1 Friday, 9 June 2000

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.00 a.m.

5 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Case number

6 IT-95-14/2-T, the Prosecutor against Dario Kordic and

7 Mario Cerkez.

8 JUDGE MAY: The record should note that the

9 Court is fully constituted for the legal argument which

10 follows. There are two issues with which we have to

11 deal. The first relates to the expert evidence of

12 Dr. Schrader and the second to some affidavits which

13 the Defence have produced.

14 We will begin with the argument in relation

15 to Dr. Schrader. We have before us, first of all, his

16 report. Secondly, the document setting out the

17 Prosecution's objections and application to rule the

18 report inadmissible, and finally, we have a reply by

19 the Defence.

20 Now, having had the objections and reply in

21 written form, is there anything that anybody wants to

22 add to what's in these documents?

23 Mr. Nice, you've seen the Defence reply is

24 there anything you want to say about that.

25 MR. NICE: Yes. The Defence reply, which is

1 one of three documents recently served in a form and

2 with a style that I find personally unhelpful and,

3 where it intends to be, offensive, needs to be

4 dissected to some degree in order that one can see

5 what, if any, substance there is in the argument being

6 advanced and what is, in reality, likely too obscure.

7 And if one looks at the first paragraph of

8 the opposition to our motion, line five reflects an

9 attempt by the Defence to set this argument in a

10 different and entirely false context describing John

11 Elford as a quasi-expert, a phrase already deprecated

12 in this Tribunal, and not reflecting the fact that the

13 Tribunal who heard all these had accepted his evidence

14 which was of an entirely different nature and partially

15 entirely responsive to the Chamber's request but, in

16 any event, an exercise built on the analysis of

17 documentation about true dispositions.

18 And so this is not a question of, as it were,

19 pitching Schrader against Jonathan Elford and indeed a

20 moment's consideration of the Schrader report shows how

21 different it is in every conceivable way from the

22 material provided by Mr. Elford.

23 If one goes to the next paragraph, we find as

24 much as can be found in this document to justify

25 calling, as a witness, somebody who is, it appears, a

1 historian, a military historian to do the Chamber's job

2 for it. It's sought to be established, line three of

3 the second paragraph, that he has performed a

4 meticulous study of the testimony and documents for the

5 purpose of explaining the military significance of

6 facts that might not be apparent to a layman.

7 The phrase "military significance" is not

8 itself further explored, and it does not respond at all

9 to the proposition that we made clear. Namely, that

10 there is no identification in the document of the

11 expertise relied upon or how that expertise can react

12 upon source material to provide an useful form of

13 evidence for the Chamber.

14 The curriculum vitae is set out, and indeed

15 we'd already set it out in the sense of a summary way,

16 and nothing there is of particular relevance. The very

17 high point can be found on the next page, page three of

18 the document right in the middle of the page, where, in

19 an unquantified and unqualified way, he has apparently

20 taught military history and strategy, but not being

21 quite clear whether it's historical strategy or current

22 strategy, and that's all that's said about it.

23 It's also said, at the foot of the second

24 paragraph, that he has extensive military

25 qualifications in a variety of military specialities

1 and in the following paragraph has published in a

2 number of areas related to military strategy and

3 military tactics.

4 The Chamber will, in due course, if it wishes

5 to contrast that with the entirely specific Balkan --

6 substantially Balkan based expertise of Dr. Cigar. The

7 fourth page contains the distracting terminology with

8 second line in and continues to inject, and I just

9 observe that the suggestion that the use of

10 documentation in the Defence case is in some way wrong

11 or improper again obscures the reality.

12 The Prosecution case here has been built, not

13 only on contemporaneous accounts, for they are the

14 valuable accounts, but on contemporaneous documents

15 that support those accounts and all too frequently

16 confound Defence witnesses.

17 It then says in the middle of this paragraph

18 five lines down, "The Prosecution called numerous

19 experts or quasi-experts of its own, including

20 virtually every one of the numerous military

21 witnesses."

22 I don't challenge, of course, that from time

23 to time and in a sensible and permissive approach taken

24 by these Chambers, witnesses of all kinds may speak

25 from some limited expertise, but there is no question

1 that this has been quasi-experts or anything of that

2 sort.

3 What it is, then, that Dr. Schrader's report

4 given that there is no association of expertise in

5 conclusion, what is it that it does? The next

6 paragraph reveals it, line three, "He presents an

7 overview," that's the Chamber's job. He's providing a

8 view.

9 We then see that at page five, they attempt

10 to deal with the criticisms we make to which they

11 respond by saying that the testimony from the Blaskic

12 case will be introduced as transcript evidence. By no

13 means is that necessarily the case, it hasn't even been

14 advanced that such transcript will be sought to be

15 introduced.

16 And then we return to a relevant phrase,

17 dribs and drabs. The witnesses identified in paragraph

18 eight of its papers will be witnesses whose transcripts

19 we'll seek to introduce.

20 It categorises in the next paragraph, quite

21 improperly and without any support, Dr. Cigar as a

22 spy. It's not the position at all.

23 Spies gather intelligence. Dr. Cigar is a

24 person whose has expertise and training to work on

25 material of all kinds, much of it open-source material,

1 and to draw from it particular conclusions.

2 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

3 MR. NICE: And then finally in the

4 "Conclusion" paragraph, we return again to, as the

5 Chamber will see and I don't seek to dignify it by

6 reading it out, the sort of terminology in lines 3 and

7 4 that they regard as helpful to their case.

8 Now, if one, at random effectively, for

9 that's all I did this morning, opens the Schrader

10 report -- I chose initially page 40 and I'll just go

11 through a couple of pages -- one can see, and this is

12 beyond what I've already drawn to your attention in our

13 motion, I think I highlighted here footnote 179, a

14 reference to the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff

15 publication, which defines "active defence".

16 Now, this is rather interesting, because not

17 only is this document of Dr. Schrader's, which is very

18 substantial and must have been in preparation for a

19 very long time, not only has it relied extensively on

20 very recent Defence evidence that has been given which

21 has either been incorporated or was forecast, but we

22 see here, interestingly, given the witness who's

23 currently under cross-examination, a particular term of

24 art, "active defence", which this non-military witness

25 who is just before us has sought to use as a term of

1 interpretation, having no military experience. That's

2 a tiny point, but it just occurred to show what may be

3 going on here.

4 If we then go on to page -- and again

5 examples only -- 42, footnote 193, we see this: "Some

6 details of the events in Busovaca in January 1993 are

7 derived from an interview by the author with Ante

8 Juric, former commander of the 1st Battalion of the

9 Zrinjski Brigade." It's not available to us, not

10 suggested that it's going to be available to us at

11 all.

12 Let's look at the following page, page 43.

13 The last paragraph, this comment about one of the

14 witnesses who has been before the Chamber: "With a

15 typical rush to judgement, Lieutenant Colonel Stewart

16 misread the situation, opining that --" it makes

17 reference to his diary. That's not a judgement for an

18 expert. That is entirely a judgement for the Court.

19 So that is exactly the sort of observation that you

20 find throughout this document.

21 If you go, for example, to page 46, it's

22 another reference to -- and these are all just what I

23 turned up this morning in addition to those that I've

24 already cited in our document -- page 46, another

25 reference and summary from Colonel Stewart.

1 "He testified he didn't expect the outbreak

2 of a major conflict in the Lasva Valley. However, the

3 HVO authorities, having been caught flat-footed by the

4 probing attack of the ABiH in January, were not

5 surprised. The targeting of the ABiH for intelligence

6 purposes began soon after the 20/21st January attacks,

7 and on the 25th of March, Zeko, the intelligence

8 officer of HQ OZCB, issued an intelligence estimate."

9 This is all built, as we now see, on footnote

10 214, a document not yet produced, and, of course as

11 we're going to know from elsewhere, evidence of Zeko in

12 the Blaskic case.

13 This is -- and one can go on until one

14 reaches the entirely extravagant conclusions which I

15 think I did draw to your attention; for example, at

16 page 53 about Ahmici. He asserts the facts are

17 unclear, as are the interpretations; portrayed as an

18 unprovoked massacre. "The best explanation seems that

19 a justifiable HVO spoiling attack on Muslim forces went

20 out of control." It asserts that it was a legitimate

21 military target. All matters for the Trial Chamber.

22 And then I think I already made reference in

23 the -- perhaps it's worth having a look at 86, page 86,

24 because it's another example of the sort of unsupported

25 or entirely partial conclusions that the witness seeks

1 to draw.

2 On page 86, we have the Convoy of Joy. What

3 do we see at line 5? "The refugees then spontaneously

4 attacked and took over the convoy, killing several of

5 the drivers." Where is there, in his analysis of the

6 material, any reference? And just as an example of the

7 evidence going to suggest that, in fact, far from it

8 being spontaneous, it was orchestrated.

9 If you would look at footnote 461, you see,

10 for example, Mark Thompson, a quoted article:

11 "Thompson's credulity and uncritical reliance of

12 Muslim sources is blatant, and his accuracy regarding

13 the facts is contemptible."

14 This is an astonishing document, as one can

15 find, of course, in the opening paragraph at page 2,

16 where the game is, in a sense, given away. At page 1,

17 I beg your pardon, paragraph 2. What he says there is

18 that: "It's one of the most basic rules of the

19 historian, indeed of the police detective and others

20 who seek to reconstruct past events" --

21 THE INTERPRETER: Could you please slow

22 down.

23 JUDGE MAY: You're asked to slow down, and

24 perhaps you could come to a conclusion, Mr. Nice, given

25 the time.

1 MR. NICE: Yes. Well, the point that is

2 clear here is that he's simply seeking to do your job

3 for you, but he's seeking to do it on testimony that

4 isn't here, on interviews with anonymous informants who

5 we aren't in any position to explore. He makes

6 sweeping conclusions without any analysis of all the

7 evidence, and he does all that without any relevant

8 supporting expertise.

9 The Chamber simply will not be assisted by

10 this document, which will take some time to deal with

11 in cross-examination, if he's called, but that

12 shouldn't be a problem. It won't be assisted by this

13 document.

