Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 8063

1 Tuesday, 10 October 2006

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.01 a.m.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, could you call

6 the case number, please.

7 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Good day, Mr. President. Case

8 number IT-04-74-T, the Prosecutor versus Prlic et al.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'd like to greet everyone in

10 the courtroom, members of the Prosecution, Defence counsel, the accused,

11 and everyone else in the courtroom.

12 First there are four oral decisions I have to render concerning

13 the admissibility of documents. The first one concerns a document that

14 relates to Witness BP. The Trial Chamber will declare its position

15 concerning the admission into evidence of a document relating to

16 Witness BP who appeared on the 4th and 5th of October, 2006. The Trial

17 Chamber decides to admit into evidence the following exhibits presented by

18 the Prosecution because they have probative value and relevance: P 09715

19 under seal, P 04161 under seal.

20 In addition, the Trial Chamber notes that the Defence hasn't

21 requested that any documents be admitted into evidence. On the other

22 hand, the Trial Chamber would like to point out that it has decided not to

23 admit the following documents presented by the Prosecution since they

24 don't appear authentic, relevant, and they don't seem to have sufficient

25 probative value: P 03855 is concerned.

Page 8064

1 And now for my second -- for our second oral decision, the

2 corrigendum. On the 5th of October, 2006, the Chamber rendered an oral

3 decision concerning the admission into evidence of documents that related

4 to Witness BQ. As far as document P 04588 is concerned, the Trial Chamber

5 would like to note that only the photographs shown to the witness will be

6 admitted. This concerns the four photographs with the following numbers:

7 0361/7095 -- 7095. And could we have a slash between the 1 and 7. The

8 second photograph is 0361-7106. There's a hyphen, not a slash. Next

9 photograph is 0361-7111. That's correct. And finally 0361-7152.

10 And now for the third oral decision that concerns the admission

11 into evidence of documents relating to Witness BO. The Trial Chamber will

12 rule on the admission into evidence today on documents that concern

13 Witness BO, who appeared on the 4th of October, 2006. The Trial Chamber

14 admits into evidence the following documents presented by the Prosecution,

15 given that they have a certain probative value and relevance. I will now

16 list the documents: P 09717 under seal, P 09309, P 03480, P 03498,

17 P 04161, P 04177, P 09265, P 04432, P 04605, P 04836.

18 In addition, the Chamber will admit the following documents

19 presented by the Defence, since they have a certain probative value and a

20 certain relevance: 3D 00829 -- 429.

21 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction. 3D 00429.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] IC 00044. There are three 0's.

23 IC 00044.

24 On the other hand, the Trial Chamber won't admit the following

25 documents into evidence presented by the Prosecution because Witness BO

Page 8065

1 could not shed light on the authenticity, relevance, or probative value on

2 these documents. These documents are P 04203, P 04203 and P 07134.

3 And now for the fourth oral decision and the last one, an oral

4 decision concerning the admission into evidence of the documents relating

5 to the testimony of Witness Ibrahim Sahic. P 08534 is the document

6 concerned.

7 On the 27th of September, 2006, the Prosecution submitted a

8 written motion to the Chamber requesting the admission into evidence of a

9 new copy of the document with the provisional number P 08534. In this

10 case a death certificate was concerned concerning Adem Adibovic [as

11 interpreted], who -- which was presented to the witness Ibrahim Sahic when

12 he appeared on the 17th of October -- on the 17th of August, 2006.

13 The Prosecution stated that following the objections made by

14 Mr. Kovacic that concerned the illegibility of the names and dates in the

15 copy of the document it had requested and obtained a new copy of this

16 document which was legible, entirely legible. The Chamber would like to

17 point out that on the 24th of August, 2006, it orally decided to mark

18 P 08534 for identification while waiting for the Prosecution to provide a

19 better copy.

20 On the 28th of September, 2006, Mr. Kovacic filed a reply to the

21 Prosecution's motion opposing the admission into evidence of this

22 document, claiming that pursuant to Rule 89(D), the probative value of

23 this document was significantly inferior to the need for a fair trial,

24 given that the date of death on the death certificate was two days earlier

25 than the date of death mentioned by the witness. On the other hand, the

Page 8066

1 witness only identified the surname of the person who died and said that

2 this was a very common surname.

3 The Trial Chamber would like to remind you that pursuant to the

4 decision of the 13th of July, 2006, that concerns the admission into

5 evidence of documents and in conformity with the jurisprudence of this

6 Tribunal evidence must have a certain amount of relevance and a certain

7 probative value if it is to be admitted. The Chamber reserves the right

8 to render a definitive decision about the weight to be attached to a

9 document at the end of the presentation of evidence, of all evidence.

10 In this case, the Chamber notes that the new copy of the death

11 certificate provided by the Prosecution has sufficient indicia of

12 reliability given that the death certificate -- to the extent that the

13 death certificate of Adem Adibovic -- Hebibovic, H-e-b-o-v-i-c. I'll

14 repeat the name because there's a mistake again. Hebibovic,

15 H-e-b-i-b-o-v-i-c. This was shown to the witness Ibrahim Saric and also

16 has sufficient indicia of probative value and reliability. The Chamber

17 decides to admit into evidence document P 08534.

18 The Trial Chamber, however, takes into account the objections

19 raised by Mr. Kovacic, and when determining the weight to be attached to

20 this document in the light of all the evidence presented to the Chamber.

21 That's the fourth decision.

22 I thought that Mr. Murphy had something to say, wanted to take the

23 floor. If you want to take up a few minutes, you may take the floor,

24 Mr. Murphy. Otherwise, you should do so later.

25 MR. MURPHY: Thank you very much, Mr. President. Good morning,

Page 8067

1 Your Honours. I hope that my voice will last. I'm suffering from a cold,

2 but I will do my best to be understood.

3 Your Honour, my purpose in taking the floor is essentially to

4 advise the Trial Chamber on behalf of all the accused and their counsel of

5 a motion that we will be filing later today and also to make an oral

6 application for leave to exceed the word limit in respect of this motion.

7 The only reason that I mention it today is that it's a motion

8 which is somewhat unusual, indeed, we believe may be unparalleled in the

9 history of this Tribunal, and I want to give the Trial Chamber in just

10 about two minutes an overview of the motion and why we regard it as a very

11 serious matter.

12 Your Honours know that there have been two -- at least two

13 subsidiary proceedings in this case of that have been the subject of some

14 litigation. The first was --

15 Are we in private session, Your Honour? I'm sorry. May we go

16 into private session for a short time.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar.

18 [Private session]

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 8068











11 Pages 8068-8077 redacted. Private session.















Page 8078

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 [Open session]

24 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] We're in open session,

25 Mr. President.

Page 8079

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The testimony of

2 Witness BR is commencing in open session.


4 Q. You just told us that in 1992 you were living in Prozor. Until

5 when did you live in Prozor?

6 A. Until the end of August 1993.

7 Q. I would like to take you back to September of 1992. Could you

8 describe to the Court the situation between the Bosnian Muslims and the

9 Bosnian Croats in the town of Prozor at that time?

10 A. Relations at that time between the Bosnian Croats and Muslims were

11 tense. Incidents erupted. In the Bosniak houses, they were destroyed.

12 But anyway, the situation was tense.

13 Q. When you talk about incidents that erupted could you be more

14 specific and give one example of an incident that you are aware of?

15 A. For instance, here is an example: When the HVO soldiers bashed on

16 the windows and -- of Muslim houses, for example.

17 Q. How did the situation evolve in the next month; that is, October

18 of 1992?

