091203ED

Page 47670

1 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. President. Good afternoon each of

2 Your Honours; good afternoon to all counsel in all the courtroom and to

3 those assisting us.

4 WITNESS: FILIP FILIPOVIC [Resumed]

5 [Witness answered through interpreter]

6 Cross-examination by Mr. Scott: [Continued]

7 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Filipovic. Sir, I think, although there

8 could be a few more details of the -- of the type that I was putting to

9 you yesterday afternoon that we might cover, I believe in the interest of

10 time we will move forward to some other topics. We may come back to some

11 of the others as we go.

12 I would like to turn briefly to the topic, please, of the

13 political dimension of the military, if you will; that is, in most

14 militaries around the world ultimately the military is subject to what's

15 often called civilian or political control. You understand that concept

16 when I say that?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And when you testified in the Kordic case, when that question was

19 put to you, do you accept that the overall command of this war was

20 political? You gave the answer:

21 "Every side had a political decision or, rather, was under

22 political administration."

23 Would that be your same answer today?

24 A. If you mean sides to the conflict, yes.

25 Q. Well, perhaps to keep it simple and perhaps what we've been

Page 47671

1 talking about in the course of this case, on the Croat side, so to speak,

2 on the Muslim side, on the Serb side, each side had its political

3 dimension and political leadership; is that correct?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And when you were asked further in the Kordic case to say

6 specifically who on the Croatian side, you said it was the president of

7 the Croat Community of Herceg-Bosna and the government of the Croat

8 Community of Herceg-Bosna. And would you stand by that?

9 A. I'm not sure I said the government, because I didn't know of any

10 government in existence, but I did know about Mate Boban.

11 Q. Well, I believe you did say, sir, at least that's the way it was

12 interpreted in the English transcript of your testimony. There was the

13 president --

14 "There was the president of the Croat Community of Herceg-Bosna

15 and there was also the government of the Croat Community of Herceg-Bosna

16 as political bodies of that side."

17 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] I apologise to my learned friend

18 Scott. Would I like to intervene into the transcript and my colleague

19 Suzana also mentioned it. In the transcript it reads:

20 [In English] "I'm not sure. I said the government ..."

21 [Interpretation] The witness said: "I'm not sure I said the

22 government." This should be one sentence, and I believe that it's very

23 important and it should be rectified. Thank you.

24 MR. SCOTT: All right. Thank you for that, Counsel.

25 Q. Let me restate my question. Sir, what I understood you to say a

Page 47672

1 moment ago was that you don't recall -- or perhaps whether you've said in

2 your previous testimony in the Kordic case, government -- mentioned the

3 government or not, I will refer you and if any in the courtroom wishes to

4 inquire to page 17127 of the Kordic transcript where the answer you gave

5 to that question was:

6 "There was the president of the Croatian Community of

7 Herceg-Bosna and there was also the government of the Croat Community of

8 Herceg-Bosna as political bodies of that side."

9 Now, that's the quote of the record that -- in a courtroom just

10 like this that you gave in your earlier testimony.

11 Now, would you agree with that today, stand by that today?

12 A. Could you please specify the time. Three and a half long --

13 years of war were too long. I don't know whether there existed a

14 government in April, May 1992. This is the time I refer to. But I'm --

15 I was sure that in 1993 there was a government.

16 Q. Very well, sir. So let me -- I'm happy to assist. By the latter

17 part of 1992, let's say, by the second half of 1992 and at least through

18 all of 1993, would your answer be that on the -- in terms of political

19 leadership or political control of the military that involved the

20 president of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, which I think there

21 would be no dispute was Mate Boban, and also the government of the Croat

22 Community of Herceg-Bosna?

23 A. I'm sure about 1993.

24 Q. And when you mentioned before the government of the Croat

25 Community of Herceg-Bosna, that was sometimes called the HVO HZ HB;

Page 47673

1 correct?

2 A. HVO HZ HB was everything, both the government and the military

3 and the whole system. This is how I understood it to be.

4 Q. The government that you mentioned before and that you're

5 mentioning again today, the president of that government was

6 Jadranko Prlic?

7 A. In May 1993 the president of that government was Jadranko Prlic,

8 yes.

9 Q. And why do you happen -- why do you associate that in particular

10 with May 1993?

11 A. Because I was there. I personally felt that.

12 Q. Personally where?

13 A. I was in that area, in Mostar, after having spent some time in

14 the premises of the Spanish Battalion. We were taken to Medjugorje, and

15 then before I finally returned to Bosnia for ten days I was there and I

16 was able to experience the activities of those -- of that government.

17 Q. Well, sir, I'm not going to let you off quite that easily, I'm

18 afraid. During the examination by the various Defence teams, you

19 provided all sorts of information. There was at least one question,

20 because I timed it, there was one question that took nine minutes to ask,

21 covered pages of material, many, many different facts, many, many

22 different events, and you're only too happy to confirm yes, all that's

23 true.

24 Now, sir, you were the deputy commander of the Central Bosnia

25 operative zone. You were the number two most senior commander in that

Page 47674

1 area. You were fighting with these people. You were fighting in a

2 command structure, and you're certainly not going to sit here and tell

3 these Judges that during 1992 and 1993 you didn't know who the president

4 of the Croatian government was, the HVO government? Are you really going

5 to tell the Judges you didn't know that?

6 A. I know about the area of the Lasva Valley. I spent 10, 12 hours

7 every day to fight, to be on the front lines. I would go to Jajce, stay

8 there for a couple of times.

9 There was a government at the municipal level. There were

10 attempts to organise a county-level government. I know that a cabinet

11 was prepared for the county prefect in Travnik, but, sir, I as deputy

12 commander, I was visiting the front lines. I was touring the front

13 lines. I was in the trenches. I'm not your typical deputy commander of

14 a typical army which has its staff, all the elements, et cetera, and this

15 is why I'm sometimes uncertain about other things. I will provide

16 precise answers about things that I'm certain about.

17 Q. Well, let me see if this might help you. Mr. Praljak has

18 testified under oath at this Tribunal that three senior Bosnian Croat

19 political leaders who exercised leadership in connection with the HVO

20 armed forces were Mate Boban; Jadranko Prlic, head of the HVO government;

21 and Bruno Stojic, head of the HVO Department of Defence. Now, would you

22 agree with Mr. Praljak on that?

23 MS. TOMANOVIC: [Interpretation] Just a second, please. If

24 Mr. Scott could refer to the page of the transcript where Mr. Praljak

25 allegedly said that. I believe that this is customary procedure when a

Page 47675

1 witness is confronted which by other testimony, and this is proper

2 procedure and I ask for it to be honoured.

3 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I would like to refer to that. I

4 can hear Mr. Praljak. I know his style, and he just confirmed that he

5 never said that in this courtroom.

6 MR. SCOTT:

7 Q. Well, let's turn to Exhibit P10007, please. P10007. You can

8 turn there, please, sir. They will be in numerical order, and I suspect

9 it's going to be back -- toward the back of that binder.

10 MR. SCOTT: If we could have the assistance of the usher, please,

11 just to try to save some time. 10007. We might need a second binder.

12 This is going to be too slow. We're having problems here.

13 Q. Sir, if you will turn to page 9637 of that transcript, just so

14 you'll have a frame of reference. I'll read this to you and the

15 translators will be kind enough to help us. They should have a copy --

16 the booth should have a copy of this. If not, I'll try to be as clear as

17 possible.

18 At page 9637, the interpreter interpreting a tape of an interview

19 of Mr. Praljak setting up questions that follow:

20 "At the time of the conflict in Prozor or the conflict in Vakuf

21 or the conflict in Travnik, we were strong enough militarily at the time

22 to, say, take a territory that could become a banovina or some features

23 of that. We were definitely strong enough, but we did not have

24 permission to strike first.

25 "Mr. Scott:

Page 47676

1 "Q. Do you recall saying that, sir?"

2 Then we get into a page or so of discussion between counsel and

3 the Court.

4 Toward the bottom of page 9638 the question continues:

5 "Well, my only further question on that, sir, based on what

6 you've just said and based on the transcript of his prior interview,"

7 interview he gave to the interview to the BBC, Mr. Praljak, it says that:

8 "We were not allowed to hit first. Who decided or who made the

9 decision according, to you, that you were not allowed to hit first?

10 "A. The decision -- the decision about that we were not to

11 strike first was taken by the political leadership of the Croat community

12 Herceg-Bosna."

13 Skipping to line 8 on that page:

14 "Q. When you say the political leadership of the Croatian

15 Community of Herceg-Bosna at that time, can you just name for the Chamber

16 some individuals that you would have included in that leadership?"

17 And once again there's discussion between counsel and the Court.

18 If I can direct the courtroom's attention to page 9643, line 10.

19 Mr. Boban -- excuse me, my apologies. Mr. Praljak resumes giving an

20 answer:

21 "I will limit to only one name which was superior to me in

22 military terms and that is Mr. Mate Boban, of course, needless to say I

23 knew others personally, but as the information about the structure of the

24 civilian part of the HVO, the political part, that is, is very precisely

25 expounded in the many documents. Allow me not to mention their functions

Page 47677

1 at this moment.

2 "Q. Well I appreciate that, sir, but I'm going to press you

3 a moment longer, because I do think you gave an answer to the Chamber and

4 I think the Chamber should be provided a bit more information. Now,

5 clearly this group was not simply Mate Boban acting alone."

6 Going to page 9644, line 1:

7 "A. Bruno Stojic was first head of the office, head of the

8 defence office of the HVO. Mr. Jadranko Prlic was the Prime Minister of

9 the HVO. Mr. Bagaric was head of hospitals or what you call it,

10 medicine, not only military healthcare and military hospitals of the HVO.

11 "Q. All right, sir. You would include all those individuals

12 within the political leadership that you stated --"

13 And this all started with -- the question is:

14 "What political leadership did not give you permission to strike

15 first?

16 "You would include in that -- within the political leadership

17 that you stated included in your answer a few minutes ago; is that

18 correct?

19 "A. Yes. They were the political leadership, a part of the

20 political leadership."

21 So that's the foundation of my question, sir. Would you agree

22 with Mr. Praljak that the political leadership most directly connected

23 with the HVO armed forces were Mr. Boban, Mr. Stojic, and Mr. Prlic?

24 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, just one remark. It

25 seems to me that it would be fair for the Prosecutor to use -- to use

Page 47678

1 Mr. Praljak's testimony before this court and not this one. This is

2 Tuta -- Tuta and Stela case. My learned friend, it would be much fairer

3 to confront -- to have confronted Mr. Praljak with this section while he

4 was examining --

5 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Mr. Kovacic, I'm rather amazed. Is it for you

6 to tell the Prosecutor how the Prosecutor is to conduct its

7 cross-examination?

8 MR. KOVACIC: No.

9 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Can you put anything here that would warrant an

10 objection that the Chamber should say this was not correct?

11 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if you allow me to

12 respond to your question. Of course of it's not up to me to decide. It

13 is up to you to decide. I'm going to explain, if you allow me, why I

14 raised this objection. If you let -- may I finish? You're not allowing

15 me to finish.

16 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I do not think that we should listen to such an

17 explanation, because it is not for you to give advice. It's not for us

18 either, as long as things go within the rules. We respect both sides.

19 The parties decide on how they conduct their examination and the

20 cross-examination. We often think that something else might perhaps be

21 more useful, but we -- if we start to allow such discussions, can you

22 imagine where we get and when we finish, because everyone has ideas of

23 what would be fairer or more effective and all that. I think it's an

24 improper intervention, Mr. Kovacic. I'm sorry.

25 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much for your

Page 47679

1 position, Your Honour. If you do not allow me to finish my objection or

2 explanation of the grounds for that objection, then I obviously do not

3 have the right to express that. If you allow me to finish my

4 explanation, then you can decide whichever way you choose, because that's

5 your prerogative. So if you forbid me to explain, I will sit down. If

6 you allow me, I will explain what I started explaining and was

7 interrupted before I finished my sentence.

8 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I do not stop you.

9 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. So I may

10 finish my sentence. My objection is to this: First, for purposes of

11 fair trial, this transcript or the statement of General Praljak from the

12 Naletilic case, if the Prosecutor thinks that this is in discrepancy with

13 what Mr. Praljak said while examined here, then he should have confronted

14 General Praljak with that statement while he was being examined. That's

15 the first objection.

16 The second: Does anybody in this courtroom think it was -- it is

17 reasonable to believe that this witness, having listened to this

18 quotation from the transcript, could understand what it's all about? So

19 my second objection goes to this: May the witness be confronted with

20 those relevant statements in Croatian so that he could understand? I had

21 difficulties following what was being said without a hard copy. Witness

22 is now being brought into situation where he cannot find his bearings and

23 does not know what is going on.

