100113ED

Page 48260

1 Q. Good morning, Mr. Maric. I'd like to start off from where we

2 left yesterday. When we finished, we were talking about ammunition and

3 the HVO. And specifically I was showing you a comment that

4 General Praljak made during his testimony.

5 MS. WEST: Can I have Sanction, please.

6 Q. And it regarded control of the ammunition. We'll just wait a

7 moment for that comment to come up. Here we go. And in it he was asked

8 generally about ammunition and who was in charge of it, and his answer at

9 line 19, in transcript 24407, is that:

10 "The chief of the artillery of the Main Staff controlled the

11 amount of ammunition used, how much ammunition there was left in the

12 depots."

13 So, sir, my question for you is: did the Main Staff control the

14 amount of ammunition used?

15 A. The Main Staff collected information from lower levels, and thus

16 it did have at its disposal information about the quantity of ammunition.

17 Q. Thank you. And on a more general level, yesterday we also spoke

18 about the different artillery regiments, specifically the rocket

19 regiment. We spoke about the ammunition used -- excuse me, the artillery

20 used in brigades and the battalions and also the operation zone. And on

21 a more general level, in regard to all that testimony, would you say that

22 it's fair to conclude that the Main Staff exerted strong control over the

23 artillery?

24 A. The Main Staff did have control, and I wouldn't be able to call

25 it strong control. It was just control like in any other military.

Page 48261

1 Q. Okay. If you can't call it strong control but you have compared

2 it to control in any other military, what sort of adjective would you

3 use? Was it competent control? Was it direct control?

4 A. That control went from the superior commands to the inferior

5 commands to the extent the brigade can -- had control at its level to the

6 same -- to the same extent the military district had control over its

7 units. Professional organs conveyed information from time to time to

8 professional bodies in the Main Staff. At their briefings, those bodies

9 probably briefed their own superiors in the Main Staff.

10 Q. Just for the record, I believe earlier, I don't have it on my

11 transcript, it's line 6, page 2, when I refer to a transcript that was

12 44407 - the transcript says 2.

13 So let's talk s little bit more about this control. And I'd like

14 to go to a document. So you have the binder in front of you, and I'm

15 going to give you numbers, and you can turn to them. At the same time on

16 the screen in front of you, you'll also see the documents. The first is

17 P00343. It's the very first one, I think.

18 So, sir, this is the first document in the binder, and it's a

19 document dated July 22nd, 1992, and on top it says "urgent summons for

20 artillery commanders." This is a document issued by General Petkovic and

21 it says:

22 "Artillery commanders or persons in charge of artillery shall

23 report to the main headquarters of the HVO on July 22nd ... to give

24 details on the types, number, and deployment of artillery."

25 Mr. Maric, would you agree with me that this document evidences

Page 48262

1 that the Main Staff, at least in July of 1992, resorted some type of

2 control over the artillery?

3 A. Your Honours, I don't see in this document the area where I was

4 active, and I wouldn't dare to comment upon the rest of the document. In

5 other words, the specific document does not refer to the area where I

6 acted.

7 Q. Thank you, Mr. Maric. We're going to go directly to that area

8 now, P03983, P03983. This is a document dated August 6th, 1993, and it's

9 signed by General Tole.

10 A. Please, would you repeat the number of the document.

11 Q. Yes, 03983. And perhaps, at least in the beginning, the usher

12 might be able to provide assistance. You have in front of you. Thank

13 you.

14 A. I've got it on the screen, actually.

15 Q. So this is August 1993, and this is to the south-east command.

16 It's an order, and number 1 says:

17 "I hereby appoint Mijo Jelic, commander of the defence of the

18 town of Mostar.

19 "2. All units in Mostar are placed under his command."

20 And then if you move down to 5, it explicitly says:

21 "The HVO Main Staff is to take over the command of the defence of

22 Mostar."

23 So, sir, come August 1993, not only was the HVO in direct command

24 over the south-east command zone, as we talked about yesterday, but in

25 August of 1993, it directly took over the defence of Mostar; correct?

Page 48263

1 A. Your Honours, it arises from this document that the Main Staff of

2 the HVO indeed took over the defence of Mostar.

3 Q. So when the Main Staff took over the defence of Mostar, you'd

4 agree with me that it also became directly responsible for those weapons

5 controlled by the operational zone of the south-east command in Mostar,

6 specifically Mostar?

7 A. It arises from this document that the Main Staff took over the

8 command over one part of the front line which up to then was under the

9 command of the operation zone South-east Herzegovina. Only in one part,

10 not in the entire front line of the South-east Herzegovina operation

11 zone.

12 Q. Thank you, Mr. Maric. And as I indicated, we're specifically

13 talking about that one part. We're talking about the city of Mostar.

14 That's where you were located; correct?

15 A. Your Honours, my office was in the city of Mostar, and my

16 interest and my zone of activity was across the entire area of the

17 South-east Herzegovina operation zone, which means that the latter was

18 much broader than the zone of the city of Mostar itself.

19 Q. And expanding out from the city of Mostar, would you agree, sir,

20 that the Main Staff had control over artillery in all the operational

21 zones?

22 A. Not in operative terms, because in operational zones and in the

23 units that composed the strength of those operational zone, the command

24 over all units was primarily in the hands of the commander of the

25 operational zone where the units were deployed.

Page 48264

1 Q. So let's look at operator -- excuse me, operative terms -- or,

2 rather, operations. I'd like to go to P01874, 01874. You're going to

3 see it shortly in front of you. And this is an example of artillery in

4 another operational zone. This is the north-west zone. It's a document

5 dated April 13th from General Petkovic. And under number 1, the last

6 paragraph, he writes:

7 "I requested from the Rama Brigade to submit an extraordinary

8 report and ordered them to prepare conditions for artillery activity

9 against mentioned area, but that they should not open fire without our

10 approval."

11 So this is an example where the Main Staff is involved in the

12 operations of an operation -- of a command zone; correct?

13 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, objection to the way

14 the report is being interpreted. I believe that in these proceedings we

15 have established that this is a collective report from the operation

16 zone. If somebody is talking in the first person singular, it would be

17 the commander of the operational zone, rather than Chief of the

18 Main Staff. The person is mentioned herein, but he's not the author. It

19 says here that this is a report from the South-east Herzegovina

20 operational zone, so when the first person singular is used, then this

21 refers to the part that came from Tomislavgrad. I just want to make sure

22 that everybody understands who is that, me or I, who writes the report.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This has already been

24 addressed. The Trial Chamber is aware that this is a joint report coming

25 from various operation zones and that Petkovic signed this document,

Page 48265

1 which is a compilation of various reports.

2 Please proceed.

3 MS. WEST:

4 Q. Thank you, sir, and we'll go back to this. Would you agree with

5 me that this shows that the Main Staff was involved in overseeing or

6 understanding or knowing what the artillery operations were in various

7 operation zones?

8 A. Your Honours, since this refers to the zone in which I had no

9 previous doings, I had no previous information about the nature of the

10 organisation there, about the nature of combat activities that were

11 taking place there, I wouldn't be able to comment upon this document

12 because this doesn't refer to the area or the zone where I perform my

13 duties and where I was active as an officer.

14 Q. So, Mr. Maric, we'll talk a little bit more about -- about

15 exactly what your job was. And on Monday you were asked by Ms. Alaburic

16 what -- the question:

17 "As chief of artillery did you have any command capacity?"

18 And your answer at page 35 of the daily transcript was:

19 "The chief of any branch whatsoever does not have any direct

20 connections to any unit nor is he able to command."

21 Sir, I'd like to look at P05361. P05361. This is an August 1993

22 document. And in it, under number 1, it says, "Decision on action."

23 It says:

24 "In accordance with the orders of the chief of artillery of the

25 Main Staff, deputy Chief of the Main Staff, chief of artillery of the

Page 48266

1 South-eastern Herzegovina operation zones opened fire at the following

2 targets ..."

3 And then it lists some targets. Sir, you were the chief of

4 artillery of the south-east operational zone; correct?

5 A. I was the chief of artillery in the South-east Herzegovina

6 operational zone, yes.

7 Q. And this document says:

8 "In accordance with the orders," you being one of those people,

9 it suggests your order, "they open fire at the following targets,

10 Rastani, Orthodox church," and then it goes on.

11 Do you remember giving such an order, sir?

12 A. Your Honours, Madam Prosecutor, this is not an order. This is a

13 report sent from an operational centre of a unit, and it was signed by a

14 lower-ranking officer, the so-called administrative clerk. The chief of

15 artillery could not personally do anything or issue such an order. The

16 chief of artillery could only implement orders received by his -- from

17 his superior commander. What you read in this report does not arise from

18 the fact that the chief of artillery of a branch or at one level had

19 indeed issued an order.

20 Q. But, sir, were you aware of this? Do you remember this?

21 A. Your Honours, I remember those days, and I remember certain

22 activities on the front line in the military district of Mostar -- or,

23 rather, South-east Herzegovina. However, I cannot confirm nor was it

24 possible for a chief of branch to issue an order to any unit whatsoever.

25 Q. Not -- notwithstanding, sir, you did indicate if -- you've agreed

Page 48267

1 that, indeed, you were the chief of artillery for the South-eastern

2 Herzegovina operation zone, so can you tell me why at this time in

3 April -- August of 1993 the HVO would be targeting an Orthodox church?

4 A. Your Honours, in August 1993, the Orthodox church was nothing but

5 a heap of stones. In some places in the vicinity those stones were used

6 to construct shelters for equipment and manpower. That building had been

7 destroyed long before.

8 The term that the duty operations officer might use and the

9 practice that he might use guided him to mention the general region where

10 military targets were. In military documents, all targets are

11 enumerated. They are assigned numbers. This officer, at his level, did

12 not necessarily have to know the numerical designations of such targets.

13 He was probably only familiar with the region. This report mainly served

14 for logistical purposes and provided an opportunity to monitor the

15 ammunition status at any point in time and its consumption. And this was

16 the purpose of this report. This was an internal unit report which was

17 never sent anywhere, either to a lower or to a higher level. It was

18 primarily and exclusively used by the unit and in the unit.

19 Q. Sir, I'm going to change subjects, and on Monday you were --

20 sorry?

21 JUDGE TRECHSEL: May I just ask a little question regarding this

22 document. It is signed -- it is signed, I quote, "Gospodin Darko Eric."

23 That strikes me as not normal for a military document. Normally a

24 military officer would sign with his grade. Do you have an explanation

25 for this?

Page 48268

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this gentleman Darko

2 Eric, is an NCO. And that time he had no rank, no rank at all. Only

3 later did he become a non-commissioned officer. And generally he was a

4 desk officer, an administrative person. He -- his qualification was in

5 writing. He couldn't really describe military situations.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

7 MR. STEWART: Your Honours, may I point out that just in case it

8 causes anybody to raise questions in their heads, that the dates above

9 the signature in the report compiled the 24th September, 1994, that's

10 just an error. The original says 1993. Just in case it set any alarm

11 bells ringing.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Stewart.

13 Colonel, I must tell you that when I saw this document I see that

14 the target here is an Orthodox church. I initially felt that this

15 document might be a Prosecution document. And it's stated that only the

16 stones were left, but I think there's something missing for any

17 reasonable trier of fact.

18 According to you, when was this church actually destroyed, on

19 what date?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I can't recall the

21 date, but it was much earlier during the conflicts with the Army of

22 Republika Srpska and the Yugoslav People's Army, sometime in the middle

23 of 1992, that is to say perhaps over a year before this document.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The document could in effect be

25 construed in the way you are saying it, because the document states a

Page 48269

1 number of places and not specific targets. What is the place -- where

2 was this Orthodox church located? Thirteen places are mentioned here.

3 Where was this church actually?

4 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: This could be

5 incriminating evidence, instead of Prosecution evidence.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Orthodox church is located to

7 the east of Mostar, some hundred metres above the M17 road connecting

8 Konjic, Jablanica, Mostar, Metkovic, and Neum, in an unpopulated area.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Was it around Rastani?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. It's about 3 kilometres away

11 from Rastani, perhaps 4. East of Mostar, on an elevation overlooking the

12 M17 road.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If I understand correctly, the

14 soldiers of the opposing party picked up the stones to build bunkers; is

15 that right? So you felt that it was necessary to fire shots on this

16 location to prevent them from building any bunkers.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the nearer and more distant

18 environs of that church, there are natural features that with minor use

19 of these rocks provided adequate shelter from the firing of the enemy

20 side.

