Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 29695

 1                           Monday, 23 June 2008

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness entered court]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 2.31 p.m.

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Registrar, please call

 7     the case.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Good afternoon, Your Honours.  This is case

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

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Madam Registrar.

11             Today is Monday, June the 23rd, 2008.  I'd like to greet the

12     witness who stayed over in The Hague during the weekend so that we can

13     resume the hearing today.  I thank him very much.

14             I'd like to greet the accused, their Defence counsel, as well as

15     all the OTP representatives and the people assisting us.

16             We are starting with a 15-minute delay because the Gotovina

17     Chamber was seized with a last-minute problem which took 15 minutes.

18     That's the reason why we're starting with a 15-minute delay.

19             I'd like to recall once again that when there are housekeeping or

20     procedural matters those are better raised at the beginning of the

21     hearing in order to avoid such problems.

22             I know that Mr. Karnavas has a problem to raise, so I'd like to

23     give the floor to him.

24             MR. KARNAVAS:  Good afternoon, Mr. President and Your Honours and

25     everyone in and around the courtroom.  I don't want to make a big deal or

Page 29696

 1     a federal case, as we would say, out of this, however, we received some

 2     new documentation from the Prosecution that they wish to put to the

 3     witness for this afternoon.  We received it as we came in to the

 4     courtroom.

 5             Now, I see no reason why this material could not have been

 6     provided to us earlier in the morning, either electronically, then

 7     physically for us to pick up, or physically and we have our staff over

 8     here working.  They could have come and picked it up.  But I do feel that

 9     I'm being sabotaged when I come into court and I receive a set of

10     documents which I haven't had a chance to read because I did spend the

11     time to read all the Prosecution's documents that they provided, all

12     three binders.  So I do read this stuff, and I would like to be as

13     prepared as possible.  So I would -- and I know that they're labouring

14     under extreme conditions, as we are, but to the extent it would be

15     possible in the future to avoid this or to at least let us know that

16     documents are coming and if they have the electronic versions to provide

17     those, I can glance through them.  I just want to be prepared.

18             And finally, we just received one more document, and it is not in

19     English.  I suspect they're not going to go through the entire document,

20     but again if they're only going to use one or two pages of it, it would

21     be nice for them to translate so folks like myself who don't read or

22     speak B/C/S can fully appreciate the content of what is going to be put

23     to the witness, and then I can do my follow-up research, if necessary,

24     for redirect.

25             Thank you.

Page 29697

 1             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Karnavas.

 2             Mr. Scott, would you like to respond?

 3             MR. SCOTT:  Briefly, Your Honour.  First of all, the material

 4     that was handed out was not as voluminous, although I grant Mr. Karnavas

 5     that probably this explanation wasn't given at the time it was handed

 6     out.  We did find over the weekend a couple of the transcripts a couple

 7     of pages had been left out, and when we were going to supplement that the

 8     decision was made by the trial support team that rather than hand out

 9     loose -- several different pages some of them -- some of the transcripts

10     were just copied again with the new page included.  So in at least

11     several of the instances it was simply a matter of including one or two

12     missing pages, but the rest of the material remain the same.

13             As to the document that's untranslated, Your Honour, we'd is

14     simply -- it's a document that we have found and just simply have not had

15     a chance to translate.  I had hoped we might get some or all of the

16     translation before court started this afternoon but unfortunately it

17     still has not been possible.  There are only small parts of the document

18     that I have provided in advance to the translation -- in particular the

19     Croatian B/C/S translation booth, so they can help us with the relevant

20     portions of it.

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

22             Mr. Karnavas, after this witness we will be hearing Zarko

23     Primorac.  In the 65 ter list he's scheduled three hours, and then we

24     were informed that you would need four hours.  Obviously, if you need

25     four hours with the following witness, we will not be able to finish with

Page 29698

 1     that -- with Mr. Primorac during the week, which means that Mr. Primorac

 2     will have to stay until next week.  Do you really need four hours, or

 3     could that be reduced to three hours as originally scheduled?  I know

 4     that there are 67 documents involved.

 5             MR. KARNAVAS:  Mr. President, Your Honours, we spent a lot of

 6     time over the weekend working with the gentleman.  I don't want to commit

 7     myself, but I believe I can do him in three hours.  My intention is to

 8     finish him by the end of this week.  That is our intension, and so I was

 9     going to ask -- I know we started a little bit late today, but I was

10     going to ask that if we would keep the procedural matters to a minimum,

11     of course I'm the recidivist around here, we could finish the gentleman

12     this week.  Thank you.

13             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Thank you.

14     Mr. Scott, according to our calculations you have four hours and 16

15     minutes left.  You have the floor now.

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

17                           WITNESS:  MILE AKMADZIC [Resumed]

18                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

19             MR. SCOTT:  Good afternoon Mr. President and Your Honours and all

20     those in and around the courtroom.

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

22        Q.   Good afternoon, Mr. Akmadzic.  I hope you had a reasonably

23     pleasant stay in The Hague since we last saw each other.

24        A.   I was going through the documents you had given to me.

25        Q.   Okay.

Page 29699

 1             MR. SCOTT:  If the witness could be handed, please, Exhibit --

 2     this is one of the loose exhibits that was just handed out a few minutes

 3     ago, in fact, 10509.  And indeed, Mr. President, this is the one that has

 4     not yet been translated, but I think we -- I will be inviting the

 5     assistance of the booths on a couple of -- on several passages, and I

 6     again regret that we don't have the translation, but simply could not get

 7     them completed prior to court, because this was a document that we were

 8     looking for at the end of last week.

 9        Q.   Sir, I put in front of you and you have the entire document, if

10     you will, in the gazette version, which of course is in Croatian or what

11     we call here Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian and these are the Rules of

12     Procedure, as I understand it, the Rules of Procedure of the BiH

13     Presidency as they existed or would have applied during the most relevant

14     periods of this case or at least at the end of 1992, early 1993.  And if

15     you could just look at those just long enough.  I'm going to ask -- I'm

16     going to direct your attention to particular sections in a moment but if

17     you could just look at that enough to just confirm what I've just said is

18     correct, that these are the rules of procedure of the Presidency.

19        A.   I have no reason to doubt it.  I didn't look at the rules of is

20     procedure from the Official Gazette.  I looked at it as a document.  It's

21     difficult for me to identify it like this.  However, as soon as you ask

22     me a specific question I'm sure that I'll be able to pin it down and

23     answer your question.  I assume these are the rules of procedure that

24     you're taking about.

25        Q.   Thank you very much, sir.  And for your assistance and the

Page 29700

 1     assistance of everyone in the courtroom I've asked to have attached to

 2     the back of the document, if you will, still in -- still in Croatian only

 3     or B/C/S only, but in large portions of the relevant sections so that

 4     perhaps it's easier for everyone to read, and I will be asking the

 5     assistance of the translation booth on these particular items.  So with

 6     that in mind, sir, if I can ask you to look -- and you can whichever you

 7     like, you can look in the gazette version or if you turn to the back you

 8     will find the enlarged excerpts.  If you would first of all go to Article

 9     8.

10             Do you have that, please?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   Now, I've been told that this has been provided to the B/C/S

13     booth.  Could we have an English translation of Article 8, please?  If

14     anyone is listening.

15             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Wouldn't it be simpler if the witness were asked

16     to read the article.

17             MR. SCOTT:  We can do that too Your Honour [overlapping

18     speakers].

19             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I think that's normal way.

20             MR. SCOTT:  In my experience we've done it both ways, but I'm

21     happy to do it that way.

22        Q.   Witness, if you could read, please, Article 8, so we could get a

23     translation of that.

24        A.   Before I read it there's one thing I'd like to say.  Regardless

25     of the fact that we've identified these rules, the real rules, the proper

Page 29701

 1     rules of the socialist Presidency of the Presidency of the Socialist

 2     Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina was drafted on the 20th or 23rd of

 3     December 1990, regardless of the fact that I was there at the time, I

 4     don't remember us ever making any amendments to the rules of procedure,

 5     and I'm about to read out the article that you've asked me to read.

 6             "The provisions of these rules of procedure shall apply in

 7     everything" --

 8        Q.   This is particularly being translated, so if you could be a bit

 9     slower, please.

10        A.   "The provisions of these rules of procedure shall be applied in

11     of all aspects to the work of the Presidency in the eventuality of a

12     state of war or in an imminent threat of war."

13        Q.   Could I ask you to next go to Article 10, and can you read

14     Article 10 for us, please.

15        A.   The heading reads:  "The exercising of the rights and duties of

16     members of the Presidency.  Members of the Presidency have a right and a

17     duty to attend the meetings of the Presidency and the meetings of the

18     working bodies of the Presidency of which they are members and to

19     participate in their work and in the decision-making process."

20             Paragraph 2:  "In the eventuality that a member of the Presidency

21     is unable to attend a meeting or for some reason must, during the course

22     of a meeting leave the meeting.  It is -- it is his responsibility to

23     inform about this in good time the president or the general secretary of

24     the Presidency."

25             Paragraph 3:  "In the exercise of their functions, members of the

Page 29702

 1     Presidency may participate in the working body of the Presidency of which

 2     they're not members, however, without the right to participate in the

 3     making of decisions."

 4             Next page, paragraph 4:  "If a member of the Presidency is absent

 5     from a meeting, it is his responsibility to familiarise himself with the

 6     matters discussed and voted on and must inform the president of the

 7     Presidency of his own position on the matters."

 8             That's Article 10.

 9        Q.   Thank you very much.  And if I could ask you next, please, to go

10     to Article 14.  Would you likewise read that for us, please.

11        A.   Article 14:  "The member of the Presidency who participates in

12     the work of certain bodies on behalf of the Presidency, or participates

13     in the work of certain organisations and communities, has a

14     responsibility to act in keeping with the powers, positions, and

15     directives of the Presidency, as well as to inform the Presidency of the

16     most important decisions and positions taken by those bodies,

17     organisations, or communities."

18             Paragraph 2:  "Whenever necessary, a member of the Presidency may

19     make a proposal for the Presidency to take a position on a certain matter

20     discussed by such bodies, organisations, or communities in whose work he

21     will be involved."

22             That was Article 14.

23        Q.   Thank you very much.  As to the first clause of Article 14, if

24     you will, can we properly understand the import of that particular rule,

25     sir, to be that for example if someone is a member of a political party

Page 29703

 1     or political organisation and also a member of the Presidency, the first

 2     duty or first responsibility of that person is to carry out his or her

 3     responsibilities as a member of the Presidency; is that correct?

 4        A.   A member of the Presidency may attend meetings of the working

 5     bodies -- or, rather, state bodies or organisations.  As for the

 6     discussion that takes place at these meetings of these bodies and

 7     organisations, as for any positions taken, this member of the of

 8     Presidency must then inform the president or the Presidency.  There is a

 9     reference here to the president as well, but it's the same thing in this

10     case, the president or the Presidency.  He must inform his own original

11     institution.

12        Q.   That's an answer to a part of my question, but there's a specific

13     earlier part.  As I -- as I read the first clause and it may -- we may be

14     about to lose it from the screen, but as I read the first clause does it

15     not say that the person if he's involved -- involved -- excuse me.  If

16     that person is involved with other organisations and communities, his or

17     her first responsibility is to act, and I'm quoting now at least as

18     translated, "to act in keeping with the powers, positions, and directives

19     of the Presidency"?  Correct?

20        A.   Yes, as long as he has been authorised by the Presidency and

21     whenever acting on behalf of the Presidency, which is something that the

22     Article makes perfectly clear.  Not on his own behalf but, rather, on

23     behalf of the Presidency.

24        Q.   And the second part as you read to us a moment ago was that not

25     only to act first and foremost in his responsibility to the Presidency

Page 29704

 1     but also inform the Presidency of these other activities; correct?

 2        A.   The member of the Presidency may make a proposal for the

 3     Presidency to take a position.  That's how it's expressed here.  "May

 4     make a proposal," which is not a commitment or a responsibility.

 5        Q.   All right.  If I can ask you then to go to Article 19, which is

 6     the topic that we have discussed extensively, and I think it's

 7     appropriate that the Chamber have this language in front of it.  And is

 8     the import of this particular language, I'll ask you to look at it, is

 9     this the provision that provides that the president of the Presidency is

10     elected for a term of one year and may serve two consecutive -- or two

11     terms consecutively?

12        A.   If you agree, I might as well go on and read paragraph 1 of

13     Article 19.

14        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ...

15        A.    "The president of the Presidency is elected by the Presidency

16     from among its members for a one-year term.  The president may again be

17     re-elected for another consecutive term of office."

18             Paragraph 2:  "As to the modality of electing the president of

19     the Presidency, this is something that is decided by the Presidency by a

20     majority vote of its members."

21             May I explain right away?

22        Q.   Yes, sir, briefly, please, because time is, as you know,

23     precious.  Please go ahead but please be precise.

24        A.   First of all let me say that the president is elected by the

25     Presidency.  This is unambiguous.  The next thing I wish to say is this:

Page 29705

 1     Will this be a public vote or a secret vote?  It's not specified here but

 2     that is the intention.  This is something that is for the Presidency to

 3     decide.  And the third thing, I believe the most important thing here, is

 4     that any president is elected for a one-year term and may only ever be

 5     elected for another consecutive term which means for another year.

 6        Q.   All right.  And you just mentioned a moment ago, too, that this

 7     was -- the election was done -- or the decision was made by majority

 8     vote; is that correct?

 9        A.   That's correct.

10        Q.   And as we discussed last week, if you recall, sir, your testimony

11     was, and can you confirm again, that that was true for decision-making by

12     the Presidency in general, that it was by majority vote?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   And in terms of these rules themselves, as you've explained last

15     week and again today, so the term of the Presidency, the one-year term

16     and the fact that the person -- the person can serve two terms as

17     president, that is not a function or creature, if you will, of the

18     constitutional law of Bosnia-Herzegovina but a matter of the procedural

19     rules of the president -- Presidency; correct?

20        A.   The rules of procedure of the Presidency do not run counter to

21     the constitution.  If that were the case, such rules could never have

22     been adopted to begin with.

23        Q.   And based on what we said a few moments ago, that decisions by

24     the Presidency were made by majority vote, can the Judges understand,

25     then, that these procedural rules could also be changed or amended by

Page 29706

 1     majority vote of the Presidency?

