1 Monday, 12 November 2001

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.33 a.m.

6 JUDGE LIU: Call the case, please, Madam Registrar.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. This is the Case Number

8 IT-98-34-T, the Prosecutor versus Naletilic and Martinovic.

9 JUDGE LIU: Cross-examination, Mr. Seric.

10 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours. For a

11 change, I will open the cross-examination today.

12 WITNESS: FRANCISCO AGUIRRE [Resumed]

13 Cross-examined by Mr. Seric:

14 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Aguirre, you said you studied law in San

15 Sebastian.

16 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the witness.

17 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation]

18 Q. You graduated in 1993. That's what you stated, isn't it?

19 A. That's correct.

20 Q. Did you start your postgraduate studies immediately after that?

21 A. I started my studies in Notre Dame in the States in '94, in August

22 '94, actually.

23 THE INTERPRETER: Would the witness please speak up for the

24 interpreters. Thank you very much.

25 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation]

1 Q. Did your postgraduate studies have a specialisation?

2 A. Yes, that's right. My studies, a Master's degree that I got in

3 Notre Dame, was a Master's in peace studies, the matter of which was

4 primarily international relations.

5 Q. You said you were -- you had been to Croatia and

6 Bosnia-Herzegovina. Was that during your studies, during some break in

7 your studies? That's what I didn't understand quite.

8 A. Well, I have been there on different occasions, so the first

9 visits were before I was graduated, as you can see. And then I continued

10 and I went there on different occasions after I graduated.

11 Q. Can we agree that you went to the territory of the former

12 Yugoslavia as a student? Were those tourist trips, or could they be

13 characterised in a different way?

14 A. Yes, I did, but not only as a student.

15 Q. What was the nature of your visits to the countries of the former

16 Yugoslavia?

17 A. As I already mentioned in my first intervention on Wednesday, the

18 main purpose of my visits, or the most relevant one here, was for

19 humanitarian matters. I was working for a humanitarian organisation,

20 organising activities such as convoys, delivery of basic supplies in

21 refugee camps in the war areas. And the visit, as I say, was to assist

22 the humanitarian situation and to try to organise some of the projects of

23 this nature.

24 Q. Which refugee camps did you visit?

25 A. Well, many, a number of them, some of them located in Croatia, and

1 others located in Bosnia and Herzegovina. So among them were, for

2 example, the refugee camp of Gasinci, which was, at the time, one of the

3 biggest refugee camps in Croatia. A number of camps in the area in

4 Dalmacija, in the area around Split and other places of Dalmacija. Then I

5 certainly visited refugee centres in the city of Mostar, for example among

6 them, the students -- a students' djacki dom, a students' house,

7 residence, in Mostar, and other centres in the municipality of Capljina,

8 others in other cities of Central Bosnia, et cetera.

9 Q. Who was accommodated in refugee camps in Dalmacija?

10 A. Well, the refugee camps were under the authorities of the Republic

11 of Croatia.

12 Q. Do you know, by any chance, what population was placed there, to

13 what ethnic group they belonged?

14 A. Yes. The majority of the population in those camps were Bosnian

15 Muslims, Muslims coming from Bosnia-Herzegovina.

16 Q. Sir, do you know when this indictment was brought against

17 Mr. Naletilic and Mr. Vinko Martinovic?

18 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott?

19 MR. SCOTT: Object to beyond the scope of direct examination and

20 relevance, Your Honour. This witness testified simply to the foundation

21 of certain documents tendered by the Prosecution, and that is the only

22 subject that he testified about.

23 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.

24 Mr. Seric, I would like to remind you that this witness is not a

25 fact witness but a document-foundation witness. I hope you could draw our

1 attention to certain documents presented through this witness.

2 Yes, Mr. Seric [sic]? I'm surprised that you're standing.

3 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. We have to

4 respond to this objection. If we have no knowledge of facts, we -- one

5 cannot recognise documents and documents cannot be tendered to this Trial

6 Chamber. So we do have to verify the facts and the knowledge, the scope

7 of knowledge, of this witness to establish whether he has knowledge about

8 the documents which may be tendered because the documents cover the period

9 from 1992 to 1994. This gentleman told us how long he was in Bosnia and

10 what he was doing there. I think that in our cross-examination, the

11 Defence has the right to verify his knowledge about the facts from the

12 documents he is speaking to.

13 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Seric?

14 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, I also object procedurally. I don't

15 know why Mr. Krsnik is on his feet during the cross-examination by

16 Mr. Seric. And we continue our opposition. It's irrelevant and beyond

17 the scope.

18 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Seric; do you have anything to say?

19 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] I do. Thank you, Mr. President, for

20 allowing me to finally get the floor after the objection of my colleague,

21 Mr. Prosecutor. I'm trying to establish a background for further

22 questions, considering that this witness participated in the gathering of

23 evidence against my client, Mr. Vinko Martinovic. So his work and his

24 procedure is not [as interpreted] relevant because he is a member of the

25 team of one of the parties to these proceedings.

1 Therefore, his knowledge about the indictment and his method of

2 work, as I am trying to establish, were within the framework of the same

3 indictment. If we can stipulate this, I can simply skip over my next 10

4 or 15 questions.

5 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Seric, you have to understand that we have

6 got a lot of documents through this witness. I think the main purpose of

7 this cross-examination is to try to ask some questions to this witness

8 about the authenticity of these documents. I hope you could concentrate

9 on your question.

10 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, all right. I will

11 abide by your decision, but the fact is that this witness was expressing

12 his opinion on the consistency with international law and international

13 humanitarian law and the international laws of war, and it is my duty to

14 establish or to refute the consistency of his statements. But if the

15 witness said that he knows the features and characteristics of

16 international war legislation, and that he's able to recognise something

17 as being or not being an international conflict, then it is my duty to

18 establish that.

19 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott?

20 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, to the best of my recollection -- and if

21 it's necessary to go through the transcript, we can do this. To the best

22 of my recollection, this witness testified to nothing about the

23 consistency of international law or international humanitarian law. I

24 don't remember any such testimony. He testified about the documents, the

25 nature of the documents, whether the documents were consistent with

1 similar documents that he'd seen, that one HVO report looked like similar

2 HVO reports, the format was similar. And I must object again.

3 And as I forecast last week, Your Honour Mr. President, in

4 fairness -- as I forecast last week when this issue came up, I would be on

5 my feet a lot. And I will tell the Chamber now I will be on my feet a lot

6 this morning if the cross-examination goes beyond the scope of direct.

7 And the only reason this witness was tendered was as a procedural witness

8 on the foundation of documents. And I will continue to object.

9 JUDGE LIU: I understand that, Mr. Scott.

10 Mr. Seric, opinion of this witness on certain issues is not so

11 important to us. We just want to know your questions concerning with

12 those documents. You may proceed along this line.

13 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation]

14 Q. Mr. Aguirre, you stated that the events from 1993 were consistent

15 with the book of Mr. Tudjman called, "Nationalism in Modern Europe,"

16 published in 1981. How did you arrive at that conclusion? Did you read

17 this book in its entirety?

18 A. Sir, with due respect, that's not what I stated. What I said,

19 that there was a coincidence in between the places, the geographical

20 locations, mentioned in the exhibit, in the document 1 of this collection,

21 and the places, the locations, mentioned in other documents. The

22 conclusion can be drawn just by reading the documents.

23 Q. Have you read other books by Mr. -- Dr. Franjo Tudjman?

24 A. No, I have not.

25 Q. Have you chosen this book yourself as one of the pieces of

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 evidence presented by the Prosecution?

2 A. No. I have not selected this document.

3 Q. Have you, in your work as an investigator, worked consistently

4 with the indictment?

5 A. Sir, just for the sake of accuracy, my work is the work of an

6 analyst, and the answer is yes, I have worked for the indictment.

7 Q. You have just said that your work is that of an analyst. Who

8 gathered the documents?

9 A. The documents contained in this collection were gathered by

10 different members of the Office of the Prosecutor. In some occasions,

11 attorneys were involved. In other occasions, investigators or also

12 analysts.

13 Q. How can you then testify to the authenticity of these documents if

14 you don't know how they reached you in the first place?

15 A. Sir, with your respect, I do know how they reached us. I can

16 explain you how I know that. This is part of my regular work in the

17 Office of the Prosecutor. The main source to ascertain the origin of the

18 documents is simply our databases. We can check this against the

19 databases and then find out who gave the document to us, when, and who

20 received it from our side. That's how we can find out that.

21 Q. In this work, in the gathering of this documentation, has really

22 all the documentation referring to the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina

23 been gathered?

24 A. Well, probably, sir, all the documentation will never be gathered

25 by anybody. This is not a realistic expectation, I would say, with due

1 respect.

2 Q. Do you know -- let me start this way: In your work on this

3 documentation, did you work after November 1998? Did you continue working

4 on it after November 1998?

5 A. Yes, I did.

6 Q. Can you tell us, then, in terms of percentages, what share of

7 documentation was covered by you after this date in relation to the

8 overall quantity; 50 percent, more, less?

9 A. Yes, sir. For what concerns the recollection, gathering the

10 documents, I believe that they haven't been involved in the gathering of

11 any of these documents. This can be checked. We can ascertain and

12 determine who received each of them. It happens -- it is actually a

13 coincidence. It could have happened that I gathered them. But this

14 particular collection was gathered by other members of the Office of the

15 Prosecutor, I believe.

16 Q. This gathering of documents, was it done mostly after November

17 1998?

18 A. No -- well, I believe on the contrary. Those were gathered mainly

19 before. I would need to check in detail the databases to give you the

20 most precise answer, but we have to see that the main source, the majority

21 of the documents originate from UN - United Nations - sources. And those

22 were mainly -- those included in this collection were gathered at an

23 earlier stage. A number of them were gathered in '96, for example.

24 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I apologise. I need

25 some time since I skipped over a number of questions in view of your

1 decision.

2 Thank you. No further questions.

3 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. Mr. Krsnik.

4 Cross-examined by Mr. Krsnik:

5 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Witness. I'm Kresimir Krsnik,

6 Defence counsel for the accused Naletilic.

7 I will be dealing mainly with documents which I hope I have

8 studied in detail, and I hope you will be able to follow my questions.

9 Similarly, I will try to make my questions as concise as possible, and I

10 expect the same of your answers.

11 Let us start with a few general questions. My colleague has

12 already touched upon certain matters. I would like to ask you

13 specifically what criteria were used and who selected the documents with

14 which you, as member of the Prosecution team, you prove this international

15 conflict? So what criteria were used and who made the selection?

16 A. Yes, sir. I will do my best to assist you. The selection was

17 made mainly by members of the Prosecutor's office. Only to discuss by

18 sections, as I explained, the collection comes from different origins. So

19 when we received documents by governments, by the state authorities,

20 either, for example, the authorities of Bosnia-Herzegovina or the

21 authorities of Croatia, it is the submitter, the provider who is making

22 their own selection. That happens. Anyway, such documents are a

23 minority -- or a minor component of this collection.

24 In other instances, when we have access to the collections

25 ourselves, we make the selection ourselves, the officer who is in charge

1 for such an action. That is particularly the case when we work in the

2 state archive of Croatia. We can select ourselves. There is also the

3 case when we have access to a number of collections of the United Nations,

4 collections of the International Conference for the former Yugoslavia in

5 Geneva, or collections of the headquarters of UNPROFOR in Zagreb. We are

6 given access -- we can enter and select the documents. That is also the

7 case for documents coming from the Spanish army, from the headquarters of

8 the Spanish army.

9 By the way, I wonder if this is something that can be stated in

10 open session, but -- well, that is the case in such selection of

11 documents.

12 As for the criteria, well, there are several issues. One

13 important issue is the presence of units of the army of Croatia in the

14 territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. We know -- we have information

15 available, originally from open source, from different sources, that

16 identifies a number of units. So if you see in a document, for example,

17 that is mentioned the HV Brigade Number 116, just as an example, you would

18 certainly make the judgment that this is a relevant document and you would

19 select it.

20 Another criteria is the presence of commanders, commanding

21 officers of the army of Croatia that were acting -- they had a

22 commanding -- a position of command in Bosnia and Herzegovina. We have

23 the names of those. We have the names of certain people that we believe

24 that it is the case that they were commanders of the army of Croatia. If

25 we see that name mentioned, we will select it, and so on and so forth. I

1 think I have given you a couple of examples.

2 Q. Thank you. That is precisely what I think we should discuss,

3 because all my further questions follow from that. As regards archives

4 and the United Nations, we will talk about that later and elaborate this

5 topic. I'm interested now in the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

6 You said that they, among others, selected some documents.

7 Before that, I think I should ask another question. Who was it

8 who decided, and who decides, which out of the host of documents should be

9 presented here as evidence? And by what criteria? Are there, by the same

10 token, other documents which you also got from the same source and which

11 tell a different sorry?

12 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott?

13 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour the Prosecution team selects those

14 documents, primarily the lawyers, and I would object to go beyond that

15 under Rule 70. This goes into the internal work product of the Office of

16 the Prosecutor. And it is the lawyers who make the ultimate selections

17 for trial and mark the exhibits. Thank you.

18 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Scott, this question should be answered by

19 the witness himself. It seems that you give the answer by yourself.

20 That's not fair.

21 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Precisely, exactly.

22 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

23 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honour.

24 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could the witness's other

25 microphone please be turned on? The booths have trouble hearing him.

1 JUDGE LIU: We too also have some problems with the earphones.

2 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. For this particular case, for each case,

3 the selection is made by the trial team, and particularly by the

4 attorneys. That's the truth.

5 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation]

6 Q. Part of the question was: Have we received all the documents that

7 you got and that are related to this subject, or are there other documents

8 as well? Are there some who tell a different story as compared to those

9 that you have given to us?

10 A. Well, there are more documents, certainly. There are actually

11 many more documents. I believe that -- well, it is the normal procedure,

12 it's the obligation of the Prosecutor, to deliver documents that could

13 have an impact on the Prosecutor's case, I mean potential exculpatory

14 documents. So your question, I understand, refers to such a duty, and I

15 believe that that duty has been, well, duly complied with.

16 Q. Sir, of course, it was no accident that I'm putting this

17 question. Although our time was short, we studied these documents that we

18 got in depth. However, there is a question that arises: Why have some

19 documents not been signed, why have some been submitted only in part? Why

20 have some been translated only in part? So what happened with the other

21 parts? So why were only parts of documents given rather than entire

22 documents? If one studies the entirety of these documents, one comes to a

23 different conclusion. Even if these documents -- on the basis of these

24 documents that you did give us.

25 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, I think counsel -- if that's the

2 allegation, counsel should take the witness to a particular exhibit. I

3 think it's unfair to ask him about 97 exhibits all at one time.

4 JUDGE LIU: I quite agree with you.

5 Mr. Krsnik, you have to lead this witness to a particular

6 document.

7 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, please, let me bring the

8 witness to this. We have worked on this three days and three nights. I

9 have got all of this on paper, and now I am just trying to broach the

10 matter in principle, from a general point of view, and I would kindly ask

11 my learned friend to be a bit more patient. It's not only one document.

12 There are several of them. Of course, I'm going to go into all of that.

13 I want to deal with some questions in general. My question is whether the

14 gentleman, the witness, knows about this, and I'm asking him for an

15 explanation. Why have some documents been submitted in part and why have

16 some been translated in part? I think it is such a simple question. If

17 the witness knows the answer, well and fine. If he doesn't, again, well

18 and fine; then I'll move on.

19 JUDGE LIU: This Trial Chamber also shares the concern of yours.

20 We also found that certain documents have some problems. I hope you could

21 lead to particular documents, to ask this witness to make some

22 clarification on those documents, rather than asking such general

23 questions.

