 the HVO who started attacking.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, based on documents

7 that are exhibits before this Chamber, I drew this map in relation to

8 that particular date. The Neretvica bit was not added. What is true

9 beyond a shadow of a doubt is that the HVO's intention was to, by

10 attacking -- and in military terminology, this is called active defence,

11 and that must be reflected on the record. The HVO attacks the BH Army in

12 the sense of active defence, because the BH Army is a friendly army which

13 takes all the elevations in and around Gornji Vakuf, leaving the HVO in

14 the same situation that it left the HVO in, in Konjic and Bugojno later

15 on, pulling the rug from under its feet and hanging it to dry.

16 Militarily, that is something that one cannot allow. The VRS lines were

17 20 kilometres to the west, as the crow flies. It is not disputed that

18 the HVO is attacking.

19 But now we're all calm here, and, for example, someone from the

20 Defence or the Prosecutor starts bringing in machine-guns, saying, Don't

21 mind me, just you go on with your discussion. And then one of the

22 accused brings another machine-gun, and you start wondering, what's going

23 on here? If a brigade commander of a friendly army cannot reach his own

24 command without being escorted by UNPROFOR, we know by this time that we

25 are facing an aggressor army sealing off all communication towards

Page 42891

1 Central Bosnia and surrounding HVO on all sides, without defending their

2 lines facing the VRS. That is why the HVO is attacking. I shall say

3 this time and again. There is no dispute about this. The HVO is

4 attacking because it is defending. There is something called "defence."

5 Right or wrong? The Americans are attacking Iraq because they say they

6 are defending from biochemical weapons. It's just that we were entirely

7 in the right, and I don't know about Iraq, frankly.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] General Praljak, at least with

9 my question, you're now saying that you're not contesting the fact that

10 the HVO attacked. But of course you're saying that it was in the

11 framework of a defence operation, but it's still an attack.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Active defence.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, active defence.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Active defence.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

16 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President.

17 I'm going to skip a couple of documents that are in the binder.

18 Q. General, on the 5th of May, do you remember giving this testimony

19 about snipers, page 39581 of the transcript, you said --

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stringer, last time you

21 told us that you would proceed according -- along topics, different

22 topics. I forgot to ask you what the first topic was. Credibility, was

23 that it?

24 MR. STRINGER: I think you could put it that way, Mr. President.

25 It's a collection of items taken from specific pieces of evidence that

Page 42892

1 the general gave during his direct or during the cross of someone else,

2 and there are a few more related to this, going to prior testimony and

3 credibility. And then after that, we're going to move into some other

4 more substantive topics, yes.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

6 MR. STRINGER:

7 Q. General, on the 5th of May, 2009, you said:

8 "Secondly, never during the conflict between the BH Army and the

9 HVO did I ever receive information from anyone about the existence of any

10 sniper nest whatsoever. Now, the fact that people sitting in APCs heard

11 shooting and then said they were fired at by snipers, that goes against

12 the grain of logic, because if you're in an APC, you can't hear very

13 much."

14 So do you remember that testimony, denying knowing anything about

15 any sniper nests? That would have been on the 5th of May, so it was the

16 second day of your testimony, now quite some time ago.

17 A. You mean Mostar, as far as Mostar is concerned? That referred to

18 Mostar?

19 Q. Actually, I don't know. I mean, what you said here is:

20 "Never during the conflict between the BH Army and the HVO ..."

21 So that implies something that's broader than Mostar.

22 A. Mr. Prosecutor, it was related to Mostar. I remember very well.

23 I said that if there was the assertion that there were some sniper nests

24 in the town of Mostar, either of the BH Army or through UNPROFOR

25 mediation, I never received any report on the existence of any such

Page 42893

1 sniper nest which would shoot at civilians and the rest. That's what I

2 said, and that is what is correct.

3 Q. So, then, is it correct that you do not deny that the HVO

4 equipped sniper units and that you deployed those sniper units within the

5 HVO?

6 A. As every other army, the HVO had sniper rifles and people in

7 charge of that.

8 Q. All right. If you'll turn to the next document, it's P03912, and

9 just to confirm what you've said, General. I don't think it's

10 necessarily controversial.

11 This is an order by a gentleman with the 2nd HVO Brigade, and he

12 makes reference to a verbal order of Major General Slobodan Praljak.

13 It's dated the 3rd of August, 1993, in which he's ordering that members

14 of the sniper squad of the 2nd Brigade of the HVO in Mostar, and then he

15 gives the names of those individuals, that those -- that that sniper

16 squad is to report immediately to you in Prozor, and that this order then

17 is to serve as a pass for all the check-points.

18 So, General, isn't it true that the HVO did, in fact, have at

19 least one sniper unit in Mostar, as part of the 2nd Brigade, in August of

20 1993?

21 A. Correct.

22 Q. And then do you recall this specific event where you directed

23 that those -- the sniper squad was to leave Mostar and come report to you

24 in Prozor?