 2        A.   I don't know what exactly the last article says.  It might be

 3     that the very last part Article of these rules of procedure give --

 4     give --

 5        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ... you were in one capacity or

 6     another.  So isn't correct, sir, that the presidency had the ability to

 7     change these rules by a majority vote?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   Now, I would like you to look next, please, at P 1 --

10             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Excuse me, Mr. Scott.  We have heard several

11     times the term "majority," and at least where I come from but I think

12     generally one distinguishes two kinds of majority, a relative or a simple

13     majority and an absolute majority.  The absolute majority means that the

14     majority of all the members of a body must cast their vote into one

15     direction for the decision to be taken.  The normal majority means that

16     those who are present when the vote is taken are counted and more than

17     half of those must vote in favour.

18             Could you tell the Chamber whether when you speak of majority it

19     is an absolute or a relative majority that is to be thought of?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] According to the rules, and it's

21     been about 15 years since I last had a look, therefore it's very

22     difficult for me to remember specifically, when we say a majority in the

23     Presidency it means 4.  That's one thing.  The other thing is this:  We

24     have three peoples in our country and one must never forget that there

25     were three peoples represented in the Presidency.  There was a principle

Page 29707

 1     of harmonisation or coordination of votes, which meant that if a people,

 2     for example, opposed something regardless of the fact that the other two

 3     were in favour, then there would be a process of decision coordinating or

 4     harmonisation.  That was certainly a step that was taken whenever a

 5     situation like that occur.  This is a -- a practical thing.  I don't

 6     think it's reflected in the rules but we knew all about our mutual

 7     relationships were of a highly sensitive nature.  Whenever you have a

 8     community with several different ethnic groups, this is more or less a

 9     normal course of action to take.

10             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I thank you for the answer, but I must confess

11     that I have not understood what you refer to when speaking about this

12     harmonisation.

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This means that there would then be

14     special talks about this in order to see why the disagreement occurred in

15     the first place, and then this would pave the way, so to speak, for a

16     final majority decision to be reached.

17             MR. KARNAVAS:  Your Honour, I'm told that perhaps if the

18     gentleman could read Articles 45 and 46 it maybe of some assistance.

19             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Would you be so kind and follow this advice.  I

20     do not see anything -- any reason to object to that.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 5 says:  "Different ways to reach

22     decisions."  Article 45 reads:  "The Presidency takes decisions based on

23     coordinated or agreed positions voiced by its members.  Coordinating

24     positions is the basic principle on which the Presidency takes any

25     decisions."

Page 29708

 1             Paragraph 2:  "Whenever there is a matter on which there is no

 2     consensus, the Presidency shall decide the matter by a vote.  Decisions

 3     are taken by a majority vote of all the members of the Presidency."

 4             Paragraph 3:  "When considering matters in relation to the equal

 5     rights of the various peoples and ethnic groups which will be enshrined

 6     in the new constitution of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the

 7     Presidency makes decisions by consensus."

 8             That was Article 45.  Should I go ahead with Article 46

 9     immediately?

10             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Please.

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Article 46:  "The Presidency makes

12     decisions by a minimum of five votes of the members of the Presidency

13     along the following lines:

14             "1.  Confirms a proposal to make amendments to the constitution

15     of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

16             "2.  Passes laws by decree.

17             "3.  Considers matters on the implementation of agreed policies

18     in the areas of All People's Defence, state security, social

19     self-protection, and international cooperation.  Further, it makes

20     proposals to the Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and

21     Herzegovina on necessary measures for the implementation of those

22     policies.

23             "4.  Establishes a plan of the republic's defence, and in

24     relation to that provides appropriate guidelines in keeping with the law.

25             "5.  In keeping with the positions and proposals of the Assembly

Page 29709

 1     of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, considers any

 2     matters to do with the involvement of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia

 3     and Herzegovina in the establishing and implementation of the foreign

 4     policies of the Socialist Federative -- Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,

 5     the cooperation of the republic with other republics in terms of

 6     international cooperation within the framework of such foreign policies

 7     of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as have been agreed, as

 8     well as international agreements.

 9              "6.  It reviews matters to do with cooperation with the

10     Presidency of the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia, and with

11     the presence or presidencies of other republics.

12              "7.  Based on previous consultations with the republic it

13     proposes or nominates candidates for the president of the SRBiH

14     government and for heads of diplomatic missions, as well as Judges of the

15     Constitutional Court of Yugoslavia from the Socialist Republic of Bosnia

16     and Herzegovina, confirms nomination for president and Judges of the

17     constitution court of the B and H, and provides opinions on proposed

18     appointments or proposed dismissals of the commander of the republic's

19     Territorial Defence."

20             That was Article 45 as well as Article 46.

21             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you very much.

22             Excuse me, Mr. Scott.

23             MR. SCOTT:  Not at all, Your Honour.  Thank you.

24        Q.   Sir, if we could next go to Exhibit P 10496.

25             MR. SCOTT:  It maybe one of the loose -- I'm told it's one of the

Page 29710

 1     loose exhibits, Your Honour.  10496.

 2             If the usher could assist, please.

 3        Q.   If you have that, sir, please, if you can just confirm that this

 4     is a record of a meeting of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina on

 5     the 21st of December, 1992.  It appears to be recorded as the 178th

 6     session or meeting of the Presidency.  Do you see that?

 7             What did I say?

 8             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Eight.

 9             MR. SCOTT:  Then I have the wrong one then.  10496.  Maybe the

10     numbers have been reversed.  It's different from the numbers I was given.

11     Sorry.

12             MR. KHAN:  Your Honour, that exhibit appears to refer to meetings

13     held on the 22nd of December, unless I've got it wrong.

14             MR. SCOTT:  Sorry, Your Honour.  The numbers have been reversed

15     to the numbers that I was given.  My apologies to the Chamber.

16        Q.   If I can ask you then to look please at P 10467.

17             MR. SCOTT:  Yes, Your Honour.  Thank you.

18        Q.   10467.  And I apologise, sir.  That was our confusion.  But can

19     you confirm that that is a meeting of the 178th meeting of the Presidency

20     of Bosnia-Herzegovina on the 21st of December, 1992?

21        A.   Yes, that's correct.

22        Q.   And among other things we're not going to have time to go through

23     all of this document by any means, but if I can just ask you about a

24     couple of things.  Throughout this document and indeed some of the other

25     records around this time, is it fair to say, sir, that there was a

Page 29711

 1     continuing concern expressed both by Mr. Izetbegovic, by you, and by

 2     others with the repeat non-presence, the repeat non-participation of

 3     various members of the Presidency and the government?

 4        A.   I remember that.  On the basis reading this document, I cannot

 5     say anything, but I think that that's the way it is.

 6        Q.   Well, for example, on the first page, at least of the English

 7     version, but on the first intervention by Mr. Pejanovic, about halfway

 8     through that paragraph or indeed the second sentence, for example, he

 9     makes reference to the fact that there are people who haven't been -- who

10     haven't attended for up to four months.  You see that as one example?

11        A.   Yes, that's correct.  However, some people were absent on the

12     basis of a decision of the Presidency made at some previous session, and

13     they were not told when they should come back.  I think that on the basis

14     of what is written here the Presidency did indeed discuss that.

15        Q.   And continuing on into the document, and I'll try to assist you

16     by referring to the person speaking, on the third page of the English

17     version, but I believe the first instance of Mr. Ganic intervening,

18     Mr. Ganic says:  "Let's say a minister has been absent three or four

19     months.  Nobody at the ministry can do a thing because of the minister's

20     absence."  Do you see that?

21        A.   Yes, I see that.

22        Q.   Is it correct, sir, that the absence of officials was not only a

23     problem for the Presidency but also for the government?

24        A.   Yes, there was a problem, and it pertained primarily to the

25     Serbs.  However, as regards this statement of Mr. Ganic's, it did not

Page 29712

 1     refer to the government that I was in, because we know that my government

 2     was established practically at that time, and the minister could not be

 3     absent for three or four months when I talked to every one of them.

 4        Q.   Down below Mr. Ganic's intervention we have an intervention by

 5     you, and you say:  "I propose four ethnic Croatian candidates, the ones

 6     to be provided by the HDZ."

 7             Do you recall who those four candidates were?  Other than

 8     apparently Mr. Primorac, who's named.  Do you know who the other three

 9     were?

10        A.   At this moment I cannot remember, but Primorac at that time had

11     not been a candidate to be a member of the government.  Primorac was not

12     a member of the HDZ, and that's why I put him there.  In the previous

13     government and in this government not all Croats were members of the HDZ.

14        Q.   And --

15        A.   I know for instance that Martin Raguz was not a member of the

16     HDZ.  He was a liberal.

17        Q.   Sir, there will come times day I'll just have to tell you, and

18     without meaning to be discourteous to you, I will have to cut you off

19     because my time is very limited and we have to move very quickly, so

20     please bear with me.

21        A.   I agree.

22        Q.   Now, sir, do you remember, sir, and we'll come -- it's actually

23     mentioned later in the minutes, but do you recall that one of the four

24     individuals that you were nominating at that time was Bozo Rajic?

25        A.   Yes, that is correct.  He was minister of defence.

Page 29713

 1        Q.   And he was a member -- unlike Mr. -- for example, unlike

 2     Mr. Primorac, for example, he was a member of the HDZ; is that correct?

 3        A.   He was proposed by the HDZ, but I don't know whether he was a

 4     member of the HDZ.  I assume he was.

 5        Q.   All right.  That was actually my next question.  In terms of the

 6     candidates that were being put forward, who were put forward by the HDZ,

 7     as you said just now, do you know what process the HDZ followed to put

 8     forward its slate, if you will, of candidates for these positions?  And

 9     perhaps let me just go on and ask you as part two of that question, it

10     may be an integral part of your answer, and then secondly, how was that

11     decision of the party communicated to you?  How did you know to put

12     forward those four names?

13        A.   The principle was that first of all I was prime minister

14     designate.  In order to form a government I had to carry out broad-based

15     consultations.  First of all, I conducted these consultations with the

16     three winning parties.  In this specific case the SDS had left the

17     government, but some of its members stayed on.

18        Q.   All right.  My specific question to you, sir, please, again

19     please be very direct in your answer if you can assist me, if you will,

20     specifically the HDZ candidates, how were those persons selected, to your

21     knowledge, and how was that information communicated to you?  I'm not

22     asking about the Serbs.  I'm not asking about anybody else.  I'm talking

23     about specifically the four people whose names you put forward on behalf

24     of the HDZ.

25        A.   The HDZ made these proposals to me since there weren't any

Page 29714

 1     possibilities for having broad contacts.  The war was already there and

 2     the proposals I received were oral proposals over the telephone.

 3        Q.   All right.  Now, if you'll go down into -- further into the

 4     document where you will find another intervention by the President, and

 5     all I can say to the courtroom is that it's on page 8 of the English --

 6     excuse me, page 5 of the English version, but if you can go down, sir,

 7     where you can find intervention by the President where he mentions the

 8     name of Delimustafic, and I probably mispronounced that, and Mr. Abdic.

 9     If you can find that statement, sir.  And while you're looking for it and

10     to give you time, the president appears to say:  "If that's how it is,

11     then there are four men here who are not coming to work.  There are also

12     the two from the Muslim ranks who haven't come to work since August.

13     They don't even answer back, and they have nothing to do with the

14     government.  They don't even call."

15             And then we have Mr. Delimustafic and Abdic.  "This should change

16     in the case of criteria and the people who don't come to work.  Not like,

17     I mean, ethnic structure stays the same."  Then you respond:  "There are

18     others also who are not coming to work."

19             But you had mentioned a few moments ago that it was primarily the

20     Serbs, but you see in fact that Mr. Izetbegovic himself mentions two

21     Muslims members that were not participating in the Presidency?

22        A.   Yes.  One of the reasons why Mr. Delimustafic did not join the

23     government that I had formed was that reason.  Mr. Abdic was a member of

24     the Presidency, so he could not be refused or reconfirmed.

25        Q.   Now, finally I think for this purpose if you can go to -- in the

Page 29715

 1     English version it would be on page 6.  If you can find another

 2     intervention by the president, sir, where he says:  "I would leave the

 3     deputy arrangement for tomorrow or the day after.  Let's stay with the

 4     four ministers.  Let's have some criteria.  Let's appoint these five

 5     ministers.  Should Brkic be on hold for a while.  He hasn't been coming

 6     to work for a while.  I don't know why."  Et cetera.

 7             These five persons are persons that Izetbegovic wanted to move

 8     forward on, did they include the four that you had put forward?

 9        A.   I don't think so.

10        Q.   All right.  Do you know which of the five, then, that

11     Mr. Izetbegovic wanted to move forward with that wasn't including your

12     four?

13        A.   I cannot remember exactly, but I specified the names of the all

14     the ministers on this government with Mr. Izetbegovic, and they were

15     elected unanimously.

16        Q.   Now, if we could then go to - hopefully this time we have it

17     correct - P 10496, which should and record of a meeting -- a meeting of

18     the Presidency the following day, the 179th session.  And on the first

19     page or -- well, it would be page 2 not counting the cover pages, page 1,

20     and that should be loose.  That document is loose.  I assume people have

21     found it by now.

22             There was apparently only one item on the agenda that day and

23     that was "Review of the proposed programme of the RBiH government."  Do

24     you see that?

25        A.   Yes, I've found it.

Page 29716

 1        Q.   And -- and I can represent to you, sir, in the interests of time

 2     and those who are reviewing can review the document, will again I'm sure

 3     correct me if I'm wrong, but throughout this document there is again

 4     repeat statements of concern about members of the government, members of

 5     the Presidency, who were not attending, who were not fulfilling their

 6     responsibilities.  Do you have any reason to disagree with that?

 7        A.   I agree with that assertion, but there was a war going on.  Some

 8     people went elsewhere, and other people are very frightened to live under

 9     shells in Sarajevo.  Both reasons are quite important, especially for

10     some people.

11        Q.   All right.  I believe your first intervention in this -- recorded

12     in this meeting is on page 4 of the English version, but if you look

13     down, I think it will be the first time you see your name, and you're

14     quite firm about this, sir.  You say:  "I will not propose into this

15     government a single person who is absent unjustifiably, and no one will

16     travel for whom the government did not put forward."  Is that correct?

17        A.   Yes.  That's what I said, and I repeat that my government was

18     accepted unanimously.

19        Q.   Now, if you'll skip down to several other interventions by you,

20     you will come to an intervention.  It's on page 6 of the English version,

21     about the middle of the page.  Mr. Zarko Primorac comes up again and you

22     say:  "Zarko Primorac is not in Sarajevo now for three months."  So I'm

23     curious.  Did you make an exception for Mr. Primorac as someone who could

24     be in the government despite the fact that he had not been present for

25     some substantial period of time, or did you consider Mr. Primorac to be

Page 29717

 1     disqualified?