24 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Just one short objection. My

25 learned friend's question recorded on page 10, 18 -- lines 18, 19, and 20

Page 47680

1 where he asks the witness whether you agree that Mr. Praljak said that

2 the political leadership direct -- was directly tied to the military part

3 of the HVO, that they -- those numbered Prlic, Boban, and Stojic, but

4 let's look at the pages that my learned friend showed to the witness.

5 Mr. Praljak, on page 9643 of the transcript shown to him today

6 from the previous testimony, at line 10, 11, expressly stated that his

7 immediate superior was Mate Boban.

8 Furthermore, whatever was read out is quoting Mr. Praljak as to

9 who were the political leaders of the HVO HZ HB, but he expressly stated

10 in those lines that the only person immediately superior to him was

11 Mr. Boban, and my learned friend's question is misleading to the witness

12 because it doesn't -- what he says doesn't follow from what is recorded

13 in the transcript.

14 Thank you.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I wanted to say the following:

16 As a rule, I, and I'm not the only one in this Tribunal,

17 President Robinson said so in another trial, I do not like objections

18 very much because they are a waste of time. You don't have a jury here.

19 You have professional Judges in front of you, and all of the Judges have

20 taken part in trial proceedings and they know what a question is and what

21 an answer to a question is. That's the first thing.

22 In this instance, Mr. Scott put a very simple, innocent question

23 to the general. He asked whether the witness was able to say whether the

24 military structure was controlled by the political structure. It's a

25 very classic question in any democracy. Is there a control of the

Page 47681

1 political over the military? And the witness answered, "I don't know,

2 because at the time I was fighting on the front line." Very good. That

3 may have been so, but it is rather surprising that somebody of his rank

4 and importance, he was a colonel or lieutenant-colonel in the former JNA,

5 that he should not know that the political leadership controls the

6 military leadership. That in and of itself is surprising, but you never

7 now. And then Mr. Scott continues and says, "Look, when General Praljak

8 testified, he was asked a question and he answered that among the

9 political figures of the time there was Mate Boban, Mr. Prlic,

10 Mr. Stojic, et cetera. That's all. That's all General Praljak said.

11 So General Praljak knew when he answered Mr. Scott back then that

12 there was the military power and the political power, and Mr. Scott is

13 trying to convey to the general -- to this witness the following: If

14 General Praljak said that, can this witness confirm this or not? And now

15 we have a whole host of objections, and I'm at a loss, I must say.

16 Please proceed, Mr. Scott.

17 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Your Honours.

18 Q. Sir, I've just read extensively from the prior sworn testimony of

19 Mr. Praljak at this very Tribunal, and the specific question that led to

20 those answers was: What political leadership would not give permission

21 to strike first, if the army had sufficient strength, could take a

22 territory that could become a banovina, but, "we did not have permission

23 to strike first," which led to the question of: Well, who -- who had to

24 give that permission? That led to questions about the political

25 leadership. When pressed, Mr. Praljak named four people at least,

Page 47682

1 Mr. Boban, Mr. Prlic, Mr. Stojic, and Mr. Bagaric.

2 Now, does that assist you, sir, in remembering the political

3 people who were over your chain of command as the number two commander in

4 the Central Bosnia operative zone?

5 A. May I remind you that I am a layperson and that you've worked on

6 this case for years. I have been read and quoted many things which I do

7 not have before me, but doesn't matter.

8 I repeat, it is very important that you pinpoint the period that

9 your question refers to. What I know for certain is that Prlic was the

10 president of the government in May 1993, because in one case when we

11 visited Konjic and Jablanica with respect to refugees, we had to

12 coordinate our actions, and then Zubak and Stojic and Prlic, as far as I

13 could remember, and Tadic, they attended that meeting, that coordination

14 meeting. So I personally experienced that they were those in charge of

15 civilian matters pertaining to refugees, and this is what I can testify

16 about.

17 Q. Well, perhaps we'll come back to that in a bit. I don't want to

18 stop and spend more time on it just at this moment. I put it to you,

19 sir, that your knowledge, however, is substantially more than you're

20 leading this Court to believe.

21 Now, when did you become, by the way, the head of the Central

22 Bosnia Operative Zone, or what by that point may have been called the

23 Vitez Military District, because sometime in the spring of 1994,

24 Mr. Blaskic left to take a senior position in Herzegovina. When did you

25 become commander of that zone or military district?

Page 47683

1 A. In April 1994 I became commander of the Operative Zone of Central

2 Bosnia.

3 Q. And do you recall who appointed you to that position?

4 A. I think that it was Soljic or maybe Zubak. I don't know exactly.

5 Q. And you remained in that position, then, as head of the Central

6 Bosnia Operative Zone or Vitez District for how long?

7 A. Almost a year, until April 1995.

8 Q. During the first several months that you were in that position,

9 during the period -- let's concentrate because you've asked about time,

10 so I'll try to assist you. Focusing in particular on April, May, June of

11 1994, when ranks or positions in the units subordinate to you in the

12 Central Bosnia zone, when the question of ranks and positions came up,

13 can you tell us what the process was for determining and awarding ranks

14 when you were the commander?

15 A. In May 1994, first ranks were awarded in the HVO at the proposal

16 of brigades through the military district and the Government of

17 Herceg-Bosnia took the decision. Soljic, it was him. He was the

18 president of the government.

19 Q. Soljic was the president of the government or president of the

20 Defence Department who succeeded at some point -- well, strike that.

21 What was -- what did you know of Mr. Soljic's position at that

22 time? He was president of the HVO government?

23 A. I think that he was president of that government, yes.

24 Q. And your role as commander, what would you do? Did you propose,

25 initiate, approve? "I have brigade commanders under my command. I have

Page 47684

1 a vacancy. I need a new commander of one of the brigades. I think that

2 this man should take that post. I propose or I put him forward to

3 someone or -- for approval." So did you have the authority to do that,

4 and if you did, was it to Mr. Soljic that you made that application

5 during that time?

6 A. As far as ranks were concerned and proposals, I did have

7 authority to propose commanders of brigades and deputy commanders of

8 brigades. When it came to lower ranks and positions, I would consult

9 brigade commanders. That was forwarded to the Government of

10 Herceg-Bosnia. I do not know exactly who was there, but when the first

11 promotions came, then I was promoted to the rank of brigadier when that

12 first wave of promotions came in May 1994.

13 Q. And who put you forward or appointed you the rank of brigadier?

14 A. I was probably put forward by Blaskic. Blaskic, yes.

15 Q. All right. Now, I'd like to turn to the topic of the Serbs --

16 the Serbs and JNA again for just a few moments.

17 As I recall, sir, from various documents that I reviewed, in the

18 spring of 1992 you arranged for the JNA in the Travnik area to withdraw

19 from their barracks peacefully and take their weapons with them; is that

20 correct?

21 A. I agreed that the JNA should leave the Travnik barracks and that

22 each individual should take their personal weapons with them.

23 Q. Approximately when did that occur, sir?

24 A. On the 6th of May, 1992.

25 Q. And, sir, can you tell the Judges whether -- was that around the

Page 47685

1 time that Mr. Boban and Mr. Karadzic reached their agreement in Graz?

2 A. I don't think that that has anything to do with it, but I don't

3 exclude the possibility either.

4 Q. Well, if you're at war with the Serbs at the time, which you've

5 told us yesterday and throughout your testimony that you were, why would

6 you allow them to leave peacefully and take their arms with them unless

7 there was some sort of agreement?

8 MR. SCOTT: Excuse me. We don't need comments from the other

9 side of the courtroom.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In Travnik the barracks takes up a

11 whole valley in the town and I had to pass by that way, and I was

12 considered to be an enemy by the Serbs, but I thought that it was -- that

13 they should leave, and I think that it was dignified to allow soldiers to

14 take their weapons with them, because their main purpose was to leave

15 Travnik, and five Croats and five Muslims, leading ones - I was among

16 them - we were hostages guaranteeing that they would be able to pull out

17 freely from the Travnik municipality. I could go into details, but I

18 don't think that's relevant. Karadzic, Graz, and all the rest it has

19 nothing to do with it. It was a purely military affair.

20 MR. SCOTT:

21 Q. You say that now, sir, but a moment ago you said you weren't

22 sure, and the timing is that that's exactly around the time that Graz

23 occurred, and we can look at those -- the Chamber can look at those

24 documents when we have time to do so.

25 Sir, the point did -- let me ask you this: How many JNA soldiers

Page 47686

1 were allowed to leave the barracks peacefully with their weapons at that

2 time?

3 A. There were about 500 or 600 soldiers.

4 Q. Now, I'd like to jump to another question related to the Serbs on

5 the JNA. You've also told us through the course of your testimony -- and

6 I'm now going to focus on a very specific time period, sir, and again

7 you've asked me to do that. So please keep this in mind. Here's my

8 question: After the fall of Jajce, which is about the 29th of October,

9 1992, after 29 October 1992, until approximately February 1994, so we're

10 talking about something like perhaps a 16-month period, in Central

11 Bosnia, specifically Central Bosnia, the area in which you were the

12 deputy commander, can you identify to the Judges the instances in which

13 there was significant actual fighting between the HVO and the Serbs

14 during that time period in that area?

15 I'm not talking -- let me further clarify. I'm not talking about

16 people -- soldiers on each side serving in shifts on a confrontation

17 line. That's not what I'm talk -- I'm talking about actual combat

18 operations where there was significant fighting between the HVO and the

19 Serbs. Can you identify those instances, please?

20 A. For example, the operation that I led myself personally sometime

21 in February 1992 against the villages of Potkra [phoen] and Dzalilovac

22 where we wanted to regain control -- or, rather, these were activities in

23 a depth of four to five kilometres, and we wanted to regain control of

24 those two villages, from Turbe to the end of Dzalilovac.

25 Q. You either misspoke or there may have been an error or you were

Page 47687

1 outside my time period. You said February 1992. I asked you

2 specifically from the end of October --

3 A. 1993. 1993.

4 Q. And how long did that particular operation last?

5 A. The operation lasted from 1.00 a.m. to 9.00 or 10.00 a.m.

6 Q. And how many soldiers were involved in that on your side?

7 A. Forty soldiers.

8 Q. Okay. Any other instances between October 29, 1992, and February

9 1994?

10 A. Well, yes, there were others, lots of them, but I have to recall

11 them all now. In Turbe, for example, the operation towards Vocnjak

12 together with the BH Army.

13 Q. And that's in Central Bosnia?

14 A. Well, it's all the Travnik municipality because over those four

15 or five months I was exclusively in Travnik mostly. I was also commander

16 of the Travnik Brigade. So Travnik was the turning point. After the

17 fall of Jajce we already said that we had to do everything to stabilise

18 our defence.

19 Q. All right. Let's just stay on that one just for a moment. On

20 Turbe then, how many -- how many soldiers were involved on your side in

21 that operation?

22 A. About 80 soldiers were involved and about 120 from the BH Army,

23 and they were led by Lajko. It was a synchronised operation.

24 Q. And can you tell me approximately -- did you say when that

25 occasion, when the Turbe event was, please?

Page 47688

1 A. I think it was in January 1993.

2 Q. Sir, we don't obviously have time to go through -- to spend as

3 much time on this as I -- as I would like otherwise my -- if my time was

4 more -- or, excuse me, less limited, but I put it to you, sir, we've

5 heard an awful lot about how busy the HVO was fighting the Serbs in

6 Central Bosnia and Herzegovina during this time period and, in fact, sir,

7 there was very little combat operations between the HVO and the Serbs in

8 1993; isn't that correct?

9 A. That's not correct at all. The intensity of the fighting was

10 like that throughout, from April 1992 to about June 1993.

11 Q. Can you tell us, please, about the instances that you're aware of

12 where the HVO and the Serb side co-operated in the terms of where the HVO

13 could contact the Serb side, request artillery support, to buy materiel,

14 could -- could move across each other's territory? Could you tell the

15 Judges about that, please?

16 A. In the area under the Tactical Group that I was in and the

17 Travnik Brigade, there was no such case.

18 Q. How about --

19 A. Not a single one.

20 Q. You were the deputy commander of the zone, and again, sir, you

21 had no trouble in the last few days talking about things expansively,

22 happening all sorts of places, and Judge Trechsel even asked you a couple

23 of times is that all second-hand information, is that all hearsay, and

24 you had no problems speculating and giving secondary information.

25 Now, you were the deputy commander in this zone, and you were

Page 47689

1 surely aware, for example, when the -- some of the Croats left and when

2 Ivica Rajic crossed to go from Kiseljak to Vares. He crossed through

3 Serb territory. He had the permission of the Serb commanders to do that.

4 You know that, don't you?

5 A. Ivica Rajic, for at least three months, was on the Travnik

6 battlefront as reinforcement to the HVO in their struggle against the

7 Serbs. So after the fall of Jajce we stepped up our defence and that's

8 where Ivica Rajic was, and that's what I know.