14 If this document should be admitted, as we

15 say, then so should be the report of Dr. Cigar; not

16 necessarily in all parts, because the Chamber expressed

17 concerns about Dr. Cigar's expression or views on the

18 final issues -- well, it wasn't actually the final

19 issues, because the final issues here are the crimes.

20 But as we suggested at the time, it would always be

21 possible for the Chamber, in Dr. Cigar's report, to

22 say, "Well, thus far, but not the next paragraph."

23 But it would be quite wrong, quite unfair, to

24 take this evidence, particularly given the way this has

25 been prepared, and to exclude the evidence of a real

1 expert, a Balkan expert and an analyst who, much more

2 than Schrader, sources every conclusion he reaches by

3 accessible material of one kind or another.

4 JUDGE MAY: Thank you.

5 Yes, Mr. Sayers.

6 MR. SAYERS: Mr. President, I do not have

7 very much to add to what we've presented in our fairly

8 short response. And I apologise for the shortness of

9 it, but we only had overnight to prepare it.

10 Our response sets out our position. We take

11 the view that we have the right to present relevant

12 expert testimony. Obviously, it's for the Trial

13 Chamber to decide whether the testimony is relevant and

14 helpful. We think that the testimony is relevant and

15 it is helpful.

16 The expert is a real expert, as we have

17 outlined. He is a military historian, but he has

18 extensive practical experience teaching on a wide

19 variety of military subjects. He's an instructor, as

20 we've outlined, in the Department of Unified and

21 Combined Operations of the United States Army Command

22 and General Staff College. He was the first acting

23 director of the Combat Studies Institute in Fort

24 Leavenworth. He has been a curriculum director for the

25 NATO Defence College in Rome. So his experience goes

1 beyond merely the experience of the American military,

2 but he does have extensive military experience, having

3 spent 23 years in the United States Army. He's

4 extensively published.

5 And just in conclusion, one comment that we

6 made in our papers and I would like to draw to the

7 Court's attention is this: In a war crimes case, it's

8 hard to imagine testimony that would be more relevant

9 and helpful than that of a military expert, and --

10 THE INTERPRETER: Could you slow down,

11 Mr. Sayers, please.

12 MR. SAYERS: My apologies to the

13 interpreters.

14 We've had a variety of opinions offered in

15 this case over the course of the last 15 months, Your

16 Honours, as you know, and, in the Prosecution's case, a

17 wide variety of military opinions offered by military

18 people, microcosmic military opinions with the

19 exception of Mr. Elford, who gave some very

20 broad-ranging testimony.

21 We think that we have the right to present an

22 alternative view, the Defence's view, of what happened

23 in the combat operations that took place in the Lasva,

24 Lepenica, and other valleys in Central Bosnia from 1992

25 to 1994. Dr. Schrader does exactly that, and we think

1 his opinion would be helpful to the Court.

2 I don't have anything to add. Thank you.

3 JUDGE MAY: Thank you.

4 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] Mr. Sayers,

5 while you are on your feet, I have several questions to

6 ask you about this report which I have just glanced

7 through. Was it compiled expressly for this case?

8 MR. SAYERS: Yes.

9 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] And who

10 ordered it, who asked for it?

11 MR. SAYERS: I did, in all candour, me and my

12 colleague Turner Smith, the lead trial counsel for

13 Mr. Kordic.

14 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] Thank you.

15 I think it is quite natural that the Tribunal be kept

16 abreast of all the aspects if it is to pronounce

17 itself. Was he paid for this report?

18 MR. SAYERS: Initially, he was.

19 Circumstances, I'm sure, cannot have escaped the

20 Court's attention recently, and he has not been paid

21 for preparing the last one third to one half of this

22 report. He has actually volunteered his services in

23 that regard, since he has been working with us for some

24 time. So we're very grateful to him for doing that.

25 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] Thank you.

1 Has Mr. Schrader ever been in the field during the

2 conflict?

3 MR. SAYERS: You mean Central Bosnia, Your

4 Honour?

5 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] Yes.

6 MR. SAYERS: Yes. Not during the conflict,

7 but he has been in Central Bosnia after the conflict,

8 performing on-the-field visits to battlefields and so

9 forth so that he can inform himself of the terrain

10 features, and lines of communication, and things of

11 that sort that are necessary to present an informed

12 opinion of military operations in the area.

13 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] Yes, so he

14 went out into the field so as to prepare his report,

15 that was part of the preparation of his report.

16 MR. SAYERS: Yes. And, in fact, if I might

17 just add this it would be hard to imagine, at least

18 it's hard to imagine for me, any military expert who

19 purports to offer opinions of any utility who isn't

20 familiar with, so to speak, the lay of the land.

21 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] Thank you,

22 Mr. Sayers.

23 [Trial Chamber deliberates]

24 JUDGE MAY: Earlier in this trial, the

25 Chamber had to deal with the report of an expert,

1 Dr. Cigar who was to be called by the Prosecution. To

2 this, the Defence objected essentially on the grounds

3 that what Dr. Cigar was doing, although it was an

4 extensive report, was giving evidence on the ultimate

5 issue in the case, which it was a matter for the Trial

6 Chamber to determine, and the Trial Chamber upheld

7 those submissions.

8 We now have before us the report of

9 Dr. Schrader and the Prosecution, this time, make the

10 same objection. We have had the opportunity of reading

11 the report.

12 We have considered the arguments, written and

13 oral put forward by the parties, and we have come to

14 the conclusion that this report should not be admitted

15 for the same reasons as we excluded the report of

16 Dr. Cigar. Essentially, this report purports to deal

17 with the ultimate issues in the case.

18 In this case, the ultimate issue is whether

19 crimes were committed throughout Central Bosnia, who

20 was responsible for the attacks on the various

21 villages, for instance, was the village of Ahmici a

22 justified target, was it defended or was it pure and

23 simple a massacre.

24 Now, those are issues which are very much

25 matters which the Trial Chamber has to decide. In

1 relation to the other villages, those near Kiseljak,

2 for instance, similar arguments have to be decided.

3 Finally, the village of Stupni Do, in which

4 many people were killed, is a matter in which the Trial

5 Chamber has to consider and to determine how it came

6 about that these deaths occurred.

7 Dr. Schrader is, in our view, an advocate and

8 not an expert. He was entitled to be paid, of course,

9 for his report but, nonetheless, we have to look at it

10 and ask ourselves: Is it the report of an independent

11 expert which will assist us in a relevant way?

12 We've come to the conclusion that it's not

13 relevant. It's not helpful because what it simply does

14 is to set out the Defence case. And that is a matter

15 not for an expert, but for the lawyers in the case.

16 It's a matter for counsel to set the case to make their

17 submissions which is what this report is essentially

18 doing.

19 A minor objection is that it relies in part

20 on what would be hearsay from witnesses who are not

21 apparently going to give evidence referred to by

22 pseudonyms in some cases to whom the expert spoke with

23 apparently during his visit to Central Bosnia.

24 The matters can be illustrated fairly

25 shortly, pages 35 to 55, for instance, are, in our

1 judgement, essentially advocacy dressed up as military

2 expertise using the materials in the case, the reporter

3 doing that and then subbing them to argument.

4 For instance, the treatment of the village of

5 Ahmici refers at page 53 as it being a legitimate

6 military target for a spoiling attack. Precisely, as I

7 said, the issue to which we have to determine. That

8 is, to give a brief indication of the tone of the

9 report, that may be the way that Ahmici may be dealt

10 with.

11 The way that Ahmici is dealt with may be

12 contrasted with the description of the ambush of

13 Mr. Totic and the killing of his body guards, they are

14 described as being brutally killed and Totic himself

15 disappearing without a trace.

16 On the other hand, that strong language may

17 be contrasted by the language about Ahmici. That is,

18 of course, a small point, but the matter may also be

19 illustrated by the conclusion at pages 102 and 103

20 which I have to say, speaking for myself, reads like a

21 sustained advocacy and not the independent report of an

22 expert.

23 Therefore, because it deals with the ultimate

24 issues which the Trial Chamber has to determine.

25 Because it is argument rather than expertise, and

1 because the Trial Chamber finds the report relevant and

2 not -- irrelevant, I should say, and not helpful, it

3 will be excluded.

4 The next matters with which we have to deal

5 and I hope we can do so as rapidly as possible are the

6 affidavits.

7 MR. NICE: Yes.

8 JUDGE MAY: Just let me get the papers

9 together.

10 In this connection, we have the affidavits in

11 relation to Mr. Zoran Maric's evidence; Petrovic,

12 Jovic, Bilanovic, Stipac and Hodzic and we have a table

13 setting out the objections.

14 MR. NICE: If I -- may I speak to the table

15 and do so very briefly.

16 I note the response of the Defence to our

17 document. I don't think that needs any further

18 observation unless the Chamber requires it of us.

19 Before I come to today's table, may I remind

20 the Chamber as we are not sitting next week.

21 Theoretically, the seven day rule would be offended by

22 later consideration of any affidavits whose power is

23 spent. In respect of witnesses already served, may be

24 in accordance the practice we've developed over the

25 last two sessions; deal at a convenient time in the

1 next sitting week or possibly the week after with

2 affidavits that will fall for consideration having

3 whatever extensions are necessary by then.

4 JUDGE MAY: I think we have three affidavits,

5 Mr. Pervan, Ukic and Galuza.

6 MR. NICE: They may not be spent yet in the

7 sense that they may be in support of others to come

8 and; I see Mr. Sayers nods.

9 JUDGE MAY: We'll extend the time.

10 MR. NICE: Thank you very much. We've

11 tabulated these witnesses in a different order than

12 that read out by Your Honour, but I'm not going to make

13 particular argument save in respect of two witnesses.

14 As far as our basic and primary position is one of

15 objection, but I move on.

16 Nothing about Hodzic in particular. We've

17 identified for the Chamber's consideration where

18 matters are corroborative in form and where they're

19 not. We have no particular observations to make in

20 relation to him.

21 JUDGE MAY: Yes, we'll allow that affidavit.

22 MR. NICE: Stipac, we do object to. An

23 absolutely essential witness, and I have in mind the

24 observation made by His Honour Judge Robinson. Also

25 this is a person who witness Cicak said he was fitting

1 into the category of those who would be a mastermind of

2 the attack at the time.