21 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Sorry, Your Honour. With your

22 leave, I just want to draw your attention to something illogical that is

23 obviously an error in the original document, and thus in the translation

24 as well. If we look at the date of this document, we'll see it's the

25 24th of August; and if we look at the last line in the document, it says

Page 48270

1 the report was done for the day of 24 September. Thank you.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

3 MS. WEST:

4 Q. Mr. Maric, on Monday you were asked about the procurement of

5 artillery, and the question was:

6 "Tell us briefly, Mr. Maric, how did you procure artillery

7 weapons?"

8 And your answer on daily transcript 37 was:

9 "We started in the end of 1991 acquiring a very small number of

10 artillery weapons. And in the beginning of 1992, we acquired a larger

11 number from several sources. Part of the artillery weapons procured in

12 my area came from Travnik, because Travnik had certain bases. I don't

13 know exactly what sources in Travnik, but I know that we required some

14 more from Travnik. I know we required more from Croatia because there

15 were still no public borders at the time."

16 Mr. Maric, what is the time-frame for your acquisition of weapons

17 from Croatia?

18 A. Precisely that period, the beginning of 1992.

19 Q. And did you get artillery from Croatia any time later than the

20 beginning of 1992?

21 A. Your Honours, Madam Prosecutor, I as technical professional

22 officer had the duty to draw up the assignment -- to describe the

23 assignment to my superior and state our requirements in keeping with the

24 situation on the front line. By that time the logistics was already in

25 place as a separate department, and it was their job to deal with

Page 48271

1 procurement. I did not have to know when and from where those weapons

2 were required. My job was, one, to use the existing personnel and the

3 weapons we had to create a good team, a good unit that would meet the

4 requirements in combat in keeping with the rules of fire and other rules

5 that had existed first in the JNA and that we had taken over and used in

6 that first period.

7 Q. Thank you, Mr. Maric.

8 A. Procurement didn't go through me.

9 Q. All right. You just said procurement didn't go through you, but

10 when we look at what you said on Monday, it appears that you had detailed

11 knowledge in regard to procurement. So I'd like to look at P03071.

12 P03071. This is a July 1993 -- July 1st, 1993 order -- sorry, not order.

13 It looks to be a letter from Bruno Stojic. And it is to an individual

14 named Rojs, R-o-j-s. It's entitled request for artillery ammunition.

15 And it says:

16 "Since we were left with no artillery ammunition for

17 203-millimetre howitzers and 152-millimetre howitzers, please deliver to

18 us whatever quantity may be possible."

19 Mr. Maric, you're distancing yourself from procurement, but would

20 you agree with me that at least in July of 1993 there appears to be, from

21 this document, artillery coming from Croatia?

22 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, just one remark.

23 It's not weapons, it's ammunition.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to see

25 the date, but if I can rely on my memory, the army of Bosnia and

Page 48272

1 Herzegovina had several weapons of this calibre, and at meetings with my

2 colleagues from the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina, they frequently

3 voiced requests to use my connections and the logistics of the HVO to

4 procure these things for them. I remember clearly that at one

5 co-ordination meeting I asked a logistics officer from Mostar, from HVO

6 Mostar, to try to get this for them.

7 MS. WEST:

8 Q. Thank you, Mr. Maric.

9 A. However, we did not succeed. In the military district at that

10 time, we did not have these assets. Once I tried to serve as

11 intermediary to get this ammunition for the army of Bosnia and

12 Herzegovina.

13 MS. WEST:

14 Q. Thank you, Mr. Maric. You can't see it on the screen, but

15 there's a third page attached to this; it's a fact sheet, and that's

16 where I got the date.

17 Now you've just given us information regarding the BiH Army voice

18 request to you to get -- I'll use your connections and logistics at the

19 HVO to procure these things for them. But assuming that July 1, 1993, is

20 the correct date of this document, you'll agree with me that can't be --

21 this cannot be an example of that; right?

22 A. In that case I tried to intercede not in this case but in a

23 different one. I have no comment on this. This is the first time I hear

24 of this request.

25 Q. Mr. Maric, subject -- excuse me, subsequent to July 1993, did you

Page 48273

1 ever hear about the HVO procuring more weapons from Croatia after July of

2 1993?

3 A. I have no such information because, I repeat, particularly in the

4 period in mid-1993, my duties and the situation on the front line

5 required me to deal solely with the use of assets in the military

6 district of Mostar. That was a time when the logistics of the HVO had

7 already grown into a respectable organisation that made acquisitions in a

8 way that I was not familiar with.

9 Q. Thank you, Mr. Maric, but if you forgive me, I'm going to press

10 you a little bit more on this. Because on Monday when you were asked

11 this question from Ms. Alaburic, you gave a very detailed answer in

12 regard to how the HVO procured weapons. I'd like you to look at P05562.

13 This is an October 1993 document from Mr. Stojic. P05562. Again this is

14 to Croatia. In the second paragraph it says:

15 "In agreement with Bruno Stojic, defence minister ... Mr. Santic,

16 president of the Vitez HVO, the MTS is to be transported to the Grude

17 logistics base.

18 "We therefore kindly ask you to transport the following MTS ..."

19 And it lists some MTS.

20 Sir, you would agree with me this document would suggest that as

21 far into 1993, October 1993, the HVO was still getting, in this case, MTS

22 from Croatia.

23 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I am really sorry. I have to object

24 to this question. From the first sentence it is quite obvious whose

25 assets these are. They are assets from Croatia, but I would appreciate

Page 48274

1 it if --

2 THE REGISTRAR: Microphone, please. Thank you. [Overlapping

3 speakers]

4 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I would appreciate it if the witness

5 were allowed to read all of the document. The first sentence makes it

6 clear whose assets these are, and I don't think the question of the

7 Prosecutor is entirely in keeping with the context of the document. Let

8 the witness read the document, and if he has any knowledge he can impart

9 it. I believe this question could mislead the witness.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My answer, Your Honour, regarding

11 this document is that I know nothing about it. As to whether it is

12 authentic and whether this was possible, I don't know, but I had nothing

13 to do with this kind of task, nor could I know anything about it.

14 With Mr. Bruno Stojic I had only one contact, in the beginning of

15 August. And throughout the war all my work was in the organisation of

16 artillery, and my sole responsibility was towards my superior commander.

17 MS. WEST:

18 Q. Mr. Maric, it's been your testimony that in 1993 there were no

19 offensive actions taken by the HVO, and on Monday daily transcript 35,

20 the question was:

21 "If we set aside the operation Bura, Storm, that was executed in

22 1992, were the activities of the HVO predominantly defensive or offensive

23 at that time?"

24 And your answer a witness:

25 "Our activities at the time were exclusively defensive."

Page 48275

1 So just to be clear, is it your testimony that your actions --

2 HVO actions in 1993 were exclusively defensive as well?

3 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Again I have to object to this

4 question, because the reference to the direct examination is not

5 complete. In direct examination we discussed planned offensive actions,

6 which I believe is very important, not offensive actions that would have

7 defence significance, and so the purpose of recovering the territory that

8 had been lost shortly before. So the discussion was about planned

9 offensive actions.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I answer? Perhaps you've found

11 it in the transcript when I said that we mainly dealt with defence and

12 organised defence. You will probably find as well the place where I said

13 I was personally involved and helped with the organisation and planning

14 for the Operation Tempest. So it is true I participated in

15 Operation Tempest by organising and planning in keeping with my duties as

16 chief of artillery.

17 Q. So let's look specifically at April of 1993 in regard to HVO

18 activity. Specifically look at P01868. P01868. This is an April 14th

19 document. At the top it says - you have it in front of you now:

20 "As per order of the head of the defence department, head of the

21 department of interior, and OZ commander, we herewith present our joint

22 plan for intensified control over the town of Mostar."

23 And then the paragraph is entitled "task." And it says:

24 "Due to the increasingly complex security situation, which as a

25 result of the conflict between the BiH and the HVO in Konjic, all police

Page 48276

1 units and civilian -- and civilian police are to be immediately and not

2 later than 14 April ... at 2200 hours put on active alert, while the 2nd,

3 3rd, and 5th battalions, and potentially the 4th, of 2nd Brigade are to

4 be put on increased alert, carry out blockade of all entry points,

5 intensify control in the town of Mostar, and cover all important

6 crossroads ... the snipers as a precaution measure, and intensify patrol

7 between 600 and 2200 hours."

8 Sir, April 1993, this was the period of time when you were in

9 Mostar; correct?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Do you remember these things happening?

12 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, objection. This is

13 a document from the military police. This is a document from the

14 military police; it does not relate to the army in the operation zone.

15 MS. WEST: Your Honours, this witness can testify to this because

16 he was in Mostar in April 1993. And my question was, "Do you remember

17 this happening?" As a layperson in Mostar he can answer that question.

18 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] I only reacted when the question

19 was asked, "Do you remember these things happening?" because it relates

20 to the actions of the military police.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Alaburic, the witness and

22 Colonel sitting before us is an intelligent man. He is able to realise

23 that himself without a lawyer intervening. And then it carries much more

24 weight when he says it. It carries more weight than if you say it.

25 Colonel, you have a document in front of you. Who does this

Page 48277

1 document concern, the military police, the army, the civilian police?

2 Are you concerned in any way by this document?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this document does not

4 relate to me, and could I not comment on it.

5 MS. WEST:

6 Q. So, Mr. Maric, I'm not asking you to comment on it from an

7 artillery standpoint. But in April of 1993, you were a resident of

8 Mostar. So my question: As a resident, as a person who lived in that

9 city, did you see any activity that would suggest a plan by the HVO for

10 intensified control over the town of Mostar?

11 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this is precisely

12 why I objected. How can we talk about this as a plan of the HVO to

13 control the city of Mostar? This relates mainly to my client

14 General Petkovic who was in charge of the Main Staff at the time. And

15 this document is issued by the military police, an institution that has

16 nothing to do with the Main Staff. That is the point of my objection.

17 JUDGE PRANDLER: I would like to say only the following, that if

18 you have a look at page 1, and in the second part of page 1 under "Combat

19 equipment," here we find that, and I quote:

20 "In addition to regular armament at the disposal of the

21 above-mentioned units, the following is to be provided:

22 "Artillery pieces," so-and-so, "armoured combat vehicle and

23 Bofors anti-aircraft gun," and then, "additional equipment," probably

24 equipment, with snipers, hand-held rocket launchers, and other grenades.

25 So I believe that this very part of that plan for intensified control

Page 48278

1 over the town of Mostar -- city, as it has it in its title, has certain

2 relevance to the artillery actions. So I believe that the witness is

3 able and hopefully ready to make comments on this issue. Thank you.

4 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if we wish to

5 discuss this document in that way, then I believe the witness should be

6 allowed enough time to read the entire document rather than relying on

7 what he can see on the screen, just the first page without any header,

8 and he hasn't been given time to see who created the document.

9 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] May I just say briefly

10 since military police is mentioned. One can see when one reads the whole

11 document it was not issued by the department of the military police by --

12 but by a person who is within the military police but on behalf of a

13 group. A special separate group was created but not headed by Mr. Coric,

14 who is not mentioned in this document, by the way, either as a recipient

15 or in any other way by name as a person involved in this action, and we

16 can see who was involved.

17 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] To be fair, I have to say one more

18 thing. I agree with what my colleague says, but my inference that it was

19 a document of the military police is based on the seal.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Colonel, I was about to say

21 something. Judge Prandler mentioned what I was about to say. You don't

22 know this document because clearly it comes from people who are working

23 for the military police, 3rd Battalion, 1st Company, and so on. I had

24 noted that Mr. Coric is not the recipient of this document, but I had

25 noted, like my fellow Judge Prandler, that these people were being

Page 48279

1 equipped with artillery pieces, and I therefore wondered whether the

2 colonel who is sitting before us knew that the military police could be

3 equipped with artillery pieces, and did he play any role in the -- the

4 providing of this equipment? Maybe the equipment came from elsewhere,

5 maybe not. And we felt, both I and my fellow Judge, that you might be

6 able to tell us something about this.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the chief of

8 artillery in the military district of Mostar had the responsibility to

9 worry only about the artillery under the direct command of the operations

10 zone Mostar. That means that any other units existing outside the

11 command of the operation zone Mostar and do not form part of its

12 organisation are not subject to the direction of the chief of artillery.