9 Q. That wasn't my question, sir. That wasn't my question. My

10 question is by co-operation with the Serbs -- and you know full well, you

11 know full well that there was frequent time -- frequent instances - and

12 if we have time we'll put the documents in front of you - frequent

13 instances in which there was co-operation between the VRS and the HVO;

14 correct?

15 A. To the best of my knowledge, until June

16 [realtime transcript read in error "do you know"] 1993, I don't know of a

17 single case of contacts with the Serbs, except an exchange of prisoners

18 that took place or liaison officers. In one particular instance, my

19 liaison officer came across Mladic at Mount Vlasic. He happened to be

20 there, and Mladic asked to see his documents for the hydroelectric power

21 station of Jajce. He said he didn't have them, but, if I find them, what

22 do I get for that? And he said, "I'll keep your church safe in

23 Milajac [phoen]." And he said, "Well, I don't need you to do that. I'm

24 taking care of mine in Travnik, and you can destroy it." But there could

25 not have been any co-operation.

Page 47690

1 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, just a correction to

2 the transcript. Line 4. It is recorded that -- that witness said until

3 do you know 1993. The witness said until June 1993. To the best of my

4 knowledge until June 1993 I don't know of a single case of contact

5 between and so on.

6 MR. SCOTT:

7 Q. Sir, let's turn to another topic. In terms of the Central Bosnia

8 operative zone and Mr. Blaskic, you will agree, won't you, that

9 throughout the time that Mr. Blaskic was commander of that zone his

10 immediate superior from 1992 until he left that position in 1994 was

11 initially Mr. Petkovic, then for a time Mr. Praljak, then for a time

12 Mr. Roso, and then for a time Mr. Petkovic again; correct?

13 A. Yes, his immediate superior, that's right, but Boban could, as

14 the president, do something, but yes, this is correct.

15 Q. And can you confirm, sir, that by June of 1992, the HVO, with

16 your help, you've told us about, the HVO had established sufficient

17 organisation and command, and I'm quoting your Kordic testimony now that:

18 "You could exercise command and control but there was not enough

19 time to set up a full military organisation as of June 1992."

20 Is that correct?

21 A. At the end of June 1992 we had communication with all the units,

22 and we did have the ability to command and to be kept abreast, reported,

23 and so on. So it was a normal system of command and control.

24 Q. I'd like you to turn to -- it might be -- no, I believe it's in

25 the binder. Excuse me. 4D00830. 4D00830.

Page 47691

1 Sir, while you're looking at that, I'll say for the record this

2 is a report over the name of Milivoj Petkovic, dated February 4th, 1993,

3 a report covering the period from April 14, 1992, through December 31,

4 1992. So the balance of the year 1992 starting on April 14. Which is

5 about the same time that you arrived in the Lasva Valley, I note.

6 Sir, if I can direct your attention, I'll try to assist you as

7 much as I can. If you can turn your attention, please, to paragraph --

8 yeah, paragraph or section numbered 3 entitled "Organisation of HVO

9 forces." I'll read this to you, please:

10 "HVO forces were organised in the course of combat activities

11 throughout the entire territory of HZ HB. Organisation of HVO forces

12 through temporary formations is almost finished and nowadays we have the

13 following scheme."

14 Now, I'm going to come back to the scheme in a few minutes, so

15 we're not going to get into that just at this moment, but is it correct,

16 sir, that there was ongoing organisation and reorganisation of the HVO

17 military from April 1992 and into the summer and that by the fall of 1992

18 the HVO brigades -- the brigade structure had replaced what had formally

19 been known as municipal staffs?

20 A. That's correct.

21 Q. And on that very point in the same document that we were looking

22 at, if I can ask you, please, to turn to the fourth page; at least it's

23 in the fourth page of the English version. I'll try to give you a

24 reference point, sir. The last entry -- the last paragraph above the

25 heading numbered 4. There's a number 4, "Personnel issues and drafting,"

Page 47692

1 but it's the previous last paragraph, and Mr. Petkovic reports:

2 "Formation of brigades cancelled Municipal Staffs, and this

3 added to command control while units gained mobility."

4 Do you see that? Do you see that, sir? Sir? Do you see it?

5 It's one sentence. Do you see it, sir?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And would you agree with that statement, formation of brigades

8 cancelled municipal staffs and this added to command and quality while

9 units gained mobility. Do you agree with Mr. Petkovic's assessment?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Now, related to this topic, in the Kordic case you testified and

12 you said that the political party known as the HDZ BiH, the Bosnian wing

13 of the HDZ, that that political party as of June 1992 was not active,

14 that it had at least effectively "ceased to exist." Would you stand by

15 that testimony today?

16 A. In the area in which I was in it was stated that it froze its

17 activity.

18 Q. All right. And in another place in the -- your same testimony on

19 that, you said: "In the summer of 1992, the parties officially ceased to

20 function." So that relates to what you told us just now also?

21 A. Yes, that it froze their actions. They were on ice.

22 Q. Now, following the reorganisations that we were talking about a

23 moment ago I showed you -- first I asked you your opinion then I also

24 showed you the report from Mr. Petkovic, following those reorganisations

25 to the brigade structure, would you agree with Mr. Petkovic that local

Page 47693

1 civilian authorities had no power to command HVO units?

2 A. The local civilian authorities did not have the power to command

3 the units or brigades.

4 Q. And would you agree that in your experience, applying this to

5 both yourself and Mr. Blaskic, as to military matters the organisation

6 and especially combat were, according to your Kordic testimony, "always

7 within the chain of command." They were not commanded by politicians.

8 Do you stand by that, sir?

9 A. In the territory where I was, nobody could command except

10 Blaskic, myself, and the brigade commanders.

11 Q. You never took orders from, you were never subordinated to any

12 political or municipal leader in terms at the local level; correct?

13 A. I was not subordinated. All I asked for was co-operation, but

14 not from the position of subordination but from the positions of needs

15 and requirements.

16 Q. Now, any time when you -- in any of your positions in Central

17 Bosnia Operative Zone, from 1992 until the spring of 1994, did you ever

18 take a military order from a political or municipal leader? An order.

19 A. No.

20 Q. Would you agree that by the second half of 1992 the HVO was a

21 substantial armed force capable of carrying out military operations

22 across the territory of what was called Herceg-Bosna?

23 A. It was capable of -- throughout the territory of Herceg-Bosna

24 conducting -- well, wherever units existed. The Travnik Brigade in

25 the -- in Travnik, the Novi Travnik Brigade in Novi Travnik, the Zepa

Page 47694

1 Brigade in Zepa, and so on and so forth.

2 Q. If I can ask you to look again at Exhibit 4D00830, Mr. Petkovic's

3 report. And if I could ask you to go to -- there's a section -- it's at

4 the end of section numbered 1, section numbered 1, but there's a last

5 concluding paragraph of that section. It says "General conclusions."

6 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Zepce, not Zepa.

7 MR. SCOTT:

8 Q. General conclusions stated by Mr. Petkovic:

9 "Nowadays HVO forces successfully hold under their control 90

10 per cent of the area mapped out as HZ HB, and they are capable and ready

11 to defend it provided they get better materiel support."

12 Would you agree with that assessment?

13 A. I wouldn't agree with that assessment, no.

14 Q. What part wouldn't you agree with?

15 A. Well, I don't agree with the percentage of the HZ HB territory,

16 because I never actually -- it was never clear to me the territory of

17 that -- the HZ HB. I don't know what it incorporated. There were no

18 borders, frontiers, or I never saw it or knew about it. So this 90 per

19 cent, as far as I'm concerned, is a virtual percentage.

20 Q. Well, when Mr. Petkovic -- we only have the words on the page,

21 but in the reports over -- over Mr. Petkovic's authority, apparently

22 there was no problem in expressing that it was the area mapped out as

23 HZ HB. So you -- is it your position that Mr. Petkovic knew more about

24 the territory claimed to comprise Herceg-Bosna than you did?

25 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Excuse me, Mr. Scott. I am a bit confused. I

Page 47695

1 thought you were still working with document 4D00830.

2 MR. SCOTT: That's correct, Your Honour, I am.

3 JUDGE TRECHSEL: And I have the conclusions on the -- in the

4 English text -- well, it's the page that has 1106 on the bottom right.

5 MR. SCOTT: I'm sorry, Your Honour. There's an earlier

6 conclusion specifically under section 1 of the report. There's a series

7 of sections. It should be on page -- the second page of the English

8 version.

9 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you, because in the last conclusion, 70

10 per cent is mentioned, and that is what confused me.

11 MR. SCOTT: My apologies, Your Honour. I thought I had indicated

12 the location, but if I didn't, I apologise.

13 Q. My question to you, nonetheless, sir, stands. Is it your

14 position, then, that Mr. Petkovic knew more about the territory of the

15 HZ HB than you did?

16 A. Possibly he did know, but I know about the territory of Central

17 Bosnia according to these conclusions that already in December Jajce had

18 fallen so that we were not in control. We didn't control more than 5

19 per cent of Herceg-Bosna, and that's the context in which I said that it

20 couldn't be 95 per cent and that I don't agree.

21 Q. Again for present purposes, sir, I'm not going to spend more time

22 on that at the moment.

23 Would you agree that by the end of 1992 the HVO was a fairly

24 organised and significant military force? As you testified in the Kordic

25 case at page 17007.

Page 47696

1 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, just an objection to

2 the way in which that question was asked, from the transcript in the

3 Kordic trial as far as 1992 is concerned.

4 MR. SCOTT:

5 Q. And the answer you said, sir, if I understood you correctly, was

6 that was correct. The HVO was a fairly organised and represented a

7 significant military force by the end of 1992.

8 A. Yes, compared to the beginning. April 1992 and the end of 1992

9 there was a vast difference.

10 Q. All right.

11 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, I need the Chamber's guidance on

12 something for a moment, and it may be best to at least temporarily go

13 into private session.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before moving to private

15 session I have a follow-up question on this last document. It will be

16 very short.

17 On page 1 of this document, under "Combat activity in the

18 territory of Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna," it -- the following is

19 mentioned:

20 "The HVO forces are assuming offensive activity in these area on

21 November 8 1992."

22 And this has to do with the Serbs. General Petkovic writes that

23 the HVO has assumed offensive activities.

24 We heard General Praljak and a number of other witnesses telling

25 us that as far as the BH Army was concerned, the HVO was always in a

Page 47700

1 back to the scheme or the outline of the organisation as outlined by

2 General Petkovic, but rather than use that particular document, I would

3 like to put to you something from the -- his testimony in the Blaskic

4 case.

5 MR. SCOTT: And if counsel wishes to check me on this it could be

6 found at pages 24012 to 24013 of the Blaskic case. I can have the

7 assistance of the usher to put something on the ELMO, please.

8 I'm not getting anything yet. There it is. Thank you very much.

9 If you can move it down just so we can see the top for a moment, usher.

10 We might have to move it at least once in the course of doing this.

11 Thank you very much.

12 Q. Mr. Filipovic, this is taken from Mr. Petkovic's testimony in the

13 Blaskic case. I have broken it down into smaller pieces, if you will,

14 but all the language I will represent to you and to the courtroom is a

15 direct quote from the transcript except in those few instances where

16 you'll see something in brackets which we may have used an abbreviation

17 or made a point of clarification.

18 Now, I'd like to just take -- go through you with this and ask

19 you some questions.

20 In July 1992 the Department of Defence, the HVO Department of

21 Defence was established. Do you agree with that or have any reason to

22 disagree?

23 A. Is that question addressed to me?

24 Q. Yes, it is.

25 A. Your Honours, I find it difficult to find my way through those

Page 47701

1 documents which I do not understand. I cannot answer such questions.

2 Could you repeat the question, please?

3 Q. Sir, if you'll look at the -- if you look on the screen ahead of

4 you and you listen to translation, I will be very clear, I hope I will be

5 very clear and that's why I've spoken it down into smaller parts. So

6 I'll say it again. In July 1992, the Department of Defence was

7 established; correct?

8 A. How could I know that that was true?

9 Q. Because you're the deputy commander of the Central Bosnia

10 Operative Zone. That's why, sir.

11 A. I don't know whether this is accurate. I may be dimwitted, but I

12 don't know that.

13 Q. "In the same month a decree was passed on the armed forces of the

14 HVO. In the month of October 1992, this decree was amended and the new

15 decree was of a higher quality than the previous one."

16 Can you assist us on that? Can you confirm that?

17 A. I know that documents governing the relationships among the army

18 reached us and we welcomed that, but I cannot tell you precisely when

19 that was. Maybe it was in the summer or the late summer of 1992, yes.

20 Q. "At the same time, I took measures to accede to and speed up the

21 establishment of brigades of the Croatian Defence Council."

22 And I believe, sir, that is the topic that we were discussing

23 just a few moments ago, isn't it?

24 A. Well, with respect to the brigades, yes, it was in the autumn

25 1992.

Page 47702

1 Q. "Furthermore, there was a reorganisation of the military

2 territorial division or, rather, the creation of operative zones."