19 A. In October 1992, relations came to a head. They worsened so that

20 on the 23rd of October, an armed conflict broke out between the BH army

21 and the Croatian Defence Council.

22 Q. Before going into more details about the 23rd of October, would I

23 like to show you document number 00680 [sic]. There is a bundle just next

24 to you, and you will see that there is a tab marked 608. That is the

25 document I am referring to.

Page 8080

1 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, if I may make a general objection at

2 this point in time. Yesterday Mr. Scott stood up with respect to

3 yesterday's witness and said that the gentleman should not be commenting

4 on any documents which he was unaware of at the time, and so I took a

5 special note of that, because I see that all of the documents virtually

6 are from sources which obviously this witness would not have been aware

7 of.

8 So I would like to know now is the Prosecution reversing that

9 position? Are they maintaining that position? Because what's good for

10 the goose is also good for -- as we know what.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Mr. Scott.

12 MR. SCOTT: It's not the same at all in fact.

13 What the Prosecution has understood from the Chamber's prior

14 rulings and the distinction is the difference between a witness that talk

15 about either the authenticity of the document or the content of the

16 document. On a number of occasions yesterday Mr. Kljuic was shown

17 documents in which he could do neither. He knew nothing about the

18 document. It wasn't his document, nor did he know anything about the

19 substance of the document. But nonetheless, we spent a great deal of the

20 afternoon reading documents and then having the question, Did I read that

21 correctly; yes, you read it correctly. Those are the words on the written

22 page. But have no knowledge of either the content or the authenticity.

23 This witness and granted absolutely transparent on our case may

24 not -- may not be her documents but they are the documents, the content of

25 which she can address. If she can't, then we'll be corrected and the

Page 8081

1 Chamber will not admit the exhibits. There's not -- it's not the same

2 thing at all.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. So we're talking about the

4 contents of a document. Now, with respect to content, Ms. Egels.


6 Q. Witness BR, can I ask you to read the content of the document

7 numbered 608. It's a very short content.

8 MS. EGELS: And if Your Honour wishes, she might read it out loud,

9 if it might be easier.

10 MR. KARNAVAS: Again -- excuse me, madam.

11 If we look at this document, and I certainly don't want to be, you

12 know, obstreperous, but if we look at the document and we look and see

13 what the document contains, I don't see how, keeping with the Prosecutor's

14 last comment or their response to my objection, how we can conduct a

15 hearing in this fashion. I mean, it's one thing to take a narrative from

16 the witness what happened in Prozor, please describe to us. Now we're

17 going into documents asking her to speculate as to whether something in

18 the document may be accurate. I don't see how this is -- I've never

19 experienced, you know, this sort of an examination.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] That is not where the problem

21 lies, Mr. Karnavas. The witness said that the situation had deteriorated

22 as time went by, and we're talking about the 23rd of October, 1992. She

23 said that the situation had deteriorated, and here we have a document

24 where the first sentence states precisely that. "The situation in town

25 deteriorated," or, "is deteriorating."

Page 8082

1 So to ask whether this document coincides with what she thinks and

2 what she saw, that's another matter, but the second paragraph relates to

3 an incident.

4 Now, in order to gain time we're going to the heart of the matter

5 straight away; otherwise, we're going to lose a lot of time. Perhaps the

6 Defence wishes to waste time. But instead of saying -- we said -- the

7 Prosecutor could have asked, "Could you give us some incidents," and she

8 might have mentioned the incident of the flag. But let's try not to waste

9 time and without prejudicing your client.

10 So we have wasted quite a number of minutes now, and it doesn't

11 serve any purpose, Mr. Karnavas. As Judge Trechsel said, you are not

12 before an American Tribunal. You're in an international Tribunal which

13 uses the mixed system. And I'd like to remind you of focusing, for

14 example on the Nuremberg trial, and you will have seen that the Nuremberg

15 trial, which was the first time that international justice held a case of

16 that kind, there were thousands of documents that were admitted in written

17 form.

18 Now, here we have a document relating to an incident concerning a

19 flag, which appeared on the police building. So that's the heart of the

20 matter, the basic premise.

21 Now, if the Prosecution wishes to raise this type of issue and if

22 you keep objecting, we'll be here for years and years.

23 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, I don't mean to be objecting, but

24 let's -- let's look at it objectively speaking. And I'm very familiar

25 with the Nuremberg approach and I have no objections to that.

Page 8083

1 After the hoisting of the Croatian flag. Have we heard any time

2 from this particular witness about the hoisting of a flag? The answer is

3 no. That is a fact not in evidence from this particular witness. It's

4 called leading.

5 Secondly, it goes on to say, there is a possibility that a

6 large-scale clash will occur in the town. Again, how can this witness

7 comment? She can be asked what happened in Prozor on these days, and she

8 can tell us a flag was hoisted and what happened next? Well, there were

9 clashes. That's the way to approach it. But now to bring in these

10 documents through the back door, I don't see the purpose. I'll sit down.

11 I won't make any objection. But frankly, I don't think this is way to

12 take evidence. That's my professional opinion.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Egels.


15 Q. Going back to the first sentence of this document,

16 Witness BR: "The situation in town is deteriorating," just as you told us

17 a few minutes ago. This is a document dated the 20th of October of 1992.

18 Do you remember the incident of the flag on this police building?

19 MR. KARNAVAS: Leading.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I remember this document well.


22 Q. You remember this document or you remember the incident?

23 A. I remember the incident.

24 Q. Could you explain what you saw concerning this incident?

25 A. I saw a flag flying on the police station, and immediately after

Page 8084

1 that the people working in the MUP, the Muslims working in MUP, were

2 sacked.

3 Q. When you say you remember a flag flying on the police station,

4 could you be more specific? What flag was it?

5 A. It was the Croatian flag with the chequer-board emblem.

6 Q. You just told us that the situation erupted on the 23rd of October

7 of 1992. Could you tell the Court what happened on the 23rd of October,

8 1992?

9 A. On that day there were negotiations between the Croatian Defence

10 Council and the Territorial Defence on the security situation in the

11 municipality. However, at those negotiations it was agreed that there

12 would be no conflict. But the army, the soldiers who were already in

13 town, many soldiers came into town and they were told to go to Jajce, to

14 defend Jajce because Jajce was in danger. However, at about 3.00 p.m.

15 or 3.30 p.m. shooting started in town.

16 Q. You just said that there were negotiations between the Croatian

17 Defence Council and the Territorial Defence. How are you aware of these

18 negotiations?

19 A. Since I worked in the municipality at the time, the president who

20 sat in the municipality together with us left to attend the negotiations,

21 and they said there were negotiations being conducted between the

22 Territorial Defence and the HVO.

23 Q. Could you give us the name of the president of the municipality?

24 A. The president of the municipality was named Misko Jusic.

25 Q. Do you know any other person attending these negotiations?

Page 8085

1 A. Yes. I knew Nikola Ivic. He attended the negotiations too.

2 Q. And who was Nikola Ivic?

3 A. He was of the president of the Executive Board.

4 Q. The president of the Executive Board of what?

5 A. Of the municipality.

6 Q. Did you see any other persons present at these negotiations?

7 A. Yes, I did. On the Bosniak side there was Muharem Sabic, the

8 commander of the Territorial Defence; and then there was Esad Bektas,

9 secretary of the municipality.

10 Q. You then told us that around 3.00 p.m. the shooting started. Do

11 you know why the shooting started? Are you aware of the reasons or what

12 started this fighting, this shooting? Were you still present?