24 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I shall

25 abide by your guidelines. I shall not be long in this introduction but I

1 think it is necessary for you, Your Honours, to broach the subject matter

2 appropriately. All right. We are going to skip this particular question

3 altogether now, until we get to more specific matters.

4 Q. When you talk about the authorities in Bosnia-Herzegovina, tell

5 me, which are these authorities of Bosnia-Herzegovina, especially those

6 that gave you documents, which are these authorities? Who are you

7 referring to? Oh, yes, I beg your pardon, and also, which year or years

8 are you actually referring to?

9 A. Sure. The authorities of Bosnia-Herzegovina delivered 21

10 documents of this collection of a total of 97. There are different

11 authorities; some are judicial authorities, there is the police, and there

12 is also the agency for international communication.

13 Q. I don't know. Perhaps my English is not very good, but it says

14 "Bosnian government" everywhere. Doesn't that mean Bosnian government,

15 government in the sense of cabinet, administration?

16 A. Sorry, it says where?

17 Q. On your list of documents. That's why I put this question to

18 you. "Bosnian government." Which Bosnian government and which years are

19 we talking about? 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996?

20 A. Well, these documents are usually provided by the embassy of

21 Bosnia and Herzegovina. That's what the reference means. The originator,

22 say, one step behind the submission, can be then different agencies within

23 the authorities, within the institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The

24 date it goes from -- 1996 would be, I believe, the earliest submissions,

25 including this collection, up to 1998, and maybe beyond as well.

1 Certainly I believe that most of them came from the period in between

2 1996, 1998.

3 Q. Witness, do you know what the setup in Bosnia-Herzegovina was in

4 '92, and '93, and then at the time of Dayton and after Dayton and

5 nowadays? Speaking of nowadays, do you know if a state of

6 Bosnia-Herzegovina exists nowadays?

7 A. Yes, it does.

8 Q. Did it exist in '93, 4, 5, the State of Bosnia-Herzegovina?

9 A. I would need -- to answer your question, I will need to deal with

10 some issues that go beyond the submission of documents and information

11 contained in the binders. But the short answer is yes, it did exist but

12 in a different form. Before the Dayton agreements, it was the Republic of

13 Bosnia-Herzegovina. And after, it was simply the State of Bosnia and

14 Herzegovina. That is the short answer in the public domain.

15 Q. Who represented the State of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Witness, in 1993,

16 4, and 5?

17 MR. SCOTT: I object to the question, Your Honour. Again, it is

18 beyond the scope. The witness has already testified that the earliest of

19 these documents came in 1996. I object.

20 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] That is not correct --

21 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik.

22 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this does not go beyond

23 the scope, because if the origin of these documents is the Bosnian

24 government, we have to ascertain which Bosnian government and who stands

25 behind these documents. This is a crucial issue. Of course, I don't want

1 to put questions and answer them because we have not revealed before this

2 Trial Chamber what the political situation in '93, 4, and 5 in

3 Bosnia-Herzegovina actually was. I would like the witness to say that.

4 We are going to deal with it when the time comes for our case, but

5 I think it is also right for the witness to say that in connection with

6 these documents because if he is speaking about the Agency for

7 Documentation, this is the famous AID, it is a secret police, a secret

8 police that we have to know more about, and it is important for the Trial

9 Chamber to understand this fully.

10 So my question is, who represented Bosnia-Herzegovina in '93, 4,

11 and 5? Let us not deal in delusions or deceptions here. Who

12 represented? Then we're going to realise it was only the Muslims.

13 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Scott.

14 MR. SCOTT: I continue to object to the relevance, Your Honour.

15 Counsel can put their case. They can put their Defence case on when it

16 comes to their case. With the Chamber's permission, they can call as many

17 political witnesses as they think they want to, subject to your approval.

18 That is not the purpose of this witness. He did not talk about the

19 politics in Bosnia-Herzegovina during 1993, 1994, 1995. It is far beyond

20 the scope of this witness's purpose for being here. And again, we are

21 getting far afield. This is not the Defence case. They can put this case

22 on if they wish, with the Chamber's permission. That is not this

23 witness.

24 JUDGE LIU: Well --

25 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honour --

1 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Krsnik, I think your question is too broad. It's

2 very difficult to answer, even if the witness knows the answer, because

3 it's a very long period from '93 to '95, who represents the State of

4 Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is a very complicated question. We understand

5 that that government have underwent a lot of changes. You may ask a

6 particular moment, a particular time frame concerning with a particular

7 document.

8 You may proceed, Mr. Krsnik.

9 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honour. Of

10 course, I don't want to take up my time, but when we studied the documents

11 and we looked at the submitters, we saw "Bosnian government." So my

12 question was only who was the Bosnian government in '93, 4, and 5?

13 Nothing else. Who is this Bosnian government? Is it the result of

14 elections; is it a legitimate government? These are the questions.

15 I think that everybody has understood what I'm asking. It is not

16 as if somebody were a self-styled government proclaiming himself to be a

17 government, saying, "I am the government." It is a very simple question,

18 and that is what the witness put here under "Submitter," "Bosnian

19 government." Well, whatever.

20 Q. Witness, please, you closely collaborated with the Agency for

21 Information and Documentation. Isn't that correct?

22 A. That is true, among others.

23 Q. Can you tell the Honourable Trial Chamber which organisation is

24 this? What kind of an organisation is this?

25 A. To the best of my knowledge, as far as I could see, this is the

1 agency in charge of the investigation of war crimes by the Bosnian side,

2 the Bosnian authorities. So for what concerns our work, they are the

3 people who were gathering evidence relevant for war crimes. Not the only

4 ones, but they have this -- I would say they have this specialised orders

5 certainly among their duties.

6 Q. During your activities, you did not come to realise that this was

7 an intelligence, counterintelligence organisation, secret police, that

8 deals in the kind of matters that such services deal with, instigation of

9 unrest and various other activities that such organisations involve

10 themselves in, frame-ups, et cetera? Didn't you come to realise that?

11 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, I object to the characterisation.

12 Assumes facts not in evidence. There is not evidence that supports the

13 questions put by counsel. He is injecting completely political issues

14 into the case.

15 JUDGE LIU: This question is allowed, but you should not put an

16 answer in your question, Mr. Krsnik.

17 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I do apologise if that was your

18 understanding. I just asked, since the gentleman closely cooperated with

19 them, and he said that he did -- I mean --

20 JUDGE LIU: Let us hear what is the answer from this witness.

21 A. Thank you, Your Honour.

22 Sir, first of all, I would like to clarify that the input of such

23 agency for this collection is a minor one. It's a very minor part of the

24 whole collection. As I said, 21 documents come -- were delivered, were

25 provided by the Bosnian authorities, meaning actually the Bosnian Embassy

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 in The Hague. And I believe that only part of those 21 could have been

2 originally formed or delivered by such agency.

3 Now, I am happy to give you my opinion, my assessment, on the

4 Agency for Information and Documentation. Our experience with them for

5 what concerns our work has been positive. Our experience with them for

6 what concerns documents has been also positive in the sense that I have

7 never found a document provided by such source that could have been --

8 that appeared to be either manipulated, changed, or in any way

9 suspicious. That is the truth of my experience with such agency.

10 About other duties that are apparently assigned to such agency, I

11 cannot comment. I have not worked in those areas.

12 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation]

13 Q. Sir, how many documents did you receive from the AID for this

14 case? Of course, if you know the answer to that.

15 A. Well, it's difficult to answer. I really can't say that off the

16 top of my mind. A number of them.

17 Q. Do you know where these documents were taken from, where they were

18 kept, under which conditions they were submitted, who needed them in

19 Bosnia-Herzegovina?

20 Where were they taken from? That was my first question. How did

21 the AID come across documents that absolutely have to deal with the Croat

22 side? Did they steal them? Do you know how they obtained them? Do you

23 know what their origin is, what their authenticity is? It is my

24 understanding that you get these documents here in The Hague from the

25 embassy. Is that the only thing you know, or do you know who wrote them,

1 what their source was, where they were kept, where they were taken from?

2 A. Sorry, sir, is this question related to these particular documents

3 or in general to any documents submitted by them?

4 Q. I do beg your pardon. It's my fault. I didn't spell the question

5 out concretely enough. You are the witness for these documents, but you

6 said that you were an analyst otherwise as well. So may I ask you about

7 other documents, too?

8 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, we object to that. Beyond the scope,

9 completely beyond the scope and also guarded by Rule 70. I direct the

10 Chamber to Rule 70(A).

11 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik, you may ask any questions concerning

12 these documents, but it seems that you are beyond the scope to ask about

13 other documents. By the way, your question is quite complicated. It's a

14 compound question. Would you please ask those questions one by one.

15 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] By all means, Your Honour.

16 Q. Do you know where these documents were created, the documents that

17 you got through the AID? That's my first question.

18 A. For what concerns this collection, I know that they were submitted

19 by the Bosnian authorities. I cannot give you exactly -- I cannot tell

20 you exactly which one was delivered by the AID or by a judicial body or by

21 the police of Bosnia and Herzegovina. I know that they were submitted by

22 the Bosnian government, meaning the Bosnian embassy in The Hague. I know

23 that, in general, their sources are such, but I cannot give you the answer

24 for each particular document in this collection.

25 Q. Thank you very much, sir. We may therefore infer that you know

1 nothing about the source of documents.

2 A. You can infer that, but I think it's not a reasonable inference.

3 I will explain you why. I will need to explain a bit of my work. In

4 short, we basically have -- deal with three areas when we deal with the

5 documents: The authenticity of the document, the reliability of the

6 source, and the credibility of the information contained in the document.

7 We need to consider the three elements together. It may be the case that

8 you have doubts on one of the areas, but if, for example, you have a doubt

9 on the credibility of the source but nevertheless the document appears to

10 be authentic and the information appears to be credible, you may consider

11 that it is worth to submit the document, that the document is still

12 acceptable and relevant. So that can be the case.

13 I think the Chamber will be best assisted if we discuss the

14 documents on which you are concerned one by one.

15 So the Bosnian authorities submitted documents. As I said, I

16 believe this makes a total of 21 documents. Seven documents within these

17 21 came from the Travnik police department. And these are -- these refer

18 to applications for citizenship of Croatia in 1992. One document, it's an

19 open document, is a letter from Izetbegovic to Tudjman. Other documents

20 are HVO documents. I believe that 12 HVO documents were submitted by the

21 Bosnian authorities. So even if --

22 Q. Sir, may I interject, dear colleague? I do have questions along

23 those lines, along what you have just mentioned, so we will deal with it

24 one by one. I just wanted to discuss sources in principle - I mean where

25 the document was created - because you get these documents here in The

1 Hague and then, of course, you assess the documents, and then you see

2 whether you believe they are authentic, et cetera. We have had witnesses

3 who have assessed the authenticity of documents, experts in the field, but

4 this is what I wanted to clarify here. You get these documents here in

5 The Hague but do you know specifically what goes on in the ground? So

6 perhaps we did not understand each other properly. When I said "source,"

7 I mean the actual source of the document. Perhaps you misunderstood what

8 I was asking.

9 Now, why am I asking you this? You assert that the commanders of

10 the HV - I'm not talking about the HVO, I'm talking about the HV - that

11 they were commanders in the HVO. So I'm going to ask you the following:

12 How do you know this? On what is this assertion of yours based?

13 A. This question can be answered partly by reference to the documents

14 contained in the collection. The documents refer to such persons in

15 particular, they are named there, and it is reported that they are

16 commanders within the HVO. Then, in addition to this, we will need to

17 refer to other sources that are not included in the collection, but those

18 are known to me through my work, those are based in evidence available to

19 the Office of the Prosecutor. I would like to direct your attention

20 particularly to the documents that are -- that originate from the book by

21 General Bobetko. This is a clear source of evidence that is showing

22 commanders of the army of Croatia asserting command over the HVO. You can

23 see this in the documents and you can see that General Bobetko himself is

24 issuing orders to the HVO.

25 Q. Dear sir, 1992 and the possible activity of the Croatian army was

1 based on an intergovernmental agreement signed between the B and H and the

2 Republic of Croatia at that time. And do you know that this agreement was

3 signed and also carried through? Are you aware of this document? Because

4 I did not find it among the documents that were submitted to us.

5 A. Yes, I am aware. I mean, in my view, your comment is relevant

6 about -- is relevant for the legitimacy but that's not questioning the

7 international character of the matter. That comment could assist to judge

8 the legitimacy of such intervention or not, but that's not questioning the

9 fact that the intervention did happen as such. That's my assessment of

10 this matter.

11 Q. Sir, on the basis of the agreement reached between the two

12 governments, and on the basis of the request for assistance that was put

13 forth by the BH in 1992, a military agreement was signed. It's the

14 military agreement I was referring to. Are you aware of this document?

15 Have you seen this document? If so, why did you not put it in here?

16 Because it explains all of 1992.

17 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott?

18 MR. SCOTT: Again, objection, Your Honour. We are again way off

19 the nature of the documents. In the last answer, for instance, there were

20 questions about the legitimacy of the Croatians' presence in Bosnia and

21 Herzegovina during 1992. That is far afield from the authenticity of this

22 particular document. We are again getting into wholly different matters.

23 This witness cannot express a view on the legitimacy at any particular

24 moment of Croatia's presence in the country.

25 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Scott, let's hear first why that agreement

1 was not included.

2 Witness, you may answer this question, if you know.

3 THE WITNESS: Well, yes, Your Honour. As I said before, I did not

4 make the selection of the documents. This -- I cannot answer this

5 question.

6 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, our distinguished

7 colleague certainly knows this better than I do, but as for 1992, we have

8 almost 20 documents from 1992 that primarily deal with the book of Janko

9 Bobetko. 24 - my colleague has just corrected me - 24 documents. I think

10 that it is indeed relevant because, otherwise, why are they in this

11 collection of documents? And also, Your Honours, there was a certain

12 consistency that was referred to in respect of 1992.

13 Q. So I'm going to put the following question to you, dear

14 colleague: Do you know, for example, what citizenship Josip Praljak has?

15 Whose citizen is he?

16 MR. SCOTT: Excuse me, can counsel take me to a particular

17 document where Josip Praljak is mentioned? Out of the 97 documents, can

18 he please take me to that document?

19 JUDGE LIU: Yes, sure.

20 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I apologise. Thank you,

21 Mr. Prosecutor. It's Slobodan Praljak, actually. It was my mistake. We

22 have both in this case. This one is Slobodan Praljak.

23 Mr. President, one of them, you know, was referred to in

24 connection with the camps, and Mr. Slobodan Praljak is a general also

25 mentioned in these documents.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 Q. So my question is: Do you know which citizenship he has?

2 JUDGE LIU: You mean the document number 59?

3 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I think so, yes.

4 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.

5 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] And document 60, Your Honours; 59 and

6 60.

7 A. Should I answer? First, we will need to qualify the question; at

8 which point of time? Because I believe this change or this may have

9 changed throughout time.

10 Q. I'm speaking about the time since there have been citizenships.

11 You know when states were created in the territory of the former

12 Yugoslavia, and you know which state he belongs to. Once acquired,

13 citizenship is citizenship. Let us not go into legal issues in this

14 regard.

15 A. Okay, in this case --

16 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott.

17 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, I object to this. Is there some way that

18 the citizenship of Mr. Praljak is related to Exhibit 59 or Exhibit 60?

19 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Krsnik, you may explain to us.

20 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Certainly, and with pleasure, Your

21 Honours. One of the proofs of international conflict, according to the

22 Prosecution, is that Croatian officers took part in the HVO, were present

23 in the HVO, and that's the reason for my question. That's why I'm asking

24 about the citizenship of Mr. Praljak.