3 Is that true?

4 A. Yes. In summer of 1992, yes.

5 Q. Now, for these purposes I'm going to skip over the diagram and

6 just stick to the text of the testimony. And then it says:

7 "The decree on armed forces stipulated that the

8 Commander-In-Chief was at the head," and my apology, "at the head of the

9 army."

10 Do you agree?

11 A. Yes, if you mean the supreme commander who was Boban.

12 Q. All right. And then it says:

13 "His administrative office comprised the Defence Department, and

14 within the Defence Department, as an operative department, was the Main

15 Staff of the [HVO]."

16 Do you agree? Or to put it differently, do you have any basis to

17 disagree with General Petkovic on that?

18 A. I have no grounds to disagree with the testimony of

19 General Petkovic.

20 Q. "The administrative section was called the Defence Department."

21 Correct?

22 A. [Indiscernible] know.

23 Q. "Within the Defence Department there was a Main Staff as the

24 operative part." Do you have any reason to disagree with

25 General Petkovic on that?

Page 47703

1 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Sorry. About the transcript, I see on page 35,

2 line 6, the answer registered is "no." I thought I heard "ne znam,"

3 which would mean I don't know.

4 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Judge Trechsel.

5 Q. Sir, my last pending question was:

6 "Within the Defence Department there was a Main Staff as the

7 operative part." Do you have any reason to disagree with

8 General Petkovic about that?

9 A. Well, as my understanding went, Main Staff meant commanding the

10 army.

11 Q. "The Main Staff had direct communications with the commands of

12 the operative zones."

13 Correct?

14 A. That's correct.

15 Q. "There was the operative zone with its seat in Mostar, the

16 operative zone with its seat in Tomislavgrad, the operative zone with its

17 seat in Vitez, and the operative zone with its seat in Orasje."

18 A. That's correct.

19 Q. "A certain number of brigades, battalions, and other units were

20 directly linked to [each operative zone]."

21 A. That's correct.

22 Q. And just not to leave the last line hanging, there was a diagram

23 in which I believe it says: "I present all the brigades under each zone

24 were listed," but we don't go into that for these present purposes.

25 Excuse me one moment. If I could have the usher's assistance.

Page 47704

1 If we could remove that item, please, and I'd also like to turn to the

2 topic of -- but -- don't leave us just yet, please. I'd like to turn to

3 the topic of subordination, and I'd like to proceed in a similar way.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, we just saw a document

5 which faithfully reflects what Mr. Petkovic said in the Blaskic case.

6 Reading this document is a bit complex. General Petkovic says that

7 there's -- there's -- Mate Boban is at the head of the army, at the head

8 of the command, and he -- and he -- they -- then he's got the Department

9 of Defence. Fine. But within the Department of Defence Mr. Petkovic

10 says that there's the Main Staff which has an operative role.

11 Anyone with a logical mind reading this text would feel maybe I'm

12 wrong. Maybe I'm misreading General Petkovic or maybe there was a

13 mistake in the translation, but it seems from reading the text, just to

14 show to us by Mr. Scott, that we have Mate Boban, then the Department of

15 Defence, but within the Department of Defence there is an entity called

16 the Main Staff, which is integrated into the Department of Defence. Then

17 there is another line after that saying that the Department of Defence

18 has an administrative -- is an administrative section. Now, I would like

19 to know exactly what General Petkovic meant.

20 You were in the field, so can you understand what is said in this

21 document?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm confused. I do

23 not know. First of all, I did not prepare myself in term of -- terms of

24 reading the document. As far as the relations in Mostar or in the

25 Supreme Command, that is something I simply and literally do not know

Page 47705

1 anything about. You keep telling me that I'm at a high level position.

2 Well, high-level positions are in the mountains between two trenches.

3 I'm not saying that I'm not responsible for what was going on in the OZ

4 of Central Bosnia, because I was quite informed about what was going on

5 there. Although I never went to Zepce which was also Operative Zone of

6 Central Bosnia.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In -- in one word, as I

8 understand, regarding the structure of the Defence Department and the

9 Main Staff, you can't say anything as to their relationship because I

10 understand that you were a man working in the field. You were a fighting

11 man, and you were not concerned by this. Is that what you mean?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not only that. It -- I was not

13 involved in that. The changes of regulations and departments and offices

14 did not affect me. What I was concerned was whether things ran smoothly.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I see. Very well.

16 Please continue, Mr. Scott.

17 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, as often happens in trying to save time,

18 it may have been less helpful rather than more, so let me direct the

19 witness's and the courtroom's attention indeed to Exhibit P11123,

20 Exhibit P11123, which is the chart that accompanied Mr. Petkovic's

21 Blaskic testimony in this respect.

22 Q. If you turn, you should --

23 MR. SCOTT: That's all right. It looks like he'll --

24 Q. If you turn to the chart, there should be a Croatian-language

25 version there, sir. Turn down a page or two, please.

Page 47706

1 Sir, this is the chart that I'll represent to you and the

2 courtroom that General Petkovic had in front of him and was displayed in

3 the Blaskic courtroom at the time he was giving his testimony that we

4 just reviewed. Perhaps this will assist further in -- in connection with

5 the questions that His Honour Judge Antonetti was just asking in terms of

6 the relationship between the supreme commander, the Defence Department,

7 and the placement of the Main Staff.

8 Directing your particular attention to the Vitez Operative Zone,

9 would you look down at the brigades under the Vitez Operative Zone and

10 can we agree that the Vitez Operative Zone for these purposes would be

11 another name for the Central Bosnia Operative Zone?

12 A. [In English] Yep.

13 Q. Can we get a translation, please?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And the brigades that are listed under the Vitez Operative Zone,

16 did those coincide with your knowledge and experience of the brigades in

17 that zone?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Travnik Brigade, of course, you were very familiar with, and we

20 know that's from Travnik. Some of them are -- just to assist the

21 Chamber, some of the more --

22 A. And the Frankopan Brigade.

23 Q. And Frankopan was also in Travnik. The Vitez Brigade presumably

24 was in Vitez. Can you tell the Judges where the Zrinski Brigade was

25 located?

Page 47707

1 A. It was supposed to be at Kresevo, Fojnica, or Kiseljak.

2 Q. Wasn't it, in fact, that throughout most of this time period in

3 Busovaca?

4 A. Yes, but it also included Busovaca and Fojnica.

5 Q. And the commander of that brigade during much of that time period

6 was Dusko Grubesic; correct?

7 A. For a time Niko Azinovic, yes, but then the person you mentioned

8 was the command -- brigade commander.

9 Q. All right. Now, we'll keep that chart handy, I hope, the

10 Chamber -- well, I'm about to ask again to go into somewhat related

11 topic, but before I do, Your Honours, if there's questions about the

12 chart I'll pause.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, the chart we have

14 here was done by Mr. Petkovic in person; is that right?

15 MR. SCOTT: It was used by him in the courtroom, Your Honour. I

16 can't -- I wouldn't want to pretend to say that -- whether he put the

17 letters on paper himself, but when he testified under oath, that was the

18 document that he was explaining to the courtroom.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just one short technical

20 question.

21 General, looking at this chart, there's something that strikes

22 me. I'm looking at the Convicts Battalion, and I look where it is

23 positioned. It seems to be depending exclusively on Mate Boban as it is

24 presented here. It is under Mate Boban alone.

25 What do you say to this.

Page 47708

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the organisational charts it is

2 represented in a correct manner, yes.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Based on the organisational

4 chart. But in military terms, when the Convicts Battalion was in action,

5 it was in action following an order by the supreme commander and by him

6 alone; is that right?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You see, I cannot claim anything

8 concerning the Convicts Battalion. I related to you what Stjepan Polo

9 told me concerning the area of Sovici and Doljani.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. And back to what

11 Marco Polo, that was this nickname, wasn't it, what he said to you, does

12 this sort of fit with this chart that we can see here?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, again I don't know. I know

14 what I learned later on at meetings, but that was in 1994, 1995. I

15 learned that Tuta was the top man in Herzegovina and Mostar, and most

16 probably this chart is correct, but I do not know. In the Main Staff or

17 in the units up there I do not know the relationships.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Sir, let's just very quickly

19 take a hypothesis. This is always the way I work.

20 Let's imagine that in the Vitez operative zone where you were the

21 commander you might have needed this Convicts Battalion because they were

22 very good men, well-equipped men, and very brave men. Were you in a

23 position and were you allowed to ask them for support and help, or did

24 you have to go through the chain of command to do so or turn to

25 Mate Boban in person, because the way I look at the chart, those men were

Page 47709

1 directly under him. So what would you have done?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, when I learned that a

3 group is about to come from a Convicts Battalion or any other unit, and

4 if I hear a nickname Klica [phoen] or somebody else, I would move closer

5 to the front line because they were not on the front lines. I could have

6 been killed by any of them in the area of responsibility, and that is the

7 truth. There were individuals and groups for whom Colonel Filipovic

8 meant nothing.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] General, you didn't listen to

10 my question. That's not the first thing [as interpreted] I noticed that.

11 You're not listening to the questions put to you. You are in your train

12 of thought all the time. My question was a simple one. In the Vitez

13 Operative Zone, let us assume that a unit is needed and straight away.

14 You think of the battalion because they are very competent men. For them

15 to come to help you, do you have to go through Mate Boban in person, or

16 do you have to go through the chain of command, so through the Main

17 Staff? That's a very simple question. That's all.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is a hypothetical question.

19 It's supposed to go through the Main Staff in terms of letting them know

20 about our requirements. We had the -- at nights we had many problems

21 with them let alone with Convicts Battalion. This was inconceivable for

22 us. In technical terms through packet service -- radio packet or other

23 communications, we communicated with the Main Staff.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] For you it was natural to go

25 through the Main Staff. So you see, that's very clear.

Page 47710

1 Please proceed, Mr. Scott. We're going to need a break in a few

2 moments.

3 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Your Honour. Maybe we could finish one

4 other part of this before the break then, with your indulgence.

5 Q. On the topic, in fact, of what's called subordination, which

6 relates to some of the things you were just talking about with

7 Judge Antonetti, the President --

8 MR. SCOTT: Could I ask the ushers please to put another -- to

9 help me with the ELMO again, please.

10 Q. Sir, I'm going to show you in a similar fashion another excerpt

11 from Mr. Petkovic's testimony in the Blaskic case, because this topic has

12 come up quite a bit, and I think perhaps you're in a position, given your

13 senior position, to confirm some of these things to us, I hope.

14 Subordination, this is what General Blaskic said in the Blaskic

15 case on that topic --

16 JUDGE TRECHSEL: You said that's what General Blaskic said. I

17 think you wanted to say that's what General Petkovic said.

18 MR. SCOTT: You're correct, Your Honour. That's what

19 General Petkovic said in the Blaskic case, and my apology.

20 Q. "When a unit is subordinated to somebody, that means that it is

21 not within his organisation and set-up. By determining units of this

22 kind and by establishing them while a situation is underway, the

23 commander to whom a unit has been subordinated takes over all the

24 obligations and responsibilities towards that unit just as if it was

25 within the composition of his own organisational entity."

Page 47711

1 Would you confirm that as a correct statement on the principle

2 and operation of subordination, sir?

3 A. Subordination generally in an army implies that this statement is

4 true. I do not know whether we resubordinated any units in the HVO, or

5 at least I don't know about such cases in my operative zone, but in

6 principle that is true.

7 Q. All right. That -- for -- for the moment -- excuse me. For the

8 moment - I'm just talking about principle here - we may see some

9 instances or may not, but we're talking principle here.

10 Just for clarification's sake, when it says, "When a unit is

11 subordinated to somebody," that means that it is not within his

12 organisation and set-up. So the record is very clear, and we understand

13 that to mean that unit is not within that person's regular organisation

14 and set-up. It's not the normal organisation but some unit coming in, if

15 you will, from outside.

16 A. Correct. But the worst thing is to be a subordinated unit,

17 because your life depends on another unit, but generally speaking this is

18 correct.

19 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, that's the last point on that for now

20 that I have.

21 MR. STEWART: Your Honours, just before the break, may we ask

22 that we could have either now or at the beginning or end of the next

23 session, entirely whatever is most convenient for Your Honours, just to

24 have one minute in private session without the witness.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, absolutely. We're going

Page 47713

1 [Open session]

2 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session. Thank

3 you.

4 [The witness takes the stand]

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, please proceed.

6 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. President.

7 Q. Sir, before we conclude with this set of materials, if I can show

8 you one more similar item, and it continues that -- really the topic of

9 subordination.

10 MR. SCOTT: And I'm sorry, usher, I'll need your assistance. If

11 you could put that on the ELMO, please.

12 Q. I'm now showing you, sir, a third excerpt, if you will, from

13 Mr. Petkovic's testimony in the Blaskic case, and as I say, it continues

14 the point of subordination, but specifically in connection with the

15 so-called professional units.