 2        A.   Mr. Primorac was not in my government.  I talked to him.  I

 3     proposed to him that he become Minister of Finance.  He was not willing

 4     to accept that, and therefore he was no longer a candidate.

 5        Q.   Very well.  But above that on the same page there's a statement

 6     attributed to a man named Filipovic, and about half -- I'm going to skip

 7     the first sentence or two, and Mr. Filipovic represented a group, the

 8     opposition parties, if you will, is that correct?

 9        A.   He was one opposition party.  I can't give you the exact name,

10     but it was a Muslim party.

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, please.

12             MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I do apologise, but we

13     want to have the page still on the screen for those who cannot follow,

14     and line 7, page 22, what is recorded is that the witness said -- said

15     "Yes, that's what I said, but I repeat my government had been accepted

16     unanimously."  In the original, in the Croatian, he said, "I repeat that

17     my government accepted that unanimously," namely that proposal that only

18     persons who are not absent can join the government, those who are not

19     absent on account of unacceptable reasons.  So this is a meaningful

20     difference and perhaps it should be corrected right away.

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, you confirm what

22     Mr. Kovacic just said?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, basically I can confirm both.

24     I can confirm that, and I can also confirm that my government was indeed

25     elected unanimously.  I don't know what I said out of the two, but both

Page 29718

 1     are correct.

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott.

 3             MR. SCOTT:  Thank you, Mr. President.  Thank you, Counsel, for

 4     clarification.

 5        Q.   Just on that point, sir, before we forget and move on.  When you

 6     say your government was unanimously approved, when is it you say your

 7     government was formed, as of when?

 8        A.   I cannot give the exact date.  The government was formed around

 9     that time.  I was elected on the 10th of November.

10        Q.   Okay.  Well, let's -- if we can do a little bit better or at

11     least clarify.  So when you say "around that time," do you mean in

12     December 1992, January 1993?  There's a statement in fact on that point,

13     in this same record, and -- I believe, let me just make sure, maybe it

14     was the previous document, sir.  Excuse me a moment.  I think it was

15     maybe the previous document, sir, but one of the things that

16     Mr. Izetbegovic says, at one point, I believe it was the previous

17     document, he says:  "Forming the government would take at least three

18     months," which if that was the case it would have taken until February,

19     March of 1993.  Does that assist you in refreshing your memory about when

20     that might have been?

21        A.   No.  We establish the government before the new year.

22        Q.   All right.  Let's go back to Mr. Filipovic, because in the first

23     page of the actual comments not including the cover page, Mr. Izetbegovic

24     introduced in the meeting said that a request had come in.  Something had

25     been submitted just immediately prior to the meeting.  It's in the fourth

Page 29719

 1     paragraph under the word "Izetbegovic."  It says:  "In fact it's signed

 2     by Filipovic, et cetera.  In fact, a submission of the united BiH

 3     opposition."  And then below that it -- Filipovic says:  "Yes.  I would

 4     like to give an explanation about that. " But in the interest of time,

 5     sir, would like to then direct your attention back to -- toward the end

 6     of the document, on page 6 of the English version, not the last

 7     intervention by Mr. Filipovic but I think the third from last, in that

 8     paragraph he says:  "We should not accept the rule which was here openly

 9     proposed, the rule of monopoly of the national parties to represent the

10     people.  That we shall not accept.  Here it was proposed that that and

11     that party have the exclusive right to propose not only the members and

12     delegate the government members -- and delegate the government members

13     and their Presidency members but even ambassadors.  And you concretely

14     have proposed a replacement of the HDZ members as the party

15     vice-president, members, et cetera."

16             And is it correct, sir, that what Mr. Filipovic and the other

17     opposition parties were complaining about or raising issues about is it

18     should not be just to the national parties, that is the HDZ, the SDA, to

19     have say in these matters but all other parties, including minority

20     parties, including members of the opposition, should also be able to

21     participate in that process?  Correct?

22        A.   Yes.  You certainly know how the opposition functions.

23     Mr. Filipovic was opposition, and there were three parties that were in

24     power and they did not want to let opposition take over.

25        Q.   And there were, in fact, some smaller parties, for example, and

Page 29720

 1     parts -- in some parts of the HDZ which may not have agreed with the

 2     HDZ's actions or slate of candidates, for example; is that correct?

 3        A.   Well, that is certainly possible, but it is a matter for the

 4     political parties involved, not the Presidency.  The Presidency

 5     functions, and the government functions on the basis of the majority that

 6     did exist.

 7        Q.   Now, let me move forward but staying on the general topic of

 8     process, if you will, since we've been told and understand that

 9     throughout this period the assembly, the Bosnia-Herzegovina Assembly was

10     not meeting, generally, during this time, and you confirmed that at

11     several points last week when I went back to your testimony.  Since the

12     Assembly was not generally in session and you say that you became prime

13     minister around the 10th of November, 1992, by what process were you

14     named or appointed prime minister?

15        A.   The first criterion was for the prime minister to be a Croat,

16     because that was a rule.  The Assembly, the Presidency, and the

17     government were always to be led by someone from a different ethnic

18     group.  The chairman of the Assembly was a Serb.

19        Q.   Let me stop -- let me stop you there for a moment, sir.  Excuse

20     me.  Let's take it a bit -- bit by bit.  So when you say that was rule

21     that in this instance, for example, that the prime minister be a Croat,

22     was this a written rule?  Could we find that in the rules of procedure of

23     the Presidency that we looked at a few minutes ago or was it more like it

24     was an understanding, kind of a political understanding?

25        A.   No.  That was the principle in Bosnia-Herzegovina.  I didn't say

Page 29721

 1     the prime minister had to be a Croat.  I said that either the prime

 2     minister or the president of the Presidency or the chairman of the

 3     Assembly had to be a Croat.  Three different ethnic groups, and to each

 4     of these belonged one of the three key positions in the country.

 5             In this specific case - my apologies - the president of the

 6     Presidency was a Muslim, the chairman of the Assembly was a Serb.  There

 7     was a political agreement in place and this was the established practice

 8     as well, and I think even the constitution and nothing else provides for

 9     this.  It's based on the equal rights of all the three ethnic groups and

10     the contusion clearly says that this must be the way it's done.

11        Q.   Well, you've now said in the last couple of sentences of the

12     record several different things.  It started out being a rule, then it

13     was a principle, and it maybe translation, I'm not -- then it was a

14     political agreement, then it was established practice, and then it was in

15     the constitution.  So can you give us a better idea of which one of those

16     it was?

17        A.   It was a principle of rotation at the very top level of the

18     government.  This rotation took -- had been taking place since --

19        Q.   [Overlapping speakers]

20        A.   -- had been taken place since 1974 when it came to the

21     Presidency.

22        Q.   I apologise to the interpretation.  Sir, again sometimes I'm

23     waiting for the interpretation, and that's why there maybe silence in the

24     courtroom, but that does not always mean that I'm inviting further --

25     further comment.

Page 29722

 1        A.   [In English] Okay.  Okay.

 2        Q.   But let me again, sir, and I understand that, and you've again

 3     said, Well, this was the principle of rotation.  But where would we find

 4     that?  Again, was it just custom and practice?  Or it was down in a rule

 5     somewhere?  Was it in the constitution or not?  What is the source of

 6     this practice or principle, please?

 7        A.   I can't confirm what you're asking me to confirm, but this was a

 8     golden rule in Bosnia-Herzegovina.  It never crossed anyone's mind at any

 9     point in time to try to change that or even to doubt the principle.  I'm

10     talking about the period before this.  I'm not talking about the war.

11        Q.   Let's go back and apply that specifically to your situation and

12     my original question on this topic.  By what process, then, were you name

13     prime minister?  Did someone go -- did someone field -- for example I'm

14     not saying this is your answer, I'm trying to give you some concreteness,

15     if I can say that, if you say in this instance it should be a Croat, did

16     someone go to the HDZ?  Did someone go to some Croat party and say, Who

17     do you name?  Who should be prime minister?  Please tell the Judges

18     how -- by what process were you put forward and then confirmed as prime

19     minister?

20        A.   I was nominated by the HDZ, one of the three winning parties.

21     The winning Croat party.  Next I talked to the president of the

22     Presidency, who then places this on the agenda, and then the Presidency

23     discusses it.  The Presidency nominates me for a term of office, and the

24     Presidency, on behalf of the Assembly, appoints me and bestows upon me

25     the right to be the prime minister.

Page 29723

 1        Q.   Now, was that the process because that, as you said a few moments

 2     ago, you were operating in wartime conditions or in peacetime?  If the

 3     Assembly had been -- had been meeting would the process have been

 4     different?

 5        A.   The only thing that would have been different is the Assembly

 6     would have taken that decision, and here it was the Presidency taking

 7     that decision on behalf of the Assembly.  The extended Presidency, if you

 8     like, or the War Presidency.

 9        Q.   So in reality, sir, because of the wartime conditions a number

10     adjustments had been made in the processes followed by the Presidency;

11     correct?

12        A.   Yes, but the adjustments were not to be contrary to the

13     contusion.  Neither the Assembly nor the Presidency had the power to make

14     any changes to the constitution.

15        Q.   Could I ask you, please, to look next at 1D 01939.  It should be

16     in one of the binders.  Binder 3.  1D 01939, and I hope we can take this

17     quite quickly.

18             Sir, this appears to be a record of meetings of the Presidency --

19     a meeting of the Presidency on the 21st and 22nd of June, 1993, and for

20     present purposes I just want to direct your attention immediately to

21     paragraph number 6, and it says:  "The Presidency by majority vote did

22     not agree to the proposal that Presidents Izetbegovic and Ganic travel to

23     Sarajevo."  Do you see that?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   And can we take this as an example and can you confirm that even

Page 29724

 1     by the summer of 1993 the Presidency was continuing to function on the

 2     basis of majority vote?

 3        A.   Well, yes.  Whenever it met, that was principle for their

 4     decision-making, and that's precisely what the rules of procedure say.

 5        Q.   All right.  I would like to turn now to the next topic.  And that

 6     is the formation of the Croatian Defence Council, the HVO as an armed

 7     forces.  We've discussed last week, sir, the creation of the new

 8     Territorial Defence.  When I say "new," I'm not talking about the

 9     Territorial Defence as it exist under the former Yugoslavia, which was

10     related to and ultimately controlled by the JNA but the new Territorial

11     Defence of the new State of Bosnia-Herzegovina.  You recall talking about

12     that, don't you?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   And that was -- we saw -- once again we looked at the minutes of

15     actions by the Presidency on the 8th and 9th of April, 1992, and I would

16     like for you to look, please -- excuse me a moment.  If I could ask you

17     to look, please, at Exhibit  P 00151, which should be in the first

18     binder.  Do you have that, sir?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   Now, hold your finger there, please, and for everyone we're

21     coming right to it, but before I ask you about that document let me --

22     let me remind you of something that you said in the Kordic case, as we --

23     as a further introduction to this topic if you will, and for counsel I'm

24     referring to page 20436 of the Kordic transcripts on the 6th of June

25     2000, 20436.

Page 29725

 1             You testified at that time, sir, and I'm going to read it to you,

 2     please listen:  "The HVO is an armed force that fought against the common

 3     enemy.  The Presidency believed that all armed forces fighting against

 4     aggression are legal and are involved in the state structures for

 5     protecting the state.  This is also the police.  Those are the customs

 6     offices and all other bodies.  They are even companies that manufacture

 7     war equipment.  So in that sense the total structure of the defence of

 8     the country..."  and I'm -- just to be clear I'm injecting the country of

 9     Bosnia-Herzegovina.  "... includes the HVO as well."

10             Do you confirm and agree with that prior testimony in the Kordic

11     case?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   Now, in Exhibit --

14        A.   My apologies.  There's something that I would like to say.  I

15     went through the documents.  There are quite a number of errors there,

16     despite which I entirely agree with my own testimony in the Kordic case.

17        Q.   Thank you, sir.  Now, looking now directly at Exhibit P 011 --

18     excuse me, a moment.  151.  Excuse me.  This is a decision apparently

19     made by Mate Boban on the -- also on the 8th of April, 1992, the same day

20     as one of the meetings of the BiH presidents that we've now looked at

21     several times, and on the 8th of April, 1992, Mr. Boban as president of

22     the HVO and the HZ HB establishes the Croatian Defence Council as it says

23     here as the "supreme defence body of the Croatian people in the Croatian

24     Community of Herceg-Bosna."

25             Now, do you recall when the creation of the HVO in this way first

Page 29726

 1     came to your attention?

 2        A.   It was soon after.  It wasn't the same day, because I was in

 3     Sarajevo, and because the communication channels were not operating, but

 4     I was aware of it at the time, and we placed this on the Presidency's

 5     agenda.

 6        Q.   And I would next ask you to go to P 00154, which I hope might be

 7     the very next document, but certainly in binder 1.  This is a bit longer

 8     document.  It appears to be on the same general topic, dated the 10th of

 9     April, 1992.  And if you'll look at the second paragraph of the document,

10     sir, in fact Mr. Boban even makes explicit reference to the action of the

11     Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina adopted on 8 April 1992, and at the end

12     of that same paragraph Mr. Boban says:  "As a result of all this the

13     Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna does not accept the compromised TO as

14     its military structure."

15             Now, did that information also come to your attention around that

16     same time as the other item apparently did?

17        A.   I must say that I haven't seen this before.  Nevertheless, you're

18     quite right when you say that he does not accept the TO.  He does not

19     accept -- Mr. Boban does not accept the untransformed TO that is still

20     receiving orders.

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas.

22             MR. KARNAVAS:  Yes.  I just wanted to point out, Your Honour,

23     that in order to fully understand that as a result this is not accepted,

24     we must look at the previous sentence, or I would ask that the gentleman

25     look at the entire paragraph thoroughly, particularly the previous

Page 29727

 1     sentence where it says, "Even now it speaks sufficiently loudly about the

 2     tragedy of the Croatian people and places from Ravno, Neum, and Kupres to

 3     Mostar."  And I think it -- so we need to look at that in context.

 4             MR. KOVACIC:  Your Honour, if I -- [Interpretation] If I may, I

 5     think there's been an oversight.  In these questions, there is a

 6     suggestion being made there that's just not true.  Line 3, at least in

 7     the Croatian version, but I think in English, too, it's line 3, there's a

 8     explicit reference here to the former TO, the one that up until that

 9     point in time had been operating as being in the service of the

10     Serbo-Chetnik armada and so on and so forth.  It wasn't about to TO that

11     was soon to emerge as an entirely new force.  This is the TO of the

12     Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.  This is an obvious

13     misunderstanding.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said "untransformed," and that is

15     precisely what I had in mind, but Boban is here talking about the

16     Territorial Defence still receiving orders from Belgrade which means from

17     the previous period, and he certainly wasn't talking about this newly

18     established TO.