3 If one looks in what he seeks to say , he

4 goes to some pretty central issues, and casting our

5 eyes down the page on the second sheet number three, in

6 particular, number five, I suppose, critically --

7 critically number six which is a matter in dispute and

8 so on.

9 So that he's a central witness and arguably

10 somebody who was deeply involved in these matters on

11 his own account and it must be highly unpalatable to

12 have as affidavit witnesses those who may have other

13 reasons to absent themselves from the Chamber.

14 And the Chamber will have in mind, in that

15 respect, one point that I draw from the Defence

16 response to our position on affidavits where they seek

17 to say that one of the affidavit witnesses eventually

18 called before this Tribunal, Mario Santic was not moved

19 in relation to central facts.

20 Well, there's a great deal of potential

21 argument for that particular witness, and very many

22 points favorable to the Prosecution, but critically the

23 Chamber will remember that Mr. Scott put to him,

24 although he denied it, it may become the subject of

25 later evidence, Mr. Scott put to him that he was in

1 Ahmici and committing the attack at the material time.

2 And it would have been quite unacceptable,

3 the Chamber may think, for somebody with whom such

4 issues could properly be ventilated to have come in

5 which bay of affidavit and similar conditions apply to

6 Mr. Stipac.

7 [Trial Chamber confers]

8 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Sayers, would you like to

9 respond on Mr. Stipac?

10 MR. SAYERS: Mr. Anto Stipac is 73 years old

11 and in poor health, and that was one of the factors

12 which led us to choose to put testimony by way of

13 affidavit as opposed to calling him as yet another

14 Busovaca witness in person.

15 In our view, he covers almost precisely the

16 same territory as Zoran Maric. He talks about

17 interethnic relations in Busovaca before the war he

18 talks about the Kaonik incident of May 9th. We've

19 heard witness after witness testify live about that.

20 He talks about the municipal HVO

21 administration and the gradual restoration of order

22 after the Kaonik incident. Again, witness after

23 witness has testified about that.

24 He does give some information about --

25 [Trial Chamber confers]

1 JUDGE MAY: Yes, I'm sorry.

2 MR. SAYERS: He does give some information

3 about the incident at the Kacuni checkpoint on the 20th

4 and 21st and asserts that only Mr. Kostroman was

5 involved in that incident, but the Court has heard

6 again witness after witness about that.

7 In connection with Mr. Cicak, he gives some

8 evidence about Mr. Cicak not being a stable character,

9 but Zoran Maric testified that Mr. Cicak had even shown

10 him the certificate of mental incapacity that led to

11 his early retirement, thus eliminating any privacy

12 concerns that may have previously been articulated

13 before that concern. But also, Mr. Maric related to

14 Mr. Cicak that had he psychiatric problems and had

15 difficulty controlling himself.

16 But the testimony of Mr. Stipac in his

17 affidavit on that is more general than the specific

18 testimony that Mr. Maric gave on that point. He also

19 gives general evidence about Mr. Kordic which the Court

20 has heard about time and again, and the absence of any

21 policy of persecution; exactly the same thing.

22 So for those reasons, he doesn't offer

23 anything, really significant in terms of specific

24 factual testimony that has not already been the subject

25 of extensive testimony before the Court and through

1 Mr. Maric. He's not opining on issues of centrality,

2 to use one of the Bench's member's words. So that's

3 our position with respect to Mr. Stipac.

4 JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Well, we -- I think

5 this is a witness who should be cross-examined.

6 However, given his age, it may well be that he is a

7 candidate for a video conference. I don't know what

8 the state of play is about video witnesses, but he

9 would seem to be an obvious witness who, given his age,

10 should give evidence by way of doing that.

11 MR. SAYERS: We will certainly consider that

12 and with respect to video conference. I think that

13 there are actually three individuals, perhaps four, at

14 this point, who may have to testify by way of video

15 conference.

16 JUDGE MAY: While we're dealing with that,

17 perhaps you can now be thinking about making

18 arrangements for that to be done because it will

19 require prior notice, clearly, to the Registry and

20 arrangements to be made.

21 MR. SAYERS: Yes Mr. President and I have

22 that in mind and we hope to submit an application on

23 the first day of the next session, June 20th.

24 JUDGE MAY: All right, otherwise communicated

25 through the usually channels.

1 JUDGE BENNOUNA: That means that you are not

2 going to -- he is not going to testify in chief, this

3 will be sufficient for you as testimony in chief or --

4 MR. SAYERS: If he testifies by videolink

5 conference or if we can -- if his health permits, if we

6 can get him here live, my approach would be pretty much

7 the same approach that we've used with respect to the

8 other affidavit witnesses, and to take about three

9 minutes in direct just to have him confirm the accuracy

10 of everything in his affidavit.

11 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] Thank you.

12 I think that the Prosecutor, I believe, in the case of

13 such a witness, the Prosecution should focus on

14 elements which can be of relevance because this kind of

15 cross-examination, I think, should only take a

16 reasonable period of time. Thank you.

17 MR. NICE: Nikica Petrovic is the last one on

18 our list. This is the last of the witnesses that we

19 are going to raise specific points of objection. I

20 will draw the Chamber's attention to the couple of

21 points in other witnesses for its exercise in

22 discretion and judgement, but Nikica Petrovic has three

23 really quite distinct grounds for objection.

24 First, as the table reveals, there's a number

25 of matters offered in his evidence which simply haven't

1 been raised in the evidence of Maric, unless we are

2 wrong in our analysis; two, three, four and five, and

3 so on.

4 The Chamber will note that there is a

5 contrast, this is number 17 in the Maric evidence where

6 what Witness DH said about being looked after by Dario

7 Kordic appears to have been in complete contrast which

8 is what is offered in the affidavit.

9 Second point, Witness J told the Chamber that

10 Petrovic was the only one who could grant permission

11 for the leaving or not leaving of Busovaca. In light

12 of the overall case concerning Busovaca, that's an

13 important position for someone to have occupied and

14 makes him a witness, who on that additional topic would

15 be of great value to the Chamber.

16 Third, not revealed on the document but

17 something I must draw to the Chamber's attention, is

18 this: The Chamber will recall that our policy in

19 relation to witnesses was to use every means of

20 compulsion to get them here or to get their evidence

21 before the Chamber in one of the ways permitted by the

22 Rules. I think we were almost the first case to use

23 the extensive methods of compulsion available to the

24 Chamber, and there is only one witness in respect of

25 whom those methods of compulsion were ultimately

1 entirely a failure, a woman called Enisa Begovic, and

2 she having given a statement significant indeed, in its

3 content, and apparently willing to give evidence, then

4 about faced and refused to give evidence.

5 She offered as explanation to us directly

6 that she was dissuaded from giving evidence and that

7 she was dissuaded by the mayor. And the Chamber may

8 recall I touched upon this in relation to an earlier

9 mayor of Busovaca, and it appears to us quite clear

10 that the mayor with whom a conversation the woman had

11 must have been Petrovic. And it would, of course, be

12 wholly unconscionable for a witness, who may have

13 interfered with the proceedings of this Chamber, to be

14 allowed to give evidence by affidavit when such matters

15 may properly be ventilated with him.

16 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Sayers, yes.

17 MR. SAYERS: With respect to the point made

18 about --

19 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the

20 counsel.

21 MR. SAYERS: With respect to the point made

22 about the lady that the Prosecution identified.

23 Obviously we know nothing and we're not in a position

24 to comment upon that.

25 We had a choice, Your Honours, to bring a

1 chief of police to the Trial Chamber so that you could

2 hear from him what the circumstances were like in

3 Busovaca in regard to the civilian police

4 administration in 1992 and 1993, and we did bring that

5 witness along. That was Witness DG.

6 We see no reason at all to bring along yet

7 another witness to say pretty much the same things as

8 Witness DG said, and that's been our general approach

9 with respect to affidavits. Why bring along two

10 witnesses when one will do and there is an affidavit?

11 Unless the Prosecution can show a specific factual

12 point upon which cross-examination is necessary,

13 ordinarily it's our position that the witness shouldn't

14 be required to attend.

15 Apparently the only basis upon which the

16 Prosecution wants this witness to attend is to conduct

17 yet another roving-commission attack into credibility,

18 and I, for one, don't think that that's a sufficiently

19 substantial reason to require someone to come to

20 testify.

21 I also have in mind this is an interesting

22 exercise in some regards, because the Prosecution, in

23 an earlier part of this case, took the position that as

24 long as there's some evidence on some particular point,

25 then the witness statements which were verified and

1 thus became affidavits, rambling in nature, very

2 discursive, over a very wide period of time, that was

3 sufficient just so long as they touched generally upon

4 a point.

5 And also there was one of those affidavits

6 that specifically mentioned Mr. Kordic, and the affiant

7 was not required to come in to testify, be subjected to

8 cross-examination, notwithstanding contemporaneous

9 objection by Mr. Kordic. That's as may be, though.

10 But just generally speaking with respect to

11 Mr. Petrovic, he really only offers evidence on four

12 things; the Kaonik barracks incident, about which the

13 Court has heard a lot of evidence; the increased crime

14 rate in Busovaca as a result of a variety of causes,

15 not the least of which was the huge influx of refugees

16 from various other areas; he gives evidence again about

17 Mr. Kostroman being at the Kacuni checkpoint and the

18 only person who was apprehended there, Mr. Kordic not

19 being there; and he gives evidence on the lack of any

20 power on the part of the accused in this case

21 Mr. Kordic to issue orders to the civilian police, a

22 topic about which Witness DG testified extensively.

23 So the testimony there is purely

24 corroborative. It's not central to any issue, as far

25 as we can see, and we don't see any reason to require

1 this individual to come to court to experience yet

2 another roving-commission attack on credibility.

3 Thank you.

4 JUDGE MAY: Thank you.

5 [Trial Chamber deliberates]

6 JUDGE MAY: Well, we've considered this

7 carefully. We've noticed that there are some matters

8 of controversy. We also note what the Prosecution says

9 about issues of credibility. However, that's not a

10 reason, in our judgement, to bring the witness here,

11 given the fairly tenuous nature of the allegations.