13 A. Yes, I was. I was there.

14 Q. So do you know why the violence erupted, why the shooting started?

15 A. [No Interpretation].

16 Q. At 3.00 -- in the afternoon of the 23rd, Witness BR, where were

17 you?

18 A. I was at home in my house.

19 Q. And where did the shooting start? Did you hear it? Did you see

20 it?

21 A. It started in town and in the surrounding villages.

22 Q. Was there any shooting in your neighbourhood?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. What did happen to your neighbourhood on the 23rd of October of

25 1992?

Page 8086

1 A. On the 23rd of October, 1992, well, the armed conflict broke out.

2 Q. But what about your neighbourhood? What happened to you? What

3 did you do?

4 A. Ah, to me. I was at home with my mother, and we heard the

5 shooting. The shooting lasted throughout the night. However, on

6 the 24th, in the morning hours, the house was burnt. Our house was burnt.

7 The HVO burnt my house, the house I was in with my mother.

8 Q. Could you give us some more details and walk us through the events

9 of the 24th when your house was burnt. How did it start?

10 A. This is how it was: The HVO soldiers came up to the front door.

11 They bashed in the door, stormed into the house and set fire to the house,

12 and we were still in the house on the ground floor, and they did all this

13 on the upper floor.

14 Q. How do you know these were HVO soldiers?

15 A. Well, I know because they wore chequer-board insignia. And I

16 personally recognised one of my neighbours who was there.

17 MS. EGELS: Maybe if we could go to private session, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let's move into private session.

19 [Private session]

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 8087











11 Pages 8087-8114 redacted. Private session.















Page 8115

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 [Open session]

8 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] We're in open session,

9 Mr. President.


11 Q. So do you recognise the place, the location on this picture?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Could you tell the Court what location this is?

14 A. This is Kucani.

15 Q. Are we talking about Exhibit 9704?

16 MS. EGELS: Just for the record, Your Honours, I believe the

17 witness was looking at another exhibit.

18 Q. So are we now looking at Exhibit 9704, Witness BR?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Do you recognise this location?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Could you tell us where this is.

23 A. Podgradje.

24 Q. Is this where you stayed during the month of August 1993?

25 A. Yes.

Page 8116

1 Q. Is the --

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Since we have the photo in front

3 of us, madam, to the right we can see there's a space with a construction

4 covered by a plastic sheet, and there are these little blocks on it. What

5 was there? What was that, as far as you can remember?

6 MS. EGELS: I'm sorry, Your Honour, but again I think we are not

7 talking about the same picture. I see that the one that is displayed is

8 9705 and not 04. It seems there is a mix between two pictures.

9 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the Presiding Judge, please.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The photograph we have on the

11 screen is 9704; is that correct?

12 Madam, can you see the photograph?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We can see to the right there is

15 a construction covered in a plastic sheet with blocks on top of it. What

16 was there before, a house, in 1993? Can you remember what there was

17 there.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I can't remember that.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Ms. Egels, please

20 continue.


22 Q. Witness BR, how do you know this is Podgradje?

23 A. Well, I know because I stayed there.

24 Q. Do you recognise any -- any feature on this picture that would

25 help you recognise Podgradje and not another part of town?

Page 8117

1 A. I can recognise all these houses and the owners, and I'm certain

2 that this is Podgradje.

3 Q. You told us that you left Podgradje at the end of August 1993,

4 that you were expelled, and that you arrived in Bugojno. I would like you

5 now --

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. -- to turn to a little bit later in time, in 1994. What were you

8 doing? What was your job at that time in the beginning of 1994?

9 A. In 1994, I worked in Bugojno municipality.

10 Q. And at one point in time in 1994 did you work for the state

11 commission for gathering facts on war crimes?

12 A. Yes. That was from March to August 1994.

13 Q. And what was your job at this commission?

14 A. I took statements from women, from the victims of abuse, in the

15 commission. So that's what my job consisted of on the whole.

16 MS. EGELS: Your Honour, maybe if we could return to private

17 session.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar.

19 [Private session]

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 8118











11 Pages 8118-8123 redacted. Private session.















Page 8124

1 [Open session]

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

3 Ms. Egels, does that complete your examination-in-chief then?

4 MS. EGELS: Yes, Your Honour, I just would like to ask you to

5 tender into evidence the exhibits that I've shown to the witness. Number

6 P 00608, P 00673 under seal, P 00679, P 02999, P 03234, P 09704, and two

7 other exhibits that have already been admitted, but I would ask the Court

8 to put them under seal, P 00640 and P 09376.

9 Thank you, Your Honours.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

11 Could the registrar tell me how much the Prosecution used -- how

12 much time the Prosecution used so that we can give the same amount of time

13 to the Defence.

14 While that is being done, I'm going to -- well, the registrar has

15 just informed me that the Prosecution used 70 minutes, which means one

16 hour and 10 minutes.

17 I turn to the Defence, and who is going to start off? Counsel

18 Nozica.

19 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

20 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I apologise,

21 but can you tell me how much time I have? The Prosecution took 70

22 minutes. So how much time do I have, 10 minutes?

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, if it's 70 divided by 6,

24 that gives you about 10 minutes each.

25 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I was

Page 8125

1 thinking about the cross-examination, so I wasn't doing the calculations.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But in 10 minutes you can ask a

3 lot of questions.

4 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Yes, indeed. Thank you.

5 To start off, can we go back into private session, because I have

6 a personal question to ask?

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, private session.

8 [Private session]

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 [Open session]

23 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] We're back in open session,

24 Mr. President.

25 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]

Page 8126

1 Q. At the beginning of your testimony, you said that you worked in

2 the municipality. You gave us quite a lot of details. You knew a lot of

3 things. Can you remember or do you have any knowledge of where the TO

4 members in 1992, until October, as you said, together with members of the

5 HVO were? Where were they together? At what positions and who was on the

6 other side, on the opposite side?

7 A. I'm not quite clear about your question.

8 Q. While they were together, the HVO members and TO members, did they

9 hold any positions vis-a-vis the Serb side?

10 A. Yes, they did hold positions.

11 Q. Where? Where? What positions? Where was that? In the town of

12 Prozor, around Prozor, where?

13 A. In the surrounding parts around Prozor.

14 Q. Where?

15 A. I don't know exactly where but I know they held positions

16 together.

17 Q. Around Prozor?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Did they hold any positions facing Kupres?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Did they hold joint positions, for example, at Crni Vrh?

22 A. I don't remember about Crni Vrh, but I know that they did for

23 Kupres.

24 Q. Do you know whether the TO members dug any trenches or held any

25 positions at Crni Vrh itself, Makljen, towards Makljen, up at Crni Vrh,

Page 8127

1 mount Crni Vrh?

2 A. I don't know about that.

3 Q. You don't know. Right. Now, in your statement you said -- I'm

4 going to slow down. The Court hasn't reprimanded me yet, so I'll do so

5 myself. We speak the same language, so let's make pauses between question

6 and answer.

7 When you spoke about organised torching of houses, can you tell

8 me, please, or, rather, repeat already -- you've already said that. Who

9 was Ivan Dole? Did you say he was an HVO member?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Do you remember that you in fact gave a statement to the OTP on

12 the 6th of February, 2002, in which you describe these events?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. I'll remind you just part -- a part of your statement where you

15 say on page 5: "In front of the house, on the path I mentioned between

16 the torched house of my father and my uncle, (redacted), I saw Ivo Dole.