25 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, sorry, I truly am sorry. I know probably

1 I'm trying the Court's patience. Again, I forecast this last week.

2 Counsel, they can put in their defence case. They can call all the

3 witnesses they want. They can call Slobodan Praljak if they want to.

4 That is beyond the scope of this witness. This witness came and testified

5 about 97 documents. That is all.

6 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Scott, you have to understand that this is the

7 first time for us to touch upon a specific document, and that's what the

8 Trial Chamber want to hear. No matter this witness knows or not, we would

9 like to hear the answer.

10 You may answer the question, Witness.

11 A. Thank you, Your Honour. I believe that it is the case that

12 Slobodan Praljak enjoyed both citizenships of Bosnia-Herzegovina and

13 Croatia. He was a native from Capljina. He was born in Bosnia and

14 Herzegovina of Bosnian-Croat origin, and I believe that later he acquired

15 the citizenship of Croatia. This was the case with many Bosnian Croats,

16 as you can see in the documents. The documents that I mentioned before of

17 the Travnik police show how hundreds of applications were forwarded for

18 this matter, for citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina of Bosnian-Croat origin in

19 order to gain the citizenship of Croatia.

20 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation]

21 Q. Thank you. Let us move on. I'm trying to make it clear to the

22 Trial Chamber what was going on and to establish the truth, and I'm asking

23 for your assistance in this effort.

24 Do you know -- when Yugoslavia existed as Yugoslavia, until

25 certain states were recognised as independent, do you know how many

1 Bosnian Croats were involved in the Croatian army when the Yugoslav army

2 attacked Croatia? How many of them came to defend Croatia within

3 Yugoslavia? Do you have any knowledge about that? I'm trying to make

4 this short and to make us move on.

5 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott.

6 MR. SCOTT: I object, Your Honour. Now we're talking about

7 fighting in a whole different country.

8 JUDGE LIU: Well, I agree with Mr. Scott. Mr. Krsnik, it's out of

9 the scope.

10 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, please, we cannot

11 conduct an examination in this way because I am doing this for your sake

12 because you need to understand in all objectivity all the events that took

13 place in that territory. We have to understand these issues. It is not

14 an accident that Praljak was involved in the HVO. It didn't happen out of

15 the blue. It has its own history, a background that we have to

16 understand.

17 One shouldn't be allowed to claim in this courtroom that Croatia

18 carried out aggression, and I want to make it clear through this witness

19 to you, because there is a logical, historical truth in this respect. If

20 the witness is not aware of it, then let it be. We'll move on.

21 My second question was, how many -- excuse me, Mr. Scott. How

22 many Croats who had the citizenship of Croatia but whose motherland is

23 Bosnia, how many of them came back to Bosnia to defend the country? They

24 number in the thousands.

25 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Scott.

1 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, the problem with this is, again,

2 fundamentally -- we have said this many times now since last Wednesday.

3 And counsel -- the problem is they can, again, put this evidence on in

4 their own case if they wish. That is beyond the scope of this witness.

5 The problem with this cross-examination is not because I'm on my feet;

6 it's because counsel insist on cross-examining beyond the scope of both

7 the direct examination and the particular role for which this witness was

8 tendered.

9 They may want to, in their case, call all sorts of soldiers who

10 fought the Serbs in Eastern Croatia. If the Court wants to hear about

11 that, it can, but that is beyond the scope of this witness, Your Honour.

12 And that's the fundamental problem here, and counsel persist in asking

13 questions that are beyond the scope of direct examination and this

14 witness.

15 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] No. Your Honours, I have the record

16 of the examination-in-chief right here. Mr. Witness answered, The

17 consistency of documents with the events in Bosnia and Herzegovina, it was

18 also confirmed by the fact that Mr. Praljak was assistant Minister of

19 Defence of the Republic of Croatia. And we got this answer in the

20 examination-in-chief. Is that right? I'm just testing his knowledge

21 about Mr. Praljak and the documents which confirmed this consistency

22 because I am challenging this consistency. It doesn't exist, and I'm

23 trying to make it clear before the Trial Chamber. I cannot do that unless

24 we go back a little.

25 I'm not jumping suddenly to 1991 for no reason at all. Who are

1 those officers from the Croatian army involved in the HVO? And the

2 witness did speak about that in the examination-in-chief. My question was

3 very simple; does he know how many citizens, citizens of the Republic of

4 Croatia who were born in Bosnia and Herzegovina came to defend Bosnia and

5 Herzegovina against the Serbian aggression? It's a very simple question;

6 does he know, doesn't he know? If he does know, let him share it with

7 us. That's how we will arrive at an explanation.

8 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Krsnik, we believe that you have full right to

9 defend your client in your direct examination at a later stage. And this

10 witness is available in the OTP in The Hague, and you can call this

11 witness as your witness in your direct examination, if you want to make

12 sure what happened in certain period of time. But the purpose of this

13 cross-examination should be strictly within the scope of the direct

14 examination. I hope you could skip this question and continue your

15 cross-examination.

16 What we are interested is the particular documents in those two

17 binders. As I mentioned earlier, we also have some doubts concerning

18 certain documents in those two binders. We want to seek an explanation

19 from this witness so as to dispel our doubts on those documents. This is

20 the main purpose of this cross-examination, and it's the purpose for this

21 witness to be with us today.

22 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] We're moving on right now,

23 Mr. President. With the assistance of Madam Registrar and the usher, I

24 would like to show this witness the first binder containing documents from

25 number 1 to number 60.

1 A. Thank you.

2 Q. Please, could you kindly take document number 53. Could you

3 please turn to page 3 of this document, item (e).

4 My first question: You did not have this document in the Croatian

5 language available to you. Does the Croatian version exist in your Office

6 of the Prosecutor? Because this is a Croatian document, if you look at

7 it. I think it was signed by the president, Mr. Franjo Tudjman. The

8 original is in Croatian, that's why I'm asking.

9 A. This is a procedural matter. I don't know the answer.

10 Q. All right. Thank you. Because we haven't received it, and that's

11 a little strange.

12 But never mind. Item (e). As you can see, it says that there is

13 [In English] Agreement between Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Republic

14 of Croatia, signed 21 July, 1992.

15 [Interpretation] Did you find that document dated the 21st of

16 June, 1992?

17 A. No, I didn't.

18 Q. If you could assist me on this one, what does it --

19 A. I did not find this document, I didn't check it, because it's not

20 a fact in contest. This is clear and there is no -- it's not a

21 controversial fact, such an agreement. The agreement in itself, I don't

22 find it a controversial fact.

23 Q. All right. Thank you very much. Can we move to item 3 of this

24 same document, closer to the bottom, after item (e)? It's followed by

25 item (f), then point 3, and the last paragraph. Which number of refugees

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 is mentioned here? Is that consistent with what you know? The number is

2 650.000 refugees of Muslim - that is Bosniak - ethnic group, and the

3 providing of security for these people. Is that consistent with what you

4 know?

5 A. What is consistent, what is agreeable, is that a large number of

6 Bosnian refugees and Bosnian Muslim refugees were received in Croatia.

7 That is consistent. The particular number, exact number, was an issue.

8 It was a controversial issue. There were different estimates.

9 Q. Thank you. Is it consistent that the Croatian army should be

10 deploying -- was deploying its troops along the border in a state of

11 alert, in a state of war? Is it consistent that they should be deploying

12 their troops along the borders of other states?

13 MR. SCOTT: Excuse me.

14 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott?

15 MR. SCOTT: Consistent with what?

16 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Krsnik, you should be more specific.

17 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] That was my question that I always

18 asked: Consistent with what? What I mean here is consistent with the

19 facts that this witness is aware of, because that's what the document

20 says.

21 A. Well, I can -- I will refer to my criteria for consistency or for

22 evaluating the documents. The first point we need to take into account

23 for this particular exhibit is the originator. I would not consider the

24 president of the Republic of Croatia a credible source for this particular

25 matter. The duty and the -- well, yes, the duty of the president of the

1 republic is to defend the interests of the republic, rather than to report

2 objectively on the situation. The president of the republic had an

3 interest on this particular matter. So I think that the credibility of

4 this source is arguable, to say the least.

5 Q. If I understood you correctly, this letter, I think, was addressed

6 to the Security Council of the United Nations. Do you mean to say that

7 the president was informing the United Nations in a less-than-objective

8 way, that he was disinforming them, or what? Because this letter is

9 addressed to the Security Council. What worries me, though, is why is

10 there no signature on such an important letter written by a statesman.

11 So there are two questions. The first, if I understood you

12 correctly: Would the president of a state, even if it were a banana

13 republic, allow himself to behave in that way towards the Security

14 Council?

15 MR. SCOTT: Object to speculation, Your Honour. The reason this

16 document was submitted, Your Honour, again it's the Security Council

17 record. It is not, and it does not purport to be, the original, the

18 original letter, in the Croatian version. If counsel has that, I invite

19 him to put it into the record. I won't object if he does.

20 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Krsnik, I think we have to know some working

21 procedures in the United Nations. There are six languages in the United

22 Nations, as official languages. If a country does not use those -- one of

23 those six languages, they have to submit their documents into one of the

24 six languages. That's why, at letterhead of this document, it says,

25 "Original English version." This is the first thing.

1 Another thing is that we believe that this document has been

2 distributed among all the members, at least, of the Security Council.

3 There must be a signature in this document in its original form. When the

4 United Nations distributed those -- these letters, it cannot have that

5 signature on it. But there is no doubt that it should be regarded as an

6 official document from the United Nations, because it's a -- it bears a

7 serial number on there. Everybody will have access to these documents in

8 the archive of the United Nations.

9 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Certainly, Your Honour. Thank you

10 very much for your assistance and understanding. I wanted to go through

11 this with the witness, especially because it's very difficult for me, when

12 I'm talking to my client, to interpret for him each of these documents

13 during our consultations, because my concern about this document is how we

14 should understand this, because we cannot take out of context one letter

15 addressed to the Security Council. And that's why I asked Question No. 2

16 to this witness: Does he know where the attack on Croatia came from in

17 1992? Who attacked it?

18 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Krsnik, you have to understand that this

19 witness is a documentary foundation witness, not a fact witness. You

20 could not ask the question concerning with facts to this witness. It's

21 not fair.

22 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] With due respect, Your Honours,

23 please bear with me for a little. We cannot take one single document out

24 of a pile and present it to the witness as evidence, because we will

25 create complete confusion - that's what I'm most afraid of - because if

1 one document is saying that, for instance, Dubrovnik was attacked from

2 Trebinje and was bombed for a long time, then all the experts are

3 wondering does Croatia have the right - and it does - to go 100 kilometres

4 deep into another state to return fire? That's what I'm asking this

5 witness.

6 Because Croatia was attacked from Bosnia and Herzegovina. It's a

7 historical fact. It was bombed, shelled, the army came, the tanks,

8 missiles. It all came from Bosnia and Herzegovina. And it lasted until

9 the end of 1992, until the attack, the Serbian aggression in

10 Bosnia-Herzegovina started. Zagreb was under rocket attack from Bosnia

11 and Herzegovina. And if he's speaking about these documents, he must have

12 knowledge about that, including knowledge about General Praljak. He must

13 have knowledge about the documents and the consistency, and he has already

14 said that General Praljak was Assistant Minister of Defence. And we will

15 probably bring him here.

16 I want to make it all clear to you. It's not for my own sake, and

17 not even for the sake of the record. That is my main intent.

18 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott?

19 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, I asked the Chamber to cast its eyes

20 down this lengthy question that has gone on now for some lines in the

21 transcript. This once and for all makes the point that the Prosecution

22 has been trying to make; that this is beyond the scope of direct

23 examination and beyond the purposes for which this witness was tendered.

24 Now we are talking about the shelling of Dubrovnik. We are talking about

25 all sorts of things.

1 Counsel again misunderstands. If he wants to bring this evidence

2 before the Chamber, and if the Chamber wants to hear it, he can do that.

3 But that's not this witness. For some reason, we can't seem to get that

4 point established. The witness did not come here to talk about any of

5 these things, either substantive, historical, political information that

6 this witness was not tendered for.

7 JUDGE LIU: We agree with what Mr. Scott said on this particular

8 issue. We believe that the incidents in '91 has nothing to do with this

9 witness in this present case.

10 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the constant discussion

11 by my learned friend makes me want to respond, but I don't want to take up

12 any more time because this is a legal issue. It's already 11.00, but I

13 hope we will have time on another occasion to respond to these

14 objections. I see that my colleague, too, doesn't understand because we

15 come from different legal systems. These are witnesses and issues from

16 our legal system. I think this is not understood enough. If my colleague

17 asks a question, gets a response in the form of a statement, it's my right

18 to react to that statement. And that's why I'm asking the question about

19 Mr. Praljak. Otherwise, we won't be able to clarify and get to the

20 truth.

21 In any case, it's 11.00. I think it's time to break, if you

22 agree, Your Honour.

23 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Krsnik, you could ask this witness any questions

24 concerning these documents, but this Trial Chamber has made a ruling that

25 we believe the incidents in '91 has nothing to do with this witness and

1 with the present case. You have to abide by the rulings of this Trial

2 Chamber.

3 You may resume your cross-examination at 11.30. We'll adjourn

4 now.

5 --- Recess taken at 11.02 a.m.

6 --- On resuming at 11.30 a.m.

7 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik.

8 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation]

9 Q. Before moving on to the next document, dear colleague, I wanted to

10 ask you as soon as we heard an interesting thought of yours concerning the

11 document that we just looked at --

12 Do you hear English? No.

13 The document was signed by Mr. Tudjman; you said that it is not of

14 major credibility. My question is, do you think along the same lines when

15 documents come from the Bosnian government and when they were signed by

16 Alija Izetbegovic and others, especially with regard to such an important

17 institution such as this Tribunal is, or rather, the Office of the

18 Prosecutor that you work in?

19 A. In general terms, I would say yes, meaning that, in general terms,

20 a representative of a state, if such state has an interest in the

21 conflict, that needs to be taken into account to assess the credibility

22 and that may affect the credibility. That is right.

23 In this context, if I may comment, the issue had been reported

24 before by the United Nations, which can be seen in the collection. The

25 Secretary-General had already reported in negative terms, in critical

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 terms, against the Republic of Croatia. So there was the possibility or

2 the possible threat, I would say, of getting some sanctions because of

3 this matter. So it wasn't dangerous to the Republic of Croatia to either

4 conceal or underreport the issue or present it in a way that would prevent

5 the United Nations taking such action.

6 Q. We have certainly understood that, but my question was something

7 else. My question was: Did the Bosnian government behave in the same way

8 in its own interest? Because this is a UN Tribunal and it had a

9 significant interest in acting that way.

10 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott?

11 MR. SCOTT: I think the witness already answered the question yes,

12 Your Honour. Asked and answered.

13 JUDGE LIU: Yes. We also believe that this witness has answered

14 the question.

15 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

16 Q. Can we look at document 27, please. Can you tell me what the

17 point is of this document? Why would it be a negative thing if the Croats

18 in Bosnia-Herzegovina were signing a document that is supposed to lead to

19 peace? This is a document that was supposed to bring peace to

20 Bosnia-Herzegovina, so I do not see the point of this document.

21 A. Well, the matter for discussion is not the goodwill of the parties

22 or the peace negotiations. The matter, I understand, is the international

23 armed conflict. And for that matter, it does contain relevant

24 information. That's my answer.

25 Q. Witness, if the whole document is read, then your answer and this

1 document are not mutually related. If you read the document in its

2 entirety. Of course, I'm not going to read the entire document because

3 it's self-explanatory. I have, of course, marked the most interesting

4 details in this entire document. It absolutely speaks of peace, not

5 international conflict. It talks about bringing peace to

6 Bosnia-Herzegovina, dividing it into provinces, et cetera. In addition to

7 that, the Croats actually signed it, or rather, the Croats in

8 Bosnia-Herzegovina.

9 Very well, let's move on then.

10 MR. SCOTT: Excuse me, Your Honours, that was a speech without a

11 question. If there was a question there, let the witness answer. If he

12 can give an answer as to why the document is relevant, let him. But we

13 had about a ten-line speech and no question. I object.