12 In those circumstances, given the balancing

13 exercise which we are performing between the need to

14 expedite the trial and also the need of fairness to

15 both sides, we will admit this affidavit.

16 MR. NICE: As to the balance, I've already

17 indicated that I'm not going to raise particular

18 objections. That doesn't deal with, of course, the

19 Court's exercise of its own discretion, and I said that

20 I would draw your attention to one or two points.

21 In Bilanovic, again you'll see 1 to 4 simply

22 not raised in the evidence allegedly supported. The

23 Chamber will see in all of these witnesses' statements,

24 in reality, central issues are being referred to. Of

25 course, by our not raising specific objections, we

1 aren't in any sense acknowledging the accuracy of the

2 affidavit. We're simply doing what we believe the

3 Chamber wants by way of cooperating in the exercise of

4 its discretion and in accordance with the judgement

5 it's formed on its power under the affidavit rule.

6 There it is.

7 JUDGE MAY: We'll admit those affidavits.

8 MR. NICE: Two other matters, and very, very

9 briefly.

10 One. Having referred to Enisa Begovic, she

11 is the only witness who maintained defiance of the

12 Court's orders, and I think I may have said on an

13 earlier occasion that at some stage a decision ought to

14 made about whether any action should be taken; not for

15 now, obviously, but I must remember to deal with it.

16 Second. Now that Dr. Schrader is eliminated,

17 the three days' sittings of the week after next will

18 obviously not be fully occupied by the one other

19 witness, Dr. Jankovic, who is to give evidence. No

20 doubt the Defence will be turning their mind to that,

21 but I should alert them and the Chamber to the fact

22 that the witnesses for the following week can't be

23 accelerated because of the 21-day rule, and in any

24 event we've already made fairly advanced arrangements

25 to be able to deal with them in that week by securing

1 the assistance of our own experts for that period of

2 time, whether here in The Hague or elsewhere. But we

3 wouldn't be able to deal with those other experts

4 early.

5 JUDGE MAY: The week of the 20th is

6 abbreviated anyway. It's a three-day week.

7 Mr. Sayers, you've got the evidence to --

8 MR. SAYERS: Yes. I think we will be able to

9 fill the week with evidence, Your Honour.

10 Our plan is to produce two fact witnesses to

11 round out the national witness case, if I may use such

12 a term. They are Zoran Buntic, and I would just like

13 to alert the Court that he has written an outline of

14 his testimony which is substantial. I'm not confident

15 that we can persuade him to truncate it, but what I

16 propose to do is just gloss over the material that has

17 already been covered with Mr. Perkovic and to try to

18 accelerate his testimony in that way.

19 But I just want to alert the Court, just in

20 the interests of full information, that there's going

21 to be a fairly substantial summary that comes in for

22 him. But we do not propose to go through it. It's

23 just there to be read, if you wish, but we'll try to

24 avoid duplicating the testimony of other witnesses.

25 The second witness is Zulfo Robovic, and then

1 the third witness will be Professor Jankovic, and as

2 I've previously alerted the Court, I don't think that

3 he will last particularly long, and that may require us

4 to advance some of the other witnesses.

5 I have in mind the objection of the

6 Prosecution, and we will not violate Rule 94 bis.

7 Obviously, we'll try to fill in the time with some of

8 our residual fact witnesses.

9 MR. NICE: I should have said, of course,

10 confidential witness 4 is by no means a witness who we

11 are confident we can conclude today, because we're only

12 sitting until whatever it is, half past 2.00, and

13 there's a lot to be raised with him.

14 JUDGE MAY: Very well. We'll adjourn now for

15 ten minutes for the witness to be called in and also

16 for the Court to be reconstituted. Judge Robinson and

17 I will sit alone, of course, to finish this witness and

18 finish the evidence today.

19 --- Recess taken at 10.00 a.m.

20 --- On resuming at 10.15 a.m.

21 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Scott, since we've had a

22 break, we'll sit now until 11.30, take quarter of an

23 hour then sit until one o'clock, half an hour and then

24 sit until three unless that's inconvenient to anybody.

25 MR. SCOTT: No, Your Honour, thank you.

1 Your Honour, I have just tendered through the

2 usher and this is highly unusual for me, and I felt

3 after yesterday afternoon that perhaps this was the

4 best way for me to -- forgive me.

5 Your Honour, I have been with the Court's

6 regular counselling to move forward with some

7 efficiency, reviewed my outline and my notes over the

8 evening. I can assure the Court I have deleted a

9 volume of material by simply X-ing it out of my notes.

10 However, I must urge the Court, this is a witness -- an

11 extremely high-level witness. This is Mr. Boban's

12 elbow during the critical time of this case. He is

13 perhaps one of the two or three most senior witnesses

14 the Kordic Defence will call.

15 I hope the Court will note, I don't mean to

16 be unduly offensive towards the witness, but that the

17 witness has not been entirely responsive to many of the

18 Prosecution's questions and it has been somewhat slower

19 than what it might otherwise have been.

20 I must also inform the Court, You Honour, in

21 all honesty, that given today's schedule I think it is

22 highly unlikely that we can possibly finish both of

23 these very important witnesses. These happen to be two

24 extremely important witnesses, probably for both sides,

25 and we cannot expect to finish them I have to submit,

1 Your Honour, today. So, I can tell the Court--

2 THE INTERPRETER Do slow down please.

3 MR. SCOTT: You can see from the outline,

4 Your Honour, on even the reduced outlines, the matters

5 that have not been covered and the Court may wish to

6 tell me at some point, if the Court wishes to, what it

7 would not want to hear about.

8 JUDGE MAY: We will do that, let's move on.

9 MR. SCOTT: I appreciate that, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE MAY: Some matters, for instance,

11 looking at this document two you could put very

12 broadly.

13 MR. SCOTT: I will, Your Honour. Yes, I

14 appreciate that. Thank you. May it please the Court.

15 WITNESS: SRECKO VUCINA: [Resumed]

16 Cross-examined by Mr. Scott: [Cont'd]

17 Q. Mr. Vucina, when we left off, we were talking

18 about the role, or the title of colonel that was given

19 to Mr. Kordic. Let me put to you, sir, that in fact to

20 the extent this represented some particular point in

21 time that the title 'colonel' was conveyed, sir, it was

22 nothing more than confirming powers that Mr. Kordic had

23 had for a long time, isn't that true?

24 A. I could not agree with such a view because he

25 did not have any military powers at all.

1 Q. It's your position then, sir, that despite

2 what you've told us yesterday afternoon and despite the

3 fact that he used this title, you persist in your

4 position that Mr. Kordic had no military authority; is

5 that what you're telling this Court?

6 A. Yes, as far as I know, yes.

7 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour in the interest of

8 time -- well let me show one, I will cut out a number

9 but if the usher could tender to the witness Exhibit

10 395.1. If that could be placed on the ELMO, please.

11 Q. Let me indicate to you, sir, as the Court and

12 the courtroom orients itself to this document. Sir,

13 there are a number of documents in the record on which

14 either Mr. Kordic is addressed as colonel or which he

15 signs documents or has documents issued in his name in

16 which the title or rank of colonel is used.

17 Exhibit 395.1 is simply one example, sir.

18 This is a document dated the 26th of January 1993, an

19 order by Milivoje Petkovic. Would you agree with me,

20 sir, looking at this, that this is clearly a military

21 order?

22 A. I cannot assert that. It says, "Military

23 Secret Strictly Confidential" up here. This is a

24 document I see for the first time.

25 Q. Sir, if you look down paragraphs one through

1 seven and I'm going to have to -- the Court's

2 indulgence, if I stray over the line to be offensive to

3 the witness, I'm sure the Court will tell me.

4 Mr. Vucina, I'm going to have to insist that

5 we move forward quickly with your answers and they be

6 responsive, please.

7 If you look through paragraphs one through

8 seven, would you agree with me, sir, this is a military

9 order talking about the disposition of forces, set

10 defensive action, and disposition of HVO units. Would

11 you agree with me, sir, this is a military order; yes

12 or no?

13 A. It says "order" in the heading.

14 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Scott, there's no need to

15 take these points up.

16 MR. SCOTT: Very well, Your Honour.

17 JUDGE MAY: It results to argument. The

18 Court can make its own mind up.

19 MR. SCOTT: I will move on, and there are a

20 number of other exhibits which I have cut from my--

21 JUDGE MAY: Help with one thing, have you any

22 evidence or exhibit referring to Mr. Kordic as colonel

23 before December 1992?

24 MR. SCOTT: Off the top of my head, Your

25 Honour, there was one document but there was some

1 question as whether the date of a document was a

2 mistake, to be perfectly honest. I think the Court may

3 be aware of that.

4 JUDGE MAY: That's my recollection of the

5 evidence.

6 MR. SCOTT: So that would be my answer, Your

7 Honour. If it turned out that date was for some

8 reason -- the earlier date was correct, then my answer

9 to the Court would be yes, there is that document;

10 however, I think there is perhaps some shared view that

11 the date is probably wrong.

12 JUDGE MAY: Let's move on. You can deal with

13 2A briefly.

14 MR. SCOTT: Well, Your Honour, if you will

15 allow me just to finish on this issue because there is

16 another point to Mr. Vucina's involvement here.

17 Q. Let me just finish with this, sir. It's your

18 position that in fact despite the rank, despite

19 Mr. Boban's decision, despite whatever processes were

20 taken which you say you were directly involved in

21 making him a colonel, that he was not, in fact, a

22 colonel.

23 Let me suggest to you, sir, you were then

24 involved in perpetrating a falsehood on UNPROFOR in the

25 International Community weren't you? You were involved

1 in holding Mr. Kordic out to UNPROFOR as something that

2 he was not, according to you?

3 A. I can only assert on the basis of some of the

4 experiences that were generally accepted and applied in

5 the Second World War that that is what was done. And

6 if that was a mistake, then I cannot deny it, but this

7 was on the basis of traditions. They existed earlier

8 on with regard to such matters.