17 Together with him we fled to the nearby woods."

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, strike the name

19 Ismet, please, from the record.

20 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I apologise.

21 Q. So "together with him we fled to the nearby woods in order to

22 hide from HVO soldiers."

23 Is that correct, is that what you've said?

24 A. Let me tell you, madam, to the nearby house, because the road to

25 Ivo's house led through the woods.

Page 8128

1 Q. So is that correct?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Why were you hiding with an HVO member, Ivo Dole, from other

4 members of the HVO?

5 A. Well, we were afraid. Imagine a situation in which you were a

6 house -- in a house which had already been half burnt to the ground. It's

7 terrible fear, and you had to hide. You hide from yourself.

8 Q. I'm not asking you about your fear. That's quite normal and

9 understandable. I'm asking you why Ivo Dole hid with you from the other

10 members of the HVO. Did he know them? Did he say he knew them? Did he

11 say he knew what they were doing there?

12 A. It was like this, madam: He wasn't in hiding nor were we in

13 hiding. That path led to his house. The path through the woods led to

14 his house.

15 Q. So what you say here is not in fact correct.

16 A. Maybe it was wrongly presented and stated wrongly, because the

17 path led through the woods to his house.

18 Q. All right. Let me ask you it this way: Did he go with you, Ivo

19 Dole?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. So he was with you; he didn't stay with the other HVO soldiers?

22 A. No. He went with us, together with us.

23 Q. Did you talk to him about who these other soldiers were and what

24 they were doing?

25 A. No, I didn't.

Page 8129

1 Q. You didn't talk to him? You didn't ask him who are those men,

2 what are they doing?

3 A. No, I didn't ask him anything, because at that point in time --

4 no, I didn't ask him anything.

5 Q. Were you with him for a time at his place?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. For how long?

8 A. Five days.

9 Q. During those five days did you ever ask who those people were?

10 Did he know those people? Did he know why they were doing what they were

11 doing, on whose orders? Did you ask him any of that?

12 A. No, we asked him none of that.

13 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] May we now have on e-court

14 document 00679. It's a document presented to the witness, and it is in

15 fact a document from the head of the Main Staff of the HVO, General

16 Milivoj Petkovic. It is dated the 31st of October.

17 Q. Can you see underneath the date here, I'm referring to the

18 Croatian version, that it says: "To prevent the unruly behaviour of

19 individuals."

20 A. Yes, I can see that.

21 Q. Now, in view of the situation and the situation that you

22 described, that a member of the HVO was hiding you in his house, that you

23 saw some people who were doing things like that, do you stand by the

24 assertion or conviction that the torching of houses during that period of

25 time was organised?

Page 8130

1 A. Yes, I still claim that, that it was organised.

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 Q. So you ought to know that the BH army or, rather, the defence

12 ministry for each individual leaving the municipality would have to issue

13 a permit for them to do so; is that correct?

14 A. I didn't understand your question.

15 Q. The Bugojno municipality and the department for national defence

16 in the municipality at the time you were working there, did it have to

17 issue for all military conscripts or anybody who had to do military

18 service be issued with a permit if they wanted to leave the municipality?

19 Is that correct?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. So the situation is exactly the same as you described it in Prozor

22 when the HVO issued permits. Would that be the same situation?

23 A. Well, let me tell you this. I worked in Bugojno when there was no

24 conflict. The conflict had already ceased in Bugojno when I arrived there

25 in 1994 and worked in Bugojno. There wasn't a conflict going on there

Page 8131

1 anymore.

2 Q. Madam, you have the education you told us you have. I can't

3 repeat what it is in open session, but was it a war situation? Was there

4 the imminent threat of war?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And were the same provisions and regulations applied during a war

7 and during imminent war? You were in Bugojno during the war situation.

8 It doesn't matter that there were no conflicts going on at the time.

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. So did the same permits have to be issued throughout the territory

11 where a situation of war existed regardless of the fact of which

12 authorities controlled the area?

13 A. I know that in Bugojno permits were issued to people who wished to

14 leave the municipality, so that anybody wishing to leave would be issued a

15 permit if he wasn't a military recruit.

16 Q. And what happened to military recruits if they asked for permits

17 to leave?

18 A. They didn't -- they weren't issued with permits.

19 Q. What about those who had a work assignment like you?

20 A. They weren't issued permits either.

21 Q. So they could request a permit but weren't issued with a permit;

22 is that right?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. In the meantime -- and I thank my colleagues, I have been given

25 Mr. Ibrisimovic's time. I'll just use a bit of it.

Page 8132

1 May we have a look at the next permit - it is Exhibit number 2999,

2 which was shown to the witness - for some so clarification.

3 Madam, would you take a look at this, please. It is an order, in

4 fact. And when we read the order, we can see that they regulate relations

5 on this territory because it says: "I emphasise once again that passes

6 issued by other civilian and military organs in the municipality should

7 not be recognised and that these persons should be returned."

8 So do we agree that this order, and you've read it -- well, during

9 preparations for your testimony did you see this order?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Can we agree, you and I, that this order in fact regulates

12 relations on a given territory and states who can issue passes?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And do you agree with me that in Bugojno municipality, that is to

15 say where you were, that these rules applied as well, that it was only the

16 Secretariat for National Defence who was able and permitted to issue

17 passes of this kind or permits of this kind?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Now, I wanted to focus on one particular point, and it is this.

20 The sentence which says: "This order shall apply to persons of Muslim

21 ethnicity as well." "To persons of Muslim ethnicity as well."

22 There's a problem. It says this order -- not that one. "Also

23 applied to persons of Muslim ethnicity." That's what it says in the

24 document.

25 Does that mean logically to you and me that it refers to everybody

Page 8133

1 else, to the Croats, to the Serbs, and to persons of Muslim ethnicity? Am

2 I right in stating that?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. All right. Thank you. Now, just briefly, something about your

5 work in this commission. Can you tell the Court, please -- can you give

6 the full name of the commission to the Court? What was it called?

7 A. The commission for investigating war crimes.

8 Q. And who headed the commission?

9 A. Mirza Pogarca [as interpreted].

10 Q. Thank you. Mirsad Tokaca was the name. Tokaca Mirsad; is that

11 right?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. I'm just looking at the transcript to get the name right. Do you

14 agree with me that the commission was actually called the state commission

15 for gathering information on war crimes?

16 A. Yes, that's right. I just gave you the abridged version.

17 Q. Right. But it was a state commission.

18 A. Yes, a state commission.

19 Q. Now, while -- you were working as a volunteer; is that right?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. While you were working as a volunteer for that commission, did you

22 have any knowledge of, did you have an assignment to or knew about anybody

23 collecting information about crimes committed in Bugojno against Croats?

24 A. No, I didn't know anything about that.

25 Q. You didn't work on that yourself?

Page 8134

1 A. No.

2 Q. You didn't have an assignment of that kind?

3 A. No.

4 Q. You didn't know that anybody in the commission gathered

5 information of that kind?

6 A. No, I don't know anything about that.

7 Q. You as a citizen of Bugojno, did you hear that there were crimes

8 committed against Croats and that Croats were in prisons, too, that they

9 were killed, that their wives were raped and so on, women were raped and

10 so on?

11 A. No, I didn't hear about that. I didn't wish to hear anything

12 about that. I had enough problems of my own from my own people, and I

13 didn't talk to anybody about things like that.

14 Q. When you said, "I had enough of my own," what do you mean your

15 own?

16 A. I had my own problems. That's what I meant. Problems of my own.

17 So when you have your own problems you don't have time to deal with other

18 people's.