13 He does not have to take care of their replenishment, including assets

14 that are referred to as artillery. But I have to say, to be precise,

15 that these are 60-millimetre calibres which are deployed in assault units

16 as regular infantry weapons. However, according to the characteristics

17 they are similar to artillery weapons, and that word "artillery" was

18 sometimes used even when it was not quite correct to use it.

19 I have another remark. I have only parts of the document on the

20 left, on the right. Therefore, I'm missing parts of the sentences here.

21 MS. WEST:

22 Q. P01868. Do you have it?

23 MS. WEST: Thank you, Madam Usher.

24 Q. Sir, if we look at the -- you can look at the B/C/S page 2.

25 You'll also note this was copied to the Main Staff and the OZ commander.

Page 48280

1 So I'm going to repeat my question which is in April of 1993, were you

2 aware of this plan for intensified control over the town of Mostar?

3 A. No.

4 Q. P01928.

5 MS. WEST: Madam Usher, if you could please assist. P01928.

6 Q. This is an order from one of the brigade commanders in your

7 operational zone, and it says:

8 "Due to the current situation in the area of responsibility of

9 the 1st Brigade ... I hereby issue the following order:

10 "The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd battalions of the 1st Brigade of the HVO

11 are to prepare one company each. These companies, composed of Croats

12 only, should go on full alert ..."

13 Mr. Maric, do you have any idea as to why on April 17th

14 Colonel Obradovic would be preparing Croat-only companies?

15 A. I cannot answer why the document was issued in this form.

16 Q. P01998, P01998. This is a document from April of 1993, and it

17 talks about highest level of combat readiness.

18 Sir, yesterday you were asked a question about combat readiness

19 as well, and it's at page 15 of the daily. Question yesterday was:

20 "Mr. Maric, is there a difference between an order to raise

21 combat readiness and an order to launch a certain combat operation?"

22 And your answer was:

23 "An order to raise combat readiness means that all the elements

24 of a unit should be raised to such a level of preparedness that they can

25 be used should that become necessary."

Page 48281

1 So, Mr. Maric, my first question to you is: would you agree with

2 me that an order for combat readiness shows that a military organisation

3 is planning an operation?

4 A. No.

5 Q. Let's look specifically at this one: P01998, April 20th. It's a

6 Lasic order.

7 "For the aim of achieving the highest level of combat readiness

8 and due to the escalation of enemy attacks, I hereby issue the following

9 order." And then it's 1 through 11. And these -- they appear to be a

10 positioning of certain artillery, certain crews. And then number 11 says

11 the deadline for implementation of this order is 24 hours.

12 Sir, do you remember this order from April 20th, 1993?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And would you agree, then, that south-east operational zone in

15 Mostar was preparing itself for the highest level of combat readiness?

16 A. Your Honours, April the 20th, 1993, was the day when the

17 intelligence services of the HVO informed the OZ command about the order

18 which contained the intent of the BiH Army to organise themselves and

19 raise their combat preparedness, as well as the objectives that pointed

20 to the fact that in the shortest possible time the BH Army in the

21 territories that had been defended by the OZ command would carry out

22 offensive actions. In keeping with that, the minimum duty of a commander

23 was to analyse that intelligence and to issue a set of instructions to

24 his units accordingly, instructions or orders. That's how I interpret

25 the content of this order.

Page 48282

1 Q. Now, Mr. Maric, you would agree with me, then, by April 20th, or

2 at least on the deadline of this, 24 hours, the next day, that the

3 south-east command HVO then was ready for a combat operation.

4 A. Units in the south-east OZ were ready for combat from the moment

5 they had been established; that's as far as the units were concerned.

6 They were always ready to defend the front line, and this order was just

7 another reminder to the units on the front line to be ready for possible

8 attacks launched by the BiH Army --

9 Q. Mr. Maric --

10 A. -- that was only and exclusively with the purpose of defence.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a moment, Colonel. You

12 know we're working in three languages: your language, the Prosecutor's

13 language, and French, because eventually the judgement will be issued in

14 French. Earlier on the Prosecutor asked you whether this document showed

15 you were combat-ready, and you answered, but there is a nuance, because

16 when you say to be combat-ready, you can be combat ready in responding to

17 an enemy attack, or you can be combat-ready whilst sort of starting

18 combat yourself, an attack yourself. So there are differences used in

19 all these new concepts. And in my language every word has a meaning, and

20 we really have to mince our words.

21 When the Prosecutor asked you whether you were combat ready, that

22 meant that you were the attacker in that case. Can you grasp the

23 difference there is? So back then what did this document mean exactly in

24 military terms? Did it mean that you were going to attack, or

25 alternatively that you were positioning yourselves and that you would

Page 48283

1 respond to an attack if any? So what does this have as a meaning in

2 military terms?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I believe that

4 yesterday in the course of my testimony I already answered a similar

5 question. If the combat readiness of a unit is increased or in terms of

6 defence, that means that some of the troops should be in the trenches,

7 some of them should be resting. However, those who are active should be

8 as ready and alert as possible. At the moment when an attack is being

9 prepared, I said it already yesterday, it takes a period of at least

10 several days to prepare combat documents which are an integral part of

11 the operation and are used to carry that operation out. And based on

12 such documents, the success or failure of the operation is evaluated post

13 event.

14 What this is about is raising combat readiness in keeping with

15 the intelligence about the offensive activities of the enemy, to prepare

16 the unit for successful defence.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Can offer this to be clear in

18 everybody's minds, whether it be the Prosecutor's side or the Defence's

19 side or the Judges. If I take the instance of the crew under item 5,

20 which is to be positioned in bunker 2 in Hum, is there with the equipment

21 as described, but does nothing. He's going to wait in case there is an

22 offensive action for the plan that is being prepared to be put into

23 action, which is not the case, but it's there positioned in bunker

24 number 2. And he's being -- if he's being fired on, he's going to

25 respond.

Page 48284

1 Is that the way it should work in military terms? Because, you

2 see, we're not from the army; we're not military men, and we have to

3 understand this.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is precisely so. A soldier in

5 his position has to be prepared to engage at any moment should his

6 position come under attack. And you, Your Honour, show that you

7 understand the situation well. I believe that you said that you had been

8 an artillery man.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, you see, but I'm a Judge,

10 and I have to be modest in my knowledge. That's why I lend a listening

11 ear to each and every one.

12 Please continue, Madam Prosecutor.

13 MS. WEST:

14 Q. P11162, P11162. This is May 3rd, 1993. It's towards the back.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Judge Mindua.

16 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Sorry, Ms. West. I just -- I had

17 this question I wanted to speak -- to express for a long time, but I was

18 reluctant disturbing the course of your cross-examination, but since the

19 ball in -- is in the Judges' court, I'll ask my question now.

20 Let's go back in time, Witness, regarding the document that

21 Ms. West has just submitted to you, P01928. This was an order, P01928,

22 an order dated 17th of April, 1993. In the order, under paragraph 1, it

23 was said that companies had to be made ready, and they were all to be

24 composed of Croats only.

25 Have you found this order?

Page 48285

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I've got it.

2 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Very well. Yesterday during

3 examination-in-chief, we examined document 4D1225. It may not be

4 necessary to look at it again. I'm going to sum it up for you. So it

5 was document 4D1225. It mentions mobilisation of a certain number of

6 Muslim soldiers because they had not reported to their respective units.

7 The interesting thing about this is that when we discussed the

8 issue, you said that in June 1993, the Muslim soldiers who wanted to

9 remain within the HVO were allowed to do so. So they could stay within

10 the HVO. So that's why I was a little at a loss before when I saw that

11 in document 1928 mention was made of companies that were to be made up of

12 Croats only.

13 Do you have an explanation for this?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that I did not have an

15 explanation for this. At that time in the units under my control, the

16 numbers of Bosniaks and Muslims equaled the numbers from six months

17 before that. As far as I'm concerned, I don't have an explanation for

18 this. I suppose that this was due to some other reasons. I didn't have

19 any reason at the time to suggest that anybody in the artillery should do

20 the same.

21 Mr. Obradovic is OZ, and he was the one who drafted the document,

22 was quite large. The regions and neighbourhoods were segregated in

23 ethnic terms. At the beginning of my first day of my testimony I said

24 that all the units had been riddled with their old habits by religious

25 and ethnic customs and habits, and that was not forbidden. Sometimes for

Page 48286

1 very highly humanitarian reasons things could happen at the time which

2 are nowadays being interpreted in very negative -- in very negative

3 terms.

4 It's very hard to describe everything that was going on, on just

5 one page. There was some habits that existed in the units at the time.

6 The army was not well organised. The state was still young. At that

7 time, it was allowed for people to group around ethnic affiliations or

8 religious beliefs, because at the time everybody in the unit was allowed

9 to have their religious affiliations and beliefs.

10 JUDGE MINDUA: Thank you very much.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. West.

12 MS. WEST: Thank you, Mr. President.

13 Q. P11162, which is at the back of the binder, the very end. 11162.

14 It's going to be on the screen shortly. This is May 3rd, 1993. This is

15 a letter from Petkovic and commander -- one more.

16 MS. WEST: Madam Usher, may we ask for assistance, please. There

17 you go.

18 Q. May 3rd, Stojcic, Marko Stojcic and Petkovic. And it's addressed

19 to the head of artillery zones South-east Herzegovina. That would be

20 you; correct?

21 "Urgently send me the number of weapons and ammunition in your

22 zones of responsibility."

23 Mr. Maric, do you know why they wanted this information?

24 A. Your Honours, in the HVO we had continuous obligation to send

25 reports about the status of artillery pieces, ammunition, and other

Page 48287

1 materiel and technical equipment, and we did it as required and as

2 necessary. We also reported about technical inspections and all the

3 other activities that were carried out in the artillery. We sent those

4 reports to our superior along the professional lines.

5 Since this is a report-like document, my superior Marko Stojcic

6 do not sign it himself but, rather, requested approval or somebody to be

7 his cosignatory, and it was Milivoj Petkovic, chief, but somebody signed

8 on his behalf. In other words, this order was part of the correspondence

9 that existed between the superior-inferior professional bodies or between

10 a higher-ranking and a lower-ranking unit.

11 Q. Thank you, Mr. Maric. And indeed at the end of the day yesterday

12 and the beginning of today we spoke about this issue of recording;

13 however, this document, would you agree, appears to be a bit unusual in

14 that it starts with:

15 "Urgently send me the number of weapons and amounts of ammunition

16 in your zones of responsibility!"

17 So I will ask you again, my question is: do you know why they

18 wanted this information so urgently?

19 A. Your Honours, as I've just said it, the BH Army still has a lot

20 of shortcomings. I have personally witnessed that, and I've personally

21 witnessed of the shortcomings that existed at that time. It did happen

22 that officers in other zones did not submit timely reports as I did. I

23 tried to do it in the timeliest possible fashion. So they didn't submit

24 professional reports in a timely fashion --

25 Q. Mr. Maric.

Page 48288

1 A. -- and this was requested based on the order that was signed by

2 an officer from the Main Staff who, in my view, was much lower rank --

3 ranked than the chief --

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, please, Witness.

5 This is not a neutral document, because it can be read in at least two

6 ways, and I'm going to state them for you.

7 The first way or angle is that within the HVO there may be

8 statistics, and then every month you have to know in each operation zone

9 how many ammunitions and equipment there is. That could be every 30th or

10 31st of the month. And then a lower-ranking officer discovered on the

11 3rd May that he did not have this statistical information at his

12 disposal. Therefore, there was a reminder requesting the information to

13 be sent, which would account for the exclamation mark and the mention

14 saying "Urgent." That could be one reason. The other reason could be

15 that this was on the 3rd of May, six days before the 9th of May. And the

16 Prosecution case is that the HVO attacked on the 9th of May. And as part

17 of the plan that I haven't seen so far, that I don't have in front of me,

18 the attack was organised. But before it was organised one had to check

19 what was the status in terms of materiel, weapons, and ammunition. So

20 this is this urgent request. So there are two possibilities. There may

21 be a third one, I don't know. But what is, in your view, the reason why

22 it is urgently requested from you to have information, statistical

23 information as to ammunition and this on the 3rd of May?

24 JUDGE TRECHSEL: An observation on the transcript. On page 29,

25 line 5, you are reported as having said:

Page 48289

1 "The BH Army still has a lot of shortcomings."