16 MR. SCOTT: And if the courtroom still has the chart also at

17 hand, Mr. Petkovic's chart that we were looking at a few minutes ago, for

18 the record, P11123. We can see that on Mr. Petkovic's chart the

19 Bruno Busic Regiment; the Vitezovi Special Purposes Unit, or Knights; and

20 the Ludvig Pavlovic Battalion are all linked to the Main Staff box, if

21 you will.

22 Mr. Filipovic, if I can ask you to look, and again I'll read this

23 slowly and then I'll ask you a couple of questions or so. This comes

24 from Mr. -- as I say, it comes from Mr. Petkovic's testimony in the

25 Blaskic case.

Page 47714

1 "Q. General, as we speak about special purpose units, you

2 said that the Vitezovi, in a way, were subordinated to Blaskic as

3 commander of the operative zone; although, on that diagram you put them

4 under the command of the Main Staff, except for the battalion that was

5 under the command of the supreme commander."

6 Which appears to be a reference to the Convicts Battalion.

7 "Could you tell me how these professional units were regulated

8 and who commanded them under, under what circumstances?

9 "A. Professional units were linked to the Main Staff, and

10 they could have carried out assignments issued by the Main Staff, but

11 they could also have been subordinated to a certain commander to carry

12 out assignments on his orders in a certain zone. That was the case of

13 the Vitezovi. I issued an order subordinating them to the operative zone

14 of Central Bosnia, and they carried out all orders issued by the

15 commander of the operative zone. He's responsible for them, and they

16 report to him in connection with the discharge of these duties.

17 "So I'm claiming and stating that they were linked to the Main

18 Staff and the Main Staff had either the right to use them on their own or

19 to subordinate them to another commander, a commander of an operative

20 zone, who could then --" excuse me, "who could use them on the basis of

21 his own needs and tasks, and we know what the subordination of a unit

22 means. This subordination involves the responsibility of the commander

23 and responsibility of those who are ... subordinated to him."

24 I'll stop there for a moment.

25 Sir, based upon your professional military training both in the

Page 47715

1 JNA and then later in the HVO and your experiences, does that again state

2 general principles of subordination and in this particular instance as

3 applied to certain units that were in -- part of the HVO structure?

4 A. Yes. This is correct in principle. Now, as to the details and

5 the Vitezovi, that's another matter.

6 Q. Well, one of the reasons I selected the Vitezovi is because they

7 were operating in your zone. They were in the Central Bosnia Operative

8 Zone, at least often; correct?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. So if we go to the second part of the excerpt. Let's continue,

11 please:

12 "Q. So if we look at it this way, apart from you and

13 specifically Blaskic," question -- you being Petkovic, "apart from you

14 and specifically Blaskic, could anybody else have commanded the Vitezovi

15 in 1993?

16 "A. Nobody could have commanded them, if we look at the

17 structure of command. Somebody could have abused it, but it is difficult

18 to believe.

19 "Q. There seems to have been an error in the interpretation.

20 What I asked is this: General, apart from you and Colonel Blaskic, could

21 anybody else have commanded the Vitezovi in 1993?

22 "A. Nobody could have. Nobody else could have commanded

23 them, because the Vitezovi were linked to the Main Staff and through my

24 order they were subordinated to him. So it is only those two instances,

25 the operative zone and the Main Staff, which could have commanded. In

Page 47716

1 the diagram that I showed, it is visible that nobody above the Main Staff

2 was linked to the special purpose units; that is to say, the three units

3 that I showed you and indicated yesterday."

4 Again, sir, is that generally an accurate description of

5 subordination as to special purpose or professional units in the HVO?

6 A. Correct.

7 MR. SCOTT: And before leaving this topic, unless the Judges have

8 some questions, I would like to have each of these three items marked,

9 please.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, one theoretical

11 question. Speaking about the Vitezovi, let us imagine that a brigade

12 commander needs them, and as we stated here by General Petkovic, the unit

13 is subordinated to the brigade commander. The Vitezovi are then under

14 the chain of command, but in the first place under the brigade commander,

15 and then the brigade commander, not giving any name, let's take any

16 brigade commander, and he says to the unit that they have to go to a

17 certain location because that's where the enemy is. The Vitezovi carries

18 out the order and go to the said location. And we've got the three-C

19 rule, control, command, and communication.

20 The operative zone remain in constant contact with the unit, but

21 on location there is fighting, a given village is taken over, and the

22 members of that unit commit crimes, but they did not report the crimes to

23 their higher command, to the brigade commander, to be more specific. And

24 of course the commander of the operative zone is not informed and neither

25 is the Main Staff. The unit has not received any orders to take civilian

Page 47717

1 prisoners or to kill them, no order whatsoever, and they were just told

2 to go to a specific location to see what the situation was like, and if

3 there was any enemy on location to respond to enemy fire.

4 So given this hypothesis, in your view, what about the chain of

5 command? Where does it start? Where does it end?

6 So I chose a theoretical example on purpose.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And a practical example. The

8 Vitezovi come to the Travnik Brigade, for instance, or part of the

9 Vitezovi, when I returned on the 10th of June, sometime around the 13th -

10 I know about this particular operation - they arrived, they reported to

11 me, and throughout the time that they were with me I was responsible for

12 that unit.

13 Now, if they are given an assignment apart from me, from Blaskic,

14 for instance, then they can go or can do something else, but while

15 they're there, while they're carrying out their tasks and while they're

16 there, I am responsible for the Vitezovi or any other unit that is there,

17 for that matter.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I agree with you. So you

19 wanted to take a practical example. Let's take it. They were with you

20 in Travnik, and then you told them to go to the road that was 10

21 kilometres away to see whether the enemy was there, just carry out a

22 check there. If ever the BH Army fires on you, you have to respond. So

23 these are strict orders given by you.

24 So they go to the road and, unfortunately, 10 kilometres from

25 there they carry out abuse but you don't know about it, and when they

Page 47718

1 return they say everything went fine, but it's not true what they told

2 you.

3 In such an eventuality, are you responsible for what happened or

4 not? If we go by the rules, by the JNA, HVO rules, in your view would

5 you be responsible for them or not?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Their commander is responsible,

7 first and foremost, but I am co-responsible, because at the time they

8 were in combat operations around the Travnik Brigade. As soon as I learn

9 of a crime, whether he informed me or not, it is my responsibility to

10 take steps in that regard.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So as soon as you hear of a

12 crime being committed you have to take steps. And let us imagine that

13 you hear nothing about them.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If they leave the area of

15 responsibility, my area of responsibility, I can't do anything. I can't

16 undertake anything.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, but as part of your

18 responsibility, don't you have the obligation once a military operation

19 has been carried out to check whether your orders have been carried out

20 properly or not?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, because throughout the time it

22 is my duty to monitor the situation and to control the situation.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, thank you. It's

24 very clear.

25 Mr. Scott.

Page 47719

1 MR. SCOTT: And to conclude on this part, as I was saying a

2 moment ago, if I could have the usher's assistance one more time, and I

3 would like to have the three overheads, if you will, displays given IC

4 numbers and have the witness please mark and date each of those, please.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I can just sign what

6 I've answered and what I've understood. Is it proper that I should sign

7 the whole document?

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] There seems to be a problem,

9 because it is a document in English, Mr. Scott, and the witness does not

10 speak English. You're asking him to sign a document that is not in his

11 own language, so that's a problem, isn't it.

12 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Furthermore, furthermore, Mr. Scott, with maps

13 we only accept that it be signed if the witness has done something to

14 them. The witness hasn't done anything to these documents, so I think

15 it's not proper that he sign it.

16 MR. SCOTT: If that's the Chamber's view, I understand that. My

17 memory -- my memory would be somewhat different, and I would have thought

18 that would have been the practice, but in the last four years -- or three

19 and a half years we've marked all sorts of things, IC numbers, where the

20 witness made no contribution whatsoever, so I was trying to get with the

21 flow, if you will, and follow courtroom practice, but if that's the

22 Chamber's view, I won't -- I will not persist.

23 JUDGE TRECHSEL: No blame on you.

24 MR. SCOTT: Thank you.

25 JUDGE TRECHSEL: But you can ask an IC number.

Page 47720

1 MR. SCOTT: I will. So I will give those -- extra copies to the

2 usher, please, and just so we have it for the record. For the

3 registrar's assistance, please.

4 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, for the record, the three documents

5 shall be given Exhibit IC01141, 01142, and 01143. Thank you, Your

6 Honours.

7 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

8 Q. Mr. Filipovic, I'm next going to direct your attention to the

9 monitor.

10 MR. SCOTT: And for the courtroom, I'm going to show -- and with

11 reference to, for the record, Exhibit P11118, P11118. It is a video with

12 an accompanying transcript. Because of time I'm only going to show or

13 propose to only show the first couple of minutes of it because I think

14 the overall video's approximately 20 minutes, and I don't want to take 20

15 minutes to play it, to be honest, but I'd like to show the first few

16 minutes it and then go to a transcript to some specific -- one or two

17 specific parts of the accompanying transcript, but perhaps the Chamber

18 can get a flavour of it. So if we can play that. This is from the

19 Kordic case.

20 Q. And, Mr. Filipovic, you may recall, because the same clip we

21 showed to you in the Kordic case. It is a meeting, if you will, a public

22 meeting on approximately the 16th of January, 1992, in connection with

23 the declared independence of the State of Croatia in -- but the meeting

24 taking place in Busovaca. Dario Kordic and others.

25 [Video-clip played]

Page 47721

1 THE INTERPRETER: "[Voiceover] To begin with, I will just say, I

2 wish all of us the best with the Independent State of Croatia.

3 "Long live Croatia."

4 MS. NOZICA: [No interpretation]

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] French. French. I understand some

6 French, but I'm getting French.

7 JUDGE TRECHSEL: We are getting B/C/S, so it's equality of arms.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't need the French, just to

9 hear the original.

10 MR. SCOTT: Thank you. Maybe --

11 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Mr. Scott, I would -- I would suggest that we

12 also hear the original, because we have subtitles. We don't need the

13 translation, and it's nice to have the sound and atmosphere.

14 MR. SCOTT: I was about to say the same thing with apologies to

15 the translation booths. But I think we could just listen to it. We're

16 only go to play the first couple of minutes anyway, unless the Chamber

17 wants to see more. If we could just maybe play it again from the

18 beginning, please.

19 [Video-clip played]

20 MR. SCOTT: Can we stop there, please.

21 Q. Sir, then if you can turn in your binder to Exhibit -- by the

22 same number, but you should find a transcript which is P11118. And I'm

23 going to ask you, sir, if you can look for the -- about the fifth --

24 about the fifth intervention attributed to Dario Kordic if you will.

25 You'll see at the very beginning Mr. Kordic speaks in the transcript,

Page 47722

1 starts speaking, and again we see the audience reaction. If you continue

2 on down several paragraphs, will you please find the portion that says:

3 "Dario Kordic: When I said that the Croatian people waited for

4 nine centuries ..." which is on the bottom of page 1 of the English

5 transcript. Tell me, sir, when you've been able to find that.

6 A. I don't have it in my own language, but I did listen to what he

7 said.

8 Q. It should be there. Well, then I'll read it to you and I'll have

9 it translated. We'll see if -- I will read it, with my apologies. I

10 will read it slowly, please, and ask for the booths to assist, please.

11 "Dario Kordic: When I said that the Croatian people waited for

12 nine centuries for this fulfilment, we must remember the tens of

13 thousands of people who died and the dear lives, words inaudible,

14 centuries for the Croatian state. Therefore, for all those who

15 throughout centuries sacrificed their lives for their homeland and those

16 couple of thousand Croats who lost their lives in this dirty war waged by

17 the aggressor, the Greater Serbian Army against the Croatian nation, I

18 would like us to observe a minute's silence for the sake of eternal peace

19 for all those people, Croats who gave their lives for what we've

20 experienced today. Dear lord may they rest in eternal peace," and then

21 words apparently spoken by the audience inaudible.

22 "Dario Kordic: Now that I have said some words about Busovaca to

23 begin with, let me say that this Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna,

24 which includes Busovaca, also has the right to celebrate the big day of

25 the realisation of the Croatian state. I would also like to say that

Page 47723

1 today we are not becoming part of a Rump Yugoslavia in which there still

2 remains four republics, that we here clearly and unambiguously say that

3 the Croatian people will not be part of any other creation. This is

4 Croatian soil and that is how it will be."

5 The audience applauds.

6 Sir, when that same clip was shown to you in the Kordic case, and

7 you were questioned on this by Mr. Nice, you were asked whether you

8 agreed and what your reaction to that speech would have been, and you

9 testified in the Kordic case that you agreed and that had you been there

10 you would have also applauded Mr. Kordic's speech; is that correct?

11 A. Your Honour, the date was the 16th of January, 1992. Kordic was

12 wearing civilian clothes. I do not see any flags or any problems there.