19 Q. But you did deal with other people's problems. You listened to

20 women, heard their statements, Bosniak women who were raped by Croats?

21 A. Yes, I did do that.

22 Q. So those are your problems. You considered those to be your

23 problems; is that right?

24 A. Well, let me tell you, it's like this. They were the problems in

25 my own municipality. I'm sure that somebody worked for the Bugojno

Page 8135

1 municipality to collect information of that kind. I didn't know what they

2 did, just as they didn't know what I did for the Prozor municipality.

3 Q. During your work did you ever receive any information according to

4 which some Croats were abused, arrested, expelled, that their houses were

5 torched, that they were killed, anything like that? During that period of

6 time, because you occupied a very important post. Lots of people went

7 through your office. I assume everybody, the whole town goes through your

8 offices. So everybody had problems to solve and go to the office that you

9 worked in, not to mention your exact work post. Did you ever hear of

10 things like that happening to Croats?

11 A. I didn't work in Bugojno for a long time.

12 Q. But during that brief period of time did you hear about that?

13 A. Well, whoever had a problem asked for Mr. Vlaco [as interpreted]

14 and spoke to him. I really don't know how or why they came.

15 Q. Did anyone speak to you out of the individuals that you contacted

16 about war crimes? Did they tell you about crimes against Croats?

17 A. Well, they spoke about crimes, but I couldn't say anything about

18 that. I didn't see them. I wasn't there during the conflict.

19 Q. You told the Chamber, with regard to the rape of Muslim women and

20 their names, you said that you found out about these crimes because

21 someone told you about them. You followed the line of information. Did

22 you do the same to find out what had happened to Croats if you heard that

23 something had happened to them?

24 A. I had no authority to do that.

25 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I have no

Page 8136

1 further questions.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Could we have the next Defence

3 team, please. Ms. Alaburic.

4 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

5 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honours. My

6 colleague, Ms. Nozica, says that we should correct something in the

7 transcript. On page 72, line 18, it should say Mlaco, with an M, instead

8 of Vlaco. So the first letter is wrong.

9 Cross-examination by Ms. Alaburic:

10 Q. Witness, good day. My name is Vesna Alaburic. I'm a lawyer from

11 Zagreb, and I represent General Milivoj Petkovic in these proceedings. I

12 have a few questions for you that concern your testimony, and that also

13 concern the written statements you provided to the Prosecution.

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 A. No, not from the security service in Bugojno, in Prozor.

18 Q. I apologise. In Prozor. You said that you handed over the

19 statements to him; is that correct?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Can you tell us whether while gathering those statements, while

22 taking those statements you cooperated with him by asking him for

23 any explanations, assistance to locate women, et cetera?

24 A. No. I did this myself. I performed such duties myself. I looked

25 for the women and took statements from them.

Page 8137

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 A. No.

5 Q. So can we conclude that when taking statements from raped women

6 you cooperated exclusively with the security service and not with the

7 state commission for investigating war crimes?

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 Q. Very well. But I'm interested in your direct link.

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. Witness, I'm interested in your communication with this

17 individual. According to your testimony, while gathering or taking

18 statements, you didn't cooperate with anyone in the state commission for

19 investigating war crimes; is that correct?

20 A. Well, I have just told you how I did this.

21 Q. Yes, I understand that this was through the security service. But

22 you did not have direct contact with the state commission?

23 A. No.

24 Q. Thank you. Tell us, with regard to the statements that you took,

25 did you ever testify about these statements before a court, or did you

Page 8138

1 contribute to the institution of proceedings in any other way and to the

2 sanctions being taken against the perpetrators?

3 A. No.

4 Q. Thank you. You said that the women you interviewed told you how

5 they had been raped by HVO soldiers.

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Are you sure that the women you interviewed said that exactly?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Some of the women you have interviewed have testified here, and

10 their testimony doesn't correspond to what you have said. They said that

11 there were men who arrived in civilian clothing. They also mentioned

12 members of other units, and this is why I'm now asking you. On what basis

13 did the women you interviewed come to the conclusion that the men involved

14 were HVO soldiers?

15 A. Well, they came to that conclusion because the men who were in

16 uniforms with the chequer-boards and they knew they were HVO soldiers.

17 Q. So you are sure that the all the women that you interviewed said

18 that those who had raped them were HVO soldiers.

19 A. Well, according to their statements, yes.

20 Q. According to their statements.

21 A. Well, I know what the women said when they gave me their

22 statements. I can't write anything else down.

23 Q. I'm just trying to ask you whether you are quite sure that those

24 were the contents of their statements.

25 A. Well, yes. The statements I took reflected what they said. I

Page 8139

1 noted down what they actually said.

2 Q. As far as the investigating war crimes are concerned - I only have

3 another two questions - according to your information to the state

4 commission for investigating war crimes had the task of investigating all

5 crimes committed in the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

6 A. Well, yes, it did have that task.

7 Q. Do you have any information according to which that state

8 commission determined that -- that a crime was committed by the ABiH?

9 A. I assume they did.

10 Q. Tell us, did the state commission for investigating war crimes

11 publish the results of its investigations in books and reviews about

12 crimes committed in the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina? Is there a lot

13 of literature about the subject, unfortunately a lot?

14 A. Probably.

15 Q. And in all these publications published by the state commission

16 for war crimes, did you ever come across information on crimes committed

17 by members of the ABiH?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. In which publication? Which crime is in question? Could you tell

20 us, please.

21 A. Well, for example, crimes committed in Uzdol, Gabravica,

22 et cetera.

23 Q. And these publications were published by the state commission for

24 war crimes?

25 A. I've heard about those war crimes, but believe me, right now I

Page 8140

1 cannot remember everything.

2 Q. On the basis of your answer can we draw the conclusion that you

3 cannot claim for certain that you ever found out that the state commission

4 for war crimes published information on war crimes committed by members of

5 the ABiH?

6 A. I really couldn't answer that question.

7 Q. Thank you. I now have some questions that concern the incident

8 with the flag in Prozor on the 20th of October, 1992.

9 In response to a question from the Prosecution, you said that on

10 the 20th of October, 1992, a chequer-board flag was flown from the police

11 building, a Croatian flag.

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. When this flag was hoisted, was some other flag taken down from

14 that building?

15 A. I don't know, believe me. I'm not aware of any other flag being

16 there.

17 Q. And next to the Croatian flag was there some other flag?

18 A. I don't know. I'm not aware of that.

19 Q. And a day earlier, on the 19th of October, on the police building

20 could you tell us whether there was a flag on the police building then?

21 A. I can't remember.

22 Q. Would you pass by the police building?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. How is it that you saw -- or, rather, did you see the Croatian

25 flag on the police building on the 20th of October?

Page 8141

1 A. On the 20th of October I was told that there was a Croatian flag

2 that had been hoisted, and then I later passed by and saw it.

3 Q. How did you hear about the Croatian flag flying from the building,

4 and why was this new? Why should people speak about it?

5 A. Well, it wasn't particularly important because at the time I

6 worked in Prozor municipality and, well, they said there was a Croatian

7 flag on the -- flying from the police station. And then I passed by and

8 saw it.

9 Q. Like my colleague, Nozica, I would like to refer your to your

10 educational background and your knowledge of the judicial system in

11 Bosnia-Herzegovina.

12 My question is as follows: As a rule, buildings that were part of

13 a state body, that belonged to a state body, did they usually have flags

14 flying from them? The municipality building, for example, the police

15 building, the state inspector's office, tax office, et cetera, did these

16 buildings have flags flying from them?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Yes. So it would be logical for there to be a flag flying from

19 the police station before the 20th of October?