2 In the context, I suppose that you wanted to speak about the HVO

3 here. No?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. No. Your Honours, I'm talking

5 about the present day, about the present situation in the BiH Army,

6 because I am very much interested in that. Some of the officers quoted

7 here, even the officer mentioned in this document is the third or fourth

8 ranking officer in the current army of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which I

9 don't think is of little relevance. He is one of the ten most prominent

10 officers in the BiH Army as things stand today. And in order to respond

11 to the Honourable Judge's question about the time, this is just one such

12 order. I'm sure that before that date and after that date, there are --

13 there were at least a dozen similar orders. Why is that? It happened

14 that certain officers for objective or subjective reasons did not send

15 timely responses to certain queries from their superior commands or from

16 their superior professional bodies.

17 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours --

18 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Perhaps -- because I -- I may be wrong, of

19 course. Not the first, neither the last time.

20 I thought that we were talking about the document P11162.

21 Perhaps that is an error. That document is signed by Mr. Petkovic and

22 one Marko Stojcic, who is commander of the artillery. The witness --

23 Mr. Maric, you have been speaking of a low-ranking officer. I --

24 I don't understand. And I don't understand what this says about the

25 organisation of the BH Army. So I would like to be clear on this.

Page 48290

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was talking about the

2 presentation situation in the organisation of the BiH Army, and I wanted

3 to tell you that it is far from ideal, even 15 years on. It could not

4 have been expected to be ideal at the time when this order was issued

5 with a view to collecting reports on the artillery in this OZ. This was

6 my way to illustrate the situation and to tell you that it was no -- not

7 a surprise if somebody was late with sending their reports, and it was a

8 way to alert them to their omission.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Colonel, you had added

10 something else. You looked at the signatures, just as I did, and you

11 observed that the signatory was not Colonel Petkovic and was not

12 Marko Stojcic either, because you noted, just as I did, that it was on

13 behalf of. So those who signed must have been lower-ranking officers,

14 those officers who did not have the same rank as Stojcic or Petkovic. Is

15 that what you meant? Because in your language, where it's bit like mine,

16 you know, we speak fast, and there is some nuance that may escape us. Is

17 that what you meant then?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct. That's what I meant.

19 Marko Stojcic's signature and Petkovic's signature, actually, these are

20 not their signatures. Marko Stojcic's was signed by the advisor for

21 artillery, and Petkovic's signature -- actually, it was signed on his

22 behalf by somebody else. However, us, who were familiar with the

23 organisation at the time, when we read such orders and when we see these

24 signatures, if I may say so, we give somewhat less significance to such

25 documents than we do to the documents that were personally signed by the

Page 48291

1 persons whose names are typed on such documents.

2 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, following up on your

3 way to analyse the possible significance of this document, and I totally

4 agree that the two alternatives that you presented are absolutely

5 possible, maybe you should ask the witness who the document was addressed

6 to. If we are able to identify the addressee and the region, we may be

7 able to either establish or lose the connection with the region of Mostar

8 where the present witness was active. Maybe you should ask him about the

9 addressees.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Who is the addressee of this

11 document?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the addressees were

13 chiefs of artillery in the OZ South-east Herzegovina, and the other two

14 int he HVO. What I'm saying is that those were not bodies that could

15 have proceeded to act. The only thing they could do was to draft reports

16 or do something similar as prescribed by the duties of chiefs of

17 artillery. They could not issue any orders. They could only compile

18 statistical database on this document.

19 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Just a correction in the

20 transcript about a line or two lines are missing. The witness said OZ

21 South-east Herzegovina, and the other two OZs. What is missing is the

22 fact that the figure two relates to OZs.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The operational zones for those

24 people who are interested in that are listed in the document. All you

25 need to do is read the document.

Page 48292

1 It's time for the break now. It's already 35 minutes past 10.00.

2 I should like to remind Ms. West that she will have an hour and a half

3 left. We shall have a 20-minute break now.

4 --- Recess taken at 10.36 a.m.

5 --- On resuming at 10.57 a.m.

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

7 Mrs. West.

8 MS. WEST: Thank you, Mr. President.

9 Q. We're going to briefly go back to P11162. This is the urgent

10 letter from Petkovic and Stojcic. And I don't have your testimony in

11 front of me, but I think we'll all remember that in answer to a question

12 you propose that a possible explanation for the urgency tone in this

13 letter was because some OZs had been tardy in their reports and that

14 perhaps this was an urgent reminder to get them to send their reports.

15 Now, sir, I'm going to ask you again. Let's put that possible

16 explanation aside and ask for your specific memory, because this document

17 was sent to you, specifically to you. Do you know why they wanted this

18 information so urgently?

19 A. At that time, as in any other time when something similar was

20 required by the superior command or by the superior professional organ,

21 that information was always sent in this form. Sometimes urgently,

22 sometimes less speedily. It depended mostly on the person drawing this

23 up or the organ concerned.

24 Q. P02209. P02209.

25 MS. WEST: Madam Usher, I think the witness is going to need some

Page 48293

1 help with these documents. He seems not to be able to get through the

2 binder very quickly.

3 Q. P02209. May 6, 1993. This is an order from Petkovic to the

4 Ludvig Pavlovic unit, to Dragan Curcic, who was a witness here, to him

5 personally. It was on May 6th, and says:

6 "Due to the situation in the Konjic and Jablanica sectors, and

7 with the aim of providing assistance at the defence lines, I hereby

8 order.

9 "1. Increase unit combat readiness to the highest level."

10 So again, Mr. Maric, we see this language "combat readiness to

11 the highest level." Sir, do you agree with me that this could be one of

12 those occasions outside the norm where General Petkovic's asking that the

13 units be on extra alert, more intensive alert, not just the normal alert

14 that you spoke about earlier?

15 A. Madam Prosecutor, from the very establishment of HVO units in

16 1992, I emphasised that there were, along territorial, family, and

17 similar principles, frequent allowances. Depending on the situation on

18 the ground, it was necessary for the competent superior commander, from

19 time to time, to send an officer out from the command or to send document

20 ordering a higher level of alert and readiness, because we know that

21 there was a service in every command that a monitored some actions that

22 had the potential to disrupt the existing degree of mobility and

23 readiness of a unit.

24 Q. Sir, were you aware that troops were being sent to Jablanica; yes

25 or no?

Page 48294

1 A. No.

2 Q. But generally you understand that the road from Jablanica running

3 south -- ran south from Jablanica to Mostar; correct? We talked about

4 this yesterday.

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. This was a road which could be used as a route by which the ABiH

7 could supply their troops in Mostar; correct?

8 A. The BH Army, until 9th of May, 1993, was fully able to use the

9 M17 road from south towards Jablanica, Konjic, and on to Sarajevo.

10 Q. Now let's look at the time after May 9th. You would agree with

11 me that if the HVO was able to control this road from Jablanica, the HVO

12 could limit the amount of supplies the ABiH could bring into Mostar from

13 the north; yes or no?

14 A. If you mean this order, it doesn't say anywhere that this unit is

15 going to Jablanica or along which route.

16 Q. No, Mr. Maric, that wasn't my question. Let me ask you in a

17 different way.

18 Subsequent to May 9th, in the summer of 1993, would you agree

19 with me generally that if the HVO was able to control the road that ran

20 from Jablanica to Mostar, it would limit the amount of supplies the ABiH

21 could bring into Mostar?

22 A. In that period the HVO did not control that road.

23 Q. Sir, what is your opinion as to who started the war between the

24 HVO and the ABiH on May 9th?

25 A. It is my deep conviction, Your Honours, that the conflict between

Page 48295

1 the BH Army and the HVO on the 9th of May was started and provoked by

2 extremist factions in the BH Army, which at that time had a predominant

3 role in decision-making within the BH Army.

4 Q. P02215.

5 MS. WEST: Madam Usher, if you can give us some assistance.

6 Q. P02215. This is a document from the 1st Brigade, 7 May 1993.

7 2215. This is from -- an order from Colonel Obradovic. And number 1, he

8 says:

9 "All unit commanders and complete commands are to go to their

10 command posts immediately."

11 Number 4:

12 "The 3rd Battalion in co-operation with the police is to

13 reinforce its check-points and not to allow any Muslims through.

14 "5. Immediately mobilise all Croats in the companies which are

15 on leave."

16 I'm going to skip - you have the B/C/S in front of you - to 7.

17 Makes a number of points. One of them is the full readiness, the

18 Medical Corps.

19 "10. Chief of the anti-aircraft defence is to immediately

20 ensure ..." and then it speaks about certain guns. And then number 11

21 says:

22 "The chief of artillery shall ensure the full readiness of his

23 units reconnoiter with the following positions as agreed upon."

24 And you go to number 12.

25 JUDGE PRANDLER: Please.

Page 48296

1 MS. WEST: Sorry.

2 Q. Mr. Maric, it says:

3 "All chiefs shall establish contact with their vertical superiors

4 and draw up plans and maps."

5 Mr. Maric, were you aware of this order?

6 A. I can't recall it. I don't remember that it came to my desk.

7 Q. Okay. So May 7th of 19 -- 1993, this is a 1st Brigade order.

8 But under 12 it says:

9 "All chiefs shall establish contact with their vertical superiors

10 and draw up plans."

11 And, sir, you were not -- you were the assistant commander of

12 artillery to the OZ, to the south-east command, so you would have been

13 one of those vertical superiors to this brigade when it came to the issue

14 of artillery; right?

15 A. Yes, I was. This order was sent to the structures of command and

16 control within this unit. And as far as I know, and I believe I remember

17 well, I did not receive any request or information. And this can be

18 associated, perhaps, with the previous document, which means that

19 somebody must have or should have informed me if urgent reaction was

20 needed. I don't know of this order. No documents were sent to me.

21 Q. Mr. Maric, you earlier testified that you believe on May 9th that

22 event was started by extremist factions in the BH Army.

23 I'm going to -- we're going to move to other peoples and

24 organisations' opinion about the same event and talk about that. I'd

25 like to go to P02241, P02241.

Page 48310

1 large area, as it seems to be the case, it will confirm quite definitely

2 its plans to take control asap of all Western Herzegovina, despite all

3 promises made previously."

4 Sir, my question for you is whether you were aware of any such

5 plans?

6 A. Your Honours, I was never aware of such plans. The term "Western

7 Herzegovina" covers an area from the river of Neretva to the west, all

8 the way to the border of Croatia. And it is known that from the 9th of

9 May the line was set up deep in Mostar and that deep in Mostar there was

10 a territory under the control of the BiH Army, which proves that --

11 Q. Mr. Moric, excuse me. This is one of those occasions that I was

12 looking for an answer that was either a yes or no or I don't know. So

13 I'll ask you another question, and we'll try to see if you can respond in

14 that way.

15 P01866. P01866. April 13th. This is entitled "Record," from

16 Brigadier Lasic. April 13th. It says:

17 "Record of the South-eastern Herzegovina operation zone

18 commander's meeting with the commanders of the immediately subordinated

19 units and assistant commanders."

20 Sir, you were an assistant commander; correct?

21 A. Your Honours, I was not assistant commander. I was a

22 professional member of the command of the Eastern Herzegovina OZ. There

23 is a big difference and a substantial difference there. I was a

24 professional member of the command. That's what I was.

25 Q. And this is a record of a meeting, and this is Lasic's record of

Page 48311

1 it. And under number 2, if you go to the bottom, it says:

2 "The responsible military structures (Defence Office and

3 Main Staff) are expected to define and state in a clearer way their

4 attitude concerning those who are stalling the implementation of the

5 provinces in the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna and in Bosnia and

6 Herzegovina. They are also expected to point out the right way to fight

7 in order to prevent what happened in Prozor, Konjic, Kljuic from

8 happening in other municipalities of the Neretva valley."

9 So I want to focus here on the language "implementation of the

10 provinces of the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna."

11 Sir, would you agree with me that it was the HVO plan to take

12 over the provinces in the area of Herceg-Bosna for the benefit of the

13 Croats who live there?

14 A. Your Honours, the translation here refers to the Republic of

15 Herceg-Bosna, and I don't see it in the document -- or, rather, in the

16 interpretation I heard a reference being made to the Republic of

17 Herceg-Bosna, whereas this doesn't exist in the document.

18 Q. Mr. Maric, why don't you read out number 2 in your language.

19 A. In my language it reads, "The Croatian Community of

20 Herceg-Bosna," which is nothing like the Croatian Republic of

21 Herceg-Bosna. Quite the opposite.

22 Q. No, sir. Mr. Maric, I want you to read all of paragraph 2 --

23 or number 2.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please read out the paragraph

25 in your language, and your words will be translated by the interpreters.