14 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik. You have to put your question in the

15 form of a question.

16 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, well, I do apologise.

17 I thought that I had put a question. I said: How is this document that

18 speaks of the peace agreement, and that is supposed to bring peace, what

19 does that have to do with the nature of the international conflict?

20 Because the entire document has to be read, Your Honour. Of course, I

21 don't want to read the whole thing because we are all aware of how much

22 time would be needed for that. That is the question I put to the witness,

23 quite clearly.

24 Q. What is the relationship between this document and a document that

25 has to do with the international conflict?

1 A. Well, there are several points. To begin with, in this document,

2 and other United Nations documents included in the collection, you will

3 see that the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina will be recognised, will

4 be mentioned, referred to, as an internationally-recognised state, which

5 is relevant to begin with. And the representatives will be addressed as

6 representatives of a state member of the United Nations. This can be seen

7 in several documents of this collection.

8 In some documents, when they refer to the withdrawal, actually

9 they request the withdrawal of troops of Croatia, they refer to that fact,

10 that -- the reason is actually, the origin of this request is that Bosnia

11 is an international-recognised state. This can be seen in this and other

12 documents of the United Nations.

13 More in detail, if you want, you can see point 21 in page 6 of

14 this document, in which you can see that President Franjo Tudjman of

15 Croatia is taking part in these negotiations. This may be relevant.

16 As for what concerns the conflict in general, a fact is that such

17 negotiations in January, 1993, were followed by an increase, a hardening,

18 a worsening of the conflict. There was, well, significant increase of the

19 conflict, of the war, in between the forces of the Republic of

20 Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Croat forces. That can be also relevant.

21 Q. Witness, we are not discussing the fact that Bosnia-Herzegovina is

22 an independent, internationally-recognised state. We are -- it was only a

23 state de jure. However, its form of setup was related to these agreements

24 because the three peoples had to agree on what the future political setup

25 of this state would be. That is why we are asking what this has to do

1 with the international armed conflict.

2 A. I believe I have already answered this question.

3 Q. Okay. Very well. Next is number 28. If this document is read in

4 its entirety, how can one conclude that It is related to an international

5 armed conflict, especially Item 2, where reference is made to the civil

6 war and Bozo Rajic?

7 A. I would need a few seconds to go through it.

8 Q. By all means. I hope I'm not interrupting you, Witness. Item 1,

9 perhaps I can lead you through the document because, indeed, I think I

10 know it by heart. Item 1 says unequivocally that the army of

11 Bosnia-Herzegovina is exclusively Muslim forces. You do see what item 1

12 says, don't you, and especially the last point where it says -- where

13 reference is made to the Geneva plans and Alija Izetbegovic. Of course,

14 if you want to read through it again, please go ahead. But my question

15 was, how does this all relate to international conflict?

16 A. As I am reading it now, I can't see direct evidence of

17 international conflict. I think the document may be relevant in the

18 broader context or in connection to the previous or other documents and so

19 on. But in itself, I cannot see that it contains direct evidence to this

20 point.

21 Q. Thank you. Could we now go back to document number 1, please. My

22 first question, distinguished colleague, have you personally read this

23 book, all of it?

24 A. No, I have not. I have read the section included in this exhibit,

25 exhibit includes the index, and I believe that this is the relevant

1 section for this matter.

2 Q. Do you know where this book was published and for which audience?

3 A. That you can see in the document itself. It says, it says in the

4 first page, 1991, Columbia University Press, New York.

5 Q. But for what kind of readership, for what kind of audience?

6 A. I believe for anyone that could enter a bookstore and buy the

7 book. I don't think it was directed against any -- it was targeting any

8 particular audience, as far as I know.

9 Q. Do you know that this document was never printed or published in

10 the territory of the former Yugoslavia, not until the present day, except

11 for one single copy at the university library? And I have it right here.

12 Are you aware of that?

13 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott.

14 MR. SCOTT: Does this question go to the authenticity of this

15 document? Is Mr. Krsnik saying that this book wasn't published by

16 Columbia University Press? What does the fact whether it was published in

17 Bosnia have to do with the authenticity of this document?

18 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Scott, we believe that this question is relevant,

19 and we want to know some related matters concerning with this book. You

20 may proceed, Mr. Krsnik.

21 A. The answer --

22 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honour.

23 Q. So do you know that there is one single copy in the English

24 language at the university library, and nowhere else in all of Croatia --

25 or rather, in the entire territory of the former Yugoslavia? And that is

1 why I asked you for which audience this was and what was the subject

2 matter involved.

3 A. I don't know if the book was distributed in the former Yugoslavia,

4 and I don't know the number of copies available in the territory of former

5 Yugoslavia.

6 Q. Do you know what the basic profession of Dr. Franjo Tudjman was?

7 Do you know what his doctorate was about or in which field?

8 A. I believe that the late President Tudjman had different

9 professions, different jobs throughout his life. Now, the interest of the

10 point, I believe, is about history. If that's a point, yes, he did some

11 historical research, which can be seen in the document itself.

12 Q. As an historian, did he have the right to write books and present

13 his ideas and give comments about history? This book deals with a time

14 period spanning from the Turkish times until the socialist Yugoslavia,

15 socialist Yugoslavia.

16 A. What is exactly the question, I'm sorry?

17 Q. My question is, do you allow an historian to write books and give

18 comments about things that happened in history in the past? He is

19 explaining historical events. Had you read the entire book, then perhaps

20 we could discuss it, and then we will go to these three pages that were

21 taken out of context. But do you allow an historian to write books and to

22 deal with a subject matter belonging to his profession? Isn't that the

23 fundamental right of any historian?

24 A. Yes, the issue is not if he is allowed or not. The issue is what

25 he is saying. Many things can be said about history, and some of them are

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 related to the conflict.

2 Q. That is your thinking. The thinking of Dr. Franjo Tudjman in this

3 book coincides with your thinking, does it, on the basis of three pages

4 from the book that were read?

5 A. Sorry, can you be please more precise on the question? Thinking

6 on what exactly?

7 Q. Are you trying to say that 12 years before the conflict took

8 place, the tragic conflict in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, are

9 you trying to say, on the basis of three pages from a book that you read,

10 on the basis of three pages that were taken out, you are proving the

11 aggression of Croatia against Bosnia-Herzegovina?

12 MR. SCOTT: That is a mischaracterisation, Your Honour. Again, I

13 thought the question was going to be a proper question until we got to the

14 end. Then it gets all over the place again. I object to the question.

15 Now we are trying to prove: Is it your position, Mr. Witness, that this

16 proves the aggression of Croatia against Bosnia-Herzegovina?

17 Mr. President, that's awfully broad, and I object.

18 JUDGE LIU: Well, we agree with the Prosecutor, with his

19 objections, Mr. Krsnik. Can you skip this question?

20 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I can skip everything.

21 I can finish my cross-examination as such. This book was discussed

22 extensively during the examination-in-chief. You know that I also had

23 some objections when this book was discussed, because it proves

24 international conflict. So I'm asking the witness, very nicely, in his

25 opinion, since he submitted these three pages into the file of documents

1 that are supposed to prove an international armed conflict, does he still

2 claim that these three pages from this book that was written for students

3 in America - I have the entire book here, I don't want to go into all of

4 that - that is supposed to explain how the republics and autonomous

5 provinces in Yugoslavia came into being? Does he still think that this

6 has to do with an international armed conflict?

7 Q. Yes, perhaps I could phrase the question that way.

8 A. The answer is yes, I believe it is a relevant piece of evidence,

9 because the author became president of the Republic of Croatia, and I will

10 mention a point that I already mentioned on Wednesday. There is a

11 remarkable coincidence, the geographical areas mentioned in this book and

12 the areas mentioned in the rest of the documents, particularly the areas

13 mentioned in the UN report where they identified units of the army of

14 Croatia.

15 Q. You personally - you personally - know about this - and that is

16 what you spoke of during your direct examination - that the Croat army was

17 in that area, in those areas?

18 A. No.

19 MR. SCOTT: Your Honours, again, it's a mischaracterisation of the

20 evidence. There were documents tendered. If you look at the documents,

21 they will show that various reports were made about the presence of

22 Croatian army units in various parts of Bosnia-Herzegovina, including

23 Mostar. It wasn't this witness's opinion. It was what the documents that

24 he testified about the foundation of said. That's beyond the scope --

25 expressing a further opinion is beyond the scope of direct and this

1 witness.

2 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik. We are not very much concerned about

3 the opinion of this witness. We are very much concerned about the

4 documents this witness presented to us, namely, the authenticity of the

5 documents, the reliability of the sources, and the credibility of the

6 information contained in those documents. This is what we are caring

7 about. Everybody has his own opinions concerning certain incidents, but

8 we believe that this witness's opinion is irrelevant to this case.

9 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I have got this document, Your

10 Honour. I'm not going to read from it now. The document is

11 self-explanatory. But later we are going to tender the entire book and

12 then the Trial Chamber will be in a position to come to its own

13 conclusions. Thank you.

14 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, I'm sorry, if that's the case, then

15 there is no question about its authenticity, and we just spent some

16 minutes now talking about a document to which there is no challenge to its

17 foundation. If counsel is going to put the same book, the entire book

18 into evidence, I stipulate. I admit it. It can be admitted right now.

19 There is no dispute about authenticity.

20 JUDGE LIU: Well, it's not the time for that.

21 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, the point is we are here to talk about

22 whether the documents are reliable and authentic. And now counsel, he

23 is -- the only place he can challenge this evidence, I respectfully

24 submit, is that the document is somehow inauthentic or should not be

25 accepted by this Chamber. That's the only purpose of which this witness

1 testified. As you said just now, Mr. President, it is not about this

2 witness's opinion. If counsel says he is going to put the entire book

3 into evidence, then, Your Honour, respectfully, I submit then that it's

4 obvious the case that there's no dispute about its authenticity.

5 JUDGE LIU: Yes, thank you.

6 Mr. Krsnik, would you please continue with your

7 cross-examination.

8 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

9 Q. Final question with regard to this book: On the basis of three

10 pages of a book, can you speak about the consistency of this book with

11 documents that were created 10 or 15 years later?

12 A. Yes, sir, I can speak about the consistency of these pages with

13 the rest of the collection. That is what I am speaking about.

14 Q. Thank you. Can we please move on to document number 3 now.

15 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott.

16 MR. SCOTT: Sorry, Mr. President. I guess, then, from the last

17 answer, that counsel doesn't want the answer to the question. He asked

18 him if he could answer the question; the witness says he can answer, and

19 the witness was not given any opportunity to say what it is. I leave it

20 in the Chamber's hands, but the witness was not given an opportunity to

21 give the answer other than to say yes, I could explain if given the

22 opportunity.

23 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Scott, we are quite satisfied with the answer of

24 this witness.

25 Yes, you may proceed.

1 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation]

2 Q. Have you got document number 3? I will kindly ask you, do you see

3 the copy in Croatian, in the Croatian language?

4 A. Yes, yes, I do.

5 Q. We had major problems in understanding it because it's highly

6 illegible. Tell me, from which file did it come and get into this file?

7 A. This document was submitted by the Bosnian authorities.

8 Q. Wasn't this document already used in another case before this

9 Tribunal?

10 A. I don't know.

11 Q. Could you tell me, please, this signature at the bottom, can you

12 confirm its authenticity and the source of the document? We're dealing,

13 again, with the year 1992 and the war with the Serbs when the Croats and

14 Muslims were together. And my question is, what does this have to do with

15 international armed conflict?

16 A. Well, point by point: About the signature, no, I cannot confirm

17 the authenticity of the signature. About the origin of the document, as

18 I've mentioned before, our experience is that a document submitted by the

19 Bosnian authorities - so far I haven't come across any case of forging,

20 manipulation or anything - our experience is that documents submitted by

21 these sources are normally, usually authentic. That's our experience.

22 Now, about the matter, let me take a look. This is a document

23 addressed to the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Croatia. I think

24 that this is a relevant point.

25 Q. So a letter addressed to the Ministry of Defence of the Republic

1 of Croatia, that is what matches, in your opinion. Did I understand you

2 correctly?

3 A. It's addressed by a military commander from a different country in

4 the context of an armed conflict, yes, I believe it is relevant.

5 Q. Wasn't the Vitezit factory the point here? Was the subject of

6 this the factory called Vitezit, in the town of Vitez, producing

7 explosives?

8 A. Well, I don't know, and I don't think that the document mentioned

9 anything about that.

10 Q. This document and the people mentioned here, were they related to

11 the area of Central Bosnia?

12 A. Just a second, please. I believe so. I believe this refers to

13 Central Bosnia.

14 Q. My first question is: What is the relationship between Central

15 Bosnia and the indictment? And my second question, but you already

16 confirmed this, it is just an indication as to who the letter was

17 addressed to. And in connection with that answer of yours, my second

18 question would be: Don't states cooperate in terms of logistics, supply

19 of arms, et cetera?

20 My first question, therefore, is: What is the -- how is Central

21 Bosnia related? And my second question is: Isn't it normal for states to

22 cooperate in purchases of arms, logistics, et cetera?

23 A. Central Bosnia is related to this case, I believe, in different

24 ways. First of all, the area of the indictment and Central Bosnia are

25 both part of the same state, internationally-recognised state. So the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 information related to Central Bosnia may be related to the matter of

2 international armed conflict, being also part of the Republic of Bosnia

3 and Herzegovina. For criminal matters, this is a different issue. I

4 don't think -- eventually, we don't need to go into this now. For

5 purposes of organisation, we can certainly say that Central Bosnia was an

6 operational zone of the HVO, and as such, Central Bosnia and southern

7 Herzegovina, Mostar, were part where we think the same structure of the

8 HVO for matters of organisation.

9 What was the -- oh, yes, cooperation.

10 JUDGE CLARK: Mr. Krsnik and Mr. Aguirre, can I interject? We are

11 spending an awful lot of time on these last two documents, and having read

12 both of them, it seems to me that all the Prosecution is attempting to

13 show with these documents at the moment is their relationship, the

14 relationship of the second document with the treatise, to use a neutral

15 word, which was published by Mr. Tudjman. Surely all that this document

16 in order is showing consistency, which has been, I think, expressed on a

17 number of occasions by this witness, of the ideals and aspirations

18 expressed by Mr. Tudjman in his book, and nothing more than that. It is

19 just following this. Because Mr. Mate Boban appears to reiterate the

20 ideals and aspirations which were mentioned in those excerpts from

21 Mr. Tudjman's treatise. So really we are not getting anywhere if we

22 parse the contents of this document, because you already are going to

23 proffer the entire treatise as published by Mr. Tudjman on the same

24 subject.

25 JUDGE DIARRA: [Interpretation] Excuse me. Above all, the witness

1 specified that this document cannot really attest to the international

2 nature of the conflict, as he added it to the other documents. So these

3 documents should be viewed together with other documents. If you want to

4 prove this on the basis of just one document, I'm afraid we wouldn't be

5 advancing very much.

6 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] [No interpretation].

7 JUDGE LIU: I'm sorry, we do not get translation. Sorry. Yes.

8 You may try again.

9 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour, for your

10 suggestions and insight, which I accept in full. Every document is

11 different, and I want to reach some answers, such as what does this

12 document have to do with the international armed conflict? The very fact

13 that they contacted the Croatian Ministry of Defence seems to suffice for

14 it to be relevant.