13 I was in the JNA at the time, but this was after Vukovar. Unless

14 I'm very much mistaken, this was a ceremony to mark the [as interpreted]

15 recognition of the Croatian state by some 20 countries. Then as now, I

16 have no objections to any of the words he uttered.

17 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] May I react to the transcript,

18 line 12. The witness said that this was a ceremony with respect to the

19 international recognition of the Croatian state, and then I'd like to

20 react to Mr. Scott's question on page 53 when he said that it was a

21 ceremony of the proclamation of independence of the Republic of Croatia.

22 It wasn't the proclamation of independence. It was just as the witness

23 has said, the international recognition of the Republic of Croatia as a

24 sovereign state.

25 MR. SCOTT: I certainly accept that, Your Honour, and I certainly

Page 47724

1 didn't mean to offend our Croatian friends or -- I'll accept that as a

2 proper statement, of course.

3 Q. But, sir -- and so you agree that -- and as you testified in the

4 Kordic case, and I'll just quote this particular part it again just so

5 we're clear:

6 "I would also have clapped my hands, applauded at this."

7 And that's your position today as well; correct?

8 A. Correct.

9 Q. As a professional soldier, sir, would you agree that an

10 oath-taking ceremony, when a soldier joins and swears his oath of

11 allegiance or what have you for the first time, that is an important part

12 of a soldier's life?

13 A. Important for them, yes.

14 Q. You also testified in the Kordic case under oath that you

15 attended one or two HVO oath-taking ceremonies where Mr. Kordic was also

16 present. Can you confirm that again today?

17 A. Correct.

18 Q. And on those occasions I take it that the soldiers -- the HVO

19 soldiers who were taking the oath swore the statutory oath that is found

20 in the Herceg-Bosna decree on armed forces which, for the record and

21 which the Chamber has seen before, is Exhibit P00588. Let me read that

22 to you, and can you -- perhaps you can confirm --

23 MR. SCOTT: Actually, with the usher's assistance, I have one

24 more piece of paper for the ELMO. Drop it down just a little bit,

25 please.

Page 47725

1 Q. Sir, this is the statutory oath that's found in Article 86 of the

2 Herceg-Bosna decree on armed forces, which is the exhibit I referred to a

3 moment ago, and I'll again -- once again I'll read it to you. Please

4 listen to the translation, and I'll ask you a question or two.

5 "I --"

6 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] I apologise. Just a moment,

7 please. Your Honours, in the binder, the Prosecution binder, we do have

8 this law. So I think it would be a good idea if the witness could read

9 what it says for himself in Croatian, because it's easier when you read

10 something for yourself rather than listen to something. So it's a

11 document, P588, to be found in the middle of this binder.

12 MR. SCOTT: I have no objection if that's -- the witness would be

13 more comfortable with that on this occasion.

14 Q. Witness, if you can turn in your binder to P00588. It's a rather

15 bulky document, and I was hopefully trying to save a few minutes of time,

16 but we'll do it this way.

17 MR. SCOTT: Perhaps the usher can assist. I'm sorry. P00588.

18 Q. It's Article 86.

19 Do you have it, sir?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Thank you. Now, I will nonetheless read it just for the record.

22 You can follow along in Croatian. Decree on armed forces, Article 86:

23 "I swear that I shall faithfully and honourably perform the

24 duties required of me as a member of the Croatian Defence Council, and

25 that I shall obey official commands and orders conscientiously and

Page 47726

1 responsibly. I swear that I shall defend and protect my motherland of

2 Herceg-Bosna, its sovereignty, territorial integrity, and all of its

3 citizens even if my life is at stake."

4 Now, sir is that -- on the occasions where you attended an HVO

5 oath-taking, whether in the presence also of Mr. Kordic or on other

6 occasions when you might have been at such an event without Mr. Kordic,

7 is that the oath that was taken by the soldiers?

8 A. Yes. Yes, that was the oath.

9 Q. In your Kordic testimony, sir, you referred to Muslim soldiers,

10 it appeared to be in a general way, not simply the 7th Muslim Brigade but

11 in general as Mujahedin. And was that your view, sir, that all Muslim

12 soldiers were Mujahedin?

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] General, Mr. Scott is moving on

14 to something else, but I would like to stay with this oath, because you

15 said that you did take that oath, Article 86. I look at this article,

16 and it seems that there is something missing here. Just -- a few words

17 should have been added. There is no reference to the Republic of Bosnia

18 and Herzegovina. Could you tell us why there is no mention of the

19 following, it says:

20 "I shall defend within the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina my

21 motherland, my territory of Herceg-Bosna."

22 Why is there no mention of the Republic of Bosnia and

23 Herzegovina? Do you have an explanation for this?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Herceg-Bosnia is part of

25 Bosnia-Herzegovina. There's no dilemma about that. On all documents it

Page 47727

1 was written Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, then Herceg-Bosnia.

2 Herceg-Bosnia specifically was a way to defend them -- for the Croats to

3 defend themselves, to organise their life. Why there's no mention of

4 Bosnia-Herzegovina? Well, in that Bosnia-Herzegovina we have the

5 Republika Srpska. By that time we'd started fighting the army of

6 Republika Srpska in Republika Srpska. For Bosnia-Herzegovina to exist

7 one had to fight for it through Herceg-Bosna, therefore there is no

8 dilemma for me.

9 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Witness, what is your concept the term

10 "sovereignty"? What does that mean?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is state sovereignty. There

12 are other sovereignties. But sovereignty is that in the territory or at

13 home or anywhere else one can live freely, perform their duties. To live

14 freely and to work freely. This is the concept.

15 JUDGE TRECHSEL: So would you say that Alabama is a sovereign

16 state?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Alabama?

18 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Yes.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is a state of the United States

20 of America. It is sovereign within the US of A system.

21 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Here you find it necessary to specify within the

22 United States. The oath does not specify within Bosnia and Herzegovina.

23 That is what is -- is striking or remarkable.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct. You were surprised

25 in terms of Bosnia-Herzegovina sovereignty. For you the notion of

Page 47728

1 Bosnia-Herzegovina is something which has its borders, which emerges, but

2 for me Bosnia-Herzegovina is a framework for me to live in back in 1992

3 and today in 2009. Bosnia-Herzegovina is a sovereign state, but I, for

4 instance, cannot enjoy anything in Republika Srpska. So

5 Bosnia-Herzegovina is what it is. If it were -- is it ideal, can it be

6 comparable to other states, that's another question altogether.

7 JUDGE TRECHSEL: And would you today also say that Herceg-Bosna

8 is a sovereign state?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. It wasn't a state at the time

10 either. It was Herceg-Bosna. It's a community of the Croatian people in

11 the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina. This was a means to survive.

12 JUDGE TRECHSEL: You're quite correct in correcting me. The word

13 "state" does figure here, but would you say that today, I say carefully,

14 Podrucje, the area of Herceg-Bosna is sovereign?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, it's not. Today, for instance,

16 we have the armed forces of the -- of Bosnia-Herzegovina. There's no

17 ABiH, no HVO. There are the armed forces of the BiH.

18 In 1992, Yugoslavia disintegrated and you had nothing, absolutely

19 nothing. So how to organise, how to defend oneself. What to do. I

20 wouldn't have minded for the text to read: "As a component of

21 Bosnia-Herzegovina" or "for our Bosnia-Herzegovina," because it was. But

22 Herceg-Bosnia was a way to self-organise, to survive.

23 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you very much.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So you're saying

25 that it wouldn't have been a problem for you if there had been mention of

Page 47729

1 Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Maybe the person who wrote the

2 decree didn't see all these problems. I want to be fair with everyone.

3 And please take a look at Article 106 of the same text. There is a

4 reference made to the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina here.

5 Can you confirm that there is mention of the Republic of Bosnia

6 and Herzegovina here?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, "... or other threats to

8 Herceg-Bosnia, Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Republic of Croatia," et

9 cetera. This is what I implied, and this is what is clear.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So under oath you are telling

11 us that if the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina had been mentioned that

12 wouldn't have bothered you? At least that's what I understood from what

13 you said.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If we're discussing the soldiers'

15 oath, it wouldn't have bothered me, but it didn't bother me in this way

16 either because no reference was made to Montenegro but

17 Bosnia-Herzegovina. It was implicitly known.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fair enough.

19 Mr. Scott.

20 MR. SCOTT:

21 Q. Well, you know, excuse me, sir, but it's all well and good for

22 you to sit here today and say that in 2009, but when Mr. Kordic made his

23 speech in 1992, the one that you said that if you had been there you

24 would have applauded, he said nothing, he said absolutely nothing about

25 this being part of Bosnia-Herzegovina. What he said was, in part, that:

Page 47730

1 "We are here --" I'm referring to the part -- one of the parts I

2 read to you a moment ago, "We here clearly and unambiguously say that the

3 Croatian people will not be part of any other creation. This is Croatian

4 soil and that is how it will be."

5 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] No, no.

6 No. [No interpretation]

7 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I think that there's

8 no need for this. We will calm the situation down. Let's clarify very

9 precisely what it's all about. This is January 1992, a time when

10 Bosnia-Herzegovina is part of Yugoslavia or what was deemed Rump

11 Yugoslavia after Slovenia and Croatia had left. We all know that one and

12 a half months later, a referendum was established and that

13 Bosnia-Herzegovina became an independent state only after that.

14 What is Kordic is referring to is Yugoslavia. There is still no

15 independent, sovereign, free Bosnia and Herzegovina as a state. Now,

16 these are facts and this is an objection to your question.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott --

18 MR. SCOTT: I'm reading -- I'm reading the words off the page.

19 I'm not interpreting or arguing a case. This is what Dario Kordic said.

20 We can play the tape if they want to play the tape, but that's -- this is

21 what it says and the rest is argument, and I understand, counsel can

22 argue their case in the future if that's her interpretation but that's

23 not the evidence.

24 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Mr. Scott, perhaps we should have assurance

25 linguistically, because very often we have found that the terms -- that

Page 47731

1 translation of terms is in dispute. I'm not saying that one side is

2 right or the other.

3 Mr. Kovacic, I think you wanted to refer to this; right?

4 MR. KOVACIC: I don't want to continue this argument, but if

5 you --

6 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

7 MR. KOVACIC: I don't want to continue this discussion, but it

8 will help, just one word.

9 It is a matter of what was said on video. Kordic said that

10 appropriate moment this is about -- now I'm missing an English word. I'm

11 sorry.

12 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I can help you. "This is Croatian soil. "

13 MR. KOVACIC: Yeah, yeah, he said on English "Rump Yugoslavia."

14 In Croatian, [Interpretation] "Rump Yugoslavia," [In English]; thus, he

15 is clearly describing the situation exactly as Ms. Alaburic said. And I

16 also want to join what Ms. Alaburic said. It is the fact. This is not

17 argument. This is not discussion. We know the fact. We know and we

18 have the evidence when the Bosnia-Herzegovina became independent state.

19 Thank you so much.

20 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Well, I think we must give it to Mr. Scott.

21 MR. KOVACIC: [Overlapping speakers]... it's an adjudicated fact.

22 JUDGE TRECHSEL: And we must give it to Mr. Scott that at the end

23 of the second paragraph of page 2 of this transcript we have here Kordic

24 is reported as saying: "This is Croatian soil."

25 So unless the Defence has good cause to say that it's the wrong

Page 47732

1 translation, it is not correct to protest this.

2 Please, Mr. Scott.

3 MR. KOVACIC: Yes, Your Honour. We will check in -- in the

4 office -- we just got it. We were not able to -- to check the

5 transcript. We will, of course, but I'm talking about what Kordic said

6 on the tape. And when we were watching video, it was agreed that the

7 witness also will be hearing original text, not the transcript. So it is

8 in evidence. This is what it said. It might be requested from CLSS to

9 do -- to do a proper transcript. It's not our duty.

10 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Okay. We must stop this.

11 MR. KOVACIC: It is the duty of the party who submitted the

12 evidence.

13 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Mr. Scott go on.

14 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Your Honour. The video is in evidence

15 and -- my apologies, the video is in evidence, or at least it's being

16 tendered - the entire video - and the Defence can play it as many times

17 as they like. I'm happy -- I'm happy if there is a translation error, of

18 course. The Prosecution does not want to put any evidence before the

19 Chamber that there's a transcription -- a translation error, of course

20 not, but we will deal with that. What I have in front of me - and what

21 I've been assured is an accurate translation, there can be errors - is

22 what it says in the part that we put to the witness, and there is nothing

23 in that statement by Mr. Kordic that talks about being part of

24 Bosnia-Herzegovina, nor is there anything in Article 86. And as I said

25 now to go back to my question to the witness.

Page 47733

1 Q. It's all well and good, sir to, say sitting here in front of the

2 Court in this particular circumstance in 2009 it wouldn't have bothered

3 if some additional language had been added to the both but that's --

4 sorry, sir, we say the cow is out of the barn. In 1992 and 1993, this is

5 the oath that was taken. This is the oath. You said so a while ago.