20 A. Well, I can't remember.

21 Q. I'm asking you whether that would be logical.

22 A. Yes, it would be logical to expect there to be a flag there.

23 Q. Would you be surprised if I told you that on the 20th of October,

24 1992, both the Croatian flag and the flag of Bosnia and Herzegovina were

25 flying from that building?

Page 8142

1 A. That's possible.

2 Q. You said that hoisting the Croatian flag provoked a Muslim revolt

3 to a certain extent.

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Can you explain to us what the flag of Bosnia and Herzegovina

6 looked like at the time?

7 A. The flag of Bosnia and Herzegovina had lilies on it at the time.

8 Q. It had lilies on it. Thank you. You also said that on the 20th

9 of October, 1992, the Muslim police members were dismissed.

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Did you see any letter of dismissal that had been provided to

12 Muslim policemen?

13 A. You mean in a written letter?

14 Q. Yes.

15 A. I didn't see any written letters, but I know that these people

16 didn't go to work.

17 Q. They didn't go to work. I'm interested in that. Why did you come

18 to the conclusion that these individuals didn't go to work, because they

19 had been fired?

20 A. Well, they were not allowed to enter the building.

21 Q. Well, according to the information you had, who prevented them

22 from entering the building? Who forbade it?

23 A. I don't know.

24 Q. How -- what's your source of information, according to which they

25 were not allowed to enter the building?

Page 8143

1 A. I don't know what the reason was.

2 Q. Do you know that because the Croatian flag had been hoisted on the

3 police building the Muslims -- the Muslim policemen were so revolted they

4 decided not to go to work? Were you provided with such information?

5 A. No. I'm not familiar with that.

6 Q. Thank you very much.

7 I now have a number of questions that concern the houses that were

8 set on fire. Please have a look at P 09376. Could we have the document

9 on the screen too. It's a document that we have already seen. It's a

10 description of the houses that were set on fire.

11 Witness, we can now see the list of the houses in Prozor that had

12 been set on fire from the 23rd of October onwards. 1992 is the year

13 concerned. If I have correctly noted your testimony, today you said that

14 in April 1993 Ibrahim Sljivo's house was set on fire. Is that correct?

15 Is that what you said?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Please have a look at the list and find the houses that were set

18 on fire in April and tell us whether the house you mentioned is included

19 in the list.

20 So as not to waste time, this list doesn't include any houses

21 burnt in April, and the name of Ibrahim Sljivo that you mentioned is not

22 on the list either.

23 Could you now have a look at the name Salko Konjaric. You said

24 that his house was burned in June 1993.

25 So as not to waste time, there is no information here about June,

Page 8144

1 and this name that you've mentioned doesn't appear.

2 A. Konjaric Hata. That's his mother. But the date is the 10th of

3 May; perhaps I was a little mistaken when it comes to the date. Konjaric

4 Hata. Under number 50.

5 Q. So can I draw the conclusion that it was incorrect when you said

6 that Salko Konjaric's house was set on fire in June? The answer is

7 simple.

8 A. The 10th of May. Well, I was a little mistaken when it comes to

9 the date, but it's more or less that period. Konjaric Hata.

10 Q. We're talking about Salko Konjaric and about whether his house was

11 set on fire in June.

12 I have a few questions about this document. Can you tell us who

13 compiled the document and when?

14 A. Well, I really don't know who compiled the document.

15 Q. Can you tell us when it was compiled? Approximately.

16 A. I don't know, believe me.

17 Q. According to what you know, were some houses in Prozor damaged,

18 set on fire, or destroyed as a result of the combat? Did any shells fall

19 on houses?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. According to what you can see in the list, are those houses also

22 included among the houses that were destroyed in Prozor from October 1992

23 onwards?

24 A. Something was destroyed in the fighting, but most of them were

25 torched.

Page 8145

1 Q. All right. Thank you. Now, can you tell us whether in the Prozor

2 municipality there was the Territorial Defence Staff headquarters?

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We're going to have to stop

4 there. We've already gone on for an hour and a half. We have to make a

5 30-minute break now for technical reasons.

6 Yes, the Prosecution.

7 MS. EGELS: Yes, Your Honour. I would like to ask the redaction

8 of lines 67 -- page 67, line 11 to 19 as they might help in identifying

9 the witness.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. That's been done.

11 We reconvene at 1.00.

12 --- Recess taken at 12.31 p.m.

13 --- On resuming at 1.00 p.m.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Counsel Alaburic.

15 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

16 Q. Witness, may we just finish off discussing the document still on

17 our screens. It is a list of facilities in Prozor municipality which were

18 destroyed in one way or another from the 23rd of October onwards.

19 Now, from what we've said so far -- or, rather, from what you've

20 said so far about the document, we can conclude that this document

21 contains the buildings and facilities destroyed in battle, during the

22 fighting; is that right?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And we can conclude also that you cannot confirm who compiled this

25 document and when; is that right?

Page 8146

1 Witness, can you switch your microphone on, please, and could you

2 repeat the answer to that last question of mine.

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. All right. Now, may the witness be shown P 00640, the next

5 document. And I'd like to ask you to open the document in front of you.

6 It is a list of confiscated vehicles -- or, rather, vehicles seized.

7 Now, with respect to that document, you told us that on the list

8 here there was the vehicle that was set fire to.

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Now, with all your education, are you able to conclude that the

11 list is not a list of vehicles -- only vehicles seized or confiscated,, I

12 assume you know what the term "confiscated" means.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. So there are also vehicles on list which were not confiscated; is

15 that right?

16 A. Yes. Most of them were confiscated, but there are vehicles, such

17 as my brother's car, I know for sure was burnt.

18 Q. All right. Fine. Now, who and when was this list compiled? Who

19 compiled the list and when?

20 A. I don't know.

21 Q. Thank you.

22 A. You're welcome.

23 Q. You told us that you worked in the municipality --

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Counsel Alaburic, we gave you a

25 lot of time, but you've already overstepped the time limit. You have

Page 8147

1 taken up 20 minutes.

2 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] I have been given time by the

3 Praljak Defence, and I also consulted the Valentin Coric Defence, and they

4 told me that they just need about 10 minutes. So can we ask the

5 Prosecutor how much time they will need?

6 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry, they do not -- they do not have more

7 than 10 minutes from the beginning, so there's nothing left over to give

8 to you, I'm afraid.

9 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] No, they don't have anything to

10 give me. All I'm saying is that they will need 10 minutes. So if the

11 Prosecutor does not need additional time, I suggest that we use up today's

12 session for listening to the witness, and if it's 10 minutes longer than

13 what was provided for, I don't expect that will be a problem for the Trial

14 Chamber.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Get to the heart of the matter

16 straight away then.

17 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]

18 Q. Madam Witness, I hope that this will still be important, because

19 these are documents that we discussed that came from the Prosecution. You

20 told us that you worked in the municipality up until the middle of 1993;

21 is that right?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. I take it that you weren't dismissed, nobody prevented you from

24 working, and that you continued working just like you did before; is that

25 right?

Page 8148

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. I'd now like you to tell us if you compare the situation in 1993

3 to the situation that prevailed previously in the place you lived, would

4 you agree with me when I say that there were a great many more people who

5 came into your town from other places, Bugojno and other places like that

6 from Central Bosnia-Herzegovina?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Could these be counted in their thousands, thousands of new people

9 coming into the Prozor area?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Would you agree with me when I say that there were a great many

12 members of military units as well in the Prozor municipality?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Can you confirm that in the Prozor area and the surrounding parts

15 there were certain -- a certain amount of fighting going on?