Page 48312

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "The responsible military

2 structure, the Defence Department, and the Main Staff are requested to

3 take a more clear stance towards those who are preventing the

4 implementation of provinces in keeping with Vance-Owen plan within the

5 Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna in Bosnia and Herzegovina and that

6 they should emphasise how the fighting is being conducted, how it should

7 be conducted in order to prevent what happened to Prozor -- in order to

8 prevent what happened to Prozor, Konjic, and Jablanica from happening in

9 other parts of the Neretva valley. Lastly, they are expected to clarify

10 whether there are any bodies and which ones exactly that co-ordinate

11 these issues at the level of the HZ HB."

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. West then asked the witness

13 to read out this text because I saw the English version, and I read "The

14 Croatian republic." So, indeed, this could be a considerable

15 incriminating piece of evidence. But in the original it's not said

16 "Republic" but "Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna." Well, not quite the

17 same thing. This is not the first time that supposedly incriminating

18 documents have been translated in a doubtful way. This is really very

19 kind on my part.

20 MS. WEST: Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate that. I hope

21 nobody was prevented from understanding the full implication of this

22 document, but it is dated April 1993, and it's clear that that's not when

23 the republic existed, so I think we all understand it to be the

24 community. But we'll go right to Mr. Maric's words as they were

25 translated. And he says that:

Page 48313

1 "Take a more clear stance towards those who are preventing the

2 implementation of provinces in keeping with the Vance-Owen Plan within

3 the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna."

4 Q. So, sir, would you agree with --

5 MS. TOMANOVIC: Microphone not activated] -- say something. Just

6 a second. [Interpretation] I apologise for the interruption from what

7 Madam Prosecutor replied to Judge Antonetti's remark, it seems that she

8 doesn't see a problem with the translation of this document. I totally

9 agree with His Honour Judge Antonetti about the difference being

10 substantial. I would kindly request the Trial Chamber to order the

11 Prosecution to have the document translated properly and that the

12 existing translation be replaced in e-court by a new correct translation.

13 Thank you very much.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, anyway, it's now on

15 record because this has been interpreted or translated by the

16 interpreters here in the courtroom, and it has been mentioned that it is

17 not the republic, but the community. I think that's settled.

18 But there's a difference, Ms. West, between the HZ HB and the

19 HR HB. Do you agree with that or not?

20 MS. WEST: Mr. President, I do agree with that. My only point is

21 it's now corrected. Thank you.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. Please proceed.

23 MS. WEST:

24 Q. So I'll go back to my question which is at line 13, page 52.

25 Would you agree with me that it was the HVO plan to take over the

Page 48314

1 provinces in the area of Herceg-Bosna for the benefit of the Croats who

2 lived there?

3 A. Your Honours, at that time what was offered was a plan drafted by

4 the highest authorities who dealt with the issues of the conflict in

5 Bosnia and Herzegovina.

6 Q. Mr. Maric excuse me --

7 A. The plan that was in place was considered --

8 Q. My apologies again, but this about the fourth time I've asked

9 that. When I ask you a question where the appropriate response is yes,

10 no, or I don't know, I would expect that answer. So again my question

11 is: would you agree with me that if the HVO plan to take over the

12 provinces in the area of Herceg-Bosna was for the benefit of the Croats

13 who lived there. If the answer is no, say no. If it's I don't know, say

14 I don't know.

15 A. I don't agree with you that the HVO intended to take those

16 provinces which were inhabited by Croats.

17 Q. Thank you. Sir, yesterday you were asked questions by

18 Judge Antonetti in regard to the Old Bridge, and one at transcript

19 4823 -- yep?

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before we move on to the Old

21 Bridge, let us return to the previous document. Madam Prosecutor, this

22 is a meeting of the 13th April that you tie up with the 9th May events.

23 You're looking for a motive behind the events of the 9th May. And she

24 said to you, Look at this meeting mentioned in this. So she's making a

25 connection between this and the 9th of May. But I first note that the

Page 48315

1 commander of the 1st Brigade, the Knez Domagoj Brigade, was absent from

2 the meeting. That's somewhat curious to me. Because if this 13th April

3 meeting should prepare what is about to happen on the 9th May, number one

4 officer, Obradovic, why is he not at the meeting? That's my first

5 remark. Second observation, under paragraph 2 that Ms. West asked you to

6 read out, which you did and it's now recorded in the transcript, my

7 impression is that Miljan Koljesic [sic] is trying to get together the

8 military and the civilians around these politically orientated problems,

9 reminding what happened in Prozor, Konjic, and Kljuic, and in other

10 municipalities of the Neretva valley, expecting these people to clarify

11 all this and expecting some kind of co-ordination for action to be taken

12 at the level of the Croatian community. So on reading this I'm wondering

13 this: Within the military HVO could it be that there were various and

14 varying factions or trends? You were in the HVO; you had a command post

15 or position in there. In your view were all the other officers in the

16 same line, or did they have various thoughts about the Vance-Owen Plan,

17 what was happening in Geneva? Was there differences of opinion which

18 would explain why Mr. Lasic is trying to get everybody together again

19 here?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This document was signed by

21 Commander Lasic, but in all armies like in the military district of

22 Mostar, there was an organised department for political activity, and it

23 is this officer that led this meeting. His rank was equal to mine. It

24 was a regular political briefing on topics that cropped up at the moment.

25 Why the commander of the 1st Brigade was absent, he probably had the same

Page 48316

1 information from the press or any other media. This was widely discussed

2 in the street and in family homes, because whatever agreement was

3 proposed, we looked at it eagerly and hopefully.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You are only partly answering

5 my question. What I would like to know is this: All the military and

6 officers within the HVO, were you all in favour of the Vance-Owen Plan or

7 were some people not in agreement? You might have been among those

8 people. I don't know.

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was never able to review the

10 Vance-Owen Plan in detail. I knew about it only from briefings like

11 this. It was up to my superiors and my colleagues to accept what was

12 required of us. Decisions were mostly unanimous. There was no lack of

13 discipline and nobody disagreed.

14 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Your Honour

15 Judge Antonetti, I don't know how it was interpreted, but the witness

16 answered your question precisely, the question how the Vance-Owen Plan

17 was accepted. He said, "We looked at it like it was a ray of sunshine."

18 That means with joy, and let the witness deny this if I'm not correct.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The English translation does

20 not quite coincide with what the witness has said. Did you say in your

21 language what Mr. Praljak has just said?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we in Bosnia and

23 Herzegovina, especially in Mostar, are fond of very picturesque language,

24 but I will probably need to be more specific in my statements. Yes, this

25 correction is correct.

Page 48317

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you used a metaphor to

2 qualify the standpoint of the officers of the HVO.

3 Mrs. West.

4 MS. WEST: Thank you.

5 Q. At transcript page 48231, Judge Antonetti asked you:

6 "If General Praljak had decided for some reason to destroy the

7 Old Bridge, would he have -- would he have called the chief of artillery

8 to see with him how best to go about it to destroy the Old Bridge?"

9 And your answer was:

10 "If that had been the plan, I'm sure that he would have called

11 me. Either me or anybody else in that position. If it had been me, I

12 would not have taken upon myself such a duty."

13 Mr. Maric, why would you not have taken it upon yourself such a

14 duty?

15 A. Because the Old Bridge in Mostar was a part of every man and

16 woman in Mostar. It was a part of me. And despite the fact that it was

17 used many times as a military facility for crossings by the BH Army and

18 for crossings by the HVO at the time when we were waging war against the

19 JNA, I would have never allowed myself to do something like that. In

20 fact, I would have tried to prevent it.

21 Q. Sir, your good opinion of the bridge was shared by many Muslims

22 and Croats alike; correct?

23 A. I didn't hear this very well. Could you repeat?

24 Q. Your good opinion of the bridge was shared by many Muslims and

25 Croats alike?

Page 48318

1 JUDGE PRANDLER: There is a typing noise when you listen to the

2 translation, so probably somewhere the typing should be stopped. Thank

3 you.

4 MS. WEST: Thank you.

5 Q. Mr. Maric, did you know other Croatian HVO soldiers who would

6 also have been against destroying the bridge?

7 A. Maybe will be a better answer if I say that I didn't know a

8 single Croat, a single soldier who would want to destroy the Old Bridge.

9 I did not know anyone who would wish to destroy the Old Bridge. That

10 means that all the people I knew did not want it.

11 Q. And you would agree with me that any decision or desire to

12 destroy the bridge would have been controversial and unacceptable even to

13 soldiers in the HVO?

14 A. That would be controversial, unacceptable, and unfeasible within

15 the circles of the HVO.

16 Q. And you would agree that if it had been destroyed, the

17 expectation would be that it would garner worldwide attention, which of

18 course it did.

19 A. I agree that the destruction of the Old Bridge, with good reason,

20 garnered public attention in the whole world, as well as opprobrium, and

21 I hope that in the near future truth will finally be established, the

22 real truth will finally be established about the destruction of the

23 Old Bridge.

24 Q. Sir, if there had been a person who had ordered the destruction

25 of the Old Bridge, do you agree with me that that person would be aware

Page 48319

1 of the expected outrage that such an order would receive and would want

2 to keep his identity unknown?

3 A. I don't quite understand the question. Could you perhaps put it

4 in simpler terms.

5 Q. Yes. It was probably a bad question. Would you agree with me

6 that if a person had ordered the destruction of that bridge, they would

7 know that that was an order they wanted to keep it quite? They wanted to

8 keep it a secret. They didn't want everybody to know they were the one

9 who did it.

10 A. Your Honours, the destruction of any building and especially a

11 bridge, and particularly in a position where the Old Bridge was located,

12 was such a tall order organisationally and in terms of execution, that it

13 could never ever have been done by a small group or an individual. That

14 could not have come down from a superior command. I reject the idea.

15 Q. Thank you, Mr. Maric. Let's look at an order, P06534. P06534.

16 This is -- yes.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment.

18 Mr. Maric, I'm still on the Old Bridge, because I'm currently

19 working on it, and I'm going to put a question to you. The Trial Chamber

20 is seized of several versions concerning the destruction of the

21 Old Bridge. The Prosecutor has one version. The Defence of

22 General Praljak has told us that it is likely that the Muslims blasted

23 the bridge with explosives and a strong jet of water, and that is why the

24 bridge collapsed, and on a video which I intended to show you, but we

25 won't have time for that, we can she that shots have been fired from a

Page 48320

1 tank, but we can also see that a project -- projectile comes from the

2 other side, the other bank. So this is where it comes from. However, we

3 also know that there were tank drivers inside the tanks. And if I

4 remember correctly, there were three of them. It seems that one died and

5 two remained.

6 I was very surprised about the fact that the Prosecutor did not

7 call those two tank drivers, those two survivors, to ask them who had

8 given them an order to shoot at the bridge. Then we would have gone up

9 the chain of command. That is very easy. That is how you conduct an

10 investigation. It is as easy as pie. Perhaps we have never seen these

11 tank drivers. We don't know what's become of them. We know that an

12 investigation was carried out, and then everything just vanished into

13 thin air, and nobody did anything about it. The only people seized of

14 this issue is actually the Trial Chamber.

15 You were a military in the HVO at the time, and I've put the

16 question to you already, but you haven't quite answered the question.

17 How is it then that the command of the HVO did not order an

18 investigation, a detailed investigation, into this matter for the truth

19 to rise to the surface? Because 16 years down the road, the truth has

20 still not be revealed. How can you explain this? If you just with very

21 a banal investigation process, lead it the way it should be led, we could

22 have gone up the chain of command. We could have understood who gave the

23 order. We would have seen the tank drivers who would have told us who

24 had actually given the order. Why was this not done?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't know why this

Page 48321

1 has not been done thoroughly and finalised. I know you are interested in

2 the Old Bridge. The entire public is. But let me just say this: The

3 position that is said to have been the origin of the projectiles is such

4 that with all available means from the positions of the BH Army the

5 bridge can easily be destroyed by the very first projectile.

6 As an officer and as a human being, I could never be persuaded by

7 anyone that the units on the left bank of the Neretva River could not

8 have prevented it unless they have been -- unless they had been involved

9 themselves. Thus with all assets available to the BH Army, that position

10 could have been instantaneously neutralised. That is perfectly clear to

11 anyone and everyone in Mostar, on the left bank and the right bank of the

12 Neretva alike. That's why I said that we are still no closer to the

13 truth.