9 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, I'm not going to

10 cross-examine on that. I think it would take us a long

11 time. We don't accept that position, that theory.

12 There's absolutely no details about what these other

13 alleged instances or practices were. We don't accept

14 that but, in the interest of time, we'll move forward.

15 Q. Other than to say, sir, you said yesterday,

16 to finish on this point, this was an important matter.

17 It was not a trivial matter. You said it was a matter

18 of high importance, that the work of this mixed

19 military working group was of great importance.

20 In dealing with the International Community

21 on this point, sir, I put to you again you were

22 involved in holding out Mr. Kordic as something that

23 you say he, in fact, was not.

24 JUDGE MAY: The point has been made,

25 Mr. Scott. You have the answer.

1 MR. SCOTT:

2 Q. Let me just indicate, Your Honour, in moving

3 on, sir, in paragraph 16 of your statement, you stated

4 that the Muslims, "Practically wiped out the Bosnian

5 Croat enclaves in Central Bosnia." And, sir, let me

6 put it to you very briefly that statement is simply not

7 true, is it?

8 A. Your Honours, may I be allowed to say --

9 because a serious term was used. I would like to have

10 a Croat translation of this that I said. I doubt that

11 I said "wiped out". "Wiped out" would have meant that

12 they disappeared altogether, and that is not my style

13 of expression.

14 JUDGE MAY: Yes, well, we have the point.

15 MR. SCOTT: All right, Your Honour. I can

16 only refer again to the language in the English

17 translation is what I'm quoting from.

18 Q. Sir, in paragraph 18 in terms of

19 communications and travel problems between Mostar and

20 Central Bosnia, can you tell us what those were very

21 briefly, please?

22 A. What period, I'm sorry?

23 Q. Well, sir, I'm just -- if you want to refer

24 to it-- referring to your own statement, the period is

25 not indicated in your own statement. It's paragraph

1 18, you simply say, in about the third or fourth

2 sentence, in paragraph 18, "The Presidency itself met

3 infrequently because of communications and travel

4 problems. Dario Kordic..." Do you see that, sir?

5 A. Yes, thank you for having reminded me. This

6 was in the period when tensions grew into open

7 conflicts, incidents and broader, wider war

8 operations.

9 On the other hand, there is a road going from

10 the north to the south of the country, and in the area

11 of Mostar, this was under the artillery and other

12 strong weapons of the Bosnian Serbs and the JNA.

13 On the other hand, it was difficult to travel

14 along other roads because there were checkpoints; HVO

15 checkpoints, BH army checkpoints. On the other hand,

16 there were war operations too, so it was difficult to

17 communicate. Either in the west or along the Neretva

18 River Valley, these were the only communications that

19 were there.

20 To the west, in the area of Bugojno just

21 before the town itself, the army of Republika Srpksa or

22 rather of the Serb army and the JNA, they controlled

23 the road leading from Bugojno to the western part.

24 Q. Sir, let me just ask you it this way then:

25 Is it your position, is it your testimony that there

1 was a substantial period of time in which Central

2 Bosnia was cut off from Mostar by both physical

3 communication, that is transportation, and by telephone

4 or wire or other communications? Was it your position

5 that Central Bosnia was cut off?

6 A. Well, as far as communications are concerned,

7 yes, and also telephones and I don't know about other

8 means of communication.

9 Q. And how long was -- did this period of

10 cut-off continue. When was that and how long did it

11 continue, please, approximately?

12 A. This primarily related to the intensification

13 from January onwards. That is to say the

14 intensification of war operations in Fojnica, Central

15 Bosnia in general, that is to say, the end of winter

16 the beginning of spring. Throughout this area,

17 throughout this longer period of time, things were made

18 considerably more difficult.

19 Without the services of the peace forces, I

20 think that it would have been very difficult for anyone

21 to move about including aid agencies without the peace

22 keeping forces, that is.

23 Q. Sir, let me then try to see if we have it

24 right. Are you telling us, sir, that really this

25 period in which Central Bosnia was cut off from Mostar

1 continued -- started in January 1993 and continued

2 through that year of 1993?

3 A. For the most part, yes. It all depends on

4 the intensity of operations, and that was not the same

5 on every day, on every month, on every week. But for

6 the most part, the answer is, yes, the way you had put

7 it, Mr. Prosecutor.

8 Q. And is it fair to say, sir, -- and tell me if

9 I'm wrong -- Mr. Kordic did not go to Mostar, did not

10 travel to Mostar, was not in Mostar with Mr. Boban at

11 any time during 1993?

12 A. I mentioned that moment I mean, resorting to

13 the services of the International Community, that is,

14 Herceg-Bosna and the implementation of the

15 Owen-Stoltenberg Plan. And then before that, the

16 peacekeeping forces offered their goods and services,

17 and it is only with their assistance that one could

18 communicate and that certain areas were made

19 accessible, and you could move from one area to another

20 that way, yes.

21 Q. Let me ask you then, sir, based on what

22 perhaps you said yesterday, if we can move more

23 quickly, you remind that -- is it correct, then, that

24 the only time that Mr. Kordic, to your recollection,

25 was in Western Bosnia or Herzegovina, in Mostar in this

1 instance, Grude perhaps, was in August 1993 when the

2 Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna changed to the

3 Croatian Republic? Is that the only time, sir, you're

4 aware, in 1993, of Mr. Kordic being in either Mostar or

5 Grude? Please, just yes or no, please.

6 A. It is possible. I cannot confirm, though,

7 whether there was a meeting before that and by way of

8 preparations. Possibly then, but I'm not sure.

9 Q. At most, sir, allowing for your memory, two

10 instances; is that correct?

11 A. I think so, at a maximum.

12 Q. And can you tell me, sir, the other way? Can

13 you tell the Court, please, how many times in 1993 was

14 Mr. Boban, to your knowledge, in Central Bosnia?

15 A. I think, as far as I know -- not a single

16 time, as far as I know.

17 Q. You've indicated -- in paragraph 18, you say:

18 "Kordic was not in the high-level decision-making

19 group who Boban consulted." Do you remember that?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. In paragraph 23, you say: "Boban never

22 consulted with Dario Kordic in reference to military

23 matters." Do you recall that?

24 A. Yes, and I still go by that.

25 Q. Sir, are you telling the Court -- taking the

1 position that Mr. Kordic, during 1993, was cut off in

2 Central Bosnia and essentially, if I can say it this

3 way, was on his own?

4 A. Rights and responsibilities.

5 MR. SCOTT: Sorry, I didn't get the answer.

6 I don't know if the Court --

7 THE INTERPRETER: "Rights and

8 responsibilities," said the witness.

9 A. Within his rights and responsibilities.

10 MR. SCOTT:

11 Q. I'm not sure -- what do you mean, sir?

12 Let me back up for a moment. Forgive me,

13 Your Honour. I'll come back to your answer, but let me

14 first stay with my current question.

15 Is it your position that Mr. Kordic, then,

16 was cut off in Central Bosnia and essentially left to

17 fend for himself or act on his own during 1993? Is

18 that your position?

19 A. It's not that I'm the only person who

20 believes -- I don't think he was on his own. There

21 were other people with him. But if you are referring

22 to contacts, there were telephone contacts from time to

23 time, and also there were these major communication

24 difficulties.

25 The position was such --

1 Q. Go ahead.

2 A. -- that these people who belonged to local

3 communities and to various bodies in these local

4 communities could certainly function as well. It was

5 necessary to ensure the functioning of everyday life,

6 even in the hardest of circumstances, that is to say,

7 public utilities, et cetera, and certainly they passed

8 decisions in keeping with their responsibilities.

9 Q. I'm going to cut you off, sir. I'm going to

10 cut you off. One point of clarification. You say, "I

11 don't think he was on his own. There were other people

12 with him." You mean there were other people with

13 Mr. Kordic in Central Bosnia; is that correct?

14 A. Yes, yes.

15 Q. What did you understand was Kordic's

16 position -- when he uses the title"Vice-President",

17 what was he the vice-president of during 1993? In your

18 view, what did that mean?

19 A. Until the Croat Republic of Herceg-Bosna was

20 established, he was, for a given point of time, the

21 vice-president of the Croat Community of Herceg-Bosna,

22 and I think that at one of the meetings he was elected

23 one of the vice-presidents. I imagine that that title

24 was used in that context.

25 Q. What was your view, sir, of what the title

1 "Vice-President" meant? What position was that?

2 A. One should look into the regulations that

3 defined this. I dare say, on the basis of my own

4 experience, that this was rather in nominal terms.

5 This was an important-sounding title, in nominal terms,

6 but basically without any work in the organ concerned;

7 that is to say, on the basis of regulations. So it

8 only had weight in conjunction with others.

9 Q. Is it your position, sir, that this position

10 has been sometimes described as essentially the deputy

11 speaker of the legislature or parliament of

12 Herceg-Bosna, a body which apparently almost never

13 met? Now, is that your understanding of what

14 "Vice-President" meant?

15 A. Regardless of what my understanding is, there

16 was a regulation, a piece of legislation that governed

17 this relationship, and that is the only important

18 thing.

19 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, let me ask the

20 witness to please be shown -- I've skipped over about

21 ten exhibits, but if I could ask the witness to be

22 shown Exhibit 345 and 346. If they could be placed on

23 the ELMO, please.

24 Q. Sir, you have that Exhibit 345 in front of

25 you. This appears to be the appointment of someone as

1 the chief of the defence office in Central Bosnia, to

2 one of those offices, by someone named Anto Puljic, the

3 chief of the Travnik Defence Administration. Sir, it

4 appears to be signed by and approved by Dario Kordic as

5 vice-president, in this instance, of the party. If we

6 can take both documents at once, 346 is a similar

7 appointment, both of them dated in January of 1993, of

8 a different individual again approved by Mr. Kordic as

9 vice-president.

10 Can you please help us, sir? Given the way

11 you've described Mr. Kordic's role, or power, or lack

12 of power, why would he be required then to approve of

13 the appointment of persons as various heads of defence

14 offices in Central Bosnia?