15 Another matter that I wanted to resolve is we simply didn't manage

16 to understand this document because -- to decipher it, because it's almost

17 illegible. On the other hand, there is a translation -- or, rather, there

18 isn't a translation. The document that we have here, we didn't succeed in

19 establishing whether there is a translation because the English version

20 does not coincide with what we have here. At least, we didn't manage to

21 decipher it.

22 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott?

23 MR. SCOTT: Well, two things, Mr. President. There is a

24 translation -- it's obvious the documents speak for themselves. This is

25 originally a B/C/S document, which is the third page of the exhibit.

1 There is then a French translation before it and an English translation in

2 front of it. Now, most of it, it is the -- the third page is not

3 certainly ideal. I think most of it - not to me, but to a B/C/S speaker

4 and reader - can be legible, can be read, most of it. If the original --

5 if a further copy needs to be obtained from the purposes of the evidence

6 vault, to see if a better copy can be provided, I'm happy to pursue that.

7 But again, how is that a question for this witness? Now he's asking this

8 witness about the status of translation. Again, this is simply not this

9 witness's purpose.

10 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it's very clear, and

11 I'll respond to this immediately. The witness said he had analysed the

12 documents and he had worked on them, and I will give you a specific

13 example. This gentleman, who is signed here, we tried to establish

14 whether the man exists, and we got the answer that there is no one by the

15 name of Basko Ljubicic, and I want to hear this witness's answer to this.

16 And we always used to say it's very difficult to deal with names

17 originating from the Balkans.

18 JUDGE LIU: Well, if you have a particular question in your mind,

19 just put it.

20 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation]

21 Q. So specifically, who is Basko Ljubicic?

22 A. Well, I'm not totally certain about this, but I believe the answer

23 to this is there is some misspelling or a mistake in the transcription.

24 Since the original document, it's true, the quality is not very good,

25 apparently in the translation, they put a "B" where most likely there

1 should have been a "P." Most likely the first name of this person is

2 Pasko, with a "P."

3 Q. And now, if you please, distinguished colleague, please look at

4 this name in the Croatian version. Do you see it? Is it a "P" or a "B"?

5 We don't need any translation or interpretation of this. Did you conclude

6 on the basis of this signature that it's Pasko or Basko, either way?

7 A. No. As I said, the quality of the document is not very good, so

8 you cannot be certain about this. I infer that probably it's "P" because

9 that is a common Croat name, and I'm familiar with such a first name,

10 Pasko, with a "P."

11 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Scott, can you shed some lights on those names?

12 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honour. If you allow me - and I'll only

13 answer if the Chamber invites me to because I don't want to be accused of

14 testifying - but I think I can assist the Chamber by saying that the

15 original document indeed says Pasko Ljubicic. I asked -- I'm pursuing

16 this moment a better version of this document be brought to the

17 courtroom. I've seen the original document myself. Because Mr. Krsnik is

18 indeed right, it was used in another case and admitted in another case,

19 the Kordic case, the name is Pasko Ljubicic, and a different version will

20 be brought to the Chamber as soon as possible. Thank you.

21 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.

22 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation]

23 Q. If we can now move on to Exhibit Number 5. My first question,

24 what is that 4/4th Brigade of the ZNG and who does it consist of?

25 A. What we can say from the document is that it was a unit of the

1 army of Croatia under the command of the Split operational zone.

2 Q. Reference is made here to ZNG. What is that?

3 A. Well, as it is translated here, National Guards Corps. It is an

4 early delineation for the units of the army of Croatia. It was an initial

5 delineation in the first period of the formation of the army of Croatia,

6 which is -- we're talking about 1991 initially.

7 Q. Do you know that ZNG soldiers were exclusively volunteers, and

8 that's the reason why they were called the National Guard Corps? Are you

9 aware of that?

10 A. I don't know if the soldiers were volunteers or were not

11 volunteers. But the issues mentioned in the document itself in point 6,

12 the last paragraph, you can see it yourself. It says, "All HV insignia

13 are to be removed from the fighters and present yourselves as volunteer

14 defenders of your homeland." So what the document shows is that the

15 regular commander is instructing his troops to present themselves as

16 volunteers.

17 Q. That is how you read the document. Can it be read in a different

18 way? Can it be read as meaning that they were volunteers?

19 MR. SCOTT: Excuse me, now we're going to argue with the witness

20 about what the document means? Objection.

21 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik, we are not going to argue with this

22 witness about this document. We believe that document speaks for itself.

23 If you have any questions, you are free to ask any questions.

24 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Were they volunteers? Because the

25 witness is saying, on the basis of these documents, they were the Croatian

1 army. And I'm claiming the opposite, and I'm claiming that this document

2 is saying this clearly enough. These were people who went to Bosnia and

3 Herzegovina as volunteers. And I hope that other witnesses will tell us

4 more about that in this courtroom.

5 Q. And between who and who was the war conducted, then, in the year

6 1992?

7 A. I assumed that you would know the answer to this question. But in

8 the year '92, the conflict took place primarily in between Serb forces and

9 then Croat and Bosnian Muslim forces.

10 Q. Who then formed a joint army. And what is the relevance of this

11 to the international armed conflict? That's my final question.

12 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, that is a legal issue. That is a legal

13 issue. I'll be happy to argue it, but I assume you don't want to hear

14 from me at this moment any more than you already have. That is a legal

15 issue. And we will indeed -- it will have to be briefed. I assume there

16 will be extensive submissions to the Chamber on this point. But it won't

17 be coming from the witness, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE LIU: We agree with the Prosecutor on this issue.

19 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it may be that

20 Mr. Scott is right. Maybe I really don't understand the meaning of

21 cross-examination. Because I fail to understand absolutely, after having

22 read the transcript of examination-in-chief, where every other sentence

23 mentioned the word "consistent" and "consistency," I thought in my

24 cross-examination I had to challenge this claim because I believe that

25 these documents are consistent with nothing, because this witness made a

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 number of statements regarding consistency.

2 And I apologise in advance to this Trial Chamber if I don't know

3 how to properly conduct a cross-examination. I had been observing

4 Mr. Scott and trying to learn from him. And I believe I have learned

5 enough. But if I'm failing, please instruct me. I've spent three days

6 and three nights over this. And I thought I was doing fairly good job.

7 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Krsnik, as I said not long ago, that everybody

8 will have his opinion on certain issues on a certain document. This

9 witness is just to tell us the authenticity of the document as well as the

10 reliability of the sources. He may, himself, have an opinion towards

11 certain matters. There's no need for you to agree with this witness at

12 all. You have the full opportunity to present your witness to challenge

13 whatever there was in the documents and whatever is said by this witness.

14 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I understand you

15 correctly, then there is no purpose to my further cross-examining this

16 witness. Then I'll simply object to the tendering of these documents and

17 we'll end it at that. I was just saying that this document is

18 self-explanatory, and I was asking this witness why he chose it in the

19 first place as a document confirming international armed conflict. And I

20 wanted to clarify it in front of you.

21 Alternatively, I can write a 24-page motion explaining why I

22 believe it shouldn't be admitted as evidence confirming international

23 armed conflict, and I believe that further cross-examination makes no

24 sense. We have got to the fifth or the sixth of these documents, and

25 there are a hundred of them. And I prepared to cross-examine him on each

1 one of them to prove inconsistency, that is, precisely the opposite of

2 what the witness had claimed.

3 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Krsnik, we believe that you have reached your goal

4 of the cross-examination. You cast serious doubts concerning those

5 documents which has been correctly recorded in the transcript. When we

6 are going to evaluate those documents, we'll take into consideration of

7 your objections during your cross-examination. That's the very purpose of

8 the cross-examination. But it is not necessary to ask this witness to

9 entirely agree with you on certain opinions.

10 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I appreciate your advice. Thank you

11 very much for sharing your insight with me, and you have assisted me a

12 lot. I believe that after this clarification, I will, indeed -- rather,

13 write all the rest of my arguments in a written objection, and I think

14 we'll take at least a month doing that because we need to further study

15 these documents in order to do that.

16 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Krsnik, since we have the witness here, you may

17 ask any questions concerning other documents, so that let us know

18 initially which document are you objecting? This is what we want to

19 know. And that will be correctly recorded in the transcript.

20 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I object to all the

21 documents except the original documents of the United Nations, that is,

22 resolutions, et cetera. I object to each one of them, and I challenge all

23 of them. And that is the point of my objection -- that is the point of my

24 cross-examination, and that's what I prepared for.

25 I apologise, but what is the purpose of this witness in that

1 case? These claims could have been introduced by anyone. These documents

2 speak for themselves. For instance, I came to the book by Janko Bobetko.

3 It's a very long book. We could discuss it for two days. Do you allow

4 that we in Croatia know why Janko Bobetko wrote this book? It refers to

5 year 1992.

6 Now, I don't know what to do. I can really stop my

7 cross-examination at this point, but it's your opinion that matters the

8 most.

9 JUDGE CLARK: Mr. Krsnik, it is my view that the Prosecution,

10 through this witness, is saying that this collection of documents taken

11 chronologically show that an international armed conflict occurred because

12 of the presence of Croatian troops from Croatia. So it's irrelevant if

13 they're Croatian troops, people from Herceg-Bosna of Croatian.

14 We have been, as I understand the evidence, to be invited to draw

15 an inference from reading these documents chronologically that this

16 conflict was an international armed conflict because of the presence of

17 Croatian troops on more than a few occasions, and that it was coupled with

18 policy of the government of Croatia. And he attempts to show this by

19 orders from Croatia generals.

20 Now, we are very interested to know what the Defence view of this

21 collection of documents is. It isn't necessary for you to debate with

22 this particular witness what his interpretation of the politics behind

23 each document is, but we take it that your view is that this Court

24 shouldn't draw the inference we've been invited to draw from reading those

25 documents, and hopefully, through this witness, you will be able to

1 present in some clear way to us what the Defence case is in relation to

2 this collection of documents.

3 Now, are we taking you short when asking you to address it in this

4 way? Because, obviously, it's an important aspect of your case, as you

5 said earlier, last week. But really, that's what you ought to do, is to

6 show through cross-examining this witness, that your view is that we

7 should not draw the inference because of X, Y, Z, but so far, we know the

8 position you're taking, but you haven't led us to any particular documents

9 which you say will help to prove this thesis. I'm sorry for taking so

10 long, but it is a very important aspect of this case.

11 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Thank you very much indeed, Judge

12 Clark. I didn't even have the time - you see how time flies - but that's

13 precisely the aspect I wanted to cover through this witness and the

14 documents.

15 There are two logical periods in the history of the conflict in

16 Bosnia and Herzegovina: That is 1993 and 1992. We have a logical

17 approach, or rather, an invitation for Croatia to come in and help in the

18 defence of Bosnia-Herzegovina. And then we come to 1993, when that army

19 is no longer there. And that is the subject matter I wanted to come to.

20 These facts are common knowledge. What was their army? Who were its

21 commanders? This was a matter of discussion earlier. Of course, the

22 Defence will bring witnesses to prove that, because we cannot leave this

23 issue hanging in the air, as it is now.

24 And as for documents where we are contesting authenticity, it's a

25 different matter. We have two or three questions about that.

1 But how did the ZNG come into being? This witness should know

2 that, if he has dealt with this matter. How it became about, who were

3 members, those are things -- I mean the ZNG, the National Guard Corps.

4 This document speaks for itself, but only if we know what ZNG means. We

5 have to make it clear for your sake.

6 JUDGE CLARK: I think that he told us what he understood by it,

7 but he's not a military tactician or an analyst. He's an analyst of

8 documents. He doesn't have to go behind the meaning of each of the

9 documents.

10 Now I understand you to say that there is no dispute, from your

11 point of view, that the Croatian army from Croatia was present in the

12 territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina in the period of 1992 when the common

13 enemy was the Serb -- were the Serbs. And so therefore you have no

14 dispute about the documents which indicate this in 1992. If I understand

15 you correctly, then, you should go on to cross-examine this witness on

16 documents which you dispute in this collection and which will, I take it,

17 from your point of view, show that there were no Croatian forces in

18 Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1993.

19 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President?

20 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, may I just respond?

21 Excuse me, Mr. Scott, the question was put to me. Could you please be so

22 kind as to let me respond?

23 MR. SCOTT: I'll be happy to, Mr. President, if I can then respond

24 further. Thank you.

25 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] As for 1992, there are documents that

1 I first asked whether this witness knew about them, that justify my

2 particular stand, because these were specific actions and also off-setting

3 the fire that came from the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina. That is one

4 aspect. Another aspect is the request put forth by the government of

5 Bosnia-Herzegovina for assistance. And that is why my question in

6 relation to each and every one of these documents is: What does this have

7 to do with the international conflict? And we haven't got this basic

8 fundamental document that would explain all of this. And that is why I've

9 been referring to 1992. And then we are going to move on to 1993, which

10 is a different situation altogether. Thank you.

11 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott?

12 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, I simply wanted to follow up on the

13 response elicited by Judge Clark's questions, just to make sure, just to

14 be clear. Do I understand, then, there is an admission that it can be

15 taken as established for all purposes of this case, so that the

16 Prosecution does not have to offer any additional evidence on this point,

17 that the Croatian army was present in an armed conflict in

18 Bosnia-Herzegovina throughout the year 1992? Now, if that's not disputed,

19 then -- and that's admitted, then I'll be happy to accept that admission.

20 Thank you.

21 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik? Is there a dispute concerning with

22 this issue?

23 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I am in a dispute with

24 the way the Prosecution has been presenting this, and I thought that

25 through these explanations of these documents, we are precisely going to

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 get to my point: When and in which particular case? However, the way the

2 Prosecution is presenting this is something that I am in a dispute in,

3 yes, indeed.

4 You see, now, this is a subject matter that I wished to broach

5 with this witness, and that also has to do with what the indictment says,

6 and, yes, indeed, I am challenging that.

7 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Seric?

8 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] I do apologise. I know it's not my

9 turn, Mr. President, however, my colleague Mr. Scott said something about

10 the Defence, and I believe that this pertains to the Defence of Vinko

11 Martinovic. 1992 -- and what I tried to do this morning, and I gave up

12 after having heard what you had to tell me, if we are going to proceed

13 from a theory, or rather, theory and practice, in terms of everything that

14 took place in warfare, and if we take into account what Michael Akehurst

15 said about civil wars, then it is certain that not a single civil war

16 remained beyond international activities. So there are activities that

17 are going -- that are taking place outside the territory where the actual

18 war is being waged. And, of course, this has nothing to do with what the

19 Prosecution is putting forth, and I strongly oppose this. I believe that

20 this is something that is aimed at making us accept something that is

21 totally unacceptable. Thank you.

22 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] May I just add that I did not see

23 1992 mentioned anywhere in the indictment? It is not within the scope of

24 the indictment at all, 1992. 1992 is only used in order to give the Trial

25 Chamber a truthful portrayal of historical and other events. And that was

1 my intention.

2 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Krsnik, we have already spent a lot of time

3 on those procedural matters. We regard it as procedural rather than

4 substantial. Do you have any questions with this witness? If you have,

5 you may proceed.

6 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would just like to ask

7 you if you would take into account this Defence proposal: Could we take a

8 break now rather than at 1.00, so that I could narrow this area down with

9 my team, and if I could see what are the questions that still remain, and

10 in that way, I would shorten my cross-examination in keeping with your

11 instructions, because I have a lot of questions here, about 100 questions,

12 and if I am not mistaken, we have only reached document 6. This way, I

13 think that we are going to gain in time because then I'm going to

14 summarise the whole thing and shorten it as well. I think it's only 20

15 minutes more -- or, rather, we can start 20 minutes earlier, if it's all

16 right with you, so I really am in your hands.

17 JUDGE LIU: Well, if there is no objections from the Prosecutor's

18 side.