25 A. I don't deny that, but from this perspective I really can't

Page 42894

1 remember that particular event.

2 Q. Now, again related to snipers in Mostar, could you turn, please,

3 to the next document, P03351.

4 And, General, I'll point out to you that because this document is

5 dated the 10th of July, 1993, it's from the period prior to the time you

6 took command of the HVO Main Staff. This is a report on the work of the

7 Defence Department, and so this document, I believe, is one emanating

8 from the office of Mr. Stojic.

9 I'm going to direct you to page 9 of the English version, page 7

10 of your version, the bottom quarter of the English version. I'll read

11 you some -- I'll read a little bit of text, General, and then tell me

12 when you've found it. It says:

13 "At our request, training was organised for snipers because an

14 evident problem in Mostar was that the other side that exceptionally good

15 snipers which, in fact, thwarted the operations of our units."

16 Are you with me?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. "Six pairs of snipers were trained, and at the end of the course

19 their results were up to five times better than when they first began

20 training. Among the problems encountered during the course was the lack

21 of weapons of sufficient quality and the lack of time, as this is a very

22 complex subject. All the trainees were exceptionally satisfied, and now

23 the score of sniper battles in Mostar is up to six to one in our favour."

24 So, General, at a later point in the cross-examination, we're

25 going to talk about the situation in Mostar, specifically as regards

Page 42895

1 snipers. But just for our purposes here I wanted to clarify, at the very

2 least, your testimony, that you had no information from anyone about the

3 existence of any sniper nest whatsoever.

4 Now, in fact, General, based on what you've said and what's

5 indicated in this document, the HVO did possess snipers that it deployed

6 in Mostar and elsewhere; correct?

7 A. Judging by this document and according to what I know, the HVO

8 did have snipers. When I was referring to sniper nests, I was referring

9 to those sniper nests for which it was claimed they shot at civilians, on

10 the basis of the papers brought in by the expert witness, and I stated my

11 views on that.

12 Q. We're going to talk about the targeting issue later, but I wanted

13 to clarify, at least for now, the existence of snipers within the HVO,

14 based on the one bit of testimony that I directed you to. So we'll come

15 back to this.

16 The next item I have, General, and --

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] General Praljak, still

18 regarding facts, this document on snipers is quite important because it

19 does reveal that the HVO had snipers.

20 I'm looking at the date, July 10th, 1993. Now, when looking at

21 the document read by Mr. Stringer, Mr. Stringer, who read this last

22 paragraph, they said that on the other side, that's the ABiH, I guess,

23 maybe also the Serbs, but it's not really clear. It says that on the

24 other side, they have exceptionally good snipers, so -- and the HVO is

25 lacking in this respect. So six pairs of snipers, does that mean twelve

Page 42896

1 snipers? Twelve snipers, six pair of snipers? Yes. Twelve snipers are

2 going to be trained, and then the ratio is going to be switched over,

3 because after training, the ratio is 6:1 in favour of the HVO now.

4 So first consequence regarding facts: Any Judge would like to

5 know whether the HVO had snipers before July 10th, whether these snipers

6 were trained as of July 10th. If the HVO had no sniper before July 10th,

7 then all those killed before July 10th can't be blamed on the HVO

8 because, by definition, the HVO would have had no snipers. But then

9 after July 10th, all those killed, well, there's a mathematical

10 probability that they might have been killed by the HVO snipers who were

11 well trained, as we see here.

12 What's your position?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know. What I can say is

14 that while I was commander, snipers did exist, that they were trained

15 ones, that they had gone through training, which also meant that they

16 were taught who they had the right to fire at and why, that is to say, to

17 shoot enemy soldiers, and here they claim that this Skoko who was killed

18 came in 61, HVO 61. We saw documents showing that a number of English

19 citizens, some of them members of previous English armies, were in the

20 HVO, and I sent them packing from the HVO, and then they joined up with

21 the BH Army. And we saw a document whereby they were paid. One of them

22 was exceptionally good, and he was able to kill HVO soldiers even through

23 little gaps of this size. He could wait for hours, see in the dark, and

24 Santic's men told me how very skilled and dangerous he was. So that's

25 all I can say.

Page 42897

1 Snipers did exist, but I was speaking about sniper nests and

2 civilians, and I've said all that before. I was never informed about

3 that in any way, that that was being done, and I stand by my statement.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes.

5 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Mr. Praljak, two -- excuse me, Mr. Stringer.

6 Two questions. The first, a very easy one that can shortly be answered.

7 When you took over with the HVO, did you read this report?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

9 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.

10 And the second question, perhaps you can help me understand,

11 because I do not quite understand the meaning of the mentioning here

12 that, I quote from the English text, of course:

13 "Now the score of sniper battles in Mostar is up to 6:1 in our

14 favour."

15 What does this mean, "the score of sniper battles"?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mostly, Judge Trechsel, the sniper

17 is used to eliminate the adversary's sniper. That's what happens most

18 often. And this report claims that the HVO snipers killed six times more

19 of their combatants and snipers than they were able to kill ours. So

20 that's it.