6 You were at oath-takings and it was these were words, and it didn't say

7 anything about being part of Bosnia-Herzegovina; correct?

8 A. Taking an oath is a solemn occasion in any country of the world.

9 So it was one in the case of the HVO then. There's no contention

10 concerning Herceg-Bosnia in relation to Bosnia-Herzegovina, at least in

11 my opinion. And the video footage of Mr. Kordic, from what I could judge

12 on the basis of what I said, I could have applauded. I said that one --

13 ten years ago I would have said it the same. Croatian soil is Croatian

14 soil, not Croatian state. It was my field, my road, my home. And in

15 terms of notions that we hold, I see nothing contentious in that.

16 Q. Well, sir if we go on then, in light of the -- in light of the

17 things -- what's been said and the controversy that's been raised, let's

18 go --

19 MS. TOMANOVIC: I'm sorry. I'm really sorry, but I think the

20 transcript has to be corrected here. [Interpretation] On page 65, lines

21 13 and 14, the witness said in the sense this was an atmosphere that we

22 lived in. We believe that notion that we hold is a mistranslation. He

23 referred to the atmosphere in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the people's

24 attitude towards the soil. I believe that the witness can confirm that.

25 MR. SCOTT: If it's a translation -- again if it's a

Page 47734

1 transcription error, I certainly don't disagree.

2 Q. Sir, in light of what I was saying a moment ago and in light of

3 things that have been said, let's continue on, then, in the transcript,

4 and again I'll have to read it to you, and I apologise for there not

5 being a Croatian version, but I will read to you a bit more. And now I'm

6 turning to Mr. Kostroman, Mr. Kostroman being the second person who

7 speaks, and I'm on page 3 in the English version middle of the page,

8 Ignjac Kostroman, he starts by addressing the audience or the crowd after

9 Mr. Kordic is finished:

10 "Dear citizens of the State of Croatia." In his -- the third

11 paragraph below that:

12 "Ignac Kostroman: We will build a state -- we shall build a

13 state of citizens," et cetera.

14 At the end of that intervention:

15 "We are Croats and this is our Croatian state."

16 Page 4 of the English version, middle of the page, Kostroman

17 says:

18 "I believe and maintain that we are an integral part of the

19 State of Croatia."

20 The audience applauds. Skip a line.

21 "Ignac Kostroman: We will be an integral part of our dear State

22 of Croatia by hook or by crook."

23 Now, sir, would you also applaud those words?

24 A. The way you interpreted them I would not. They were baseless.

25 Kostroman can say whatever he wants and be responsible for his words. I

Page 47735

1 don't want to comment, first of all, something I did not hear. I'm

2 referring to what you say, how you interpret it, and I would not applaud

3 to that.

4 Q. Let's go back and let's -- let's go back to the question that I

5 took you to some minutes ago now. In your Kordic testimony, sir, you

6 referred at -- on some instances to Muslim soldiers as Mujahedin, and my

7 question to you was: Was that a general term that you used for all

8 Muslim soldiers, kind of like the Greens you said. Well, you didn't

9 think Greens was really a derogatory term. And did you refer to all

10 Muslim soldiers as Mujahedin?

11 A. I precisely knew who was Mujahedin. I felt the consequences of

12 them being in that area, but far be it from me that I would call all

13 Muslim soldiers Mujahedin. When we discuss the term the Greens, this was

14 a brief way to describe the parties to the conflict.

15 Q. And your testimony to the Chamber is that the only time you used

16 the term "Mujahedin" was in reference to somebody that you considered to

17 be a particular extremist or in a particular unit and that you did not

18 use that term to describe Muslim generally. Is that your testimony?

19 A. Yes. I used the term "Mujahedin" for Mujahedin who were

20 different from the others. It was clear who was Mujahedin and who was

21 not.

22 Q. Sir, arising out of all this in the last few minutes and the

23 Kordic speech, the Kostroman speech, the swear -- the oath that we talked

24 about, you saw Mr. Kordic as a hero, didn't you, and you came to testify

25 in his defence in The Hague because wanted to defend Mr. Kordic, defend

Page 47736

1 him personally because you considered him a hero.

2 A. Your Honours, when I spoke yesterday of insinuations this is one

3 of them. Kordic for me was never a hero. He was not a political leader

4 that I would follow, come to speak of that. And my testimony is my

5 individual attitude towards the Court to help the court take a very

6 difficult decision in this and in other cases. I was an immediate

7 witness, much more than others, and to put me into imagined groups or --

8 of individuals, this is -- I do not allow. I will answer any question,

9 but this -- well, I understand this as condemnation. Why did you testify

10 in Kordic? Why are you testifying in this case? I don't know how to

11 take it.

12 Q. Sir, you came and testified in Mr. Kordic's defence, claiming

13 that he had no military power, no -- was not a military commander, had no

14 military involvement in Central Bosnia. You came and you took that

15 position under oath. You maintained that position when Mr. Nice showed

16 you document after document demonstrating Mr. Kordic's military

17 involvement, and you persisted in that, in your position, to defend

18 Mr. Kordic, because you felt he was a hero; correct?

19 A. Mr. Nice called me a liar on several occasions in that case, but

20 I ascribed that to the lack of proper procedures at this court. I repeat

21 again: Kordic did not command in this operational zone of Central

22 Bosnia, in the military district of Vitez. He could not have commanded

23 it. I spoke so then, and I'm saying this now, and particularly I did not

24 consider him to be a hero.

25 MR. SCOTT: Could I have the usher's assistance, please, to place

Page 47737

1 another document on the ELMO. Drop down there, so we can see the top

2 part, please. Maybe the whole -- maybe we can get the whole thing on

3 there. Just about. Almost. Yeah.

4 Q. Sir, you testified to the positions that I've outlined briefly to

5 you in the last few minutes. The Kordic Trial Chamber didn't find your

6 evidence particularly persuasive. This is an excerpt -- these are

7 excerpts from the actual judgement. It's an official record of this

8 tribunal, and in paragraph 585 of the Trial Chamber's judgement the

9 Kordic Chamber, the President in that case being Judge May, said:

10 "On the other hand, the defence in answer to the Prosecution

11 evidence about Mr. Kordic's role points to a number of milinfosums and

12 other documents which refer to others as commander of the HVO in Busovaca

13 in the relevant period, December 1992 to February 1993. The defence

14 maintains that Kordic had no military power, did not and was not in a

15 position to order military attacks. To this end, a great deal of

16 evidence was called to show that Kordic played no military part in the

17 conflict and simply wished to help his people: The defence relies on

18 this evidence in respect of Kordic's alleged role in the Busovaca

19 conflict."

20 The Trial Chamber then in footnote 1069 listed the evidence that

21 the Defence put forward to support that position. First among that

22 evidence as you'll see here in footnote 1069, Major General

23 Filip Filipovic.

24 Now, let's contrast that Defence position in which you were cited

25 in support of to the Trial Chamber's actual findings, paragraph 586.

Page 47738

1 "The Trial Chamber finds that Dario Kordic was implicated in the

2 attack on Busovaca as a leader exerting both political and military

3 authority. The Trial Chamber draws this inference from the evidence of

4 the audiotape, the documentary evidence, and the evidence of the

5 accused's use of a headquarters and his control over the roads. The

6 Trial Chamber is satisfied there is no truth in the evidence put forward

7 by the Defence that the accused played no military part in the conflict

8 and was simply helping his people."

9 I put to you again, sir, and as demonstrated here by the Trial

10 Chamber's assessment of your evidence, you came here to defend Mr. Kordic

11 and gave evidence that was just totally contradicted by other evidence in

12 the case, and you persisted in giving that evidence, taking your position

13 even in the face of evidence that Mr. Nice put in front of you; correct?

14 A. Your Honours, what was shown to me in that -- those proceedings,

15 well, nothing which could indicate that I would have a separate opinion

16 concerning a certain area. It cannot be that Kordic commanded in the

17 military district of Vitez. He may have influence over certain

18 commanders. He had some charisma and power in certain areas, but I can

19 tell you this: He could not command in Travnik, in Vitez, in

20 Novi Travnik. He could not issue in Zepce with Niko Lozancic, nothing in

21 Kiseljak, in the area of Kiseljak. He could not command anybody. I

22 don't know what the Trial Chamber found maybe on the basis of documents

23 and testimonies, but what I can tell you is that Mr. Kordic did not

24 command HVO units, and I will hold this opinion until I dead -- I die.

25 Q. Sir, you considered, you personally considered the indictments

Page 47739

1 against Mr. Kordic and Mr. Blaskic and others to be an act of political

2 aggression, "political aggression [realtime transcript read in error

3 "address"] by this Tribunal"; correct?

4 A. Could you please tell me when I stated that?

5 Q. Well, perhaps you would like to turn to Exhibit P11131, P11131.

6 JUDGE TRECHSEL: In the meantime, the transcript is a bit watered

7 down. It reads on line 20 of page 70, political address by this

8 Tribunal. I think you spoke of aggression, not address. Is that

9 correct?

10 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Judge Trechsel, it's aggression.

11 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, counsel.

12 MR. SCOTT: Aggression, a-g-g-r-e-s-s-i-o-n.

13 Q. If you have Exhibit P11131, sir, perhaps you'll recall an

14 interview that you gave to the Croatian state news agency HINA in Zagreb,

15 based in Zagreb, H-I-N-A, news agency Zagreb, as reported by the BBC news

16 service, Novi Travnik, 18th of November:

17 "The commander of the joint headquarters of the federal armed

18 force of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Major General

19 Filip Filipovic said yesterday that six leaders of Croat people in

20 Central Bosnia, whom The Hague war Tribunal has indicted, were honest

21 men. General Filipovic added that he believed that Croats in the Lasva

22 Valley would resist as 'political aggression.'"

23 Skipping down to the end of the article quoting you: "'To me

24 this is the third aggression (following the Serbian and Muslim) against

25 Croats in Central Bosnia. This one has been conducted by the

Page 47740

1 international community,' General Filipovic said."

2 That's your view. That was your view at the time. That was your

3 view when you came to defend Mr. Kordic in his case, and that's your view

4 today, isn't it?

5 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have an objection

6 to that question, and I'd like to suggest that we define what indictments

7 we're dealing with and who the six mean are accused before this Tribunal

8 for a statement of this kind to be given, because otherwise joining up

9 part of the story about Dario Kordic with this statement we could arrive

10 in a situation where we don't know who we're talking about. Perhaps they

11 were Croats who were accused but acquitted at this Tribunal. So which

12 six leaders of the Croatian people give rise to this statement.

13 THE PROSECUTOR: I'm most happy to assist. The six were

14 Dario Kordic, Tihomir Blaskic, Mario Cerkez, Mr. Aleksovski,

15 Pero Skopljak, and Ivan Santic. Mr. Kordic, Mr. Blaskic, Mr. Cerkez, and

16 Mr. Aleksovski were all convicted following trial. Mr. Skopljak and

17 Mr. Santic, the indictments were withdrawn by the Office of the

18 Prosecutor and the case did not go forward.

19 MR. KOVACIC: Well, this is not quite correct information. The

20 Prosecution said that those people were high-ranking HVO or HZ HB

21 functionaries in Bosnia-Herzegovina. That is not correct. Five of them

22 are definitively only related to very limited area of Central Bosnia.

23 Better to say one of municipality in Central Bosnia and that is Vitez.

24 Mr. Kordic only is perhaps --

25 MR. SCOTT: Only.

Page 47741

1 MR. KOVACIC: -- a little bit on the higher level, but not other

2 five. And beside, many others were indicted in the same or very similar

3 indictment. Some of them acquitted even -- even before the trial starts

4 and some during the trial. This is not, of course, mentioned.

5 Thank you.

6 MR. SCOTT: And to what end? That's --

7 MR. KOVACIC: So --

8 MR. SCOTT: So --

9 MR. KOVACIC: It shows that it is very different. Sometimes you

10 got the case and sometimes not. So it doesn't look like it was black and

11 white. Thank you.

12 MR. SCOTT: Excuse me, Mr. Kovacic, but that's -- to the extent

13 you're casting aspersions on the Office of the Prosecutor on this

14 Tribunal, that's just not correct. It was a quite entirely ethical and

15 entirely responsible; in fact, not political aggression at all. The fact

16 that the Office of the Prosecutor had the good ethical and honest sense

17 to withdraw certain indictments as not sufficiently supported was not a

18 political decision, it was a legal one, and the reality is that

19 Mr. Kordic was convicted. He was the most important -- this man, in

20 fact, testified in the Kordic case that he was the most important

21 politician in Central Bosnia. He was no small fish. Mr. Blaskic the

22 head of the Central Bosnia Operative Zone, one of the four most senior

23 officers below the Main Staff and all of the HVO, no small fish, and he

24 was convicted. There were four of them convicted and two of the

25 indictments with withdrawn, and I'm happy to say that. I feel no doubt

Page 47742

1 or question about that.