19             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Thank you for this

20     clarification.  Mr. Scott, you may proceed.  It's almost time for the

21     break.

22             MR. SCOTT:  How long do you want to -- until how long, Your

23     Honour, do you want to go?  It doesn't matter to me.

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We can go on until 4.00.

25             MR. SCOTT:  All right.  Thank you, Your Honour, Your Honour.

Page 29728

 1             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I know that the cafeteria

 2     closes just before 4.00.  Oh, 5.00 I'm informed.  So you can proceed

 3     until 4.00.

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

 5        Q.   Sir, I appreciate all the assistance that we've been given.  I

 6     simply read the document to you as stated, but the document nonetheless

 7     goes on to say below the all in capital letters "Croatian Defence

 8     Council" in the middle of the page, Mr. Boban says:  "We'll have

 9     exclusive Supreme Command of these forces.  This body is the only legal

10     one and it's name is the only official one."  And then the last paragraph

11     over Mr. Boban's name:  "All other military formations on the territory

12     of the HZ of Herceg-Bosna are either illegal or enemy formations."  Do

13     you see that?

14        A.   Yes, I see that, and I think this is also about the former JNA

15     and the paramilitary units that emerged from it later on.

16        Q.   Isn't it correct, sir, is that the reason -- one of the reasons

17     that Mr. Boban referred to the action of the Presidency dated the 8th of

18     April, 1992, was to also to reject that action then and to continue

19     rejecting it thereafter, that it was not -- would not be recognised on

20     the territory of Herceg-Bosna?

21        A.   I think whether the BH army would be recognised in Herceg-Bosna

22     was never something that was questioned, and the same applied the other

23     way around.

24        Q.   Well, we'll let the document speak for itself, but if you can

25     look next at 5D 04271.  It should also be in the last binder.  5D 04271.

Page 29729

 1             Sir, this appears to be an order by Mate Boban, dated the 10th of

 2     April, 1992, the same day, and I would put it to you, sir, that this

 3     appears to be implementing the former decision, order, that we looked at

 4     a moment ago, Mr. Boban ordering that all Crisis Staffs, all former TO

 5     staffs shall be renamed immediately Municipal Staffs of the Croatian

 6     Defence Council.  Correct?

 7        A.   Yes.  Likewise, in Sarajevo the TO staffs, the all TO staffs were

 8     being renamed.  Again this is in reference to the old TO, which was

 9     Yugoslav in nature.

10        Q.   Well, is there some distinction being made that you can tell us

11     about in this document by Mr. Boban between those parts of the TO, the

12     new TO which were under the command of the -- the Presidency of

13     Bosnia-Herzegovina and those new TOs that were under the command of the

14     HVO?

15        A.   I think this was a brief period.  It's the 10th of April that

16     we're looking at, isn't it?  Therefore, this is two-day period where one

17     simply knew, and it was implicitly recognised that the reference was to

18     the old TO and not the new one.

19        Q.   If you can look next, and I apologise for again switching around

20     in binders, but I believe we'll be in the first binder for a few minutes

21     after this.  If we can go to P 00195, the first binder.  P 00195.

22             Sir, this is a -- appears to be an order by General --

23     colonel-general as described here, and Ante Roso, on behalf of the

24     Croatian Defence Council Main Staff dated the 8th of May, 1992, and the

25     item number 1 is "The only thing legal military units in the territory of

Page 29730

 1     the HZ HB are units of the HVO."

 2             Now, we've jumped a month forward.  You said a moment ago that

 3     this was something that -- well, it may have been the case for a day or

 4     two or two days, but you confirm, sir, that this was a continuing

 5     implementation of Mr. Boban's order that only the HVO were legal military

 6     units on the territory of the so-called Herceg-Bosna?

 7        A.   I don't think I can give evidence about letters that someone else

 8     wrote in areas in which I was not physically present at the time.

 9        Q.   Well, did you know, sir, around this time, as someone who was

10     involved in the Presidency during this time, if not prime minister or

11     someone who had been involved in at that body for a long time, as someone

12     who a few months later became a vice-president of the HDZ, as someone who

13     became the prime minister of this country, that it was the continuing

14     position of the HVO throughout this time that it was the only legal armed

15     force on the territory of Herceg-Bosna?

16             MR. KARNAVAS:  Excuse me, is this a statement or is this a

17     question?  Is he putting this to the witness?

18             MR. SCOTT:  Yes.

19             MR. KARNAVAS:  Okay.  Then put it to the witness as a question --

20             MR. SCOTT:  I just did.

21        Q.   "Did you know, sir, around this time," there's a question mark at

22     the end of the sentence if you'll notice.  Did you know?

23        A.   The 8th of May, 1992, I was the General-Secretary of the

24     Presidency.  I was not a political figure, and I was not vice-president

25     of the HDZ.  At the time I was not aware of this, nor indeed was I

Page 29731

 1     supposed to be aware of this, nor indeed would I have been under any

 2     obligation to be aware of this.

 3        Q.   Did you ever become aware around this time when you became prime

 4     minister, for example, or when you became vice-president of the HDZ, that

 5     this had been and was the policy of the HVO?

 6             MR. KARNAVAS:  Again I'm going to object to the form of the

 7     question.  He is not putting it.  If he puts it to the witness he can

 8     say, "I put to you that this is what I believe to be the policy.  What do

 9     you think?"  Instead he's putting it as if it is a fact that has already

10     been established as a part of the evidence.  It is not fact.  It is his

11     case.  It's argumentative.  It can be argumentative as long as it is put

12     in a -- is phrased in a proper manner.  He can put it to the witness as

13     part of a cross-examination but not as an established fact in this

14     courtroom.

15             MR. SCOTT:  Your Honour, my question is a fair question.  He can

16     either say yes or no, I didn't know, it was not, I disagree.  I'm just

17     simply asking him what he knew, what he became aware of --

18             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I think, Mr. Scott, that the objection is

19     justified and you should reformulate.

20             MR. SCOTT:  All right, Your Honour.

21        Q.   Sir, I put it to you, if that will assist, that it was in fact

22     the policy of the HVO throughout this time period, from 1992 into 1993,

23     that the HVO was the only legal armed force that could operate on the

24     territory of Herceg-Bosna.  Isn't that the case?

25        A.   You're putting to me, sir, that is the case, and I'm putting to

Page 29732

 1     you, sir, that that is not the case.  The HVO was not the only recognised

 2     force.  When the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which comprised

 3     Croats, which comprised members of the HDZ, accepted and agreed a

 4     decision for the armed forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina to comprise the

 5     BH army, the Croatian Defence Council, and as was said at the time, other

 6     defence forces as well.

 7        Q.   Let me ask you to look at P 00200.

 8             MR. SCOTT:  Perhaps we can finish this one, Your Honour, before

 9     taking the break.

10        Q.   P 00200.  It should be very close to the document we were just

11     looking at.  There is an order by Tihomir Blaskic dated the 11th of May,

12     1992, again repeating, number one:  "The only legal military units in the

13     area of Kiseljak municipality are HVO units."

14             Did you never see any orders like that, sir, or did those items

15     never come up in discussion among the senior leadership of the HDZ or the

16     HVO or Herceg-Bosna?

17        A.   As far as I remember, this was never discussed at the Presidency.

18     My answer to you is the same as in relation to the previous paper, which

19     means that the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, based on my

20     recollection, never questioned this.  As far as I know, it never even

21     reviewed these matters.

22        Q.   Sir, perhaps there's been a misunderstanding.  I'm not asking you

23     the position of the Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina but the -- the

24     policy and position of the Croatian Defence Council and the entity called

25     Herceg-Bosna.  Wasn't the position of those bodies throughout this

Page 29733

 1     period, as stated here, that the only legal military units operating on

 2     the territory of the so-called Herceg-Bosna, the only legal military

 3     units for the HVO?

 4        A.   First of all, given the point in time we're talking about, I

 5     would question Herceg-Bosna as an entity.  At least it wasn't an entity

 6     in the sense that it is today within the framework of Bosnia and

 7     Herzegovina.

 8             Secondly, the HVO was a legal armed force, a legal army,

 9     recognised by the BH Presidency.  It was only a matter of time before a

10     joint command was set up.  Eventually one was.

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, you're on your

12     feet?

13             THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would ask

14     you to ask the witness to read item 4.  Once we've seen that it will

15     become perfectly obvious what the reference is to when we talk about

16     what's legal and what sort of groups and grouplets were working alongside

17     those that were acting independently and what the reference was to when

18     one was saying that those groups should be placed under control.  Thank

19     you.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have the English in front of me.

21     All right.  I have it in B/C/S as well.  Paragraph 4:  "I forbid the

22     establishment of private military units.  Persons who do not obey this

23     order or fail to carry it out," and I can't see what it says.

24             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreters note:  What the witness has

25     just read makes no sense in B/C/S, therefore we cannot interpret.

Page 29734

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Item 5:  "By this order, all orders

 2     of the TO commander are rendered invalid, and the same is in these areas

 3     considered illegal."

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I think we'll have a break.

 5     It's five after 4.00, and we will resume in 20 minutes.

 6                           --- Recess taken at 4.05 p.m.

 7                           --- On resuming at 4.26 p.m.

 8             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, you have the floor.

 9             MR. SCOTT:

10        Q.   Sir, would I like you to look next, please, in the first binder

11     at P 00157.  P 00157, article in Vjesnik, or reported Vjesnik dated 11 of

12     April 1992, the title or the headline being "Lumped together in the same

13     basket."  And for the English speakers I'd like to go to the top of the

14     second page of the translation.  And, sir, if you could find the second

15     paragraph from the bottom of the article, second paragraph from the

16     bottom, and then above that right immediately in the preceding paragraph

17     from the second from the bottom is what I'm talking about.  It says:

18     "Also because the decision of the Presidency of B and H has lumped us

19     together in the same basket with all other military and paramilitary

20     organisations and forces existing on the soil of B and H."

21             It goes on to say in the next paragraph:  "Asked whether that

22     meant that the Main Staff of the Croatian defence could not accept the

23     decision of the Presidency of B and H of its being put under the command

24     of the Territorial Defence of B and H, Boban stated, 'At this point in

25     time, certainly not?'"

Page 29735

 1             Did you become -- were you aware of that statement by Mr. Boban

 2     as reported in Vjesnik around this time.  Either the statement -- if not

 3     the specific statement, the position?

 4        A.   Well, I was not aware of it, but let me try and explain his

 5     position if that's necessary.

 6        Q.   No thank you.  My question to you was simply if you were aware of

 7     that statement or position.  If you weren't, then you weren't.

 8             Can I ask you, please, to look next at -- in the third binder

 9     1D 00970.  1D 00970.  Third binder.

10             Sir, in that document this refers -- this is an announcement by

11     the Jablanica Municipal Assembly Crisis Staff, dated the 6th of May,

12     1992, and appears to indicate an effort by Jablanica municipality to

13     unify its defence system into a single armed force consisting of, as

14     stated here, Territorial Defence forces, the Croatian Defence Council,

15     the Green Berets, and all others who wish to place themselves under the

16     unified command of the Territorial Defence headquarters in Jablanica."

17             Now, as someone involved in the Presidency meetings around this

18     time and as later a member of the Presidency, did you become aware or

19     were you aware that there were in fact various municipalities or

20     organisations who or which, as directed by the decision of the Presidency

21     dated the 8th of April, 1992, were attempting to bring all armed forces

22     under a single unified command, including the HVO?

23        A.   Well, I don't remember this, but the establishment of joint

24     commands was a continuous process.  A lot of argument -- a lot of

25     agreements were signed to that effect, but that process only ended

Page 29736

 1     sometime towards the end of the war.

 2        Q.   Can you look at Exhibit -- in the first binder, binder number 1,

 3     Exhibit P 00377.  Binder -- sorry, I'm told it's binder 2.  Excuse me.

 4     Binder 2.  My apology.

 5             Sir, it appears to me looking over your shoulder, so to speak,

 6     that you have that.  This appears to be an order by brigadier Milivoj

 7     Petkovic, dated the 10th of August, 1992.  Item number 1:  "You are to

 8     use all available HVO civilian and military police forces to prevent any

 9     military units other than the HVO from entering your area of

10     responsibility."

11             Can you provide any insight to the Chamber applying the military

12     units of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which by this time were the

13     ABiH, why they would be kept out, off the territory of Bosnia and

14     Herzegovina by the HVO?

15             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I object to this

16     question, because it is never stated in this order that this was indeed

17     an order that relates to the BH army, because at that time the army set

18     up by the BH government was already labelled that.

19             If we look at the municipalities where this order was sent to, we

20     can see that it was in Livno, Tomislavgrad, Posusje, and so on.  These

21     are the municipalities with an overwhelming Croatian majority.  These are

22     municipalities where there were no BH army units at all.  So there is a

23     presumption implicit in my learned friend Mr. Scott's question that has

24     not been proven yet.  So in order to clarify this order, perhaps it would

25     be best for Mr. Scott to ascertain whether there were any other units

Page 29737

 1     present in those municipalities called the HOS, for instance, or to see

 2     in some other way what was the basis for this order.  But at any rate, I

 3     object to the assumption being made here that this order pertained to the

 4     BH army.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Judges will consult.

 6                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Trial Chamber has

 8     deliberated and thinks that Mr. Scott is entitled to ask this question.

 9             Mr. Scott, you may put your question.

10             MR. SCOTT:  Thank you, Your Honour.

11        Q.   Sir, can you provide any assistance the Chamber in explaining why

12     the HVO, and why in particular General Petkovic, would issue an order on

13     the 10th of August, 1992?  And the word used is "any," I'll leave the

14     word to speak for itself, any units of the HVO, to prevent any other

15     military units, any including the ABiH from entering territory claimed to

16     be under the command of the HVO?  Can you assist us with that or do you

17     not know?

18        A.   Well, I can't really comment on it.  I'm not a person who is

19     supposed to provide commentary of other people's letters, but let me

20     repeat once again that the BH army and the HVO did not exclude each

21     other.  And I can confirm that there were many paramilitary units,

22     private armies.  And I can confirm what Mr. Izetbegovic stated at the

23     beginning of the war, so before this time, that there will be many

24     private, small-scale wars fought within this war.  I think that the

25     HVO --

Page 29738

 1        Q.   I'm going to have to cut you off, sir, and I apologise for that,

 2     but we need to move forward.  I would like for you to look at Exhibit

 3     P 10481.  It should be in binder 3.  P 10481.

 4             If you will turn to -- in the English version it will be page 9.

 5     For the -- what is titled a Joint Statement over the names of Tudjman and

 6     Izetbegovic.  And if you can find that document, sir.  Six numbered items

 7     in the Croatian version.