15 A. On the basis of what I have been shown, it

16 says that this is only a proposal of nominations for --

17 JUDGE MAY: It doesn't matter if it's a

18 proposal or not. The point which is being put to you,

19 Mr. Vucina, which the Court would like your answer on,

20 is: Why is Mr. Kordic signing as vice-president? Can

21 you help us with that or not?

22 A. Your Honour, with your permission, in the

23 lower part it says "in agreement", so this is a process

24 of nomination, the HDZ committee, and then it is only

25 him as vice-president. So this is a process of

1 nomination. The HDZ was a legitimate party that won

2 the confidence of voters at the plebiscite in 1990.

3 And then there is a column here that says an

4 agreement --

5 JUDGE MAY: Just, for a moment, concentrate

6 on the question, Mr. Vucina. Why is Mr. Kordic

7 countersigning the proposal, the appointment, whatever

8 you like, as vice-president? Can you help with that or

9 not?

10 A. Oh, I can, Your Honour, very gladly. I

11 shall. It is signed by the president of the municipal

12 board from which this person comes from, and then the

13 vice-president and also the secretary. That was the

14 procedure, that was the procedure. This is the

15 agreement that was sought according to procedure, and

16 obviously that is the procedure that was involved. And

17 it is signed by the chief of administration, obviously,

18 Anto Puljic. He is the one who signed it and put a

19 stamp there.

20 And this also invokes the provisions of

21 Article 14, et cetera, whatever it says. So in the

22 procedure, this was necessary, and this was what was

23 done in practice as well.

24 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Scott.

25 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, I'll move on and

1 come back to it a slightly different way.

2 Q. What is cadre policy, what is the term or

3 phrase "cadre," c-a-d-r-e policy, mean in your

4 political experience?

5 A. Allow me to explain this because I was on the

6 executive committee of the HDZ. In terms of procedure,

7 this is the way it was; we had the right to propose two

8 or more candidates in the nomination.

9 Q. I'm going to interrupt you, sir, what is

10 cadre policy? Just tell us what the two words "cadre

11 policy" mean. Is that about immigration policy? Is it

12 about personnel policy? What is cadre policy? That's

13 my only question to you right now.

14 A. The procedure of proposing candidates for

15 positions of representatives or other positions in

16 temporary government organs according to the

17 requirements that are put forth for positions in

18 various bodies of this nature or others. So the

19 requirements mean what the person's qualifications are

20 for that position and also what his conduct was like,

21 et cetera. So that is what the procedure involved.

22 MR. SCOTT: Mr. Usher, could you please

23 tender to the witness and put on the ELMO Exhibit 631.

24 Q. This, sir, is the record of a meeting on the

25 8th of April 1993 which the Court will be familiar

1 with. I note in light of recent testimony, if you look

2 at the make up of the steering committee, you will see

3 the first person listed is Colonel Dario Kordic, the

4 first attended by Colonel Dario Kordic.

5 Let me direct your attention please to

6 page -- I can only say in the English translation it is

7 page 6 and if you could find, it's the section dealing

8 with initiating activities of the HDZ for BiH, if that

9 helps you, but it should be in the translation around

10 the fourth or fifth or sixth page. If we could put the

11 sixth page on the ELMO, Mr. Usher.

12 The top of that page -- if you can move it

13 down a bit, please. Do you not see here, sir, at this

14 meeting there was a resolution, an action taken that,

15 "The party has to take charge of personnel policy in

16 the municipalities, the army, the police, and the

17 senior authorities of the Croatian Community of

18 Herceg-Bosna," isn't that correct, sir? Wasn't that

19 the policy of Mr. Boban and the policy throughout

20 Herceg-Bosna?

21 A. Your Honours, could I please be told exactly

22 what point Mr. Prosecutor is discussing.

23 MR. SCOTT: Well, I will repeat my question,

24 Your Honour.

25 JUDGE MAY: He can't see this document with

1 which --

2 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the judge,

3 please.

4 JUDGE MAY: He can't see the document. Let's

5 have a look and see what page is it.

6 MR. SCOTT: At the top of page six in the

7 English translation, and I apologise, on my working

8 copy, I don't have a translation in front of me. At

9 the top of page six, it says "The party".

10 JUDGE MAY: Do we know where it is in the

11 Croatian so the witness can see it?

12 MR. SCOTT: Yes, I appreciate that, Your

13 Honour. Your Honour, I've marked and will hand the

14 usher a copy for ease of pointing it out.

15 Q. Will you please direct your attention to the

16 translation that's been pointed out to you, or I should

17 say, the original.

18 My question to you sir: Is that not, in

19 fact, a statement of the policy in Herceg-Bosna that

20 the party essentially had control or veto power,

21 whatever you want to call it, a personnel policy in all

22 these matters including the army, police, and senior

23 authorities of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna?

24 Do you see that?

25 A. For the most part, no. I assume that that is

1 why one of these conclusions was put in this way,

2 because quite a few nominations went apart from that

3 procedure.

4 Q. Well, let me put to you, sir, and then we'll

5 move on. It was exactly this policy and practice, at

6 least in part, that explains why Mr. Kordic would

7 approve of the appointment of various senior officials

8 to the defence offices, isn't that true?

9 A. I cannot agree with you.

10 Q. Very well, we'll move on.

11 Sir, in your position as the head of the

12 office of the president, did you not issue a statement

13 on the 20th of December 1992 citing that, "The will of

14 the Croat nation, on the basis of which Mate Boban has

15 the mandate to represent it at the highest level, has

16 expressed in the political charter of the

17 Bosnia-Herzegovina Croatian Democratic Community," that

18 is, the political party, "adopted at the second general

19 Bosnia-Herzegovina HDZ assembly held in Mostar on the

20 14th of December."

21 It was your position, sir, that the

22 government of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the

23 constitution must implement the political will of the

24 HDZ political party. Do you remember taking that

25 position, sir?

1 A. I would just like to ask you to precisely

2 remind me of the date.

3 Q. Well, let me do a little bitter than that.

4 If the witness could be shown Exhibit 326.2. I hope

5 copies can be provided of it as well.

6 Sir, this is a statement that was made, there

7 is a reference in the format that is a little tricky in

8 some respects, but if you'll look several centimetres

9 down from the top of the page at the left you'll see

10 "1600 GMT, 20 December 1992".

11 The document then states that -- starts out,

12 "Haina, the Croatian news agency cites a statement by

13 the office of the president of the Croat Community of

14 Herceg-Bosna issued in response to a news conference

15 given by Alija Izetbegovic in Zagreb three days ago,

16 and Izetbegovic replied in the affirmative when asked

17 if Mate Boban has given up the concept of the Croat

18 Community of Herceg-Bosna."

19 When I referred to you earlier, the

20 particular language I just quoted you a moment ago was

21 in the next to the last paragraph on that page

22 starting, "This will of the Croat nation." Do you

23 recall, sir, issuing this statement on about the 20th

24 of December 1992? --

25 A. Honorable gentlemen, evidently my

1 intervention is needed because it says the 20th of

2 December, 1992, not September as I -- it was

3 interpreted to me.

4 Secondly, this is a text of a news agency.

5 This is not an official press release, press

6 communication of any party official.

7 Thirdly, this is a comment on Mr. Boban's

8 statement. Official positions of the Croat Democratic

9 Union, may I remind you, and I suppose this Honorable

10 Court has them, were presented in the declaration by

11 the Croat Democratic Union before this --

12 Q. Sir, let me interrupt you. If you look

13 toward the end of that paragraph that I directed you

14 to, the next to the last paragraph, the next to last

15 and final lines say, "Which is signed by Srecko Vucina,

16 head of the office of the president of the Croat

17 Community of Herceg-Bosna." Now that's you, isn't it?

18 A. Will you please give me the authentic

19 document with my signature, then I shall be happy to

20 comment on it rather than how the -- a news agency

21 transmit conveyed my message. It is their freedom of

22 expression, freedom of media and freedom of every

23 individual journalist how he will interpret it.

24 Q. Well, tell us then how please -- why was your

25 view -- on what basis it was your view that the

1 government and the constitution of the Republic of

2 Bosnia-Herzegovina should be required to implement the

3 political will of one particular Croat political party?

4 A. Because that struck in a plebiscite one trust

5 of the Croat people in the first multi-party elections

6 in Bosnia-Herzegovina held in 1990, and was the only

7 legal and legitimate will of the Croat people. We

8 would have liked others to be in, because it would have

9 made work much easier but, unfortunately, those were

10 the circumstances one could not shun the responsibility

11 gained through the electoral results.

12 Q. Sir, isn't it true that Mr. Boban repeatedly

13 denied the legitimacy, the legality and the legitimacy

14 of the government of the Republic of

15 Bosnia-Herzegovina, isn't that true, sir?

16 A. Possibly, yes. But had they denied it, he

17 would not have delegated representatives of the Croat

18 Democratic Union under those hard wartime conditions to

19 become members of the government of

20 Bosnia-Herzegovina. As far as I remember, Mr.

21 Akmadzic was a member of this government and a member

22 of the HDZ. That is my answer.

23 Q. Did you have extensive dealings with

24 Mr. Akmadzic?

25 A. Could you please clarify what you mean by

1 extensive; frequent, long? If that is what you mean,

2 then no.

3 Q. Frequent then, sir?

4 A. No.

5 Q. But he held this same view, he held the same

6 view that the political will of the HDZ party was, in

7 fact, the superior expression of the Bosnian Croat

8 people and that, in fact, he was anxious to move in the

9 direction of a confederation or annexation with

10 Croatia, wasn't he?

11 A. That there is will is shown by the results of

12 the elections. All the other qualifications or

13 statements I now, since I am under oath, cannot

14 confirm. More than that, I cannot agree with them.

15 This is confirmed by all our official documents. I

16 remind you all our official documents, I do not go into

17 private and personal views of individuals.

18 Q. Sir, I submit that you haven't answered the

19 question, but we'll move on. Is it true, sir, that at

20 a meeting --

21 A. Yes, please.

22 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Vucina, please don't

23 interrupt. Mr. Scott, you must really bring this

24 cross-examination to a close.