16 A. For what period are you asking?

17 Q. The entire period, up until mid-1993. Until August 1993, let's

18 say, when you left the town. Was there fighting going on, or was it just

19 peaceful? I'm not asking you for the town itself, but I'm also asking you

20 for the entire municipality and surrounding parts.

21 A. Yes, there was fighting.

22 Q. Thank you. Do you know that during that combat members of the

23 civilian and military police were engaged as well?

24 A. No, I'm not aware of that.

25 Q. Well, I'm telling you that they were. Now, on that basis would it

Page 8149

1 be logical to conclude that in view of the increased number of people in

2 the town itself and the lack of policemen that it was very difficult to

3 keep law and order, public law and order?

4 A. Can you repeat that question?

5 Q. In view of the many more people who had come in to Prozor

6 municipality and the fact that there were more military unit members and

7 the general combat that was going on, the problems with food and many

8 other problems that created a situation of chaos that it was very

9 difficult to keep law and order or maintain public law and order in town?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Thank you. Now, you also told us that to the best of your

12 knowledge the civilian and military authorities on the territory of your

13 municipality did nothing to establish public law and order linked to an

14 order from General Milivoj Petkovic issued on the 31st of October.

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. I'd just like to ask you something in that regard about several

17 decisions, in fact, signed by the president of the civilian -- yes, if I

18 can say so, the civilian HVO.

19 And just a digression here: During 1993, did you work in a

20 building in which Mr. Mijo Jozic was, too, where he had his office?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Do you happen to know that already in November 1992, a mixed

23 Muslim-Croat commission was set up which was supposed to assess and

24 determine the damage done to state and private facilities? Do you know

25 about that?

Page 8150

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Can you tell me what you know about that particular commission and

3 what it established? Were people remunerated for the damage done?

4 A. The commission went round to visit the damaged facilities, torched

5 facilities. They made a record, compiled a record and minutes of that,

6 but people were never refunded for the damage done.

7 Q. When you say "never," what period of time are you referring to?

8 A. From the time the damage was incurred to the present day.

9 Q. Yes.

10 A. Yes, that's right.

11 Q. Can we then conclude that during the time that Prozor was not

12 fully controlled by the HVO but by another power, people did -- received

13 no remuneration for the damage that had been incurred to their property?

14 A. I don't understand your question.

15 Q. Well, the powers and authorities changed in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

16 There were different people in power. So I'm asking you after the

17 Washington agreements and Dayton Accords the powers that be established in

18 Prozor, did they perhaps make up for the damages incurred?

19 A. No.

20 Q. All right. We'll deal with this subject later on through other

21 witnesses. But do you happen to know a request made by Mr. Mijo Jozic to

22 increase the number of policemen in the Prozor municipality so that law

23 and order could be preserved? Do you know these efforts on his part, that

24 is to say to increase the number of policemen on the police force?

25 A. No, I don't.

Page 8151

1 Q. Thank you. Now, do you know an order issued by the chief of the

2 military police to have vehicles returned who -- which were confiscated

3 contrary to legal provisions in Prozor?

4 A. No.

5 Q. Do you know about the conclusion made by the municipal authorities

6 of your town to replace and dismiss all those who took part in any looting

7 and who engaged in crimes on the territory of Prozor?

8 A. No.

9 Q. Can you now tell me, in view of your education, these decisions

10 that I picked, had you known about these decisions would you still claim

11 that the HVO authorities did nothing to preserve law and order or

12 establish law and order in Prozor?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. You would stand by your statement?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Regardless of these decisions?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Can you explain how that is?

19 A. Well, the situation in the field was --

20 Q. I'm not asking you about the results. I'm asking you about the

21 efforts made to do something. I assume you can differentiate between the

22 endeavours on the part of the authorities to do something and the results

23 of their efforts. So I'm just asking you about their efforts, the steps

24 they undertook and efforts they made. We'll leave the results of that

25 alone and discuss them in due course. But all the conclusions and

Page 8152

1 decisions that I mentioned a moment ago, which I just selected at random

2 by way of example, can confirm that the authorities did indeed wish to

3 establish public law and order.

4 A. On the basis of documents the answer would be yes.

5 Q. Just one more question with the Court's indulgence, and it is

6 linked to your statement. You told us -- or, actually, you didn't tell us

7 but it was recorded in your statement, the statement of the 6th of

8 February, 2002, that after the conflict in October 1992, most of the men

9 decided not to remain in Prozor and that they left and went to Jablanica

10 or Gornji Vakuf. Is that right?

11 A. Yes. The people's whose houses had been devastated went to

12 Jablanica and Gornji Vakuf.

13 Q. Let me remind you, with the Court's indulgence, of a portion of

14 your statement of the 6th of February, 2002, and it is contained on page 6

15 of the English version and page 8 of the -- or 6 of the Croatian version

16 and 5 of the English version. You didn't speak about the departure of men

17 who lived in the houses which had been destroyed, but you refer to men

18 who -- or males who for security reasons went to Jablanica and

19 Gornji Vakuf and joined up with the BH army forces there.

20 A. Yes. As I said, they were mostly people who didn't have anywhere

21 to go. They couldn't return to their own houses.

22 Q. So the males didn't have any place to return went to Jablanica and

23 Gornji Vakuf, and those males without a roof over their heads left their

24 women, children, and elderly people. Is that what you're saying?

25 A. No. Whole families left.

Page 8153

1 Q. I see, whole families left. Now, on those same pages of that

2 statement of yours, you said that the women, children, and elderly persons

3 remained in Prozor while the men, for the most part, left to Jablanica and

4 Gornji Vakuf to join up with the BH army forces there.

5 A. Yes. But I should have added those who didn't have anywhere to

6 live in Prozor.

7 Q. So the men who didn't have anywhere to live left.

8 A. They left with their families.

9 Q. Right. They left with their families. That means that in 2002,

10 when you gave this statement, you did not tell us the exact -- describe

11 the exact situation.

12 Now, two more questions. You mentioned in your statements that

13 the men left, the women stayed, and that the women asked the president of

14 the municipality to organise a convoy in order to leave town; is that

15 right?

16 A. Not those women. Not the women that left.

17 Q. Well, no, not the women who left, of course, the women who stayed

18 on.

19 A. Yes, but they didn't ask those men, but the women who were in town

20 with their own families.

21 Q. So the women who were in town with their husbands asked that a

22 convoy to leave town be organised.

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Can you explain to us how the women went to ask for this and not

25 the men, not their husbands who lived in the same town, or at least a

Page 8154

1 mixed delegation?

2 A. All I know is that the women came to talk to the president for the

3 population to be evacuated because the living conditions were terrible.

4 Q. Can you tell us this: You and most other witnesses who left the

5 Prozor municipality told us that they left and went to Bugojno. Can you

6 tell us whether you received any instructions, particular instructions to

7 go to Bugojno, or how come you decided to go precisely to Bugojno?

8 A. We didn't have anywhere else to go.

9 Q. So it was only the road leading to Bugojno that was free, there

10 was free passage on that road. You couldn't take any other route?

11 A. No.

12 Q. How come some people went to Jablanica and Vakuf then?

13 A. Jablanica Vakuf?

14 Q. Yes.

15 A. They didn't go then. They had left previously.

16 Q. How did some people from Jablanica go towards Bugojno as well,

17 even going on foot for a great part -- for a lot of the time?