 8             Sir, in paragraph 3 of that document in the second sentence it

 9     says -- and perhaps if -- I can simply read it to you and you can tell me

10     if you can confirm that or not or what comment you care to make about it.

11     "The Republic of Croatia also supports the efforts of the legal

12     government and the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina to consolidate

13     the defence of the republic by uniting all forms and components of armed

14     defence to the unified armed forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina under the

15     superior command of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina."

16             Do you understand that to be an accurate statement?

17        A.   Yes.  Well, I can't see the signature of President Tudjman, but I

18     think that this is correct, and it is fine.

19        Q.   And if I can just quickly ask you because the question of the

20     signatures has come up before, if I can ask you to look also at -- in the

21     same binder 3 a Defence exhibit, 5D 00064.  And if you have that, sir.

22     If I can just quickly, please, direct your attention again to paragraph

23     number 3.  This appears to be another version reporting what appears to

24     be the identical information, this time on Zagreb Radio Croatia Network

25     on the 15th of June, 1992, and do you see item 3 makes the same statement

Page 29739

 1     as the one we looked at a moment ago?

 2        A.   Yes, I can see that.

 3        Q.   Now, would I like to move forward, please, to -- also in the

 4     same -- in binder number 3.  If you can look at Exhibit P 10190.  10190.

 5     It should be the first document in binder 3.

 6             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

 7     I have yet to hear the question that Mr. Scott wants to ask, but I object

 8     to this document being shown to the witness for the same reason that I

 9     have already expressed when Mr. Sancevic testified here.  This document

10     has already been exhibited.  It's admitted into evidence.  It's been

11     shown to the witness whose name I will not utter.  He was a protected

12     witness, but he was the person best placed to answer questions about this

13     document.  It pertains to topics that were not raised in the

14     examination-in-chief, at least as far as we're able to ascertain on the

15     basis of the contents of the document, and I really cannot fathom what

16     connection could be established between the contents of this document and

17     the testimony of the witness so far and the cross-examination by

18     Mr. Scott.  At any rate, this is already an exhibit.

19             Thank you very much.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, Mr. Coric's Defence

21     is saying that this document has already been admitted, and secondly that

22     it doesn't see the connection between the examination-in-chief, this

23     document and what you have in mind.  So could you tell us exactly what

24     you want to elicit from this?

25             MR. SCOTT:  I would like the witness to confirm, Your Honour, a

Page 29740

 1     certain individual that's mentioned in the document his role and to

 2     confirm that something stated in the document is accurate, and that is

 3     the involvement of Mr. Brkic.  I think Mr. Brkic's involvement in these

 4     matters has come up, has been raised, and it goes to the topic of --

 5     again the same topic that we've been on, among others, and that is the

 6     place of the HVO in the -- in or not in the armed forces of

 7     Bosnia-Herzegovina and the recognition or non-recognition of

 8     Herceg-Bosna.  It's directly relevant to matters that have been discussed

 9     with this witness so far.

10             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I do

11     apologise, but the person by the name of Brkic is not mentioned in this

12     document that we have under this number.

13             MR. SCOTT:  Well, perhaps -- if I've misspoken, Your Honour,

14     maybe there's a misunderstanding.  I'm talking about P 10190 and as I see

15     his name is mentioned a number of times.

16             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  There must and error, Mr. Scott.

17             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] No, this is --

18             MR. SCOTT:  All right.  Sorry, Your Honours.  It's been -- my

19     apologies to the Chamber.  The number's been -- the document has been

20     mismarked.  Perhaps Ms. Winner can assist is me in identifying the

21     document.

22             While that's happening perhaps we can hopefully not lose too much

23     time.

24        Q.   Who -- the name Mr. Brkic has come up several times in fact, I

25     believe, including today, Mr. Miljenko Brkic.  Who was Mr. Brkic in 1992,

Page 29741

 1     and what position, if any, did he hold in any party or political

 2     organisation?

 3        A.   Miljenko Brkic is a Croat politician from Sarajevo.  He is

 4     originally from Herzegovina, if that's the person we're talking about.

 5     He teaches at the university, and for a while he was the president of the

 6     HDZ.

 7             MR. SCOTT:  I'm told, Your Honours, again with my apology, that

 8     the proper document is P 10490.  P 10490, which still should be in the

 9     third binder.

10             MR. KARNAVAS:  And, Your Honours, I'm told that the gentleman

11     indicated that Mr. Brkic was acting president.  It doesn't reflect that

12     in the transcript.  Not president but acting president of the HVO.  And

13     maybe we can get a confirmation from the witness.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Brkic was the acting president

15     of the HDZ BiH.

16             MR. SCOTT:

17        Q.   And in fact, can you confirm in looking at 1 -- P 10490 that it

18     was at a meeting of the HDZ on the 15th of March, 1992, in Bugojno that

19     Mr. Brkic was elected as the acting president of the HDZ BiH?

20        A.   Well, I did not attend this meeting, but if he was elected, then

21     he was elected.  I can't see where the problem is.

22        Q.   I didn't suggest there was, sir.  I'm just asking if you can

23     confirm -- you confirm then that he was as of spring 1992, then, is it

24     correct, that he was acting president of the HDZ BiH?  We're in agreement

25     on that then?

Page 29742

 1        A.   Yes, we are.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  The document is -- includes the name not only of

 3     Mr. Boban but also the name of Mr. Kostroman, who I'm not sure the

 4     Chamber has heard much about before.  Can you tell the Judges, if you

 5     know, what position did Mr. Kostroman hold at that time, and what was his

 6     function in the party and in Herceg-Bosna during this time period, the

 7     middle of -- spring and middle of 1992?

 8        A.   I know Mr. Kostroman personally.  I don't know what position in

 9     the party he held at this time.

10        Q.   It's described here as the executive secretary and member of the

11     Main Board.  Does that seem right to you, or do you have any reason to

12     quarrel with that?

13        A.   It is quite possible.  I was in Sarajevo, which was under siege,

14     so I wasn't really in contact with the party, but I have no particular

15     reason to contest this.

16        Q.   Would you then go to -- and it will be in the first binder,

17     Exhibit P 00312.  P 00312.  These are the records of a meeting on the --

18     in particular we look in the second paragraph on the page, on the first

19     page, on the 5th of July, 1992, involving Mr. Tudjman and others.

20             If I can ask you, please, to look at the second page.  I believe

21     it will be in both the English and the Croatian versions.  I believe it's

22     the first intervention attributed to Mr. Brkic.

23             In the second or third paragraph -- the third paragraph, I

24     believe, it appears to indicate under Mr. Brkic's intervention, he goes

25     on to say:  "What is Herceg-Bosna?  What kind of association is it?  And

Page 29743

 1     Posavina, and Central Bosnia also need to be clarified.  What is their

 2     relationship with the state as whole, what is the HVO?  Is this an army

 3     or a civilian structure, and what is the scope of its authority?  This

 4     has not been clarified sufficiently.  The HVO has suspended regular

 5     civilian authority and even the HDZ."

 6             Skipping two paragraphs he goes on to say:  "The HDZ party has

 7     adopted conclusions and paid tribute to the HVO for what it has done so

 8     far, especially regarding free territories.  However, the HDZ does not

 9     agree with the suspension of civilian authority."

10             Skipping a paragraph, Mr. Brkic says:  "By establishing an office

11     in Herceg-Bosna, it provokes a reaction and dilemmas about dual authority

12     and which authority should be obeyed.  I must say that some people from

13     Zagreb have been mediating in this, and that I doubt their good

14     intentions -- and that I doubt their good intentions."

15             Now, around this time, mid-1992, do you have any knowledge of

16     Mr. Brkic's views on this topic as stated in this record?

17        A.   Well, I think that they put Mr. Brkic -- or, rather, what

18     Mr. Brkic is saying, it's of organisational nature, not political nature.

19     What he means to say is that the Croatian Defence Council should --

20     should have a completely separate civilian and military segment.

21             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreters note:  The answer was not very

22     clear.

23             MR. SCOTT:

24        Q.   One of the statements that I just read to you is a statement by

25     Mr. Brkic that the HDZ does not agree with the suspension of civilian

Page 29744

 1     authority.  Did you understand Mr. Brkic to have that view?

 2        A.   Well, it's possible that it was his personal view, but his

 3     statement is erroneous that the HDZ did not agree with it.  Perhaps he

 4     himself did not agree with this, but the HDZ obviously did agree with

 5     this.

 6        Q.   If I can -- well, Mr. Brkic, sir, at the time was the acting

 7     president of the HDZ; correct?  You told us a few moments ago.

 8        A.   Well, I have to say here that the acting president of the HDZ and

 9     the president of the HDZ is not the same thing.  These posts do not have

10     the same authority.  The acting president is there only ad interim, as we

11     would say, and the president of the HDZ has powers vested in him in

12     accordance with the statute that are much broader than the ones that the

13     acting president has.

14        Q.   And the president of the HDZ during this time, by the way, that

15     was Stjepan Kljuic; correct?

16        A.   The president of the HDZ used to be Stjepan Kljuic, but at this

17     time when Miljenko Brkic was the acting president of the HDZ, Mr. Kljuic

18     was not the president of the party.

19        Q.   Sir, I'll put it to you that the very reason, and we looked --

20     that's why we showed you -- one of the reasons I showed you the minutes

21     of the HDZ meeting in March a few minutes ago, one of the reasons that

22     the HDZ leadership appointed Mr. Brkic as acting president, signed by

23     Mr. Boban and Mr. Kostroman, was that in position and title Mr. Kljuic

24     would remain the president during this time and there was a big fight

25     going on with Mr. Kljuic, wasn't there, and they couldn't get him to

Page 29745

 1     resign, so they named Mr. Brkic as the acting president; correct?

 2        A.   I have to admit that I did not attend those meetings.  The

 3     interpretation of this text is different, but at any rate, in theoretical

 4     and practical terms, if Mr. Brkic was the acting president, then Kljuic

 5     was not the president.

 6        Q.   All right.  We won't debate that any longer.  There will be

 7     other -- there's other evidence on that point, in fact.

 8             Can you look, please, at page 3.  There's an intervention by

 9     Mr. -- someone named V. Baric, and Mr. Baric says:  "I think that the

10     very establishment of the HVO was a good thing, but in those places in

11     which the Muslims are in a majority, they do not recognise this because

12     this is a quiet taking over of power."

13             Did you know Mr. Baric?

14        A.   Not Mr. Baric, Mr. Barac, if that is who you mean.

15        Q.   Well, did you know a person by the name V Barac?

16        A.   Barac, B-A-R-A-C.

17        Q.   Did you know a person by the name of V -- first name apparently,

18     V Barac.

19        A.   Yes, I knew him.  Not well, but I did know him.

20        Q.   What position did he hold in July of 1992?

21        A.   He was in the party.  I think he's from Zenica.  I don't know

22     what he was in the party.

23        Q.   When you say "in the party," do you mean the HDZ?

24        A.   I mean the HDZ, yes.

25        Q.   And if you go to page 8 of the document, there is an intervention

Page 29746

 1     by Mr. P. Juric, and Mr. Juric says:  "As regards the conclusions, it is

 2     my view that by recognising BH, the legitimately elected authorities in

 3     BH should be recognised."

 4             Skipping a paragraph he then goes on to say:  "It is necessary to

 5     clarify somewhat more the activities of Herceg-Bosna, who is financing

 6     this and under whose sponsorship it is being done."

 7             What position did Mr. Juric hold, if you know, during this time

 8     of July 1992?

 9        A.   I must admit that I don't know Mr. Juric.  Therefore, I don't

10     know whether he was in the party and at what position.

11        Q.   Did you come to know around this time, sir, that Mr. Boban was

12     having increasing conflict with the leadership of the HDZ party at that

13     time, including Mr. Brkic, people like Jure Pelivan, people like

14     Mr. Barac, people like Mr. Juric?  These were people that didn't

15     accept -- they were in the HDZ, and they did not accept the views of

16     Mr. Boban and others.  Isn't that correct?

17        A.   At that time I was not active in the party.  I had my

18     professional job at the Presidency, and I really can not state my views

19     on this.  However, I can state my views as follows:  Mr. Boban, at a

20     meeting of the Assembly of the party when he was elected president, he

21     was chosen in a very legal way and with a great majority.  It wasn't

22     exactly unanimous but there was an overwhelming majority, for sure.

23     So --

24        Q.   And when was that, sir?

25        A.   The time that I'm talking about is the time which is -- well, I

Page 29747

 1     think October 1992.

 2        Q.   All right.  Well, I think we have that document, sir.  We can get

 3     to that, but let's move forward on my questions at this particular point,

 4     please.  And if time allows, we may get to that document.

 5             During this time Mr. Boban became very annoyed at Mr. Brkic, the

 6     people like Mr. Brkic, Mr. Pelivan, and others; correct?

 7        A.   I don't know about Brkic but I cannot say that about Pelivan.  He

 8     wasn't very active in the party so I don't know why Mr. Boban would be

 9     annoyed at him.  Don't know whether Pelivan was a member of the party at

10     all.

11        Q.   Can I ask you to look at page 8 of the document, but in any

12     event, I believe it will be -- if it's not page 8 in the Croatian

13     version, sir, if you can please -- I believe it's the first intervention

14     by someone by the name of Vukojevic.  And I believe it's Vice Vukojevic.

15     Can you tell the Judges who Mr. Vukojevic was and what role if any he

16     played at that time in these events?

17        A.   Mr. Vukojevic is a gentleman who originally hails from

18     Herzegovina.  At that time lived in Zagreb.  He lived -- he would come to

19     Herzegovina.  He was a member of the Croatian parliament.  And I don't

20     know whether he finished his career this way or not, but he was at any

21     rate a Judge on the Constitutional Court of Croatia.

22        Q.   And do you know why he Mr. Vukojevic would attend a meeting with

23     President Tudjman with various leadership of the HDZ from

24     Bosnia-Herzegovina?

25        A.   I can just give you my opinion.  I did not attend -- I did not

Page 29748

 1     invite him to meetings.  I don't know whether he did attend the meetings

 2     that I attended, but I think that what is of relevance is his origins.