2 MR. KOVACIC: Well, I didn't expect such a rude respond. Let's

3 take Blaskic as an example.

4 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I think -- I think

5 this -- this is rather distracted and taking the attention away from what

6 is at issue. I think Mr. Scott has first put this interview to the

7 witness and now asks him whether he has the same attitude today, and I

8 think that's a proper question and whether the -- how high ranking the

9 others were, this is really not relevant. It doesn't help, I'm sorry.

10 MR. KOVACIC: I entirely agree with exactly what you said, but

11 then he should ask on that way, but the Prosecutor is trying to create

12 artificially and without base atmosphere in which the witness has no

13 other choice but to say, well, yes, sir. I mean, this is -- this is kind

14 of pressure to the witness. And by the way --

15 JUDGE TRECHSEL: It is.

16 MR. KOVACIC: -- factual representations by the Prosecutor should

17 be guarded.

18 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Overlapping speakers]... Mr. Kovacic --

19 MR. KOVACIC: [Overlapping speakers]... for example, the last

20 thing that he said for Blaskic, Blaskic is on the end sentenced and tried

21 for -- well -- allow me licensa poetica. For a traffic offence in

22 comparison what he was indicted.

23 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Mr. Kovacic --

24 MR. KOVACIC: So he was not [overlapping speakers] a big fish.

25 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Mr. Kovacic, I quite agree that the witness is

Page 47743

1 put under pressure. I absolutely agree with you. I share this

2 observation. But, Mr. Kovacic, this is the essence of cross-examination.

3 It is a very unpleasant exercise whether exercised by Defence or by the

4 public prosecutor. Unfortunately, this is the system that is applied

5 here. So I think we should allow Mr. Scott to go on.

6 MR. KOVACIC: I agree, Your Honour, but --

7 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.

8 MR. KOVACIC: -- this pressure on cross should have a very, very

9 sensitive border. We cannot be too aggressive. On the end, we depends

10 on the witnesses. I wonder who we will get in the future. Thank you.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, here in these trial

13 proceedings we're not having again Blaskic or Kordic at the accused

14 stand. We're not retrying them here.

15 Just one technical point submitted by the Prosecutor regarding

16 you. It was the part, the military part that Mr. Kordic possibly played.

17 You said no, Kordic was a political man and had no military role. That

18 is what you say. And I was listening to you, but always thinking,

19 because I don't hide anything. I'm absolutely 100 per cent transparent

20 for everybody, for the Prosecution, for the witness or the Defence. It's

21 absolute transparency on my part. So I take the Prosecution case. The

22 Prosecutor says that Kordic had a military role. So I translate -- I'm

23 trying to put him in the chain of command.

24 As I understood it, we have Mr. Blaskic, and you told us that in

25 the four operative zones you were in the Vitez Operative Zone. So I'm

Page 47744

1 wondering whether -- assuming that Kordic has a military role where he

2 would be in this chain of command. Where could he be placed in theory?

3 Would he be at your level or close to -- next to Blaskic?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, let me clarify. In

5 the context of Kordic and my testimony here in the Kordic trial, I was --

6 it was said that I had said -- or that's how I understood it, that I had

7 used this political aggression or whatever, and then a newspaper article

8 is pulled out from 1995 and presented to me, and as I heard presented

9 here, it said -- well, what I want to say is that the conduct towards me

10 is improper. If that is proper procedure at this Tribunal, then fine.

11 I've become accustomed to living under pressure, but it is improper on

12 the part of the professional sitting here in the courtroom. That's my

13 opinion. You can't conduct a trial in that fashion. You can't speak

14 about Kordic, exhibits, my testimony during the Kordic trial, and then

15 use the term "political aggression" taken from a newspaper article.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] General, I asked you a

17 question. It was a technical question that does not call for any

18 comments. So I have the Prosecution case which I compared to your

19 position. The Prosecutor insists on saying that Kordic had a military

20 role. So that's the Prosecutor's case. And you say I don't agree with

21 it. So I'm trying to really sort of see what is truth in all this. I

22 try to understand everybody's position and I'm asking you this: If

23 Kordic had any military role, where would he be positioned in the chain

24 of command, at your level or next to Mr. Blaskic. This is what I'm

25 trying to understand, you see.

Page 47745

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour --

2 JUDGE PRANDLER: General Filipovic, I also would like to say the

3 following: As a matter of fact, I do not want to be, of course, kind of

4 a teacher for you and also I would like to be very transparent, but I

5 would like to tell you that now here you are not here to tell us and to

6 tell the Prosecution what kind of questions you would like to answer, but

7 as my fellow Judge, Judge Trechsel, a few minutes ago explained to you,

8 you are to be here, as a matter of fact, to answer the questions

9 according to your best knowledge and -- and in a fashion which, of

10 course, quite -- should be quite -- to have equilibrium. You may say

11 that do you not know about it. You may say that you do not understand

12 the question. You may say that you do not agree with it, but you -- your

13 opinion, this or that, but anyway, you have to answer the questions. It

14 is the rule of the game, and I hope you will understand it. Thank you.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So please answer my question.

16 Otherwise, we're getting lost.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've said many times Kordic did not

18 command. He's not in the chain of command, and you can't put him

19 anywhere in the chain of command, absolutely nowhere. I think that's a

20 concrete answer.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So he was nowhere. I hail from

22 a country that is mainly characterised by logics, and so I'm thinking

23 aloud here in front of you.

24 Mr. Blaskic was tried. Mr. Kordic was tried too. You are a mere

25 witness never you -- were you indicted or convicted for anything. But

Page 47746

1 let us take Mr. Blaskic and Mr. Kordic. You, at any rate, you would be

2 in the chain of command but only under them, because you cannot be put

3 between Kordic and Blaskic otherwise you would have been tried too. Is

4 that wrong?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was the number two man in the

6 Operative Zone of Central Bosnia below Blaskic. That's clear.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you're telling us that in

8 Blaskic's operative zone you were number two, so there cannot be anybody

9 between you and Blaskic; is that correct?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, there couldn't have been

11 anybody between me and Blaskic.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Okay. You see, I'm trying to

13 understand from what a logical point of view. I'm trying to understand

14 why Blaskic and Kordic were indicted in a case whilst the number two was

15 not, because you were the number two. At least that's what you say.

16 Unless we think that Mr. Kordic was number two and you were number three.

17 But you say no, no, no, you were number two. I don't know whether this

18 shed any light on your case, Mr. Scott.

19 Yes?

20 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I know that

21 when we come to cross-examination, as Judge Trechsel said, it is

22 legitimate to exert pressure on the witness; however, I think that

23 regardless of the fact that there is pressure it must be fair pressure.

24 Now, if we are putting to the witness an alleged statement of his given

25 to some interview to some journalist, we have to establish first of all

Page 47747

1 what this was and say that was your position then, now, and what will it

2 be in future? We heard it earlier on in the Kordic trial. So this is

3 something that was carried by the BBC, taken from the Croatian news

4 agency HINA. Now, HINA could have taken the article from any journalist,

5 perhaps from Bosnia-Herzegovina. So I think it would be fair to ask the

6 witness whether he remembers giving this interview in the first place and

7 whether he remembers saying that. And then, once we hear the answer, the

8 Prosecutor can go ahead and ask him if that is his position, and then the

9 Defence counsel can prepare themselves to re-examine, so we need to know

10 who the author of this article is and who it is who claims that

11 Mr. Filipovic said what said -- made this statement in this article.

12 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I think we have a witness before us who is

13 controlled, intelligent, courageous, and I have the confidence that he

14 would have said immediately, "I never said that," but he did not. So I

15 think, Mr. Scott -- Mr. Scott, I think you should continue.

16 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] You should sit over there

17 and see what kind of pressure is upon you. I do have some rights here,

18 Your Honour. First of all, the Prosecutor conveyed this completely

19 erroneously. The Prosecutor first of all put Kordic's statement where he

20 said we're not going to stay in a Rump Yugoslavia at the time when

21 Bosnia-Herzegovina was in Yugoslavia and Izetbegovic made the agreement,

22 and it is up to this Tribunal to establish the truth. There are so many

23 lies stated here and so much pressure is exerted that it's a catastrophe,

24 and that's what it is, Judge Trechsel. Yes.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] General Praljak, whenever

Page 47748

1 sensitive issues are addressed by the Prosecution, you react to them.

2 You've just said that the Prosecutor misstated, mischaracterised Kordic's

3 words. It may be right, it may be wrong, but there's one thing you

4 should not forget. This witness is a witness for the Petkovic Defence.

5 The Petkovic Defence called this witness to testify. Next week they will

6 have time for redirect. Obviously, if the Petkovic Defence is of the

7 view that the Prosecutor mischaracterised those words, it will say so

8 automatically. So please let the lawyers do their jobs, because this

9 witness is not your witness. He is a witness for General Petkovic. So

10 let the lawyers do their work. If Ms. Alaburic feels that there's been

11 mischaracterisation, she will say so, and there will always be time to

12 change and correct things.

13 I don't know. We saw some video footage. We saw people

14 applauding, shouting Croatia, Croatia. I've seen a lady in tears.

15 Obviously, it was a very important moment. I've heard the Defence say

16 that this video footage had to be put back in the then context, which was

17 a context of the independence of the Republic of Croatia. I also have

18 seen that Mr. Kordic spoke about Germany, thanked Germany. We all know

19 that Germany was one of the very first countries to recognise the

20 independent country of the Republic of Croatia. I've also seen that

21 Mr. Kordic spoke about the Pope and thanked the Pope as well. So this is

22 what I have read in the statement.

23 The Prosecutor has his own view, his own take on things. That's

24 his job and that's what he's doing as part of the cross-examination, and

25 the witness can say no, I don't agree with you Prosecutor. That's what

Page 47749

1 the witness has not stopped saying. So why do you have to speak on top

2 of that? The Judges are here. They listen. They can read. I don't

3 think we're dumb. Well, I hope and I claim I'm not dumb. I may be

4 wrong, but, please, let us work in peace.

5 You see, I put questions before in order to see where Kordic

6 could be positioned, because the Prosecutor said that he was a military

7 man, and if he is, he should be in a chain of command. And the witness

8 said, "Well, there was number one Blaskic, and then number two it was

9 me." So please stay calm, because you really jump out of your box, and I

10 think you're going to have a heart attack. You frighten me. Please calm

11 down and let the lawyers do their work. You've got excellent lawyers.

12 Everybody's excellent, so let them do their work. And sometimes we ask

13 you to take the floor. You're allowed to ask questions of witnesses.

14 Well, maybe not for this one because you've done it already, but next

15 time you could revisit the issue and say, "Well, yes, this was said," so

16 you can tackle the topic again.

17 This is what I wanted to tell you, Mr. Praljak.

18 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Thank you. I do hope that

19 I will have a heart attack. I sincerely hope so, whether you believe me

20 or not, precisely because -- well, you say untruths. I'm saying lies,

21 and I want that to be crystal clear. Lies were stated there. The

22 Defence counsel didn't hear properly what Kordic said. I'm sitting far

23 away from the counsel.

24 Erroneous facts cannot be presented at this Tribunal whether it

25 be done by the Prosecution or whoever, and if somebody has portrayed

Page 47750

1 something erroneously, then he must be cautioned and told.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I believe that we

3 need for the situation to cool down. We should all stay collected,

4 prepare for the rest of the questions. I believe Ms. Alaburic also must

5 also prepare for her redirect. Our witness probably needs to have a

6 rest. He's been in the witness seat for three days now, and it's very

7 tiring to answer questions all the time.

8 I believe that next week will be -- we'll finish this witness,

9 and then -- well, I believe Mr. Scott has about an hour left for his

10 cross-examination. I can tell you exactly how much time he has left.

11 So far you have used two hours and 31 minutes, so you have one

12 hour and 30 minutes left. We're sitting for four hours tomorrow. I

13 believe that between the cross-examination and the redirect we should be

14 finished with this witness, and then we'll have the other witness for

15 Tuesday and Wednesday. That's just to give you an idea for the schedule

16 for next week.

17 Ms. Alaburic, do you agree?

18 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't know whether

19 there was a mistake, but we do not have any information whereby we would

20 be working tomorrow. Tomorrow is Friday. We're not working tomorrow.

21 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: It was Monday, not

22 tomorrow. Interpreter's correction: Monday, not tomorrow.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So we'll continue on Monday.

24 Monday Mr. Scott will have one hour and 30 minutes left. Then we'll have

25 the redirect.

Page 47751

1 So, Witness, your testimony will be over on Monday, and then

2 we'll have another witness for Tuesday and Wednesday. Witness, remember

3 my advice -- my instructions, actually. You're not supposed to contact

4 anyone.

5 And I wish everyone a pleasant evening.

6 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 5.55 p.m.,

7 to be reconvened on Monday, the 7th day of

8 December, 2009, at 2.15 p.m.