25 MR. SCOTT: Very well.

1 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the counsel,

2 please.

3 MR. SCOTT: Allow me a moment, Your Honour,

4 to edit as I go, please.

5 Q. Sir, one of a final two questions on this

6 particular point. Is it your position, then, do you

7 agree that it was the position of the party, your

8 political party the HDZ-BiH, that the policies of the

9 party would be realised and were to be realised in

10 collaboration with and in agreement with the HDZ party

11 in Zagreb and in political orientation, the HDZ-BiH was

12 part of -- I stress was part of the HDZ; is that true

13 or not? You can simply answer, yes or no.

14 A. No, it is not true that we are a part because

15 they are different party bodies, different presidents,

16 different presidencies, different central bodies so

17 that we are not a part of that body because there are

18 two different statutes.

19 Q. Sir, in paragraph 16 of your statement, you

20 say -- you mention a cease-fire agreement between

21 Mr. Izetbegovic and Mr. Boban on the 18th of May of

22 1993.

23 President Tudjman was actively involved in

24 those negotiations at that same time, as the Court will

25 recall from a volume of evidence. I ask you, sir, why

1 did you not see fit to include that in your statement

2 when you talk about Mr. Izetbegovic and Mr. Boban? Why

3 didn't you also tell us about Mr. Tudjman's extensive

4 role in those negotiations?

5 A. I should like to thank you for this

6 opportunity, sir. Will you please show this Honorable

7 Court a document to see in what capacity, what

8 capacity, what powers, Mr. Tudjman had.

9 Q. Well, we'll move on, Your Honours. The Court

10 will have that.

11 A. Your Honours, I beg you.

12 Q. Sir, my only question to you, my only penned

13 question pending to you --

14 A. Your Honours, I beg you.

15 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Vucina, what is suggested is

16 that Mr. Tudjman had an extensive role in the

17 negotiations. Do you agree with that or do you

18 disagree?

19 A. Absolutely, Your Honours, and he signed it as

20 a witness. It was the international meeting in

21 Medjugorje. It was not a secret meeting. And we were

22 very grateful, because it led to the end of the

23 hostilities, the signing of a ceasefire. All war

24 crimes were condemned. All the crimes and misdeeds on

25 all sides were condemned. To establish a commission,

1 coordination, that was a crucial moment, absolutely, in

2 the establishment of mutual confidence. That is a very

3 important document, yes.

4 MR. SCOTT: We'll move on, sir.

5 Q. The only question was why you did not see fit

6 to include that in the description of events, but we'll

7 go on.

8 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, I'm going to skip

9 over what you have as 6A. Let me just say to the

10 Court, in the interests of time, the witness has made

11 broad statements of no ethnic cleansing, persecution,

12 or discrimination against Muslims. Obviously, the

13 Prosecution does not accept that at all. It would take

14 us an extended period of time to go through the

15 evidence on that. We simply don't accept it. I will

16 not go into the Ahmici issue because of time, only

17 because of time, Your Honour.

18 Let me go to the question of Stupni Do.

19 Q. Sir, can you tell us what knowledge and

20 involvement Mr. Boban had in either the, if you will,

21 planning events -- of planning and leading up to Stupni

22 Do or in the events in the aftermath of Stupni Do?

23 Could you please tell the Court about Mr. Boban's

24 involvement in that?

25 A. Sir, I feel the need -- you said wrongly in

1 your statement that I said that it wasn't, and I did

2 not say that. I again guarantee under oath that these

3 are not my words. I said that there was not any

4 measures or any thought, especially in any political

5 body in which I participated, and I once again vouch

6 for this position here.

7 I condemn every misdeed, I condemn every

8 crime, as I did before they happened or whenever they

9 happened, just as I thank the Lord for this opportunity

10 to, before this august tribunal, say that I, Srecko

11 Vucina, state for history that I condemn every crime

12 and every misdeed.

13 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Vucina, you're here to give

14 evidence, which means to answer the relevant questions

15 which this Court asks of you. Now, with respect, you

16 are not here to make speeches.

17 Let us go back to the question you were

18 asked. The question was this: Did Mr. Boban have any

19 involvement in the events in Stupni Do or in their

20 aftermath? Now, can you concentrate on that question

21 and give us an answer, please.

22 A. Your Honours, I shall be happy to do so, and

23 I shall be very brief. But allow me that the

24 Prosecutor alleged in his statement that I had said

25 something that I had not.

1 I was not familiar with the fact that

2 Mr. Boban participated in any preparations or anything

3 else. Personally, I have no knowledge of that.

4 Personally, I doubt that any qualification of that kind

5 could hold water.

6 MR. SCOTT:

7 Q. Sir, then let me ask you to look at Exhibit

8 1268.3, if that could be tendered and the usher could

9 assist us.

10 While that's being handed out, sir, isn't it

11 true that your office was involved in issuing a

12 statement on the 28th of October, 1993, just days after

13 Stupni Do, in which you denied that HVO soldiers were

14 involved in that event, in the killing of civilians in

15 Stupni Do?

16 A. Before me I again have a text which a news

17 agency transmitted, and I cannot comment on it.

18 Q. Well, sir --

19 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Scott, what is the relevant

20 part of this, you say?

21 MR. SCOTT: This is a report, Your Honour,

22 and there are various references in here as to the

23 fact -- well, let me just say again that the top of the

24 document says: "Report claims HVO did not carry out

25 Stupni Do massacre." It talks about an investigation

1 that was allegedly done, that the military and

2 civilian -- I'm looking at the first paragraph, Your

3 Honour. "The military and civilian bodies of the Croat

4 Republic of Herceg-Bosna" --

5 THE INTERPRETER: Could you please slow

6 down.

7 MR. SCOTT: I apologise. -- "have inspected

8 the situation and the events on the territory under the

9 control of the HVO." It goes on a couple of lines

10 below that: "HVO soldiers did not carry out the

11 massacre in the village of Stupni Do, nor did an armed

12 HVO formation enter the undefended village." It

13 states: "The report of the Public Relations Department

14 of the Office of the President of the Croat Republic of

15 Herceg-Bosna." You were the chief of staff or head of

16 the Office of the President, sir?

17 A. Yes.

18 JUDGE MAY: Just a moment.

19 MR. NAUMOVSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honours,

20 this is outside the period when Mr. Vucina was the head

21 of the office of President Boban, so this is two months

22 after that. And besides, I see here that this

23 statement was signed by Mr. Slobodan Lovrenovic, and

24 that is a different gentleman who worked in Mr. Boban's

25 office at that time. So at that time, Mr. Vucina did

1 not work in that office, because he worked there until

2 the foundation of the Croat Republic of Herceg-Bosna in

3 August 1993.

4 Thank you, Your Honours.

5 A. I also feel the need to say that the person

6 who was the spokesman of the office did that, and

7 everybody performed his duties. So it was

8 Mr. Lovrenovic who was the spokesman, rather than

9 myself.

10 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Scott, is there anything else

11 you want --

12 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honour, if I can just

13 be clarified on that.

14 Q. Had you worked, in fact, with Mr. Lovrenovic,

15 and was he, as is reported here, the -- I'm looking at

16 the last paragraph, Your Honour, on the bottom of the

17 first page. Was he, in fact, the president's public

18 relation advisor?

19 A. I think this was in the beginning -- end of

20 1992 or beginning of 1993 when Mr. Lovrinovic arrived

21 in Sarajevo, and he did that from time to time; press

22 releases and public relations. And after that, I

23 believe, yes, that he officially did that, and after I

24 finished my work in the office.

25 Q. Can you explain to us, sir, why a report like

1 this, which I submit --

2 JUDGE MAY: No.

3 MR. SCOTT: Sorry, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE MAY: It's nothing to do with him.

5 MR. SCOTT: Very well, Your Honour.

6 Q. Isn't it true, sir, and do you have

7 information because of your continued high role -- you

8 were the president of the executive committee, you

9 continued to have very senior positions in the HDZ

10 structure -- isn't it true, sir, that Mr. Boban

11 reported to President Tudjman about what happened at

12 Stupni Do? Do you have any information about that?

13 A. Since this is outside party bodies, I have no

14 knowledge of that.

15 Q. Were you ever involved in a meeting with

16 Mr. Tudjman and Mr. Boban, where it was suggested that

17 some of the same people who carried out the crimes in

18 Ahmici were also responsible for Stupni Do?

19 A. No, I was never at a meeting at which only

20 Mr. Tudjman and Mr. Boban were present. On a couple of

21 occasions, I was at such meetings, but those were

22 plenary meetings involving 15, 20, or perhaps more

23 people.

24 Q. Did you travel with Mr. Boban to any

25 meetings with Mr. -- excuse me, President Tudjman in

1 the second half of 1993 in Zagreb?

2 A. No. We were at a meeting -- I think it was

3 at about that time , I wouldn't know the month , when a

4 large number went to Split.

5 MR. SCOTT: We'll move on, Your Honour. I

6 would put, Your Honour, if I'm allowed, additional

7 questions to the witness about Ahmici as well,

8 similarly, but -- and certain people involved there,

9 but I won't because of time.

10 Q. Sir, in concluding your cross-examination,

11 let me suggest to you that contrary to the picture that

12 you've attempted to paint of Mr. Kordic, isn't it the

13 case, sir, Mr. Kordic was the number-one HDZ political

14 official in Central Bosnia, and in fact he, if you

15 will, personified the policy and the execution of that

16 policy in Central Bosnia in 1993; didn't he, sir?

17 A. In compliance with the provisions of the

18 statute, he was unquestionably the highest-ranking

19 individual in that part, and under the -- and he

20 unquestionably made the greatest contribution on the

21 basis of the duties he was charged with under the

22 statute and under the peace agreement. That is my

23 position, my personal view.

24 Q. Sir, he was Mate Boban's man in Central

25 Bosnia, wasn't he?

1 A. I couldn't quite agree with you.

2 MR. SCOTT: Your Honours, I'll only refer

3 very summarily to --

4 Q. A number of paragraphs in your statement,

5 sir, we don't have time to deal with them in detail;

6 paragraphs 19, 27, 28. You talk about various

7 assignments that Mr. Boban or others -- others gave to

8 Mr. Kordic; to sell the peace plan, to do difficult

9 things, that he had a difficult sales job.