 3             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter cannot hear the witness because

 4     of background noise.

 5             MR. SCOTT:  My apology.  It was probably my fault.

 6        Q.   Sir, are you saying that because the man was from -- was from

 7     Herzegovina that entitled him to attend a president -- a meeting with

 8     President Tudjman and the Bosnian Croat leadership?

 9        A.   I assume that that is the case, that he was invited in that

10     sense, because he was familiar with the subject matter of Croats in

11     Bosnia-Herzegovina.  I've already said that I don't know the reasons why

12     he was asked and who invited him.  I can just make an assumption, but I

13     don't know the specific reason.

14        Q.   Isn't it correct, sir, that Mr. Vukojevic was one of the

15     confidantes of President Tudjman, that together with Mr. Susak was one of

16     the persons most directly involved in the matters involving Herceg-Bosna?

17        A.   President Tudjman and Mr. Vukojevic, I'm not aware of their

18     relationship and what it was like, so whatever you are saying is your own

19     words.  It is not any recognition on my part.

20        Q.   Going to page 7 of the document, again to Mr. Brkic, there's a

21     reference to an intervention by Mr. Brkic on the topic -- he says,

22     "...the attitude towards the BH government."  And he says, "If you

23     recognise BH it is logical to recognise the government."  Do you --

24        A.   I'm sorry, I can't find it.  Mr. Brkic; right.  Oh, yes, I have

25     found it, yes, yes.

Page 29749

 1        Q.   If says:  "If you recognise BH, it is logical to recognise the

 2     government."  Is that a true statement, an accurate statement?  That is

 3     the substance of it?  I don't mean -- do you see that he makes it.  Do

 4     you agree with the content of that statement and the position expressed

 5     that if one was to recognise Bosnia-Herzegovina as a sovereign,

 6     independent state, it is logical to follow from that that you recognise

 7     the government of that state, or did you have a different view?

 8        A.   First of all, in the Croatian text what is stated is that there

 9     is a recognition of authority.  Authority is not only the government.

10     That is a far broader concept than the government as such.  So I assume

11     that Mr. Brkic is saying here if the BH is being recognised, it is

12     logical to recognise the government or authority.  That is only natural.

13        Q.   At page 10 of the document above -- if you can find first as a

14     landmark, if you will, above as part of the page where it says

15     "Conclusions," there are some statements attributed to Mr. Manolic.  And

16     it says:  "Mr. Manolic maintains that Mr. Brkic and Mr. Boban should show

17     more restraint their communication and should consult each other as much

18     as possible.  They should meet more often and solve problems.  The HDZ

19     party is above the HVO and the civilian authorities.  Transitional organs

20     of power can be established where the authorities have been destroyed.

21     Legally elected authorities must not be disturbed.  The HVO cannot be in

22     charge of the civilian authorities."

23             Were you ever aware of that position being taken or expressed by

24     Mr. Manolic?  Because there were occasions where you were in meetings

25     with Mr. Manolic; correct?

Page 29750

 1        A.   I did attend some meetings, and I can explain what this was all

 2     about.  Some people thought, Mr. Manolic included, that wherever war

 3     conditions allowed the government elected by the people could and should

 4     function, that is to say through deputies in the BH Assembly.  I think

 5     that this is a position within the HVO as was also taken by the

 6     Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina, that when there was a state of war and

 7     an imminent threat of war assemblies cannot be held of the legal organs

 8     of the government and then the HVO replaces them just like in Sarajevo

 9     the government replaced the Assembly.

10        Q.   Well, the difference being the members of the Presidency were

11     elected to those positions, at least most of them, as we discussed last

12     week, whereas the members of the HVO were not elected; correct?  And if

13     you can point me, sir, to any time that there was an election held in the

14     territory claimed by Herceg-Bosna during the time 1992, 1993, in which

15     any persons were elected to the HVO government, please -- please tell us

16     when that happened?

17        A.   I cannot talk about that.  I don't know how the HVO functioned.

18     I don't know that in any detail.  But I know that Herceg-Bosna was

19     established -- or, rather, those deputies who won the largest number of

20     votes in their respective municipalities established it.  I am referring

21     to the elections for the parliament of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

22        Q.   It was the -- if I can have the assistance of the usher.  This is

23     one of your statements in the testimony in Kordic I would like to put to

24     you.  Hopefully the ELMO is working today.  Put that on the ELMO, please.

25     This comes from the page -- the transcript in Kordic 20434, line 19.  If

Page 29751

 1     you can enlarge that perhaps a little bit, please.

 2             Sir, you testified in the Kordic case:  "The general position of

 3     the Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina was that the establishment of the

 4     HVO was quite legal, and that the establishment of the Community of

 5     Municipalities of Eastern Bosnia and the establishment of the Croat

 6     community of Herceg-Bosna was illegal."

 7             Correct?

 8        A.   Yes, but I was talking about the positions within the Presidency.

 9     However, the Presidency itself did not make such a decision.

10        Q.   Sir, that was your testimony under oath in the Kordic case

11     correct, that the general position of the Presidency in Bosnia and

12     Herzegovina, you didn't say any individuals, you said the Presidency, was

13     that the establishment of the Croat community of Herceg-Bosna was

14     illegal; correct?

15        A.   I wish to say once again that general positions taken by the

16     Presidency are not one and the same thing.  This is a conversation within

17     the Presidency that was not turned into conclusions of the Presidency.

18     That was my testimony.

19        Q.   I'd like you to next go, please, in the first binder, it should

20     be the last document in binder 1, P 00336.

21             Sir, this is a record of a meeting a few weeks later after the

22     meeting that we looked at a moment ago with Mr. Brkic and others on the

23     5th -- excuse me, I believe on the 12th -- no, on the 5th of July, 1992.

24     This is on the 21st of July, 1992, and there are just a few similar

25     statements made in this record that I would like to ask you about.  If

Page 29752

 1     you can turn, please, sir, the pages in this document should be identical

 2     in either the English or the Croatian versions.  So if I tell you page

 3     59, for example, you should be able to find -- it should be the same page

 4     59 in both versions.  And indeed I would like you to turn to page 59.

 5        A.   I am going to look at the English version like the one that you

 6     have, because I can't really find this.

 7        Q.   It's up to you, sir.  As I said, the pages should be identical in

 8     the Croatian version as well.

 9             Sir, on page -- starting on page 59 there are statements by

10     President Tudjman.  He refers to Mr. Izetbegovic and then he says:  "That

11     the both -- that both delegations agree that the status of the Croatian

12     people in Bosnia-Herzegovina should be on the basis of three constitutive

13     units in Bosnia-Herzegovina," that is the first thing.  Then going over

14     to page 60, and second that "the defence forces of the Croatian Defence

15     Council are considered to be an integral part of the defence forces of

16     Bosnia-Herzegovina and that they are to be represented in the command,

17     the joint command of Bosnia and Herzegovina."

18             Do you see that, please?

19        A.   Yes, I see that.

20        Q.   And go down page -- down page 60 to Mr. Izetbegovic,

21     Mr. Izetbegovic says:  "The second thing is not only acceptable but it is

22     also necessary and of course desirable in all ways, the second being the

23     reference to the HVO as an integral part of the Defence forces of

24     Bosnia-Herzegovina."  Then Mr. Izetbegovic goes on to say:  "As for the

25     first thing, we wouldn't want to prejudice that issue."  Do you see that?

Page 29753

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   And did you know that to be -- both of these statements to be

 3     consistent with the position taken by Mr. Izetbegovic during this time,

 4     mid-1992, on both of those topics; that is, that he did indeed recognise

 5     the HVO as an integral part of the -- excuse me, of the defence forces of

 6     Bosnia-Herzegovina and that on the other hand did not accept at this

 7     time, at least in this meeting, the division of Bosnia into three

 8     separate ethnic states?  Correct?

 9        A.   At any rate it is correct that Mr. Izetbegovic recognised the

10     HVO, and it is correct that it -- that he recognised the three

11     constituent peoples.

12             As for three ethic units, he was very suspicious about that.

13     Ultimately he accepted that, too, but it never happened.

14        Q.   Did you ever know anyone named -- involved in maybe higher levels

15     of the Croatian government or the HVO or the HDZ called Mr. Milan

16     Gromiljak?

17        A.   Yes, I knew the gentleman.  He was deputy prime minister of

18     Croatia.  Originally he also hailed from Bosnia-Herzegovina.  That is

19     what I wish to say.

20        Q.   If I can ask you to go to page 150 -- 152 of the record, of the

21     transcript.  Page 152.  And Mr. Ramljak says on this page he's talking

22     about again some of the organisational matters referring to the people --

23     the dialogue with the people from the Croatian Defence Council, and

24     that's the main subject here, the armed component is to be put

25     immediately under the command.  Then while he goes on to -- while this

Page 29754

 1     component is getting adjusted as the circumstances allow.

 2             Now, did you understand during this time, sir, that it was the

 3     position of Mr. Izetbegovic that while he recognised the HVO as an

 4     integral part of the armed forces of the State of Bosnia-Herzegovina,

 5     that was only so to the extent that it subordinated itself to a unified

 6     command of the State of Bosnia-Herzegovina; correct?

 7        A.   I think that the word that you used, "subordinate," is not

 8     appropriate.  The appropriate term there would be that all armed forces

 9     be subordinated to a Joint Command that would have as its Supreme

10     Commander the Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

11        Q.   Well, that's exactly my question to you, sir.  An armed forces,

12     it was legal -- Mr. Izetbegovic accepted the legitimacy or legality of

13     the HVO so far as it recognised and put itself under the command of the

14     BiH Presidency; correct?

15        A.   No.  He recognised the HVO without any further assumptions or

16     without pre-judging anything, and further assumptions -- or, rather,

17     requirements are agreements on a Joint Command.

18        Q.   Well, sir, perhaps we misunderstood each other, but a moment ago

19     you testified on page 59 that "the appropriate term there would be all

20     armed forces would be subordinated to a Joint Command that would have as

21     its Supreme Commander of the Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina"; correct?

22        A.   Yes, sir, but you are asking me questions in different ways, and

23     I cannot answer them all the same way.  It is correct that

24     Mr. Izetbegovic recognised the HVO.  Well, not Mr. Izetbegovic.  It's not

25     his affair, but it was the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina that did,

Page 29755

 1     recognised the Presidency, recognised the HVO as one of the segments of

 2     the armed forces of the BH.  It is correct that talks were under way in

 3     order to establish and a Joint Command between the HVO and the BH army.

 4     It is also correct that in that case the Presidency of Bosnia and

 5     Herzegovina would be the Supreme Commander of the armed forces as

 6     enshrined in the constitution.

 7             What I'm saying here is the Presidency with its full legitimacy.

 8     However, this is not what we are discussing at this very moment.

 9        Q.   If you will go then to page 144 of the record, transcript.  On

10     the bottom of that page we have again an intervention by the same

11     Mr. Miljenko Brkic.  "Mr. President, when the HVO appears as a military

12     structure, then the Muslims and Croats are united, but at the moment when

13     the HVO appears as a civilian structure, then the Muslims don't accept it

14     in the entire area of the central Bosnia-Herzegovina."

15             Again, did you understand that and going back to the previous

16     document that we were looking at, did you understand that to be the

17     position of Mr. Brkic, the acting president of the HVO BiH at this time,

18     that while the HVO was accepted as a military structure to the extent

19     that it was subordinate to the BiH Presidency, it did not accept the HVO

20     as a civilian authority?

21        A.   Yes.  Obviously that's what Mr. Brkic stated here by way of his

22     own position.

23        Q.   Would you go, please, to page 149 of the transcript.  This is a

24     continuing discussion.  People can look at previous pages if they wish,

25     148 and following, of the nature and character of the HVO as a civilian

Page 29756

 1     government.  At the top of page 149 Izetbegovic refers to -- talks

 2     something called its civilian government, and do you see in the middle of

 3     that page that Mr. Pelivan says:  "This will not pass in the government.

 4     I know the members of the government."  Tudjman:  "It won't pass in which

 5     government?  Pelivan:  "In the government of Bosnia and Herzegovina."

 6     Wasn't Mr. Pelivan making it very clear to this government together with

 7     Mr. Izetbegovic that the government of Bosnia-Herzegovina would not

 8     accept a position recognising Herceg-Bosna as a political authority -- or

 9     civilian authority in parallel to the BiH state?

10        A.   What I have to say here is my own view, that the civilian

11     authority of the HVO is not parallel.  It is not parallel.

12        Q.   That's not my question, and you have to answer my question at

13     this point, please, if you can.  If you don't know, say you don't know.

14             Wasn't it the position of Mr. Pelivan and Mr. Izetbegovic, as

15     expressed in this meeting, and was it familiar -- was it a point known to

16     you at the time that there was a rejection of the HVO as a civilian or

17     governmental authority as opposed to, as distinct from, the HVO as a

18     military component of the armed forces of Bosnia-Herzegovina?  I'm not

19     asking your personal views, sir.  I'm asking were you aware of the fact

20     that Mr. Pelivan and Mr. Izetbegovic took that -- those positions during

21     the middle of 1992?

22        A.   There is also what Mr. Pelivan is assuming here.  So he's

23     assuming, and I can assume too.  Mr. Pelivan said this will not get

24     through the government.  I know what the composition of the government

25     is.  He didn't say this was the adopted by the government.

Page 29757

 1        Q.   Sir, Mr. Pelivan was the prime minister in July -- of

 2     Bosnia-Herzegovina in July 1992; correct?  He was the prime minister

 3     before you.  And Mr. Pelivan is the prime minister of Bosnia-Herzegovina

 4     was making it very clear to Tudjman and all those present that the

 5     acceptance of Herceg-Bosna as a legal or legitimate political or civilian

 6     government would not be accepted, was not acceptable; correct?

 7        A.   If I'm not mistaken, this has to do with the civilian part of the

 8     HVO.  Mr. Pelivan -- well, I have to say this.  Mr. Pelivan said, "I know

 9     what the composition of the government is like."  That is to say that the

10     Muslim members of the government prevailed, had a majority in the

11     government.

12        Q.   That's speculation on your part, sir.  I'm simply asking you

13     whether what Mr. Pelivan -- excuse me.  I don't think that's appropriate

14     at all.

15             MR. KOVACIC:  Your Honour --

16             MR. SCOTT:

17        Q.   Sir, what Mr. Pelivan said was this would not be accepted by the

18     government, and then on page 150 -- in the middle of page 50 he goes on

19     to say, "The fact is that this may cause disapproval on the other side.