19 MR. SCOTT: No, Your Honour, there is no objection to that. I

20 would like to clarify one matter, but if my friend will give me an

21 opportunity, I'm not going to interrupt counsel now. I have no objection

22 to this change in schedule. I would like to address one procedural matter

23 before we adjourn.

24 JUDGE LIU: Yes, yes. You may address that procedural matters.

25 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, I just wanted the record to be clear,

1 and we will tender to the Chamber -- I will tender to the Court staff this

2 morning -- actually, I guess it's this afternoon now -- last week, when

3 this witness was first called and the issues about these documents were

4 first raised, and again throughout the course of the morning, there have

5 been many references to the volume of these documents, the late disclosure

6 of the documents. We just looked at these documents. Simply want to make

7 it -- and in fact, Mr. Krsnik last week was very emphatic in saying that

8 my representation that these documents had been turned over almost a year

9 ago was not correct. And I will provide for the Court staff a copy of our

10 letter, tendering the -- about 90 per cent of these documents to both

11 counsel, dated the 8th of December, 2000, followed with a list of these

12 documents attached. I will also then, with a follow-up letter dated the

13 20th of March, 2001, again asking the Defence counsel for their response

14 to these documents, and in fact saying, We are still asking your position

15 about these documents on the existence of international armed conflict.

16 We understand--

17 JUDGE LIU: Will you please slow down.

18 MR. SCOTT: Yes, I apologise, Mr. President. That's all, Your

19 Honour. I simply want to -- I think it's very important, especially in

20 the light of what's been said -- I'll slow down, Your Honour.

21 In light of the things that have been said, Mr. President, about

22 this collection of documents and the issues that have been raised, and I

23 am concerned that there may be an attempt to characterise the record that

24 these accused have not had sufficient opportunity to address the documents

25 based on things that I am hearing. I want the record in that regard to be

1 perfectly clear, and I am tendering these documents to the Chamber, that

2 the vast majority of these documents were tendered to the Defence almost a

3 year ago, on the 8th of December, 2000. I have that document here. They

4 were then further discussed in correspondence with counsel dated the 20th

5 of March, 2001 in which -- I signed that letter -- in which I specifically

6 asked counsel to state their position on the international armed conflict

7 documents. And I won't belabour it further. Thank you.

8 JUDGE LIU: There's another matter I would like to mention at this

9 moment, that this Trial Chamber made a ruling concerning the translations

10 of those documents. And we realise that today is the 12th of November;

11 that is the deadline involved in the decision. We may give some leeway

12 for the tendering of those documents so long as this witness was here last

13 Wednesday. So if we cannot finish this witness and all these documents

14 tendered through this witness, it should be regarded as was tendered last

15 Wednesday.

16 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, to be very precise, I did tender them.

17 And in fact, to be transparent, I was very careful that I did tender them

18 all last Wednesday.

19 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. So we'll adjourn until 2.15.

20 --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.41 p.m.

21

22

23

24

25

1 --- On resuming at 2.17 p.m.

2 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik?

3 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. We have

4 conducted additional consultations, so we will only refer to some of the

5 documents, if this witness can clarify them.

6 Q. Witness, my first question, after the break - I hope you managed

7 to get a bit of a break yourself, a bit of rest - document number 11,

8 please. Could you please tell me the following: This document that we

9 see here, is that also from another case before this Tribunal? And

10 through which witness was it introduced? Who is that particular witness,

11 and in which case, of course?

12 A. Yes, sir. I don't know if this has been used before in another

13 case. That I don't know. I know the name of the witness. Now, I would

14 like to clarify if I am allowed to disclose this name, because it may be

15 the case that it's a protected witness. That I don't know either.

16 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Well, then, let's move into private

17 session, please, only for that brief answer, because I'm really interested

18 in hearing whether this document was actually tendered in that other case

19 and whether the origin was proven in that case.

20 JUDGE LIU: We will go into the private session.

21 [Private session]

22 [redacted]

23 [redacted]

24 [redacted]

25 [redacted]

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 Page 5461 – redacted – private session.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 [redacted]

2 [redacted]

3 [redacted]

4 [redacted]

5 [redacted]

6 [redacted]

7 [Open session]

8 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation]

9 Q. My question is the following: The use of Croat dinars in Kiseljak

10 and throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina?

11 A. Sorry, what's the question?

12 Q. I wanted to ask whether this decision pertains to all of

13 Bosnia-Herzegovina or only the municipality of Kiseljak. There is a

14 document and that's the way it was in other parts of Bosnia-Herzegovina,

15 too. That year, on the 15th of June, 1992, there was total war.

16 A. Well, these two documents refer to the municipality of Kiseljak.

17 Q. And tell me, what was the legal tender in June 1992? What did

18 people do in Central Bosnia? What was the currency that was being used?

19 A. I believe that several different currencies were used at that area

20 and time. Main ones would be the Bosnian official currency. Then we have

21 the Croat dinar, as we can see, and then people will also use actually

22 German marks or other currencies.

23 Q. Tell me, how is this, then, related to international armed

24 conflict, this particular document?

25 A. In my view, in my assessment, what is relevant here is that this

1 is not a matter of social or common use. This is an order for mandatory

2 use. This is imposing an obligation to use such a currency. This is what

3 is relevant. Here we see that it is an imposition of the Croat dinar.

4 Q. For the municipality of Kiseljak.

5 A. That's correct.

6 Q. Thank you. Can we now move on to document number 13, please.

7 Brief question: If I have understood this correctly, this is an order,

8 and it also says, Attention, Mr. Andabah, with an H, and also

9 Mr. Jaganjac?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. During your research of these documents, was there a consistency

12 involved in terms of was there a Mr. Andabah, say, on the 18th of June,

13 1992? Because in the Croatian original, it says Andabah. These are two

14 completely different last names. Or have you included this document,

15 thinking it is Mr. Andabak, and there is nothing to support that? In the

16 second page of the Croatian version, again it is Mr. Andabah.

17 A. Yes, sir, I understand your concern. First of all, this document

18 comes from the book of Mr. Bobetko. The original, as you can see, is

19 issued by General Bobetko. And then the translation, I believe, for this

20 matter is correct. In the original, it says Andabah, and so it says in

21 the English and the French translations.

22 In my assessment, in my view, this is most likely a mistake, a

23 misspelling or a typo. I have not seen an officer with this family name.

24 I have in this context -- in a context very close to this document, I have

25 seen an officer with the name Andabak, last letter being a K, Andabak.

1 Most likely these documents refer to an officer with the name Zdravko

2 Andabak who was an officer of the army of Croatia who intervened --

3 actually, it was a commander, not commanding officer, of the army of

4 Croatia acting in the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

5 Q. You said Zdravko Andabak?

6 A. Yes, sir.

7 Q. You meant him then, did you, Zdravko Andabak?

8 A. That's what I say, yeah, Zdravko Andabak.

9 Q. Well, you see, this was a book that was published. It appeared in

10 public, and nobody reacted and corrected his last name. Maybe there was a

11 mistake in the document, but now we have this very same last name being

12 repeated in the book and in the document. And now we also have a person

13 named Zdravko Andabak.

14 A. Yes, but may I comment on this. I don't know if anybody reacted

15 or not to this. But as I said, my assessment is that was a typo, a

16 misspelling in the family name.

17 Q. I have been told to correct this in the transcript, how Zdravko is

18 spelled, as in Zdravko Andabak. It is Z-d-r-a-v-k-o. Zdravko is the

19 first name; Andabak is the last name. Tell me, please, who is

20 Mr. Jaganjac, and what is he by ethnicity?

21 A. Most likely this document refers to Jasmin Jaganjac. Most likely

22 the first name of this person is Jasmin. He was an officer of the army of

23 Croatia who was active in this area, particularly in the city of Mostar

24 and in this period, and originally he was a Bosnian Muslim.

25 Q. Thank you very much. We can move on to document number 16,

1 please. Could you please be so kind as to look at the Croatian original.

2 Please be so kind as to tell me, distinguished colleague, unless you have

3 a more legible copy, this one is totally illegible.

4 A. Yes, I would say this is partly illegible.

5 Q. As far as we were able to read the English version, this also

6 applies to the document which is obviously from another case. We can't

7 see in it to whom it is addressed, who is writing to whom, and what

8 president is meant.

9 A. Well, yes, I think that you can see that. I think that you can

10 see in the last page that it is addressed to President Tudjman, and it is

11 signed and issued by President Izetbegovic.

12 Q. Sir, in our letters, when the person is mentioned on the bottom,

13 it means that that person is to be informed. It's not the right place for

14 the addressee to be indicated. That's what we were taught in school.

15 When you write a name on the bottom of the page, it means that that person

16 is to receive a copy, to be informed. In this case, it means that

17 Dr. Franjo Tudjman was to be informed of this letter.

18 As for the English version, do you know what event it deals with?

19 It's the events where the Muslims put up a barricade, and it's obvious

20 it's from another case. Could you tell us -- Ahmici case.

21 MR. SCOTT: [Previous translation continues] ... the last

22 question. Once again, it wasn't a question. It went on for some five

23 lines and then counsel went to a question. I object to statements by

24 counsel which are not questions to the witness.

25 JUDGE LIU: Well, we believe that the cross-examination is on the

1 right track. This is what we are going to hear for today, continuing with

2 this witness.

3 You may proceed, Mr. Krsnik.

4 Yes, Mr. Scott?

5 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, I don't think what Mr. Krsnik was

6 taught in school is evidence.

7 JUDGE LIU: As for this particular question, Mr. Krsnik, can you

8 skip it? Or you may pose it another way.

9 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Certainly, Your Honour. I won't even

10 comment the latest objection by my learned friend.

11 Q. Dear colleague, I asked this question because we wanted to find

12 out what this document is about. We do have the English version, but we

13 were really unable to decipher this document that you provided us with,

14 and that's why I'm trying to go into the contents. There seems to be a

15 discrepancy, at least it's illegible, but to move on, regarding this

16 document, did you study the Islamic Declaration by Alija Izetbegovic?

17 A. I'm not sure about the connection in between the Islamic

18 Declaration and this document, but anyway, the answer is no, I didn't find

19 it necessary.

20 Q. All right. That's all I wanted to know, whether you have studied

21 it at all or not, because we are coming now to a different document,

22 referring to mujahedins and so on and so forth. Of course, the question

23 stands, what these documents have to do with the international armed

24 conflict.

25 Now we are coming to a number of documents that we will not

1 trouble the Trial Chamber with. We will move on straight to document

2 number 26.

3 As you can see, all we have here is the English translation and a

4 little bit in French. Is that the document that came from file IT-95 --

5 do you know that? My question was there was a case before this Tribunal,

6 IT-95-12. Does this document come from this case too? Was it tendered?

7 Was it admitted? Was it authenticated? Particularly because item 5, I

8 believe, as you can see, item 5, refers to Gornji Vakuf, the Bosnian army,

9 and its artillery. Who is this Major Luburic? What is this document

10 about in the first place, and how is it relevant to international armed

11 conflict? Except that, as we understood, the Bosnian army is opening

12 artillery fire on Gornji Vakuf, if I'm correct.

13 A. Well, the document refers to several different issues. I believe

14 that the issue of interest for this testimony is the first paragraph,

15 which says The LO team reported that many of Major Luburic's men had HV -

16 which is army of Croatia - badges, and claimed to be Special Forces. So

17 this is about, again, the presence of soldiers of the army of Croatia,

18 this is in January of 1993, in the area of Novi Travnik.

19 Q. Please be so kind as to tell me, in terms of consistency, have you

20 ever come across the name of Major Luburic anywhere else, and who is this

21 man?

22 A. Yes, I have come across this name. Most likely, the first name of

23 this person is Antun, and he was the commander of a special unit formally

24 within the structure of the HVO.

25 Q. Do you know which citizenship he has?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 A. No, I don't.

2 Q. Have you ever come across documents about his origins? Is he

3 maybe a Canadian national?

4 A. I don't know.

5 Q. Tell me kindly, since you are an expert in international law, can

6 I ask you --

7 MR. SCOTT: Objection, Your Honour. The witness has never been

8 tendered as an expert in international law. And again, it's beyond the

9 scope of direct testimony.

10 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Krsnik, by the way, that -- with due respect to

11 the counsel, we also have some problem with this document, if we could ask

12 some questions concerning this document. I understand this document

13 claimed to be provided by the British government.

14 THE WITNESS: Yes.

15 JUDGE LIU: And there is no -- any signature, no stamps, no other

16 signs of the official characters. The source is completely unclear, so I

17 would like to ask you to give us some explanations concerning this

18 document 26.

19 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour. I will do my best. That's right,

20 there is no signature and no stamps of this kind. According to our

21 records, in fact, the document was given to us by the British government.

22 The British battalion of UNPROFOR was deployed in the relevant area, in

23 the areas mentioned here, Kladanj, Novi Travnik, Vitez, et cetera. The

24 units of the British battalion were producing regular reports. On the

25 top, you can see Cheshire, which is the name of one such battalion. I

1 mean, they were a replacement. The troops were moving. And at different

2 periods, the same happened with the Spanish battalion. They had

3 particular denominations. Cheshire was the name of one such British

4 battalion. Then it says Milino. This is, I believe, again a

5 misspelling. It should say "milinfosum," which was the regular

6 elimination of the reports produced by the British forces, milinfosum.

7 The reason why it doesn't contain signatures or stamps, I believe,

8 is because it was an internal report, most likely from some officers in

9 the ground to the headquarters of the British battalion. We will find the

10 same in other documents as well. Being an internal report, we don't find

11 such a science of identification of the document.

12 JUDGE LIU: How could we know that this document is reliable,

13 about its authenticity?

14 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE LIU: Do you have any certification provided by the

16 providers or something like this?

17 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour. What we have is, first, that it

18 was given by us -- to us by the British authorities which, in our

19 experience, they have been reliable. Besides that, what we have is a

20 number of officers of the British battalion have been interviewed by us,

21 and they have been questioned about their system of producing reports,

22 their deployment, and their means to gain knowledge, how they were

23 producing the reports.

24 I can't tell you if the officer that produced this report in

25 particular has been interviewed. This, I don't know. Honestly, I wanted

1 to check that. But that has been the case with many documents provided by

2 the British battalion as well as by the Spanish battalion.

3 JUDGE LIU: What we need is for some support to these documents,

4 some other materials or testimonies or previous statement concerning the

5 authenticity of this document, the sources of these documents.

6 THE WITNESS: Mm-hmm. At this stage, this is as much as I can

7 tell you. I would need to check again and verify we have interviewed the

8 person who produced this document, which may be the case.

9 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.

10 You may proceed, Mr. Krsnik. I'm sorry for the interruption.

11 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. That is

12 precisely my intent, to get to know as much as we can.

13 Q. Please open document number 28. As you can see on the first page

14 of this document, paragraph number 2, it speaks about civil war. And this

15 document, if I understand it correctly - and we have discussed it a little

16 in the beginning as well - it refers to the Minister of Defence of Bosnia

17 and Herzegovina and his actions based on the Geneva agreement.

18 Do you know who was the Minister of Defence in 1992 and the

19 beginning of 1993? I mean, the Minister of Defence of

20 Bosnia-Herzegovina.

21 A. No, I can't remember now.

22 Q. During your research and investigations, have you come across a

23 decision by the Minister of Defence on the basis of the Geneva agreements,

24 that on the territories where the Bosnian army, the Bosnian population is

25 in the majority, the HVO should be -- should come under the command of the

1 Bosnian army, and vice versa; on the territories where the HVO is in

2 control, Bosnian units should subordinate themselves to the HVO command,

3 based on the Geneva agreements?

4 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott.

5 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, I'm going to object to this as beyond the

6 scope again. This is not a document that's in the collection. To ask

7 this witness to speculate over every document he might have seen over the

8 past -- since 1997, I think, is unfair to the witness and beyond the

9 scope.