14 Let's not forget that the rulers of the town sold their property

15 on the left bank and the right bank and went to live elsewhere. I went

16 -- the rulers further to east and the ruling classes, and they did that

17 the moment they realised their intentions had failed.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a question of a technical

19 nature. If, for instance, a cannon or a unit under your command opens

20 fire and supposing the cannon had destroyed the Old Bridge, did you

21 understand this is a working assumption, you're not involved. I'm

22 just -- would you like me to repeat it? So I shall repeat. So let's

23 imagine that an artillery unit, an artillery piece placed under your

24 command opens fire, fires are shot and it destroys the Old Bridge. Then

25 an investigation would have been conducted and the -- and the person who

Page 48322

1 fired the artillery piece would be asked whether he had fired the shot.

2 It's a firing officer who has asked us and told us to fire at this

3 target. And would the officer then be asked, Who asked you to do this?

4 And then he would have turned around and said, It was Colonel Maric.

5 Is that how things would have happened? I'm talking in military

6 terms, if such an investigation had been conducted by the military.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Probably. It would have had to be

8 like that then.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

10 Mrs. West.

11 MS. WEST:

12 Q. P06534.

13 MS. WEST: Madam Usher, I believe the witness needs some help.

14 Q. P06534. This is November 8th. This is an order for offensive

15 combat operations. It's a packet order, so it's not signed. And it's

16 from General Petkovic. Number 1, it says --

17 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I believe my learned

18 friend probably anticipated my objection because he -- she correctly said

19 this concerns Paket radio, and it's not signed. We discussed this

20 already during the testimony of General Praljak, and he said that on that

21 day General Petkovic had not been in Citluk. It is recorded on 44461

22 page of the transcript and on other occasions as well. So this order can

23 be -- cannot be considered as an order from General Petkovic regardless

24 of the name on the document.

25 MS. WEST: Thank you.

Page 48323

1 Q. And just procedurally --

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.

3 MS. WEST: -- I certainly understand Mrs. Alaburic's concerns,

4 but they're better placed in a question on redirect or in closing. So

5 I'll continue.

6 Q. P06534. It says, Order, number 1:

7 "HVO units on all sectors of the front must switch to offensive

8 operations immediately."

9 And then it says:

10 "2. Focus the attacks on the following axis: Gornji Vakuf to

11 Novi Travnik, Kiseljak to Busovaca.

12 And then:

13 "3. In the Mostar military district carry out offensive

14 operations with smaller formations in the areas of Salakovac,

15 Bijelo Polje, the town of Mostar, Blagaj.

16 And then it says:

17 "Shell the town of Mostar selectively at various intervals."

18 Mr. Maric, in your experience in military -- well, in your

19 experience, when orders were issued regarding offensive operations, did

20 they normally include a specific targeting information? We've seen a

21 couple.

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Were you aware that the day before this order was issued on

24 November 8th, the day before, November 7th, there was a meeting called in

25 Tomislavgrad?

Page 48324

1 A. I'm not aware, Your Honour. You'd have to remind me.

2 Q. We can go to 3D00793. This is the loose one, I think in the back

3 or under the binder. 3D00793. This is dated November 7th. It's also on

4 the screen. And this reflects conclusions from the meeting of the

5 Main Staff --

6 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Excuse me for being meticulous, Ms. West.

7 MS. WEST: Yes.

8 JUDGE TRECHSEL: The document here is called 4D00793. Is this an

9 error in the writing or in the speaking?

10 MS. WEST: I think there's both 3D and 4D. So I'm looking for

11 3D793. And, Your Honour, it's loose. My apologies.

12 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Got it. Sorry.

13 MS. WEST: So 3D00793.

14 Q. It's conclusions from a meeting with the Main Staff and

15 commanders of certain zones. And it says:

16 "On the 7th of November, from 1800 hours and 1900 hours, a

17 meeting of the commander of the Main Staff with the commanders of the

18 districts of Tomislavgrad and Mostar, as well as individual troops, has

19 been held."

20 And then it goes into what was discussed. I'm not going to go

21 into those issues. But I'm going to go to the second page where you have

22 a number of people listed, and these are the people who are listed at

23 this meeting.

24 Sir, I know this was a long time ago, but I see your name,

25 Vinko Maric. And above it I see Miljenko Lanic. I believe it's a typo.

Page 48325

1 But does this help you remember whether you and General Lasic attended

2 this meeting on the 7th?

3 A. Yes. I was present at this meeting on the 7th of November, 1993.

4 Q. Do you have any memory of General Petkovic being there?

5 A. I'm more inclined to believe that he was not. I can't recall

6 exactly, but I don't think General Petkovic was there. Maybe somebody in

7 this courtroom knows better.

8 Q. Nonetheless, there are many people there, and I imagine there

9 were all sorts of discussions. Is it possible that there were

10 discussions to which you were not privy?

11 A. At this meeting or generally?

12 Q. At that meeting.

13 A. There are elements here with which I personally was not familiar.

14 Q. P06524.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'm still on this document

16 which has already been mentioned.

17 At the time I put a question. I believe it was to

18 General Praljak. And I see all these officers who address themselves to

19 the president of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, to the parliament,

20 to the government, to the Main Staff, and I was wondering whether this

21 might be the signs of sedition inside the military HVO where some are not

22 happy with what is happening and are asking people to address their

23 problems.

24 As by way of an example, look at item 6:

25 "Establish a unique line of command, a one and only line of

Page 48326

1 command."

2 So I thought that if officers write this, it means that there

3 must certainly have been parallel command lines. Otherwise, why would

4 they have included this?

5 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Replace Republic of

6 Bosnia Herzegovina with HZ HB.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It so happens that you attended

8 this meeting. What did you wish to demonstrate with this kind of

9 meeting? Because in other countries officers are sometimes unsatisfied,

10 and this ends in a coup d'etat sometimes. And the government in place

11 executes the rebellious officers. Was this a moment of dissatisfaction,

12 and you turned to the politicians at the time? But my question is why

13 did you organise such a meeting?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I know for a fact

15 this was not an attempt -- an attempt to impose military will on civilian

16 authorities. I know that for sure. I also know that at this time, we

17 were completely exhausted, materially and morally. We had suffered many

18 aggressive attacks, and we felt spent in terms of materiel and human

19 resources. And words of caution were probably called for from this level

20 as well to take certain steps to raise the HVO to a level that would

21 enable it to do its job properly in defending the lines and the

22 territory. That is how I understand it.

23 If it had been a really dramatic meeting, I would have remembered

24 more details, which I can't. I remember that I spent the most time in

25 this meeting with my colleagues from artillery with whom I met very

Page 48327

1 rarely, and I believe I joined this group at my own request more in order

2 to see them than to discuss the agenda of the meeting.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. It is 12.30. We

4 need to have our last break for this morning. We shall have a 20-minute

5 break.

6 [The witness stands down]

7 --- Recess taken at 12.30 p.m.

8 --- On resuming at 12.52 p.m.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, you have the floor.

10 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. President. I know that -- I know that

11 both today and tomorrow time is the concern, but nonetheless there's a

12 matter that I think is sufficiently important, in the Prosecution's view,

13 that needs to be raised before the end of this week. I was hoping -

14 frankly, I think the witness that we're now on - might end a little bit

15 earlier, and we'd have time today to deal with it. However since we're

16 now in the last session, I felt that I had no real alternative but to

17 raise the issue now because time tomorrow will be no less sensitive

18 presumably than today, and I don't want the week to end, with all respect

19 to the Chamber, without raising what for the Prosecution -- what the

20 Prosecution believes is an important issue.

21 Your Honours, the Court well knows that Rule 65 ter (G)(i)(b)

22 requires that before the commencement of the Defence case, the

23 Pre-trial Judge shall order the Defence to file a witness summary for

24 each witness to be called including the points in the indictments as to

25 which each witness will testify. In connection with the decision

Page 48328

1 postponing the commence of the Defence cases on the 28th of January,

2 2008, the Trial Chamber delayed the commencement of the Defence cases

3 from 17 March 2008 to 5 May 2008. In that decision the Trial Chamber

4 stated at page 6 as one of the reasons for delaying the start of the

5 Defence case is that it, quote, and I'm quoting:

6 "Had to ensure that the right of the Prosecution to a fair trial

7 is respected and that it has the possibility to prepare the

8 cross-examination of defence witnesses."

9 As part of the same 28 January decision, the Trial Chamber

10 ordered the Defence to make all of their rule 65 ter (G) filings

11 including witness summaries, quote, "at the latest by 31 March 2008." At

12 page 7 of the Court's decision. I say again, quote, "at the latest."

13 The various Defence teams, including the Petkovic Defence, made

14 their 65 ter (G) filings on 31 March 2008. The Petkovic Defence ruling

15 65 ter (G) filing listed Milivoj Petkovic as Witness number 16. He was

16 listed as a witness on the Petkovic Defence witness list.

17 The Petkovic filing, however, concerning the witness Petkovic

18 provided no summary and no other information except that his testimony

19 would relate to "all counts." Again, contrary to Rule 65 ter (G),

20 contrary to the Trial Chamber's 28 January 2008 order, the list provided

21 no summary for Mr. Petkovic's testimony, provided no information as to

22 which paragraphs in the indictment his evidence would address, provided

23 no list of exhibits that would be used in connection with his testimony.

24 Now, before continuing on, Your Honours, let me make the

25 foundational Prosecution position clear. According to the rules and the

Page 48329

1 Trial Chamber's own orders, the Prosecution should have received a fully

2 adequate witness summary for Mr. Petkovic not later than 31 March 2008.

3 By that measure and jumping ahead for a moment to the fact that we did

4 finally receive a summary on the 11th of January, 2010, which I'll come

5 back to momentarily, by that measure, Your Honours, that summary is more

6 than a year and a half late.

7 Now, continuing on the history more generally, the Prosecution

8 submits that since the commencement of the defence cases in May 2008 and

9 ever since then, I'm sure the Chamber knows and perhaps has grown weary

10 at times of hearing it from us, but the Chamber knows the Prosecution's

11 position on the timely receipt of fully adequate witness summaries. It's

12 been addressed a number of times which we believe is fully consistent and

13 required by Tribunal jurisprudence, rules, and practice.

14 In one of its ongoing rulings on this topic, in fact, on the 22nd

15 of January, 2009, the Trial Chamber said that it was not required that

16 the Prosecution raise all of its objections to all possible summaries at

17 one time, but that the appropriate procedure would be to raise them on a

18 case-by-case basis. And that is what we have tried to do ever since.

19 On the 24th of April, 2008, in its decision adopting guidelines

20 for the presentation of Defence evidence, the Trial Chamber in guideline

21 number 4, paragraph 3, provided that a party presenting its case must

22 provide to the Trial Chamber and the parties, "a schedule of the

23 witnesses it intends to call for one month."

24 On the 2nd of October, 2008, the Trial Chamber issued a further

25 decision on this topic in which it made it clear that as to the witness

Page 48330

1 calendar that a party must file concerning all the witnesses, all the

2 witnesses it will call for one month, this schedule, quote, "must be

3 filed 30 days before the testimony of the first witness for the month to

4 which the schedule refers."

5 Now, by practice and by the Prosecution's understanding, that

6 would mean, for example, that the trial calendar for -- for all of -- for

7 the entire month of February was due to be provided to the Prosecution on

8 the 1st of January, 30 days before the first witness to be called in

9 February.

10 Now, the Prosecution submits, Your Honours, that the practice

11 that has evolved is the Prosecution following the above guidance has

12 generally not raised issues about the adequacy of witness statements or

13 witness summaries until the time when it -- when it first receives or

14 receives the monthly calendar in advance of the first witness to be

15 called in the following month. While the Prosecution -- while the

16 Prosecution during the fall of 2009, in at least two letters, on

17 18 September and 16 November, raised the question of notice and a witness

18 summary for Mr. Petkovic, it had no notice that Mr. Petkovic would --

19 would be called as a witness commencing on 1 February until it received

20 for the first time the Petkovic Defence trial calendar for February on

21 January 1.

22 Throughout the past number of months, since at least our first

23 letter on the 18th of September and a second letter on the 16th of

24 November, the Prosecution understood that it would receive a fully

25 adequate summary concerning Mr. Petkovic's testimony if not on 31 March

Page 48331

1 2008, when it was first required, but at least no less than 30 days

2 before he would commence giving his testimony. In fact, Your Honours,

3 separate and apart from anything else, the Prosecution understood that we

4 had an agreement with the Petkovic Defence based on an exchange of

5 correspondence on the 16th and 17th of November of 2009, that a fully

6 adequate summary would be received by -- from the Petkovic Defence for

7 each person giving testimony at least 30 days in advance at the same time

8 that they provided the trial calendar that the Chamber requires.