20     Serbs will also request to have their government."  And the meaning I put

21     it to you, sir, that if this was -- if the legitimacy of Herceg-Bosna was

22     recognised, then it would be no difference in recognising the Serb entity

23     as equally legitimate; correct?

24        A.   That is the position of Mr. Pelivan.  I don't want to go into

25     that debate.

Page 29758

 1             MR. KARNAVAS:  Your Honours, if you are going to -- if we are

 2     going to stay with this topic, I also suggest that the gentleman be given

 3     an opportunity to look at page 151 where Dr. Franjo Tudjman voices his

 4     opinion in the context of this entire discussion and that's what we're

 5     having.  We're having a discussion here and I think it's -- but frankly I

 6     think we're asking the gentleman to opine about a situation where he

 7     wasn't a participate to the events.

 8             MR. SCOTT:  Mr. President, two responses to that.  As to looking

 9     at the entire -- the rest of the transcript, the entire transcript is

10     admitted into evidence and of course the Chamber has that in front of.

11     If Mr. Karnavas would like to pursue it on redirect, certainly he can do

12     that.

13             Secondly, this is a man who was involved in one capacity or

14     another in the most senior levels of the government and Presidency of

15     Bosnia-Herzegovina.  I am putting to him what I suggest, what I submit to

16     the Court, are fundamental positions of the parties during this time,

17     fundamental positions.  And if Mr. -- I don't know if he's telling us

18     this, I haven't heard him say this myself I don't think, but if

19     Mr. Akmadzic is telling us that he had no knowledge about the respective

20     positions of various parties to these ongoing negotiations, then I would

21     question his entire foundation of his evidence.

22             MR. KARNAVAS:  Your Honour.  Your Honour, I don't want to prolong

23     the situation.  Obviously Mr. Scott was not listening to the direct

24     examination.  He was rather clear about what the positions were of the

25     respective parties, Mr. Izetbegovic, Silajdzic, all those who are

Page 29759

 1     participating on the Muslim side, the Croat side, the Serb side.  So I

 2     don't know why we're attacking the credibility of the witness at this

 3     point.  Now he's asking him to give an opinion about what Mr. Pelivan

 4     thought.  Those were Mr. Pelivan's opinions and we can read them.  But I

 5     don't know what's trying to accomplish with this cross-examination.

 6        Q.   I'm trying to get him to confirm, Your Honour, and I think I'm

 7     entitled to attempt to do so, that contrary to the difference in what

 8     Mr. Karnavas just said and the position that I'm arguing, it's the point

 9     that I'm putting to the witness at this point is that it wasn't just

10     Izetbegovic and the Muslims who disagreed.  It was senior members on the

11     Croat side with acting president of the political party Mr. Brkic who was

12     elected, who was duly elected as acting president in March 1992, I put

13     that document in front of the Chamber, and Mr. Pelivan who was the prime

14     minister, the Croat prime minister of Bosnia and Herzegovina at the time,

15     so it's not just to say all of this -- these were just Mr. Izetbegovic's

16     positions.  These were positions by senior Croats as well who obviously

17     rejected the position of Mr. Boban and others like him.

18             MR. KARNAVAS:  Your Honour.

19             MR. SCOTT:  I'm clearly entitled to put that to put this point to

20     the witness.

21             MR. KARNAVAS:  We can see that there were various positions

22     taken.  We also know from the previous witness that Mr. Brkic had his own

23     ideas as far as what he thought the internal make-up should be.  So

24     that's -- this has never been an issue that people had different

25     positions.  I don't see what the dilemma is.

Page 29760

 1             MR. SCOTT:  Well I --

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, you would like to

 3     confront the witness with Mr. Pelivan's position as expressed on -- in

 4     this document on page 150.  You'd like the witness to confirm that or

 5     not.  The witness seems to state that what Mr. Pelivan said was his

 6     responsibility.  The witness was not present.  He was not for or against

 7     it.  During redirect Mr. Karnavas may ask questions on the matter.

 8             You may proceed, Mr. Scott.

 9             MR. SCOTT:

10        Q.   If I can ask you to -- if I can ask you, please, to go to the

11     third binder, to Exhibit 1D  00507.  1D 00507.  And sir, this appears to

12     be a decree on amendments of the decree with the law on the armed forces

13     of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and on the action taken on the

14     6th of August, 1992, so a very short time after the meeting in Zagreb on

15     the 21st of July.  And do you recognise this, sir, as action taken by the

16     Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina implementing, in fact, further, as

17     stated in Article 1, that the integral -- that the armed force of the

18     republic is consisted -- or consists of, the translation may be a bit

19     rough, consists of the army of the republic, hereafter referred to as

20     army, the integral parts of the army are formed of the Croatian Defence

21     Council as well as the other armed groups which are put under the united

22     command of the army.

23             Now, wasn't this an action duly taken by the Presidency on the

24     6th of August, 1992?

25        A.   Yes, but there's an error here if I may point it out.

Page 29761

 1        Q.   Please.

 2        A.   It reads:  "The armed forces of the republic comprise the army of

 3     the republic henceforth the army.  The army comprises units of the

 4     Croatian Defence Council as well as a component of the army."  This is an

 5     error, because obviously what is meant here is a component of the armed

 6     forces and not a component of the army.  If you look at all the material

 7     that we've gone through so far that is the own conclusion that you can

 8     draw.

 9        Q.   Well, I take it -- I understand that's your -- you argue that.

10     I'm just simply saying what the document says on its face.  Sir, you may

11     want to argue a different point now.  But nonetheless, you confirm that

12     that was a legitimate action taken by the Presidency of Bosnia and

13     Herzegovina.

14             Let me ask you to please to look next at the same binder 3, 1D

15     02432.  Sir, this is an order dated the 16th of October, 1992, which the

16     Chamber has seen before, an order issued to the armed forces of

17     Bosnia-Herzegovina (the BH army and the HVO).  And according to what

18     you've told us so far, sir, and I would understand you to say that this

19     is a completely legal order, correct?  Recognising both of the -- giving

20     order to both components of the armed forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

21     Is that correct?

22        A.   Yes.  However, if you look at paragraph 2 or item 2, sir, you see

23     Jasmin Jaganjac is appointed commander of the operation with full powers,

24     and Mirsad Catic his deputy.  Other members of the operation are Zejnil

25     Delalic and Ferid Buljubabic.  All of them are Muslims.  I think this

Page 29762

 1     order, this operation, is something that the Presidency never adopted.

 2     If you look further up the page you see the BH Presidency, the

 3     president's office.  This is not an order that invokes a Presidency

 4     decision, and Mr. Izetbegovic here --

 5        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ...

 6             MR. KARNAVAS:  I object.  I object.  He is and entitled to

 7     complete his answer because we know from the prior testimony that it is

 8     the Presidency that is the Supreme Commander and not Izetbegovic, and

 9     here we see Izetbegovic usurping the powers of the Presidency, acting as

10     a dictator in a sense, and that is what we have been maintaining all

11     along; that at some point he began acting as if he was the head of a

12     state.  And he's entitled to his answer.

13             MR. SCOTT:  My question was to the witness, I am trying to go

14     back and clarify the record, because the witness just a few moments ago

15     said, in answer to my question, "Is that a completely legal order," and

16     the answer at page 16 -- excuse me, page 66, line 16, is "Yes.  It is a

17     completely legal order."

18             Now, whether the make-up of the officers who were appointed in

19     paragraph number 2 and further comment he may wish to make that, but I'm

20     simply accepting the witnesses answer that he gave to us, and the

21     document can be argued beyond that.  It is titled at the top of the page

22     "The Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina Office of the President."  It has

23     Mr. Izetbegovic's signature on it.

24             MR. KARNAVAS:  I demand that the witness be allowed to answer the

25     question that was posed to him.  He was in the process of answering the

Page 29763

 1     question and I see no reason why we should be cutting off the individual.

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, please, what did he

 3     want to say?  Please finish your answer when you were cut off allegedly.

 4     What did you want to say?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is what I wished to tell the

 6     Honourable Chamber:  I recognise Mr. Izetbegovic's signature here.  That

 7     is beyond dispute.  There are two things, however, that are subject to

 8     challenge.  Mr. Izetbegovic is not adopting this based on a Presidency

 9     conclusion or decision.  It's something that he chooses to do himself

10     independently.  How can we tell?  Two things.  One, the heading says,

11     "The president's Office" and not "The Presidency."  Two, just ahead of

12     the order in this document he does not invoke any Presidency decision.

13     He says if necessary and puts in this as he sees fit.

14             Just last Friday I told the Honourable Chamber that any

15     Presidency decisions were signed by the president, but he must then

16     invoke those.  What we see here is the president signing on his own

17     behalf without invoking any Presidency decisions simply because there was

18     none to the effect.

19             The other thing, paragraph 2, if you look at the appointment, it

20     is clear that the Presidency would never have adopted a decision like

21     that, because all the appointments were Muslim appointments.  The Croats

22     or the Serbs in the Presidency would never have played along with

23     something like this.

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Witness, what

25     you're saying is your opinion.  Of course you're entitled to say this.

Page 29764

 1     But what I'm interested in is the following.  It's the question of HVO.

 2     Let's put Izetbegovic on the side, but did the Presidency recognise the

 3     HVO as the armed forces of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.  The Presidency

 5     recognised the HVO as one of the two key components of the armed forces

 6     of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Second question:

 8     This document and this document -- your answer seems to go in that

 9     direction, but the HVO is recognised as an armed forces.  Now, I'm

10     wondering whether the Presidency recognised that the HVO could have a

11     civilian role.  Answer by yes or no, please.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't say yes or no simply

13     because the Presidency never discussed this.

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This was never discussed within

15     the Presidency?  Never, ever?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, not as far as I know.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  At least that's

18     clear.  Please proceed.

19             MR. SCOTT:  Sir, just to follow up on the president's question.

20     Putting aside Mr. Izetbegovic at this particular moment, but just as a

21     point of principle, based on what you've testified to so far is it

22     correct, though, that the president of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as the

23     Supreme Commander of the armed forces of the State of Bosnia-Herzegovina,

24     could give legal orders to both the of the army -- what's called the ABiH

25     and the HVO?  Correct?

Page 29765

 1        A.   Yes, in keeping with what we have pointed out already.  The

 2     Presidency comprised the three groups, and all the three groups had to be

 3     involved in the decision-making process.

 4        Q.   That's your argument and position.  I understand that.  But the

 5     point is that the Presidency was the Supreme Commander of all armed ---

 6     excuse me, sir, the Presidency was the Supreme Command -- you've said it

 7     several times, and I want to make sure that we're not saying different

 8     things here, the Presidency was the Supreme Commander of the armed forces

 9     of Bosnia-Herzegovina including the HVO?

10             MR. KHAN:  Well Your Honour before the witness answers.

11             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone --

12             MR. KHAN:  I'm sure my learned friend means nothing by it, but it

13     does have the unfortunate effect of coming across in a slightly

14     pejorative manner, that the witness of course is not making an argument.

15     He is giving testimony under oath, and on a number of occasions my

16     learned friend has perhaps fallen into error, or by complete

17     inadvertence, by seeking to categorise the witness's evidence as an

18     argument.  I think that's rather unfair and I'm sure that it was not

19     intended.

20             MR. SCOTT:

21        Q.   My question stands, sir.  The Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina

22     was the Supreme Commander of all legal armed forces, if they were legal,

23     it was the Supreme Commander of all armed forces of the state of Bosnia

24     and Herzegovina and any orders that it issued to the HVO would be a legal

25     order and would be binding on the HVO.  Is that your position?  Or was

Page 29766

 1     the HVO entitled to pick and choose which orders it would follow and

 2     which ones it would not?

 3        A.   The HVO was not entitled to that.  Just today I read back for

 4     your benefit the rules of procedure of the president, the decisions of

 5     the Presidency are legal as long, and we must never tire of pointing this

 6     out, as they were made in keeping with the rules of procedure.  What this

 7     means is this:  Military decisions to do with defence had to be adopted

 8     by consensus or with a minimum of five votes in favour.  The rules of

 9     procedure make this perfectly clear.  This is not something that I am

10     suggesting.  It's a matter of regulations.

11             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  While Mr. Scott remains silent, Witness, I think

12     you might be mingling two issues.  The question as I understand it is a

13     rather abstract question.  Suppose that there is a legal order by the

14     Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is a supposition.  Is the

15     HVO -- was the HVO obliged to follow such an order?  Your answer,

16     however, went directly to the legality of the order.  You changed the

17     premise of the question and says, "At that time there were no legal

18     orders."  That may well be the case.  I do not think that this was

19     covered by this question.  This question makes a supposition which you

20     say is not realistic.  Never mind.

21             If there had been an order completely legal, all formalities

22     required, all members needed present and taking part and a clean majority

23     of the Presidency, would then the HVO have been obliged to follow such an

24     order or not?  I think that -- that was mainly the question.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, but there would have been a

Page 29767

 1     commitment, and the commitment would have been to set up a Joint Command,

 2     because that, too, was enshrined in the Presidency decision.  My answer

 3     to you at any rate is yes.

 4             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you.  Thank you.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, this Joint Command,

 6     this is very important also.  This is a question I've already put to you,

 7     but I would like everything to be clear.  In your mind this Joint

 8     Command, does it mean that it should comprise the Serbs, the Croats, and

 9     the Muslims, or does the Joint Command mean that there should be a head

10     from whichever ethnical ethnicity, and the rest would be whatever?  So

11     what exactly is this Joint Command?  In the military there can't be all

12     sorts of heads.  There has to be one Supreme Commander and then there is

13     a hierarchy in the chain of command.  So what do you mean exactly when

14     you said there had to be a Joint Command?  In Article 2 for example, in

15     this document, I was wondering if the Presidency had adopted this text,

16     Article 1 would not have changed and then Article -- Article 1 would not

17     have chained and Article 2 maybe Jasmin Jaganjac would have been

18     appointed commander of the operation and they would have had, maybe, a

19     Serb and a Croat deputy.  So could you please define what for you is a

20     Joint Command?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in this specific case

22     we are looking at Sarajevo's deblockade.  Sarajevo had been under siege

23     by the Serb army.  Therefore, they were not part of the Joint Command.