10 JUDGE LIU: Yes, we agree with the objections put forward by the

11 Prosecutor.

12 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] That was precisely the reason behind

13 my question, because on the second page of this document, in item 2, since

14 we only have the English and the French versions, the last sentence is

15 missing. And even we were able to understand the meaning of this. And

16 that is why I wanted to have this clarified.

17 JUDGE LIU: Put your question directly.

18 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation]

19 Q. Sir, does this document refer to provinces, as mentioned here, 3,

20 8, and 10? Does this document refer to that particular decision of the

21 Minister of Defence of Bosnia-Herzegovina?

22 A. I will need a few seconds, if you allow me, please.

23 Q. It's on the last page, item 4.

24 A. What I can tell you is that I am not familiar with this -- such

25 decision that you have mentioned. I am actually familiar with such a

1 decision or such a proposal by the Croat side. Certainly the HVO side

2 proposed that, which is, in certain provinces, the Bosnian army is

3 subordinate to the HVO, and the other way around in other provinces. That

4 is clear by many different sources.

5 Q. Sorry, did I understand you correctly? Are you saying that the

6 HVO opposed this decision of Minister of Defence?

7 A. What I am saying is I don't know about such decision by the

8 Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. I just

9 don't know. I do know that the HVO proposed such an arrangement in the

10 terms that you have explained. That was an HVO proposal, to the best of

11 my knowledge.

12 Q. Have you touched upon Geneva documents from January and February,

13 1993, during your research?

14 MR. SCOTT: I'm going to again object, Your Honours. It's beyond

15 the scope, other documents not considered on direct examination.

16 JUDGE LIU: Yes, yes.

17 Mr. Krsnik, please concentrate on those documents tendered through

18 this witness.

19 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Certainly, Your Honour. However,

20 these documents are inseparable, and for purposes of objective

21 examination, and for the purpose of gaining complete knowledge, I think

22 this should be clarified, but we will deal with that when the time comes.

23 Q. Could you tell me, doesn't this document too refer only to Central

24 Bosnia, especially in view of the number of provinces? Doesn't this

25 document refer to Central Bosnia?

1 A. No. I believe that covers also Herzegovina.

2 Q. Could you tell me where Herzegovina is mentioned? Could you

3 guide me through this document and show me which part is related to

4 Herzegovina?

5 A. In different parts. To begin with, Gornji Vakuf, in strict terms,

6 to be accurate, is part of the northwest Herzegovina operational zone of

7 the HVO. So for purposes of organisation of the HVO, Gornji Vakuf is

8 considered, or was considered, by the HVO northwest Herzegovina.

9 Q. Thank you very much. You've put it very correctly. It was

10 considered. But is it geographically Herzegovina? I think not. I think

11 geographically it is Central Bosnia. We keep forgetting that in this war,

12 which made communication impossible, there was no communication between

13 many enclaves. Did Herzegovina have communication with Central Bosnia at

14 that time? Do you know that?

15 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, counsel just made two factual

16 assertions in that last statement, for which there is no evidence in the

17 record; no communications and there was no communication between many

18 enclaves. There is no evidence in the record to suggest that.

19 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Krsnik, this Chamber just said that you're

20 on the right track, but now it seems to be de-tracked again. We have to

21 go through this document, and we don't have much time.

22 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Of course, Your Honour. I'm doing my

23 best. I'm doing all I can to have things clarified and show an objective

24 picture. This witness visited Bosnia and Herzegovina, especially in the

25 relevant years, and my question was: Was there communication between

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 Herzegovina and Central Bosnia at the time? Because it's a historical

2 issue and it matters. I don't know whether it's clear to you.

3 A. Well, in short, the answer would be yes, but it was very

4 difficult, it was very problematic, communication, due to the ongoing

5 fight, combat.

6 Q. Thank you very much. That's all I wanted the Trial Chamber to

7 hear. Since we are talking about geographical units or zones of

8 responsibility, it is understandable that there are certain deviations.

9 And my last question regarding this document: You see that all

10 this is based - and that is why I'm entitled to ask - it is all based on

11 Geneva agreements. Do you agree that these documents originated after the

12 Geneva agreements and that they are -- they explain what was happening on

13 the ground at that time?

14 A. Well, the key point in your question is agreement. The question

15 is if there was such an agreement in Geneva. The documents follow from

16 the Geneva negotiations. But to what extent the parties agreed, that --

17 well, that needs further explanation.

18 Q. Certainly. Thank you, distinguished colleague. Are you aware

19 whether the Vance-Owen Plan was signed? Consent was obtained from two

20 parties, the Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Muslims. It wasn't

21 signed only by the Serbs. Are you aware of that?

22 A. With due respect, you're putting to me this as a fact, and this is

23 far from being established as a fact. If the question is if I agree with

24 such allegation, the answer is no, I disagree with your allegation.

25 Q. Let me repeat. You disagree with the claim that Croats and

1 Muslims signed the Vance-Owen Plan. Would I be right in coming to that

2 conclusion?

3 A. Sir, may I suggest to focus on the documents because this is

4 explained in the documents contained in this collection. There is a

5 report by the Secretary-General in which he explains what exactly

6 happened, and the account of the Secretary-General is a more complex one.

7 I think it would suffice with reading that document to understand what

8 happened.

9 Q. Thank you very much for your suggestions and assistance. Of

10 course we will study these documents, but I was talking about a historical

11 fact which took place. It was a very short question which called for a

12 short answer. The documents are here and they speak for themselves.

13 Otherwise, how could we understand the division into provinces and all

14 that ensued later in 1995 and 1996? The conflict of 1995 and 1996 cannot

15 be understood unless one has studied the Vance-Owen Plan and everything

16 that happened in relation to that. Do you agree, at least, with that?

17 When you researched these documents, did you come to the same conclusion?

18 A. I can agree with that. Now let me comment briefly on this. The

19 answer to such concern is in document number 27 of the collection. That

20 is the report by the Secretary-General dated 18th of January. I think

21 that that is enough to explain this point. And the answer was, the Croat

22 side, Mr. Boban, signed right away, very willingly. The Bosnian side was

23 hesitant and agreed with the constitutional principles but disagreed with

24 the territorial arrangements. This you can read yourselves in document

25 27.

1 Q. Thank you, distinguished colleague. That's precisely what I was

2 wondering about, what you mean by "ready," "willingly." The Vance-Owen

3 Plan was a peace plan, it was a solution in the search for peace, and the

4 Croatians were the first to sign it, and that is written in the general

5 secretary -- Secretary-General's report. Thank you.

6 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott?

7 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, we seem to have reached a pattern in

8 the last 15 or 20 minutes, which counsel is primarily making speeches. I

9 simply refer you to the transcript of the last several questions. They

10 are mostly speeches by counsel, followed, if followed at all, perhaps

11 followed by -- excuse me, perhaps followed by a question, perhaps followed

12 by no question at all.

13 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik. We also believe that this question

14 is not entirely relevant to this issue.

15 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I shall

16 abide by your guidelines.

17 Q. As for document 29, please take a look at it, and I'm just going

18 to ask you where the signature is on that document and whether it exists

19 at all. Document number 29, [In English] Headquarters HVO.

20 [Interpretation] There is French and English. As far as I can see, there

21 is no Croatian version. Yes, we haven't got a version in Croatian. There

22 is no signature. There is no stamp.

23 A. Yes, I can explain you this. This seems to be the translation,

24 translation that at the time was done by UNPROFOR themselves. Apparently,

25 most likely, the headquarters of UNPROFOR translated such document and

1 then sent it to the main quarters in Zagreb. This is a communication from

2 Kiseljak to Zagreb. What I can tell you is that I'm familiar with this

3 document and I have seen the original in Croat. I believe that it

4 wouldn't be difficult really to produce the original of this document

5 which is a well-known one. I would say actually signed by a brigadier,

6 yes, Petkovic.

7 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, excuse me, I haven't had time at the

8 moment to look in the exhibit list, but I think this is already an

9 exhibit. It's already a Prosecution exhibit from January in the

10 chronological set. And during that time period, I'm fairly sure we'll

11 find it.

12 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.

13 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation]

14 Q. We have looked through all the documents and asked for them, but

15 can I just ask you whether we could get this Croatian version -- the

16 Croatian original. You said that you had it, so if you could please be so

17 kind as to have it sent to us because, otherwise, how else can we have

18 proof of all of this that you have been telling us? Because the easiest

19 way to authenticate a source is to ask the person who signed it. Do you

20 agree with me on that?

21 A. Well, you mentioned several points. As for the request, this is a

22 procedural matter, if this is possible from the procedural viewpoint.

23 From the material viewpoint, it is not a problem because we are in

24 possession of the Croat version with signature, stamps, and letterheads of

25 the HVO. From the material viewpoint, it's not a problem. From the

1 procedural viewpoint, it's not for me to answer.

2 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott.

3 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, counsel and the Chamber may wish to look

4 at Exhibit P216 which has the original Croat version attached with a seal

5 signed by Milavoj Petkovic.

6 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.

7 MR. SCOTT: Thank you.

8 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Yes, these two documents require

9 quite a bit of time. We have just heard about this, and then we will deal

10 with this within our own research. And we'll see, Your Honours, whether

11 this is an identical document. So we will continue doing that.

12 Q. Could we please move on to document 35 now. If we look at this

13 document now, there is English and Croatian -- or actually, French and

14 Croatian. However, again, there is no signature, let alone a stamp. The

15 Croatian version, that is. If I'm not mistaken, the source is the Bosnian

16 government.

17 A. That's right.

18 Q. Do you agree that there is no signature or stamp on it? It is a

19 military order.

20 A. Yes, that's right. I can explain you about this. This seems to

21 be a cable version. This kind of communication was common within the

22 structure of the HVO. I can tell you this because I have worked myself in

23 the collections of the state archive of Croatia. It is a very common

24 format for cable communications. And the information contained here seems

25 to me a coherent, consistent. This commander -- this person, Zeljko

1 Siljeg, was in fact, at this point in time, the commander of the

2 operational zone with headquarters in Tomislavgrad. I can tell you that

3 he was, himself, an officer of the army of Croatia.

4 Q. Could we please repeat the last name again for the transcript.

5 Just the last name of this gentleman, this officer. You said Siljeg,

6 Zeljko Siljeg, didn't you?

7 A. Yes, I said what is written in the document, yes.

8 Q. And you said that he was an officer of the Croatian army?

9 A. [No audible response]

10 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] For the transcript, Your Honours, by

11 your leave I would like to spell the last name of this person.

12 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

13 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] S-I-L-J-E-G.

14 Q. Tell me, when you sent telegrams, how are such telegrams sent in

15 the A4 format, through the post? And what kind of force do they have in

16 lower level units when it comes without a signature and without a stamp?

17 Do you think the troops should go by that kind of thing, notably in times

18 of war? What would happen if the enemy just put this in?

19 A. Well, this is a regular means of communication in military

20 structures. You would get this in this format, but you will have certain

21 codes to identify, say, the frequency of transmission or the points of

22 transmission of communications and so on. I can tell you that this is a

23 very common means of communication, and the original documentary

24 collections contain large numbers of these kind of documents.

25 Q. You have a document stating that Zeljko Siljeg is an officer of

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 the Croatian army. Have you come across that kind of a document?

2 A. I actually have several such documents.

3 Q. Thank you for this answer.

4 Document Number 43. This is a document in English, right? And

5 also a very short translation into French, if I'm not mistaken, very

6 short. I think that, for the sake of fairness, it should have been

7 translated into French as well, not to mention Croatian at this stage.

8 The army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, is that correct?

9 A. If this is a procedural comment, I have nothing to say about

10 that.

11 Q. I'm asking you this because these are either documents of the army

12 of the BH or the source is the army of the BH. Is the authenticity

13 questionable?

14 A. I'm sorry, you said 43?

15 Q. 43, yes.

16 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, there has been extensive testimony from

17 the Spanish government about these documents. I don't understand the

18 question of authenticity.

19 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I do apologise. Yes, the SpaBat, the

20 Spanish army. I confused some documents here. I do apologise to my

21 colleague as well. I mean, what was SpaBat's source; the army of

22 Bosnia-Herzegovina? I mean, for their document, was the source of their

23 document the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina? Did they write this document on

24 the basis of what they received from the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina?

25 However, my learned friend is right. We have discussed these

1 matters extensively, so there's no point in discussing this any further

2 with you. So by the leave of the Trial Chamber, I could move on to

3 document 47.

4 Q. Number 47. If you have leafed through this document, and if I

5 understood correctly, June 1993, the 21st, it says that the B and H, if I

6 understood it correctly, will use every opportunity to discredit the Serbs

7 and Croats, capitalise on exposing the cooperation between the Serbs and

8 Croats, and also the mujahedin and Guca Gora are referred to.

9 A. Can you tell me which page, please?

10 Q. The mujahedin are item 4, Central Bosnia; item 4(a), the second

11 section under paragraph 2.

12 A. Yes. Yes, I think that everybody can read this. First, the

13 village of Guca Gora was ransacked, severe damage. And then in the next

14 sentence, it says, The BH seem to regret this damage and were witnessed

15 providing a clearance party of volunteers, et cetera, and interspersed

16 [phoen] the mujahedin.

17 Q. This document is -- just a minute, I'm sorry. We are all tired by

18 now, aren't we?

19 I just wanted to check the source, whether it is the Spanish army

20 or the British army.

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. What is the level of credibility involved there, of these

23 documents? Although I must say that my colleague, the Prosecutor, is

24 right on that particular point. We have already dealt with this with

25 witnesses from the Spanish battalion who testified here, so perhaps it is

1 pointless for me to ask you about this as well with regard to these

2 documents.

3 A. I can tell you briefly, in this collection, there are several

4 documents of this kind, which is consolidated reports produced by the

5 command of the headquarters of UNPROFOR in Kiseljak but then who were

6 forwarded to the Spanish battalion, to the headquarters in Madrid in

7 Spain. This means that these were created by UNPROFOR in Kiseljak, but

8 they were given to us by the Spanish authorities in Madrid.

9 If you want to go deeper about who collected originally the

10 information, then we should review the area by the deployment of the

11 battalions or eventually check UNMOs because it could have also been an

12 UNMO team that provided the information.

13 Q. Thank you. Document 52, you've got your own notes as well, so

14 there is no need for me to read this anyway. Is it consistent to assert,

15 as it says here in this document, that it is possible that there are HV

16 units, but, however, that that has not been checked out and that it is not

17 certain? Have you found that in the course of your work in many documents

18 precisely this kind of an assertion like what it says here in document

19 52? Would that be consistent? However, there is no French or Croatian

20 translation.

21 A. Sorry, can you help me? In which part of the document is this

22 stated?

23 Q. The 15th of July, 1993. I'm looking at my own notes. That's the

24 date of the report.

25 A. I don't see in this document what you were explaining.

1 Q. I'm looking through it now. I'm looking through the document in

2 order to think of it.

3 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott?

4 MR. SCOTT: Point number 8, Your Honour.

5 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Thank you. Yes. It is point 8,

6 yes.

7 Q. Does that fit in? Does this line of thinking fit in, of this

8 particular source, that is? The European Monitoring Mission, ECMM.

9 That's what it says here. Isn't there a vast majority of such documents,

10 that is to say, unverified information on the presence of the HV?

11 A. Well, this information is stated in a way that is not entirely

12 assertive. It's not conclusive. It says only, "It is possible."

13 Nevertheless, the reference to the HV and Split coincides with a number of

14 other references contained in the collection. A number of documents refer

15 to HV troops coming from Split. So this may help to corroborate, or this

16 may lead us to believe that this might be true.