9 However, when we received -- when the Prosecution received the

10 Petkovic calendar on -- for February, we did not receive a summary for

11 Mr. Petkovic when he was listed to commence his testimony on the 1st of

12 February.

13 In our letter to the Petkovic Defence addressing this situation

14 sent on the 4th of January, 2010, a week ago, we objected to the fact

15 that we had not received a summary, and we asked once again to please

16 receive one. We also gave notice that we opposed and would oppose the

17 commencement of Mr. Petkovic's testimony until we had a fully adequate

18 summary at least 30 days prior to the commencement of his testimony.

19 Now, apparently the Petkovic Defence says that there was a

20 misunderstanding and that they never agreed to provide a summary for

21 Mr. Petkovic. We take a different view, Your Honour. The Chamber, if

22 its minded to, can look at the correspondence at some point, but we

23 certainly understood that was our agreement in addition to everything

24 else. But be that as it may, even putting a -- whether there was an

25 agreement or not to one side, it is the Prosecution position that it has

Page 48332

1 been owed a fully adequate summary for Mr. Petkovic since 31 March 2008

2 and every day thereafter.

3 Consistent with the provision of trial calendars and practice, we

4 fully expected to receive such a summary at least a full 30 days before

5 Mr. Petkovic would commence his testimony. In fact, as I mentioned a few

6 moments ago, following our letter objecting to the situation, we did

7 receive a summary for Mr. Petkovic this past Monday, on the 11th of

8 January, 2010. Now, consistent with the rules and practice,

9 Your Honours, we ask that Mr. Petkovic's testimony should not commence on

10 1st of February, but only at least 30 days after the Prosecution has had

11 the fully adequate summary required by the rules according to the time

12 schedule that the Chamber has applied in the past. By that,

13 Your Honours, we submit that Mr. Petkovic's testimony should not commence

14 until 11 February which is 30 days after we received the summary. That

15 is our position. It is simply to apply the rules and practice that this

16 Trial Chamber has applied for a long time and the rules of the Tribunal.

17 The Prosecution should not be at a disadvantage by not having received

18 that summary within the time agreed and provided and, in our respectful

19 submission, required.

20 Thank you, Your Honours.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Alaburic.

22 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would like to state

23 my views. Unfortunately, until a minute ago I didn't know that my

24 learned friend Mr. Scott will raise this issue today. However, I'm ready

25 to respond. I'll start with last things first.

Page 48333

1 The Petkovic Defence does not object to the Prosecutor's request

2 to be allowed additional time to prepare the cross-examination of

3 General Petkovic. The general Defence, however, would like to express

4 its surprise that after four years, the Prosecutor - and six years after

5 the indictment was issued and ten years into the investigation in this

6 case - needs additional time to cross-examine any of the accused in the

7 proceedings. However, if my learned friends from the Prosecution deem

8 that they still don't know the case sufficiently enough in order to carry

9 out the cross-examination the way they wish, we absolutely do not object

10 to additional time being accorded to them.

11 I would like to provide several clarifications, because I believe

12 that my learned friend Mr. Scott has misinformed you about the essence of

13 our communication.

14 As far as our possible agreement with the Prosecutor as to

15 whether we will provide them with the summary or not, I would like to

16 decline any possibility for anybody to believe that we had -- we have

17 agreed on anything with the Prosecutor's office. We have informed the

18 Prosecutor's office about our positions as to when we would do things,

19 and we do what we think we should do in keeping with the rules of the

20 Tribunal and the rules that have been established by the Trial Chamber.

21 And this involves not only the Prosecutor's office but all the other

22 Defence teams which are certainly interested -- as interested, if not

23 even more interested, to know what General Petkovic will say during his

24 testimony, because the other Defence teams also have the right to have

25 enough time to prepare for cross -- cross-examination.

Page 48334

1 Irrespective of any possible interpretations as to whether an

2 accused has different rights and obligations with regard to any other

3 witness, we did not have any doubts that we would indeed provide a

4 summary of the facts that General Petkovic will testify about as is

5 prescribed by the rules. I am looking at the transcript, and I would

6 like to correct a few things. Not summary of the facts, but summary on

7 the facts - [In English] Summary on the facts - [Interpretation] that the

8 General will be talking about, but because this is prescribed by the

9 rules of this Tribunal.

10 As far as the practice of this Trial Chamber is concerned, we

11 have relied on what happened during the General Praljak Defence case. If

12 we calculated the time well, General Praljak provided his summary about

13 18 or 19 days prior to the beginning of his testimony. The

14 Prosecutor's Office did not have any objection to that. We provided the

15 summary of General Petkovic's testimony some 20 days prior to his

16 expected testimony. The schedule for Mr. Petkovic's testimony has been

17 provided to all the parties and the Trial Chamber in due time in keeping

18 with the guidelines. All we are going to hear from General Petkovic

19 during his testimony as regards topics and basic thesis is familiar to

20 everybody in the courtroom from the 26th of October, 2009, when the

21 Petkovic Defence outlaid the essential thesis of its Defence case in its

22 opening statement.

23 As far as the time accorded to the Prosecutor for

24 cross-examination, we would like to say the fact that General Petkovic is

25 going to testify has been known at least since 31st March 2008. In our

Page 48335

1 65 ter list, there is a list of documents that the Defence intends to use

2 during Mr. Petkovic's testimony. In addition to those documents we also

3 have the right to use all the other documents that are already in

4 evidence. Therefore, the Prosecutor should not find it surprising.

5 I would like to restate if my learned friends need additional

6 time, I don't object because the General Petkovic team is looking forward

7 to a good cross-examination, the part of the Prosecutor's team.

8 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to add a

9 couple of words to my learned friend Alaburic's words. I don't want to

10 embark on a discussion. This is the matter of the interested parties.

11 I would like to support my learned friend Alaburic's words, save

12 for one position where she says that General Petkovic's team is tolerant

13 towards the Prosecutor's office and they do not object to additional time

14 being given to them before the testimony of this witness starts. I

15 object to that. I don't think that we have the luxury of any more delays

16 in this courtroom. Very soon we will have spent four years in this

17 courtroom. We all know what the reason for that is. Nobody could

18 influence that, either us or the Trial Chamber. The situation is what it

19 is. I'm just reminding you of an obvious fact, and that is that the

20 accused are detained. My client has been detained for such a long time,

21 and any delays, further delays, are out of the question because that

22 would jeopardise the right of the accused to an expeditious trial, and

23 this cannot be done for any banal reasons.

24 If the Prosecutor has not grasped so far what General Petkovic

25 might be testifying about, they should not have issued the indictment in

Page 48336

1 the first place.

2 Thank you very much.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment. Ms. Alaburic, you

4 told us that if the Prosecutor should need any additional time, you would

5 not object to it. But would this mean that were General Petkovic to

6 testify on the 11th of February, you would call other witnesses between

7 the 1st and the 11th, so that there's no gap. Or does that mean that we

8 have to stop until the 11th of February?

9 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we designed our

10 defence in such a way that Mr. Petkovic would be the last witness. We

11 know we have more time at our disposal, but we thought we should leave

12 some time aside in view of the position of the Trial Chamber that in case

13 the need arises to examine the witnesses of other Defence teams for

14 longer than the Petkovic Defence would normally have, we might use for

15 that purpose our own time. And we estimated that in order to examine

16 future witnesses, especially from the Defence of Praljak, we might well

17 use our own time to cross-examine them. Since in view of the

18 Trial Chamber this use of time would be considered as part of the Defence

19 case, we would not use our time to examine Petkovic witnesses, but we

20 saved this time for witnesses who might be speaking to the same events,

21 the same localities.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'm at a loss, Ms. Alaburic,

23 because I seem to understand that Mr. Petkovic would have 6 hours as of

24 the 1st of February, and that you would have further witnesses. Now

25 you're telling that Mr. Petkovic is going to be your last witness. In

Page 48337

1 other words, we have Colonel Maric now, then we have tomorrow's witness.

2 There's another one scheduled for two weeks. Then there would be

3 General Petkovic, and that would be it. You have no further witnesses.

4 Is that right?

5 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] That is correct, Your Honour. I

6 thought what I was saying would be abundantly clear, because we left the

7 second half of February without any witnesses.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In other words, if the

9 Trial Chamber were to grant Mr. Scott's request, the testimony of

10 General Petkovic would start on the 11th of February. So there would be

11 no hearing for ten days. Is that correct?

12 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Precisely, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'm going to give the floor

14 back to Mr. Scott, but let me say this, for Mr. Scott to understand fully

15 what I meant to say, regardless of the Trial Chamber's view and decision:

16 Firstly, the Security Council, on the 19th of December, issued a

17 Resolution extending my own mandate until June 2010. So I don't know at

18 all what is going to be my fate after June. If the trial were not to be

19 concluded, finished, I should have another mandate extending the current

20 one, but I have no clue about it.

21 In this Resolution, which I'm going to quote in an opinion that

22 I'm going to file today, it is said that the Security Council is asking

23 for the proceedings to be sped up, and General Petkovic has testified in

24 other proceedings, in two other proceedings. So what he may say is well

25 known to the Prosecutor, and I'm somewhat surprised that the Prosecutor

Page 48338

1 should need so much time to prepare for the cross-examination of

2 General Petkovic.

3 Thirdly, let me add this, this issue of the summaries:

4 Personally, I think that an accused who testifies is not any ordinary

5 witness. I believe that there's no need for a prior summary before an

6 accused testifies. That's my take on the rules. An accused at a stretch

7 can sit down and say, I'm innocent, you've heard me. Thank you very

8 much, I'm going to go back to the dock. And that would be his testimony.

9 There's no need for a summary. But if my fellow Judges were of a

10 different view, it may be that Mr. Scott's request will be granted.

11 This being said, what do you have to say, Mr. Scott?

12 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. President, Your Honours. I'll start

13 at the end and work a bit backwards.

14 I don't think the completion strategy should be used to the

15 disadvantage of any party in the case, including the Prosecution. The

16 current schedule, and whether there's down time in February, that is not

17 of our making. That is not of our making, and it's not fair to lay any

18 disadvantage at the foot of the Prosecution. We didn't make that

19 schedule. It could have been -- we could have received the summary when

20 we should have received it. That was not of our making. The schedule is

21 not of our making. But what I hear the president saying is, is that,

22 Well, if there's a problem now, it should work to the advantage of the

23 Prosecution. I must respectfully disagree with that, Your Honours.

24 And I will start with another smaller point. As to the timing of

25 Mr. Praljak's summary, long story short, when Mr. Praljak began his

Page 48339

1 testimony everyone in the courtroom knew that his direct examination

2 would be going on for weeks, if not months. It's a completely different

3 situation in terms of the time that the Prosecution had to prepare for

4 his cross-examination. That direct examination went on for months. Of

5 course during that time, the Prosecution had a chance to prepare its

6 case. Not a six-hour direct, which Ms. Alaburic says is the time that

7 she will use for Mr. Praljak. Completely, utterly different situation.

8 There is no distinction, Your Honours, under Tribunal law between

9 a witness and an accused for purposes applying Rule 65 ter. At least two

10 Chambers have specifically ruled to that effect, Judge Moloto in the

11 Martic case on 7 July 2006, quote:

12 "If you, the Defence, are going to call Mr. Martic as a witness,

13 then he is a witness. You must give a 65 ter summary for his testimony.

14 If you're going to call Mr. Martic as a witness, by the time that you

15 give the detailed summaries of the witnesses to the Prosecution, you must

16 have a detailed summary of Mr. Martic's testimony."

17 Judge Orie ruled the same way in the Galic case on the 22nd of

18 January, 2003.

19 "There is no support in Tribunal jurisprudence Rules or practice

20 as the Rule 65 ter (G) for making any distinction between an accused and

21 any other witness."

22 When the witness -- when an accused takes that witness stand he

23 becomes a witness. He becomes a witness, and he takes an oath. He has

24 to tell the truth, and the procedural rules apply, and there's no

25 Tribunal rule to the contrary. In fact, the only Tribunal law on the

Page 48340

1 topic supports the Prosecution position.