10 My question to you, sir, is: If the HDZ

11 apparatus had a job to do in Central Bosnia, Mr. Kordic

12 was the man they went to; isn't that true?

13 A. In the part in which it said regarding the

14 implementation of the commitments we had undertaken

15 under any peace plan, for instance, when it came to

16 nominations for province governors, then that was my

17 duty as the chairman of the executive board, I mean the

18 nomination of individuals for bodies, executive and

19 legislative, which were at a high level both -- either

20 in the executive or the legislative branch.

21 Q. Sir, in fact in paragraph 27, you equated,

22 you and others that you associated with in the HDZ,

23 equated Mr. Kordic with President Izetbegovic, the

24 president of Bosnia-Herzegovina, didn't you? In your

25 view, he was just as significant and at the same level

1 as Mr. Izetbegovic, and I put to you, according to your

2 own statement, sir, that it was embarrassing. You said

3 it was offensive that Mr. Kordic came to the meetings

4 and his equal, the person at the same level.

5 Mr. Izetbegovic, did not come to some of the same

6 meetings; isn't that true, sir?

7 A. That is what you think. But let me just

8 compare it. It is like the president of the Republican

9 Party meeting the president of the Democratic Party.

10 Q. Go to paragraph 27, sir, the latter part

11 going over on page -- in the English translation, Your

12 Honour, on page 10. You and others were upset, sir,

13 because you didn't feel that Mr. Kordic was being

14 treated the same as President Izetbegovic; yes or no?

15 A. As presidents of two parties whose duty it

16 was to enforce the Washington Accord. I repeat,

17 presidents of two parties.

18 MR. SCOTT: My final two questions, Your

19 Honour. I appreciate very much the Court's indulgence.

20 Q. Sir, isn't it true that in 1992 and 1993, the

21 entire focus -- the entire focus of the Bosnian Croat

22 institutions was on defence, was on military matters;

23 there was no other political life, for all practical

24 purposes, no separate political realm; everything was

25 defence, wasn't it?

1 A. I cannot say none other. For instance,

2 locally in some municipalities, municipal boards,

3 within their rights and responsibilities, tried to make

4 their life go on. Central bodies, after some --

5 Q. Sir, if you would look at paragraph 3 of your

6 own statement and about two-thirds of the way down into

7 the paragraph on the bottom of the first page of your

8 statement --

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. -- I will quote you, simply quote you:

11 "Our whole focus at that time was on

12 defending ourselves through the Croatian Community of

13 Herceg-Bosna, that is, the HZ HB, the HVO, and the

14 Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna institutions. Normal

15 political life had to be postponed until after the

16 Washington Agreement."

17 That's your own statement, sir, is it not?

18 A. Yes, yes, correct. But I should like to

19 complement it with a sentence that during that time of

20 war, the HDZ was not all that active so would you

21 please read the sentence before that.

22 Q. Mr. Vucina, the Court will just have to take

23 that statement for itself on the basis of what we've

24 covered whether the party was not, in fact, active

25 during this period.

1 Let me submit to you in closing Your Honours

2 and to the witness. Sir, your statement is, in fact,

3 correct in this instance, it was the entire focus.

4 In Central Bosnia, sir, there was no other

5 man, there was no other official, there was no other

6 person more responsible for those matters and for the

7 Defence and for military actions and the strategy of

8 the Bosnian Croat people than Mr. Dario Kordic, was

9 there?

10 A. If that is a question to me, I will say I

11 cannot agree with you and your statement.

12 MR. SCOTT: No further questions of the

13 witness, Your Honour.

14 Re-examined by Mr. Naumovski:

15 Q. Thank you, Your Honours, but very short.

16 Mr. Vucina, a great deal was said today about

17 the HDZ. I have only one question, please. Will you

18 tell Their Honours which political party of the Croat

19 people, that is, Croats in Bosnia-Herzegovina was the

20 counterpart of the International Community in the

21 conclusion of all peace agreements from so-called

22 Cutilliero's plan to the Dayton Accord?

23 A. Mr. Boban signed Cutilliero's plan,

24 Vance-Owen Plan and Owen-Stoltenberg Plan, and after

25 him, the Washington Agreement, it was Mr. Kresimir

1 Zubak. The Dayton Accord was initialled by professor

2 -- Dr. Jadranko Prlic, signed by Kresimir Zubak on

3 behalf of the Croat people as the legal and legitimate

4 representatives of the Croatian Democratic Union. --

5 Q. Thank you. Yesterday, you answered to a

6 question that, theoretically speaking, my colleague

7 warns me that the last question was not interpreted to

8 the end, that this part is missing about the HDZ, that

9 witness, Vucina, mentioned but we can do it later,

10 resolve it through our objections to the transcript.

11 You spoke about the theoretical possibility

12 that Mr. Mate Boban, as the president of the Croat

13 Community of Herceg-Bosna and commander in chief, could

14 delegate some of his powers, some of his authority

15 including the military ones to another individual; is

16 that so? Do you remember that?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. So my question to you is as follows:

19 Mr. Vucina, did you ever, during all the time that you

20 were in the immediate vicinity of Mr. Boban hear him

21 delegate any of the military authority to any other

22 person including Mr. Kordic?

23 A. No, not even when he was abroad, not even

24 then.

25 Q. Incidentally, I also need to ask you, please

1 do not hold it against me, perhaps it will sound

2 strangely, but because of some words which were uttered

3 in this Court a long time ago, will you tell us,

4 please, when did Mr. Boban die or perhaps I should ask

5 whether he died because of some rumours, but --

6 A. Yes, it will be an anniversary shortly and we

7 shall celebrate holy mass. I was on my summer holidays

8 and I received the news. It was the 7th or 9th, I

9 returned from the holidays, I attended the funeral at

10 the holy mass and I do it every year.

11 Q. I did not hear you say the year.

12 A. It will be the third anniversary, I think.

13 MR. NAUMOVSKI: [Interpretation] As a matter

14 of fact, Your Honours, I do not have any further

15 questions, too many subjects were broached, but I'm

16 afraid that we shall -- we would spend too much time on

17 that. Thank you very much. Thank you witness.

18 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Vucina, that concludes your

19 evidence. Thank you for coming to the International

20 Tribunal to give it. You are free to go.

21 [The witness withdrew]

22 JUDGE MAY: We'll adjourn now for a quarter

23 of an hour.

24 --- Recess taken at 11.26 a.m.

25 --- On resuming at 11.49 a.m.

1 MR. NICE: I've asked for the witness to be

2 kept out briefly. The same issues arose with

3 confidential witness number three.

4 The Chamber will recall my concerns on behalf

5 of the OTP in relation to witness number three that

6 when witnesses come in these circumstances, we cannot

7 even know why they seek protection.

8 The Chamber will recall that witness number

9 three, when asked by me, gave an explanation what

10 happened when asked the question -- which was

11 unexceptionally revealed that he was frightened of no

12 one, and eventually said, -- when asked why he had

13 sought protection, in the form of a closed session,

14 that if you're given the option of in the form of a

15 closed session, you choose one or the other.

16 We were under very understandable and proper

17 pressure which we respected at all times to have as

18 much of our case in public as possibly could be in

19 public.

20 The Chamber will recall that I undertook at

21 the beginning to deal directly with every witness. I

22 wasn't able, in the event, to do that personally to

23 ensure that any request for protection was justified

24 and, of course, always made available to the Defence.

25 The Chamber will recall that two of at least

1 of the witnesses came with the forecast of protection

2 then gave evidence in open session. And for this

3 witness, we can see no reason manifest from his summary

4 or from anything we know about him that would justify

5 him giving evidence in closed session and we must

6 object to it.

7 JUDGE MAY: I do not have on hand the

8 documents or the submissions which were made to us as

9 to why this witness should be confidential; however, an

10 application was made, and we ruled on it as a Trial

11 Chamber allowing the witness to be treated as a

12 confidential witness. So part -- I can see no reason

13 to go back on that rule which was no doubt -- which was

14 made for good reason.

15 [Trial Chamber confers].

16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, I'm certain you'll

17 agree with the Presiding Judge, and I wanted to say

18 that, as a matter of principle, I don't think the

19 procedure you've adopted is correct.

20 Once the Chamber has made a ruling, that's

21 the ruling. I think if you wish to challenge it, then

22 you should do that elsewhere.

23 MR. NICE: I'm not -- I understand what Your

24 Honour says, but with respect, the point that has to be

25 appreciated and underlined is that in these very

1 particular circumstances, rulings are made ex parte.

2 Whereas in relation to every other witness who seeks

3 protection, the opposing party has a right to be heard,

4 so that we are in no position to justify -- not "to

5 justify". We are in no position to evaluate the ruling

6 that's been made, save, of course, when we ask the

7 witness questions about it.

8 I'm certainly not going to go appeal, on an

9 interlocutory basis or probably at all, such

10 decisions. But it's my duty to draw to the Chamber's

11 attention that the decision that's been made was made

12 ex parte and is one that we cannot at the moment, on

13 the sight of the documents available to us -- if I say

14 "understand", you'll think I'm being offending. I

15 don't mean that. We can't understand, simply from the

16 documents available to us, why that should be the

17 case.

18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, but I don't think

19 that's to be taken up here. That's my point.

20 MR. NICE: As Your Honour pleases.

21 JUDGE MAY: Very well. Have the witness and

22 a pseudonym, please.

23 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] The witness

24 will be DK.

25 MR. SAYERS: While the witness is coming in,

1 Your Honour, let me just alert the Trial Chamber to the

2 fact that he will not be available when the Court sits

3 again on the week of the 20th, and he tells us he's not

4 going to be available until September, which is one of

5 the reasons we wanted to get his testimony completed

6 today.

7 JUDGE MAY: We'll see how we get on with him.

8 [Closed Session]

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 pages 20886-20990 redacted – closed session

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at

22 3.10 p.m., to be reconvened on

23 Monday, the 20^th day of June, 2000,

24 at 9.30 a.m.

25