17 JUDGE LIU: Well, I'm sorry to interrupt. We also have some

18 doubts concerning with this document. We believe that the source is

19 completely unclear, and there is no signature. Would you make some

20 explanation for us so that we have a better understanding of the source of

21 this document.

22 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour. The explanation is similar to

23 what I stated before, which is to say this seems to be an internal report

24 of the monitoring mission. It seems that we received this in electronic

25 format, and it is a print from such format, as far as I can see from this

1 document. The Office of the Prosecutor has interviewed a number, actually

2 many monitors, of the European Commission and has checked with monitors

3 what was the proceedings, how were they gathering and producing the

4 reports. I cannot state now if we have done such corroboration for this

5 particular document. I will need to go back to the databases to verify

6 that. I can certainly say that this has been done regularly with many

7 documents, and a large number of monitors of the European Community have

8 been interviewed by the Prosecutor.

9 JUDGE LIU: Well, you have to understand that, without

10 corroborations for this document, it will be difficult for this Trial

11 Chamber to admit it as evidence. Thank you.

12 Yes, Mr. Krsnik.

13 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation]

14 Q. The same pertains to document 54, where, under item D, the last

15 sentence says the same thing. Item D, number 1, Mostar. That is page

16 number 2 of document number 54. Like in the previous document, this

17 information was not corroborated. There is no proof. So on what do you

18 base your conclusion, that this could be consistent, that is?

19 A. What I can say is that this information is consistent with other

20 documents included in the collection. The presence of troops of the HV

21 has been mentioned in different documents from an early stage in 1992 and

22 further on. So I think I can say that this is consistent with other

23 documents of this same collection.

24 Q. Distinguished colleague, perhaps my question was not quite clear.

25 This document states that they cannot check this out, that they cannot

1 verify this, that there is no proof of this, if I have understood the

2 document correctly.

3 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott?

4 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, this gets us again into an area where

5 we are arguing about the relevance or what the documents show. For

6 instance, if at the end of the day, at the end of this trial, during the

7 closing briefs or the closing argument, a large number of these documents

8 are put together, along with the live testimony that the Chamber has

9 heard, the Chamber may come to its ultimate conclusion that a particular

10 sighting was not confirmed on a particular day on the totality of the

11 evidence, including many documents that say, "We are pretty sure that the

12 HV is in the area." This Chamber will frankly have a body of evidence

13 available to it to make the ultimate conclusion that this particular

14 writer didn't have on that day. The Chamber will be in a position to

15 consider the totality of the evidence, including the vast witness

16 testimony to date, which has sighted the presence of HV units, to make

17 that determination. So it's unfair to argue about the weight to be given

18 this particular document with this witness.

19 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Krsnik, as we come across many times in this

20 cross-examination, we are only interested in the authenticity of the

21 documents, the reliability of the sources and the credibility of the

22 information contained in the document. Of course, you may not agree with

23 the certain points in certain documents, but we are not debating on the

24 substantive matters of this document, because this witness is just a

25 documentary foundation witness. I thought we were on the right track,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 Mr. Krsnik.

2 THE WITNESS: Can I comment, please, on this point?

3 JUDGE LIU: Yes, yes.

4 THE WITNESS: There is a point that I think may be relevant here.

5 The fact is that they say, "Due to the lack of freedom that is still

6 existing around the area of Mostar, this information cannot be checked and

7 is therefore unconfirmed." To the best of my knowledge, the lack of

8 freedom was due to the HVO restrictions, that they were denying access to

9 the UNA officers to certain areas. So they were making a -- they were

10 obstructing or making impossible the verification of the information

11 getting into those areas. And the reason apparently for such restrictions

12 were precisely that in those areas were units of the HV, besides certain

13 crimes were committed in those areas. The best of my knowledge, that's

14 what was happening in the field.

15 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we've just heard a

16 comment, and that's precisely what I wanted, because we can go straight to

17 document 58, which speaks to the same thing, that they were unable to

18 enter Mostar.

19 Q. And I'm now asking about the consistency which you insisted on in

20 your examination-in-chief, and we have a number of documents here

21 confirming that they did not have enough information to verify anything.

22 If they were unable to enter Mostar, how can we make any claims or

23 conclusions in this courtroom? That was my point. And thank you for your

24 comment.

25 A. I can further explain this.

1 JUDGE CLARK: Haven't we heard an abundance of evidence, whether

2 you agree with it or not, from other witnesses, here and there, that they

3 actually saw people wearing HV uniforms with HV insignia? So what's the

4 point of pursuing this information that one document out of a large bundle

5 of documents says that there are reports that there are HV there but that

6 they can't be confirmed because of certain reasons? We can take that on

7 board and move on to something else. What is really important is for you

8 to at some stage put to this witness that the Defence case will be and

9 that you will prove that there were no HV units there at all at the

10 operative time, but we really must come to that at some stage. I know

11 that what you're doing with the documents is very useful to us, and I'm

12 sure to your side, but eventually it has to lead you to the defence.

13 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I absolutely agree with your

14 thinking, Judge Clark. I just wanted, through these documents, to start

15 on that topic and to start proving my case, because that was my intention

16 and I wanted to clarify it through these documents.

17 With the leave of the Trial Chamber, I would now proceed, and I'll

18 try to make this as short as possible and use only the documents which are

19 absolutely indispensable. Document number 62.

20 THE WITNESS: It's in the second binder, I believe.

21 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm looking at my

22 notes, and I'll skip all the documents which relate to the Spanish

23 battalion, because I believe that we got all of the information that we

24 were able to get through another source, and I won't bother this witness

25 with that. So we'll go straight on to document 66.

1 Q. May I ask you to turn to the last page of this document.

2 Unfortunately, there is no French translation. So the last page,

3 paragraph 13, one before last. To make this very brief, they say the

4 troops were seen near Trilj. Buses were not sighted further to the

5 north. My question is, do you know where the town of Trilj is located?

6 A. No, I don't.

7 Q. Let me just repeat for the record, it's spelled as T-R-I-L-J,

8 Trilj. Okay. There's no point in asking further questions about this

9 document if you don't know where this town is. I'll move on to

10 document 72.

11 Certainly, if you like, I am conducting this exchange with you as

12 a colleague, in that spirit. But with regard to this document, it was

13 important for me whether you know where the town is located. If you want

14 to make a comment on it, please go ahead.

15 A. I am familiar with the area. Trilj must be a small town because I

16 can't recall this name. But I can tell you where is the area because this

17 can be seen from the other references in this paragraph. Because here, we

18 see that Kamensko is mentioned, and Split is mentioned. Kamensko is the

19 crossing point from the road that goes from Split to Tomislavgrad. So

20 most likely Trilj is in this area. I wanted to mention this because

21 Kamensko is also mentioned in other documents in this collection. It is

22 an important border crossing point for the matter we are discussing.

23 Q. Distinguished colleague, since you have already voiced this

24 comment, I would like you to look at the last sentence in this paragraph.

25 The buses referred to above have not been sighted further north. Trilj is

1 about 50 kilometres away from Imotski which is about 17 kilometres away

2 from Sinj. That's where the town of Trilj is located. And they say that

3 nothing had been sighted further north. Trilj is closer to Imotski in

4 that direction, if that will help you place it. I don't want to waste

5 more time bringing out maps.

6 My colleague has just told me that the distance between Split and

7 Trilj is the same as the distance between Trilj and the Bosnian border.

8 So Trilj is halfway between Split and the Bosnian border.

9 I would now like to move on to document 72. Since this is a UN

10 document, I won't dwell on it. And I wouldn't ask you to comment on it

11 because it regards the area of Vitez and what Izetbegovic or Tudjman would

12 like in connection with it. I would like to ask you to move to

13 binder number 3, Exhibit 492.

14 So document 492, I think that is its identification number. It's

15 an order by Mr. Petkovic and Mr. Stojic which says in one part of this

16 order that Tuta is located in Bijelo Polje. Is that it?

17 A. Sorry, can you help me; which part of the document?

18 Q. Unfortunately, it's much harder for me to find because I don't

19 have the documents marked in this binder. I don't have the tabs.

20 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott.

21 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, counsel took us to IAC 72. Was there

22 no question on that, then?

23 JUDGE LIU: No.

24 MR. SCOTT: So there's no -- okay. Very well. Thank you.

25 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] No, no, because it was a UN

1 document. I didn't want any comments on that from this witness.

2 Q. I apologise to the witness. It's very hard for me to find. I

3 have to leaf through all these papers to get the number.

4 A. Do you mean point 2, paragraph 1, 2-1?

5 Q. I first wanted to deal with Item 1 where it says what the task

6 is. The task is to prevent the linkage between Mus forces, that is the

7 Muslim armed forces, with the forces from Jablanica in Bijelo Polje. Have

8 you found this?

9 A. Yes. You mean the heading paragraph, before the very first one.

10 Q. Yes, yes, right. And I would like to put to you another question,

11 referring to the same document, item 3.

12 A. Sorry, what do you mean, "another question"? What was the first

13 one?

14 Q. Oh, sorry, sorry.

15 MR. SCOTT: Again, there is no questions. Counsel is taking us to

16 documents, we are all trying to find the documents and keep up with him,

17 and there are no questions. There has been no question on the last two

18 documents. Are we just leafing through documents now?

19 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Krsnik, let us hear a question.

20 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I apologise. I apologise.

21 Q. I have a general question regarding the entire document. How is

22 it relevant to international armed conflict? It speaks about a strictly

23 military operation after the attack on the Northern Camp and it details

24 military tasks, which is to thwart Muslim armed forces and prevent the

25 linkage between their units.

1 JUDGE CLARK: What document are we at now? I'm lost.

2 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I'm truly sorry. I think we are all

3 a bit tired, and I think I have the hardest time of all. I've been on my

4 feet for an hour and 40 minutes. It's document 492, Your Honour. I hope

5 you have tabs in your binder because I don't. It's Exhibit P492.

6 JUDGE CLARK: But my question is: If it's not in the binder which

7 was prepared by the Prosecution to show international armed conflict, how

8 can you put a question to this witness? I think you are tired,

9 Mr. Krsnik.

10 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Because, Your Honour, we have been

11 studying these documents, which the Prosecution is trying to introduce in

12 order to prove international armed conflict, but as far as your last

13 question is concerned, I think you are right, and I think I am mistaken,

14 and I think I have to consult with my colleagues.

15 [Defence counsel confer]

16 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I am truly sorry. My colleague has

17 just put me right. So it's Prosecution Exhibit 586, introducing these

18 documents regarding international armed conflict. It's P886. It's a list

19 of documents, and 429 is right there on the first page. It's from the

20 government of B and H.

21 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott?

22 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, Judge Clark's question still applies.

23 How is putting this document to the witness -- we have 17 binders of

24 documents. We can probably spend a lot of time going through 17 binders

25 and putting documents to this witness. This is outside the scope of the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 documents he tendered.

2 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] No. This is not true, Your Honours.

3 What Mr. Scott just said is simply not true. My colleagues confirmed it.

4 Those are documents related to the UNPROFOR, the government of B and H,

5 the Zagreb archives and the United Nations organisations, which are being

6 tendered or included in these documents. And the numbers go from --

7 excuse me, Mr. Scott, I'm trying to assist you -- from 241 to 877, of

8 course not in sequence, but the first document is 241 and the last is

9 877.

10 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Scott, as I understand, that you provided us

11 with lists, the number of the list is P886.

12 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE LIU: And on this list, that document is listed.

14 MR. SCOTT: Counsel is right on that. I didn't realise, again

15 with all this, that we had changed, that we were moving away from

16 international armed conflict to another subject. With that clarification,

17 I agree.

18 JUDGE LIU: Yes. You may proceed, Mr. Krsnik.

19 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if you approve my

20 suggestion, perhaps we could continue tomorrow. We are really tired and

21 my concentration is failing me. I would have just a couple of more

22 questions for today, and we would continue tomorrow.

23 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Krsnik, we just found the right document,

24 and you want us to stop there? Can you -- will you please finish the

25 question concerning the document 492. Then we'll break. Otherwise,

1 tomorrow morning, we won't find our way.

2 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I've just lost it. Give me a minute,

3 please. Here it is.

4 Q. Sir, my question is, if we look at page 2 of this document, item

5 3, defence of the city of Mostar, it says, "Commander, Brigadier M. Lasic,

6 together with a staff," and the members of the staff are listed. It says,

7 in item 2, it subordinates to the command of the defence of the city of

8 Mostar, the following units. The units are then enumerated. And the list

9 includes the Mostar anti-terrorist group, ATG. I don't understand this

10 part. But it also says, "From the ATG of Tuta." Because it's the first

11 time I come across ATG Mostar and ATG Tuta. And it takes, under its

12 control -- and this order is dated the 2nd of July, 1993, if I got this

13 right, and on the last page, page number 3, the last sentence says,

14 "Pending the execution of these tasks, the following units are directly

15 subordinated to the main staff of the HVO of the Croatian Community of

16 Herceg-Bosna." My question is: Is this document consistent with what you

17 found in the rest of the documentation?

18 A. I'm happy to assist you on this point, but I don't think this is

19 related to the issue I was invited to present here, international armed

20 conflict.

21 Q. Okay, then. I understand. I understand that you have only been

22 invited here to speak to international armed conflict. And my colleague

23 has reminded me just now that the Prosecutor said that these documents,

24 too, will be introduced through you. And that you will provide the

25 foundation for their tendering.

1 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, to avoid -- counsel's correct on that.

2 And as he clarified a moment ago, which I appreciate, there was a second

3 bundle of -- if you'll allow me to use the term "miscellaneous documents"

4 that were tendered through this witness. And I agree, on having a chance

5 to look at it, Exhibit P492 is among those. But it sounds to me that

6 perhaps the witness is under the same confusion I was, that we're still

7 talking about international armed conflict, and this is going to another

8 topic.

9 If the witness can assist us on a proper document authentication

10 question, I don't have any objection to that.

11 A. That's fine.

12 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

13 A. That's fine with me. Okay, this document was found in the state

14 archive of Croatia in Zagreb. This is what our records show, and this is

15 what you could see yourselves with the stamp in the first page, on every

16 page, in the upper right part. This is not always the case, but in many

17 cases, it happens. So you can see there.

18 It is my assessment that this is an original document, I mean a

19 photocopy of an original document because the letterhead on the top is the

20 usual Herceg-Bosna and HVO letterhead, because the referenced number where

21 it says in the original number, it says Broj, and then the serial, 02-2

22 et cetera. This is the original -- a serial number given to the main

23 staff of the HVO, I believe. Beyond that, if we go to the end of the

24 document, we can see that these are -- these stamps of the main staff of

25 the HVO and of the department of Defence are the stamps usually used to

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 put in these documents.

2 As for the signatures, I have not requested a graphologic study of

3 these, but I can tell you at first glance I have seen many documents

4 issued by Milavoj Petkovic with a similar, if not the same, signature. I

5 would say this is actually the signature of Milavoj Petkovic. Then, if

6 you want, we can discuss the credibility of the content in the context of

7 the areas and the period. This is a bit of a more complex discussion.

8 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation]

9 Q. I agree with you; it's a complex discussion, dear colleague. But

10 we have now come to the Croatian state archives, which I wanted to discuss

11 with you to some extent. Is it possible, in view of the fact that this

12 order is three pages long, that somebody inserted page number 1, 2, or 3

13 with the signatures? Because you found this document in the archives.

14 You don't know where it came from.

15 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott.

16 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, this is pure speculation, ask the witness

17 to speculate if it is possible something could happen.

18 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik. Rephrase your question. Or we may

19 break here.

20 We'll resume at 9.30 tomorrow morning.

21 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at

22 3.58 p.m., to be reconvened on

23 Tuesday, the 13th day of November, 2001,

24 at 9.30 a.m.

25