18 A. I don't know about that. Perhaps that happened, but I really

19 don't know. All I do know is that the population mostly moved to Bugojno.

20 Q. Yes. They were concentrated in Bugojno. Now, I'm interested in

21 knowing how they happened to go precisely to Bugojno and stay there. Can

22 you explain that to us?

23 A. Well, they didn't have anywhere else to go.

24 Q. And how did you learn about the fact that there was an area in

25 Bugojno where you could be accommodated? Did anyone tell you that?

Page 8155

1 A. Madam, nobody told us that, but since we spent a little time in

2 Celina, in Buturovic Polje, they told us there were room in Bugojno, so

3 most of the population went to Bugojno.

4 Q. Who told you that there was some room in Bugojno?

5 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Just one more question.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'm going to stop you there

7 because Mr. Coric has 10 minutes and Mr. Prlic has 10 minutes, or rather

8 their counsel, and we're not going to be able to get through that if you

9 continue with your questioning.

10 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] With the Court's indulgence, just

11 one more question with regard to accommodation in Bugojno.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] All right, the last question

13 then.

14 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

15 Q. Witness, did you ever hear about a concept which was relatively

16 frequently mentioned here and also in the documentation of international

17 organisations, the notion of exchange of --

18 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter didn't hear the other word.

19 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]

20 Q. What does that concept mean, what does the term mean?

21 A. Since the population was Croatian, came to Bugojno, the civilian

22 population, and took over the houses of Bosniaks in Prozor, then it was

23 assumed that there was room in Bugojno for Prozor Bosniaks since the

24 others were in our houses in Prozor.

25 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Witness. Thank you,

Page 8156

1 Your Honour.

2 Cross-examination by Ms. Tomasegovic Tomic:

3 Q. Good afternoon, madam. I'm not going to introduce myself. We

4 don't have time for that.

5 I'll start straight away. And I'll follow on from what my

6 colleague before me asked you, and I'm going to ask you this: Where were

7 you put up in Bugojno?

8 A. I was accommodated in a friend's house in Bugojno.

9 Q. And the friends were in that house, too, with you?

10 A. No. The friends had two houses and we lived in one of their

11 houses.

12 Q. Thank you. Tell me now, please, and I'd like to go back to your

13 statement, I'm sure you'll remember, and somebody already asked you that,

14 I think, of my colleagues, you gave in a statement to the OTP, the

15 investigators of the OTP on the 1st of June, 2002. You remember that, I'm

16 sure.

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. I'd like to read out something from that statement of yours now.

19 In the statement it says linked to the women that you interviewed, that's

20 what this is about, and in the statement it says the following: "At the

21 beginning of our conversation, I would tell them that I would take their

22 statement secretly, confidentially, and that their husbands and families

23 would not learn about the statement they had given."

24 Similarly, the statement says, reads: "None of the women that I

25 spoke to told me that they had filed a complaint with the authorities."

Page 8157

1 Is that correct?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Thank you very much.

4 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Could we briefly move into

5 private session, please.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar.

7 [Private session]

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 8158











11 Page 8158 redacted. Private session.















Page 8159

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 [Open session]

8 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] We're in open session,

9 Mr. President.

10 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation]

11 Q. Let's say did one of the roads lead through Gornji Vakuf to Jajce?

12 A. Well, believe me, I can't remember what the roads were like. I

13 know that they just said that they had come to help Jajce because Jajce

14 was under threat.

15 Q. Where is the road that leads to Jajce, madam? Does it pass

16 through Gornji Vakuf? You're from that area. You must know which area

17 the road passes through.

18 A. Well, I'm not sure where they were supposed to go. They all came

19 claiming that they had to go to Jajce, but believe me, I don't know which

20 road they used.

21 Q. I'm not asking you about their intentions. I'm asking you about

22 geography. Does the road for Jajce pass through Vakuf? Is Vakuf between

23 Prozor and Jajce? Let's put it that way.

24 A. No it isn't.

25 Q. Vakuf isn't between Prozor and Jajce. Have you heard of a place

Page 8160

1 called Karamustafic?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Where is it?

4 A. In Gornji Vakuf.

5 Q. Do you know whether there was a check-point of some kind in

6 Karamustafic?

7 A. I don't know.

8 Q. Do you know whether any of the troops in Prozor set off for Jajce?

9 A. I don't know. Believe me, I don't know whether they set off.

10 Q. You don't know.

11 A. I don't.

12 Q. Thank you. And my very last question: Perhaps you remember

13 having seen a photograph that you recognised today. It was a photograph

14 of Podgradje where you were accommodated.

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. I don't want to call up the photograph now, but in that photograph

17 can you see the location of the house you were accommodated in?

18 A. No, you can't see it.

19 Q. Can you see any houses in the vicinity of that house?

20 A. No. It was outside the frame of the photograph.

21 Q. Can you see the woods that you hid in in that photograph?

22 A. I just have to have a look.

23 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] It might be easier to see

24 that photograph again. P 0794. Perhaps we could have it on the screen

25 for everyone. P 0794. P 09 -- I see it's been incorrectly entered in the

Page 8161

1 transcript. That's the one.

2 Q. Can you see the woods in the photograph?

3 A. No. The part of the woods that we went to can't be seen here

4 because the house was down below. It can't be seen in this photograph.

5 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

6 I have no further questions.

7 JUDGE TRECHSEL: May I? Still on the picture and the location of

8 the house, was it to the left or to the right of the road one sees on the

9 left hand of the picture?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was to the left.

11 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, you have

13 10 minutes.

14 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Mr. President. I have a few questions.

15 Cross-examination by Mr. Karnavas:

16 Q. Good morning, madam. I want to touch upon a question that was

17 posed by my colleague, Ms. Alaburic, and I want to go into it a little bit

18 more.

19 MR. KARNAVAS: Perhaps we can go into I guess a private session?

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar.

21 [Private session]

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 8162











11 Page 8162-8167 redacted. Private session.















Page 8168

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 [Open session]

12 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] We're in open session,

13 Mr. President.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam, this concludes your

15 testimony. I'd like to thank you for having come to testify at the

16 request of the Prosecution in The Hague, and we wish you a safe trip home.

17 Don't move until we have lowered the blinds.

18 As far as the admission of documents is concerned into evidence on

19 the part of the Prosecution, does the Defence have any comments to make?

20 Mr. Kovacic -- or Ms. Alaburic.

21 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I object to two

22 documents that are tendered. The list of houses and vehicles, P 09376 and

23 P 00640. I believe that the witness was unable to confirm when the list

24 was compiled or who the author was, so I don't think it's a reliable

25 document.

Page 8169

1 I'd like to point out also that I'm not sure whether the

2 Prosecution intended to tender these documents.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Prosecution.

4 MS. EGELS: Yes, Your Honour. Just for the record, these two

5 exhibits have already been admitted on previous -- a previous session.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. That's what I

7 thought.

8 Tomorrow, the hearing will start at 9.00, and two witnesses will

9 be appearing.

10 Mr. Kovacic.

11 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, shall we be tendering

12 documents into evidence tomorrow for the witness Kljuic? However you

13 decide.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Well, the best would be to

15 deal with it tomorrow morning at the beginning of the hearing. We'll do

16 that tomorrow as soon as the hearing commences.

17 Thank you, and I will see you all tomorrow morning at 9.00.

18 [The witness withdrew]

19 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m.,

20 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 11th day

21 of October, 2006, at 9.00 a.m.