21 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.

22 JUDGE PRANDLER: I'm sorry, Mr. Stringer, again to disturb you

23 and not to allow you to speak, but it is a follow-up question of mine

24 about the snipers, and also referring to the President's previous

25 question about the dates. When he said that July the 10th is a kind of

Page 42898

1 dividing line concerning the sniper's activity, I would like only to say

2 that according to the title of the report on page 1 in the English

3 version, I believe that is of the English, anyway, that it is a report on

4 the work of the Defence Department for the January-June 1993 period, end

5 of the quotation, and therefore I believe that July the 10th is not -- of

6 course, this report is dated July the 10th. On the other hand, the

7 report speaks about the six months before, that is, January-June. So my

8 question is that: What is in the report, you mentioned that you didn't

9 read the report at that time, but, anyway, you have it before you, that

10 those subject matters which are being read in the report, they are --

11 they are meant to cover the period of the first year -- sorry, first half

12 a year of 1993. So my question is that it is your understanding as well,

13 what I am saying, that it is a report on the first year of -- first half

14 year of 1993?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour Judge Prandler, this is

16 correct, but the fighting in Mostar started on the 30th of June, and in

17 all likelihood the snipers on both sides started operating on the 30th of

18 June, 1993, onwards.

19 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would like to

20 intervene because this might cause some confusion.

21 If we look at how this document is marked in e-court, it's marked

22 as a military police report on the work for the first part of 1993, so

23 the Prosecution described this as a report on the work of the military

24 police and not of the Defence Department. If you look at the document

25 that we have in our hands, we will see that on the first page, it says:

Page 42899

1 "The report on the work of the Defence Department," but if you look at

2 the contents of the document from page 1 to the last page, it pertains to

3 the military police, at least the way we have it printed out. I didn't

4 have time to go through all of it in e-court.

5 So this is a report of the military police, so lest there be some

6 confusion, the witness responding on something that does not have to do

7 with the military element of the HVO.

8 MR. STRINGER: Well, Mr. President, we've referred to the title

9 of the document as it appears. No one's saying that the title is

10 incorrect. I think we can all read and determine for ourselves, you

11 know, whether it relates to a specific part of the Defence Department or

12 not.

13 Judge Prandler actually anticipated one of the clarifications I

14 was going to seek, which was that this report pertains to the period of

15 January to June of 1993, which would suggest that the training of the

16 snipers that's referred to in this report would have taken place at some

17 time during that period, but we don't -- we don't know when.

18 I'd be really grateful if I could just try to continue my

19 cross-examination without so much intervention. It's extremely --

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Rest assured, Mr. Stringer,

21 when Judges put questions, it's not deducted from your time. You will

22 have your 40 hours, all of them. No risk to that.

23 But Ms. Alaburic did raise a problem. Look at the report in the

24 B/C/S version. There's a first page, cover page. It's the report from

25 the Department of -- report on the Department of Defence for the first

Page 42900

1 semester of 1993, as my fellow Judge Prandler said. Now take a look at

2 the second page in B/C/S, and there it starts at point 2.33. So

3 obviously there are other pages, but they're missing. The report, in

4 English, translated into English, might hint at the fact that it's a

5 direct report, but what we have here is not a full report. We only have

6 excerpts of this report. The previous pages are missing.

7 Do you agree with this, Mr. Stringer? It's not a full report

8 that we have; it's only a partial report.

9 MR. STRINGER: It appears we have what I'd call a part of

10 chapter 2. It clearly begins with section 2, and so that implies that

11 there's a section 1 somewhere. I think -- I was just saying to my

12 colleague, Ms. Moe, that I believe that this is a part of a larger

13 Defence Department report that has chapters from all the various

14 departments, and we can look for that or clarify that over the break --

15 or over the weekend, I should say.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, yes, you have the entire

17 weekend to do that, because I think it's time to finish, Mr. Stringer, at

18 least for this week. Actually, it's almost quarter to, and we're going

19 to adjourn, come back -- I'm sure you have other binders than this one,

20 right, Mr. Stringer? But you only give us the first one; right?

21 MR. STRINGER: Well, what's happening, Mr. President, is I

22 indicated a couple of weeks ago that we're trying to -- in order to

23 assemble them in the order that they'll be referred to, it's a continuing

24 process. And I should also say that because we're only one week away

25 from the beginning of the summer recess, we're improvising a little bit,

Page 42901

1 and rather than starting on a big subject that we won't be able to

2 complete before the summer recess, I think we're going to try to move to

3 some smaller areas that we can hopefully finish before the summer recess.

4 So we're improvising, and I can assure you, Mr. President, there will be

5 more binders to come.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We're expecting them with

7 baited breath.

8 Thank you all, and we will resume Monday at 2.15.

9 [The witness stands down]

10 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.44 p.m.,

11 to be reconvened on Monday, the 13th day of July,

12 2009, at 2.15 p.m.