2 Now, Your Honour, the other thing, and you know, we hear this

3 every time. Oh, the Prosecution, why don't they understand their own

4 case? Well, that's not the point, Your Honour. We shouldn't have to

5 come in here and justify the application of the rules. The rules are the

6 rules. You're essentially -- the Chamber's essentially asking us to --

7 well, justify to us why we should apply the rules. The rules should be

8 applied because they're the rules, not because the Prosecution has to

9 come in here and beg and give some specific reason why the rules should

10 be followed. The rules should be followed because they are the rules.

11 Now, we're not required to guess at what Mr. -- what Ms. Alaburic

12 might cover in her six hours. A six-hour testimony in this case from the

13 accused, quite frankly, is a very limited amount of time. I submit to

14 the Chamber that Ms. Alaburic is going to have to be very selective in

15 the topics that she chooses to cover in six hours. The Chamber,

16 Your Honours, are well aware of the usage of time in the courtroom and

17 how much time it takes. She'll have -- she says she's going to use six

18 hours. It's a small amount of time for an accused.

19 Now the Prosecution in that context can't be left in the

20 situation of simply guessing of what selective topics Ms. Alaburic is

21 going to cover in that six hours. It could be hundreds of things. Well,

22 we're going to talk about the whole case. Well, no they're not, because

23 they can't talk about the whole case in six hours; it's impossible. She

24 is going to have to be selective, and we have the right and should have

25 the opportunity to be equally selective, if you will, in preparing to

Page 48341

1 meet not just any imaginary testimony, not one of a hundred, 500 topics,

2 but the very topics and the testimony that he proposes to give. We have

3 a fundamental right, I submit to Your Honours, the victims in this case,

4 the international community, and the Prosecution that represents those

5 victims has the right to a fair trial too. And we have the right to an

6 adequate preparation to meet not just any imaginary or fantasy testimony

7 of Mr. Petkovic, but the actual testimony that he will give in this

8 courtroom. And that requires, and Tribunal law requires, that we be

9 provided a fully adequate summary. That should have been provided to us

10 on 31 March 2008; we didn't get it. We've waited. We sent

11 correspondence in the fall; we didn't get it. We thought we would get it

12 at least 30 days in advance.

13 Excuse me. Excuse me. I'm not going to compete with comments.

14 We thought we would at least receive it within the 30 days, so we waited;

15 we were patient. And then we received a calendar for the first time on

16 January 31, which we appreciate, 30 days in advance of February, telling

17 us for the first time that that's when Mr. Petkovic would in fact be

18 called; fine. We didn't get our summary. We sent our letter to the

19 effect saying, Where's the summary? We didn't receive it.

20 Your Honour, that's just -- I don't need -- I don't think -- and

21 with the greatest respect to all the Judges and the Chamber, I don't

22 think the Prosecution should have to come up and justify why the rules

23 should be applied. We should have gotten a summary. We should have

24 adequate time to prepare. Ms. Alaburic says she doesn't object. Well,

25 if she doesn't object; she doesn't object. And if there's issues about

Page 48342

1 the scheduling, those are not of the Prosecution's making. Those are not

2 of the Prosecution's making, and it shouldn't be -- that should not be

3 laid at our feet.

4 Now as to the schedule, Your Honours, if you notice -- if you

5 look at the calendar for February, you will note that instead of, in

6 fact, getting a full calendar for the full month, we, in fact, only have

7 a calendar through the 16th of February. We should have received, the

8 Trial Chamber should have received, the other co-accused should have

9 received, we should have received, a calendar of all the witnesses for

10 February. Instead, from 5th -- from the 17th of February on, for the

11 next week and a half, all we have on the calendar is "spare/contingency."

12 Week and a half. That's down time. That's downtime.

13 Now, why should we disadvantaged because of that?

14 Now the Chamber may want to ask what that time is going to be

15 used for. And it also raises the question of when is the Coric going to

16 begin? And when do we receive the list of the first Coric witnesses? We

17 should have received that already, because we should have received a full

18 calendar month schedule for February on the 1st of January. That means

19 for the second half of February, we should have that schedule now. The

20 Trial Chamber, the Judges, should have that schedule now. We have half a

21 month calendar.

22 Your Honour, none of these issues, none of those problems are

23 issues of the Prosecution's making. We're in here, and we're trying to

24 do our own -- the best job possible. Maybe no one cares much about the

25 Prosecution, maybe the Prosecution doesn't get much sympathy. But we

Page 48343

1 take our jobs as professionals. We're trying to do the best job we can

2 for the Judges and present to the -- our positions and the evidence to

3 the Chamber. The Chamber may ultimately disagree with our positions, but

4 we're here trying to do a professional job. The rules should be applied

5 because they are the rules, and we should get the time provided, and

6 Ms. Alaburic has even told us she doesn't object. Thank you.

7 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I want your leave

8 for a few words. I'll be very, very brief. I kindly ask you to allow

9 me. I can't remember exactly at what moment this happened, but I think

10 it might have been at the beginning of the testimony of General Praljak,

11 and I remember this very clearly. I said several times in this courtroom

12 that General Petkovic would be testifying, and I know for a fact that

13 Honourable Judge Antonetti asked me how we planned to organise his

14 testimony, whether it would be at the beginning of our case, and I said

15 unequivocally at that time that it was our plan for General Petkovic to

16 be our last Defence witness.

17 At the time we presented our calendar for February, it was a fact

18 that I considered completely beyond doubt. We planned that

19 General Petkovic, according to our schedule, would be finished in the

20 middle of February, and at that time I must confess I thought his

21 testimony would last much longer because we expected questions from

22 Judge Antonetti who questioned General Praljak for 22 hours, and we also

23 expect that his questioning of General Petkovic might be not so long, but

24 would still be long. And the testimony might thus extend to the end of

25 February. But for purposes of scheduling, this is not something we could

Page 48344

1 have planned exactly, because we don't know at this time for how long

2 Judge Antonetti would be questioning General Petkovic.

3 I would like to say something about certain words that are

4 sometimes uttered by Mr. Scott in this courtroom in a tone that I believe

5 is inappropriate and unprofessional.

6 And the third thing I want to say is our commitment to the

7 application of rules and principles. Claiming that he is committed to

8 the application of rules, Mr. Scott actually told us that the Prosecutor

9 in fact didn't care at all when General Praljak would hand in his summary

10 because it was known in advance that his testimony would be long. But he

11 does care when General Petkovic would hand in his summary because his

12 testimony would be short.

13 I perfectly understand the point Mr. Scott made, but what he said

14 has nothing to do with the rules or the principles of this Tribunal.

15 And in conclusion, let me respond to the position of

16 Judge Antonetti concerning summaries. I just want to say that the

17 accused, we believe, is entitled until the very end of this trial before

18 this Tribunal, regardless of whose case it is, is entitled to say that he

19 wants to testify, and the Trial Chamber would certainly not allow itself

20 to refuse any of the accused this right just because they did not

21 indicate it in time. And the accused in this right can in no way be the

22 same as regular witnesses except in as far as their obligation to tell

23 the truth is concerned.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation

25 continues] ... a moment. I shall give the floor to Mr. Coric's Defence

Page 48345

1 counsel. If I don't agree entirely with Mr. Scott, I do agree,

2 nonetheless, with the fact that we don't have the list of Mr. Coric's

3 witnesses yet. On that point, he is perfectly right. Why do we not have

4 this list?

5 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, until now,

6 it was the practice in the courtroom to provide the list of witnesses

7 30 days prior to the first witness's appearance. Even if

8 General Petkovic finishes on the 16th of February, the deadline for me

9 would be the 16th of January. I had an exchange of correspondence with

10 Mr. Scott, and I indeed reckoned with General Petkovic's testimony

11 lasting until the 1st of March, so I said that in view of the possibility

12 of this change and in view of the possibility that we might have to begin

13 on the 16th of February, I promised Mr. Scott that he would get our list

14 of witnesses by the end of this week. That's one thing.

15 Second, neither Mr. Scott nor anyone else in the courtroom should

16 worry if General Petkovic finishes with his case on the 16th or any other

17 date. We are ready to begin our case without any delay, without any

18 break. And we are also ready, regardless of the fact that we have much

19 less resources than the Prosecution to start cross-examining

20 General Petkovic without any delay.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Trial Chamber will

22 deliberate on the matter, and we shall hand down a decision, which will

23 most certainly be an oral decision. This will be next Monday because

24 between then and the beginning of February or the 11th of February, we

25 still have time. We shall deliberate and issue a decision on the points

Page 48346

1 addressed by Mr. Scott. We shall bring the witness into the courtroom

2 now. The Prosecution has 50 minutes left, so we shall not finish today,

3 and the witness will come back tomorrow.

4 The following witness will start in the course of tomorrow, and

5 we shall see whether he will come back on Monday or on another day.

6 Mr. Scott.

7 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Your Honour, as the witness is being

8 brought in, and that's exactly the next issue that I wanted to raise.

9 It's -- well, I say obvious. I suppose anything's always possible in a

10 courtroom, but it's highly unlikely that we would finish the witness

11 tomorrow given the entire circumstances. So I'm not sure what

12 Ms. Alaburic is telling us what the future will be for this witness. I

13 understood that he could not come back on Monday. There was some

14 discussion earlier in the week that the Trial Chamber, Your Honour

15 Judge Antonetti, inquired whether Ms. Alaburic might inquire that he

16 could possibly stay over. I don't remember ever hearing an answer to

17 that. It seems fairly obvious that we won't be able to finish the

18 witness tomorrow. Thank you.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mrs. Alaburic, what did the

20 witness tell you, that he could stay till Monday, or that he would need

21 to come back?

22 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I had an answer to

23 that question ready yesterday morning. I even communicated a message to

24 your staff that I would like to express that, however it was not

25 necessary. The witness who is supposed to appear tomorrow cannot stay on

Page 48347

1 Monday. He is fully prepared to come at some other time but not in

2 January. January is a reporting month for him. He has a lot of

3 commitments. But he can be back in February.

4 [The witness takes the stand]

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you.

6 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Sorry to intervene on this point, but this

7 raises the question whether it is worth having a little piece of

8 testimony tomorrow of this witness, and then in an uncertain future,

9 perhaps the end of February start again afresh. We have had cases where

10 cross-examination followed quite a long time after direct or not at all,

11 I think, if I'm not mistaken, in one case. And that is not a very --

12 very good organisation. Now, as it appears that there is some empty time

13 anyhow, I -- I wonder whether it would not be a better idea to send the

14 witness home now and then have him come back for a full examination and

15 cross-examination in one piece, as it were.

16 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with your leave, I

17 would like to propose a compromise. The witness who is supposed to

18 appear tomorrow is a witness for both General Petkovic and

19 General Praljak, but he is not a joint witness. For each of the Defence

20 teams he's speaking about a totally different subjects. If we hear him

21 tomorrow as Petkovic's Defence witness, in one hour of direct

22 examination, an hour for cross-examination, and half an hour for each of

23 the other Defence teams as has been planned, we can finish that part

24 tomorrow.

25 The next time the witness comes back as General Praljak's

Page 48348

1 witness, can come with all the other witnesses who are on 92 bis list. I

2 believe that this is a logical division that will be suitable to all.

3 I've already spoken about that with my learned friend Mr. Kovacic,

4 Mr. Praljak's counsel, and he is in agreement with me.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] That said, the Prosecutor still

6 has 50 minutes left, and there might be a redirect. So it might not be

7 so certain that you can finish with this witness tomorrow. Since the

8 Prosecutor will have an hour to cross-examine him on 92 bis issues, it

9 might be preferable then for the Prosecutor to cross-examine the witness

10 as part of the Praljak Defence. And then you can pick up from there.

11 The Trial Chamber will see how this works out. Whatever the case

12 may be, the witness is here, and that is the most important question.

13 I apologise. We made you wait, but we had procedural matters to

14 see to. This means that we will ask you to stay on until tomorrow. We

15 thought that we would be able to finish today, but that is not possible.

16 You will have to come back tomorrow.

17 JUDGE PRANDLER: The President is talking.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Prosecutor has -- can you

19 hear me all right?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can hear you now.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I was saying that you will be

22 coming back tomorrow morning because we won't have finished with your

23 testimony. We have ten minutes left for today, and the Prosecutor has

24 50 minutes left to put questions to you. So you will be coming back

25 tomorrow morning. I hope this is not a problem for you.