24     I'm talking off the top of my head because I'm not a military expert.

25     Joint Command might have five members or perhaps seven as the Presidency.

Page 29768

 1     One of them is at the head.  That's my understanding.  However, any key

 2     decisions are taken jointly, whereas the Presidency is the Supreme

 3     Commander, as a civilian body none of us in the Presidency were a

 4     general, a lieutenant, a colonel, or anything like that.  We were all

 5     civilians.  We were not experts in warfare, but we knew about politics,

 6     or at least that was the assumption.  In an operative sense an army is

 7     under the command of a Joint Command, under the command and control of a

 8     Joint Command, in this case comprising members of the HVO and the BH

 9     army.  I think there is a command like that these days in Bosnia and

10     Herzegovina comprising three components involving the army of Republika

11     Srpska.  Therefore, the system is quite a complex one.  Nevertheless we

12     were three peoples and unless there was to be an all-out war, everyone

13     against everyone one else, we had to reach some sort of an agreement as

14     to how to get along.

15             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  It's clear.  I

16     understand you.  Mr. Scott.

17             I'm looking at the clock.  Time flies here, but maybe we need to

18     have a break.  Twenty-minute break, and we'll resume at 10 after 6.00.

19                           --- Recess taken at 5.50 p.m.

20                           --- On resuming at 6.11 p.m.

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, you may proceed.

22             MR. SCOTT:

23        Q.   Sir, just to finish up on this sequence of events before turning

24     to a different topic, just to confirm again then your testimonies to

25     date, it's correct, is it not, sir, that it was then in the fall of 1992

Page 29769

 1     that Mr. Brkic was removed or no longer the acting president of the HDZ

 2     BiH; correct?

 3        A.   Not correct.  Mr. Brkic was not removed.  He was not re-elected.

 4     He had decided not to run to begin with.

 5        Q.   All right.  He -- I think -- I think we have some other

 6     documentation on that.  And he was replaced, correct, finally in -- at an

 7     Assembly of the HDZ BiH in, I believe October or -- I think November of

 8     1992.  He was replaced finally once for all by Mate Boban as president of

 9     the party; correct?  Mr. Boban became the president of the HDZ BiH in

10     November 1992.  Correct?

11        A.   It is correct that he did not replace Mr. Brkic, and he didn't

12     become the president.  He was elected according to party procedures.  He

13     was elected president.

14        Q.   Sir.  Sir, time is short and I don't want to mince too many words

15     with you.  As of November 1992, Mr. Brkic was no longer acting president

16     of the HDZ BiH, and Mate Boban was the president of the HDZ BiH; correct?

17        A.   That's correct.

18        Q.   And likewise, by the fall, approximately October 1992, is the

19     date that I think you indicated to us yesterday, that by approximately

20     October 1992 Mr. Pelivan was no longer the prime minister of

21     Bosnia-Herzegovina; correct?

22        A.   I think that was in November.

23        Q.   And after Mr. Pelivan was no longer prime minister of Bosnia and

24     Herzegovina in October or November 1992, you became the -- the prime

25     minister of Bosnia-Herzegovina.  You were elected at an HDZ Assembly in

Page 29770

 1     November 1992; correct?

 2        A.   Not correct.  I wasn't elected at an HDZ Assembly.

 3        Q.   My apologies, sir.  You're absolutely correct.  You became in

 4     1992 at an HDZ Assembly you were named on the -- on the nomination of

 5     Mate Boban the vice-president of the HDZ BiH; correct?

 6        A.   That's correct.

 7        Q.   And then around that same period of time you then were made or

 8     named prime minister of Bosnia-Herzegovina; correct?

 9        A.   Correct.

10        Q.   I'd like to turn to the topic of the peace negotiations which you

11     spent a fair amount of time talking about, and I guess the basic

12     proposition I want to explore with you, sir, I put to you is that there

13     were a lot of negotiations.  There were lots of talks, but until

14     Washington -- until the Washington agreement was signed in February or

15     March 1994, there was never any final agreement that was actually

16     implemented; correct?

17        A.   There was never a full implementation, but there were some other

18     changes in terms of organisation.

19        Q.   Well, sir, I don't know how it translated into Croatian, but in

20     the English language we have a saying about things that -- it's probably

21     not politically correct to say this any more, I suppose, but it's not

22     over until the fat lady sings.  Ever heard that?

23        A.   We had another expression.  We would say this:  It's not over

24     until it's cut and dried.

25        Q.   I take that one as well.  And just touching on a few of these

Page 29771

 1     various negotiation processes, if you will.  I think you said earlier,

 2     and I'm not sure we need to take the time to look at it, but I think it

 3     was shown to you during direct examination.  I'll just mention it for the

 4     record.  I'm not suggesting we go there unless someone in the courtroom

 5     insists, in 1D 02438, I believe we looked at a letter that you wrote to

 6     Susak on the 21st of May, 1992, forwarding some information for Mr. Brkic

 7     in connection with the Cutileiro negotiations.  Is that true?  Do you

 8     recall that?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   And can you just assist us with -- how -- why did you think that

11     by sending the information to -- that Mr. Susak was the appropriate

12     person to send that information to, that if you sent it to Mr. Susak it

13     would get to Mr. Brkic?

14        A.   We see here the 21st of May, 1992.  Mr. Brkic left Sarajevo on or

15     about the 1st of May.  This was a technical issue:  What was the most

16     convenient way for me to forward my letter to Mr. Brkic.

17             At the time, at least as far as I knew, he was in Zagreb.  I

18     assumed that he was in touch with Mr. Susak.  I had Mr. Susak's address,

19     but I did not have Mr. Brkic's address.  This is a purely technical

20     issue.

21        Q.   And it's correct, is it not, that in connection with the

22     Cutileiro negotiations that the Croats, in fact, rejected the map put

23     forward by the European Community, didn't they?

24        A.   The Croats never rejected any plan, and the same applied to the

25     Cutileiro Plan.  The Croats accepted.

Page 29772

 1        Q.   If you look please at P 09927, which should be in the last

 2     binder -- last document in the second binder.  And I believe, sir, that

 3     there should be available there to you a translation of the excerpt that

 4     I'm -- in Croatian that I'm going to put to you.  Sir, if you can look at

 5     P 09927, on page 112 of the of English version, and as I said I believe

 6     you'll find attached a Croatian translation of the part that I'm going to

 7     put to you, on the approximately -- a little below the middle of that

 8     page if you refer by reference to footnote 222, it says:  "The Croats

 9     were the first to repudiate the EC map publicly.  Miljenko Brkic, several

10     days after agreeing to the Cutileiro Plan, insisted that cantonal borders

11     would have to be redrawn -- have to be drawn," excuse me, "on the basis

12     of the 1961 census."

13             That's correct, isn't it?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   And toward the end of that page, and it isn't in the -- forgive

16     me, but it isn't in the translated portion, but if you can assist us, in

17     that same paragraph with reference to footnote 228, it says:  "A group of

18     93 Croat intellectuals from Bosnia criticised the EC plan, asserting that

19     it was contrary to results of the referendum on independence and that 59

20     per cent of the Croats in Bosnia would become national minorities if

21     Cutileiro's map were adopted."  Do you recall a statement being issued

22     around this time, the end of March 1992, by a group of something like 93

23     Croat intellectuals?

24        A.   I can't find the portion that you quote, but I understand your

25     question.  I think I can answer it regardless of not having found the

Page 29773

 1     appropriate portion.

 2        Q.   If you can, please.

 3        A.   I don't know about the group that you specified.  I know of

 4     intellectuals who did not agree with the Cutileiro Plan.  The Cutileiro

 5     Plan had three variants, as it were.  These intellectuals, I think,

 6     repudiated the variant in which Bosnia and Herzegovina was supposed to be

 7     carved up into three parts in order to form a confederacy.  The Sarajevo

 8     intellectuals specifically, because I was in Sarajevo, repudiated that

 9     particular idea.  They came to see me.  I was not, myself, involved in

10     the negotiations, but I lent them an ear.  [In English] Okay.

11        Q.   Thank you very much.  Sorry to interrupt you.  I thought you were

12     finished.  Sorry.

13             Now -- but the bottom line, sir, as I said a few moments ago,

14     that whatever all the negotiations were, there was never a final signed,

15     agreed, implemented Cutileiro Plan; correct?

16        A.   [Interpretation] Nothing was signed, that's true, but some of the

17     principles enshrined in the plan were accepted by both the Serbs and the

18     Croats.

19        Q.   And in fact, sir, in terms of these negotiations, was there

20     virtually any time between 1991 and 1995 that there wasn't some peace

21     negotiation going on somewhere?  Whether it was the Vance Plan or

22     Cutileiro or Vance Owen or Owen Stoltenberg or Washington Agreement,

23     isn't it true, sir, that throughout this period there were ongoing

24     negotiations of one sort or another, none of which led to an actual final

25     agreement until the Washington Agreement; correct?

Page 29774

 1        A.   It is true that the negotiations were ongoing.  It is true that

 2     eventually all three parties and the international community, as well as

 3     the Security Council, accepted the principles along which Bosnia and

 4     Herzegovina should be organised.  All the negotiations to follow were to

 5     be focusing on those principles.  I think you know the principles, and I

 6     think the Chamber is well aware of these principles.  I don't know them

 7     by heart but there were a total of nine principles, the first one

 8     being --

 9        Q.    I'm going to cut you off.  I'm sorry that I have to do that.  If

10     we had time we could talk about this at greater length, and I'd certainly

11     additional questions to you for that matter as well, but we don't.  And

12     moving on from Cutileiro, sir, the Vance-Owen process eventually died

13     without any final agreement or implementation.  It was never accepted by

14     the Serbs, among other things; correct?

15        A.   All they parties accepted the Vance-Owen Plan.  First in Geneva,

16     the nine principles, and the military agreement --

17        Q.   Sir, in May of 1993 the Serb Assembly rejected the Vance-Owen

18     Plan; correct?

19        A.   The principle for these negotiations was this:  Following the

20     negotiations there would be a constitution that --

21        Q.   Sir, the Serb Assembly in May 1992 rejected the Vance-Owen Plan;

22     correct?

23        A.   Correct.  But then it was signed by their legal representatives

24     on the 2nd of May in Athens, the 2 of May, 1993.

25        Q.   And is it correct, sir, do you recall that it was in June 1993,

Page 29775

 1     as a result of additional negotiations between Milosevic and Tudjman,

 2     that there was an another plan presented, what became a plan or -- by

 3     some to again divide Bosnia and Herzegovina into three ethnic states?

 4        A.   I don't know that this was a result of negotiations between

 5     Milosevic and Tudjman, but I know that it was a result of a proposal sent

 6     to us from the negotiations involving Owen and Stoltenberg and it is

 7     normally referred to as the Owen-Stoltenberg Plan.

 8        Q.   It's correct, is it not, that Mr. Vance resigned as the UN's

 9     negotiator in May 1993, and it was proposal of talks resulting from talks

10     between Milosevic and Tudjman which were then put to Owen and Stoltenberg

11     in June of 1993; correct?

12        A.   I'm unable to confirm this.  I don't, however, think that this is

13     the case.

14        Q.   Do you recall at any time in these ongoing negotiations at one

15     time or another after the middle of May -- excuse me, after the middle of

16     1993 discussions that included the concept that once Croatia and Serbia

17     had sorted out their own relations between the two of them, that Croatia,

18     Serbia, and this newly restructured Bosnia-Herzegovina could engage in a

19     further three-way exchange of territories?  Do you remember that?

20             MR. KARNAVAS:  Your Honour, if I may.  I think the question is

21     rather vague.  Who is having these discussions, and can we -- can we see

22     some documentation concerning this?

23             MR. SCOTT:

24        Q.   Discussions were representatives of the Croats and Serbs, and if

25     you remember -- do you remember that, sir, or not?

Page 29776

 1        A.   A brief answer would be no.  I don't remember the talks.  I was

 2     not aware of that kind of talks going on.

 3        Q.   All right.  And again by early 1994, Owen-Stoltenberg process

 4     ended without any final agreement; correct?

 5        A.   Yes, that's correct.

 6        Q.   And in fact, in effect or what actually happened was that the

 7     Washington Agreement displaced or came in and, if you will, bumped what

 8     was then being called Owen-Stoltenberg off the table, didn't it?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   In connection with the negotiations, sir, there's one particular

11     time period that I would like to ask you about now, and that is during

12     the ongoing talks involving the Vance-Owen process in January of 1993,

13     and I would like you to look in that regard at Exhibit P 01146, which

14     should be in the second binder, P 01146.

15             Excuse me?  Second binder?  Yes.

16             Sir, if you look -- if you have that document, this is a document

17     that the Chamber has seen before that -- it's a decision issued by

18     Jadranko Prlic on the 15th of January, 1993, and it starts off by saying:

19     "In accordance with the agreements so far reached and signed at the

20     International Conference," et cetera, "in Geneva," and then gives a

21     decision involving six points below that.  And, sir, I put it to you, you

22     know, don't you, that the statement at the beginning of that document,

23     "In accordance with the agreements so far reached and signed," there were

24     as of the 15th of January, 1993, there were no agreements reached and

25     signed to implement the Vance-Owen Plan, were there?

Page 29777

 1        A.   Yes.  Not signed completely, but partially, yes.  In this

 2     specific case, I've already said that the military agreement on the 4th

 3     of January was reached but not signed.  It was definitely to be applied

 4     when the entire agreement was to be signed.  However, our negotiators,

 5     or, rather, the co-chairmen preferred implementation of the agreement

 6     when possible.

 7        Q.   Sir, this was a -- this decision and others that flowed from it,

 8     this was an entirely unilateral act by the HVO not supported by the

 9     Vance-Owen negotiations as they existed at that time; correct?

10        A.   This decision was in accordance with the negotiations, but the

11     negotiations hadn't been finished yet.  This decision, if we look at it

12     as an objective, not a means, implies the establishment of a Joint

13     Command.

14        Q.   So you mean that the HVO in issuing this decision was looking

15     into the future in the crystal ball and seeing that there would

16     eventually be an agreement, and based on that they were saying they

17     should go ahead and implement it now.  Is that what you're telling us?

18             My question to you, sir, was:  On the 15th of January, 1993,

19     given the then-existing Vance-Owen negotiations, there was no such

20     agreement, there were no final agreements, and this order and others like

21     it was the completely unilateral order of the HVO; correct?  The fat lady

22     hadn't sang yet, had she?

23        A.   I must say that at that time precisely on the 15th of January, I

24     think, there was a meeting between Boban and Izetbegovic in Zagreb.  I

25     did not attend the meeting, so I cannot -- or, rather, I don't know what

Page 29778

 1     it was that they had agreed upon, whether they agreed to establish a

 2     Joint Command as well and to have military forces withdrawn into the

 3     provinces as agreed or not.

 4        Q.   So everything you just said was pure speculation, then, based on

 5     what you just told us.  You don't know.  Correct?

 6        A.   I cannot be sure, but I know that the military agreement.

 7        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ... "I cannot -- or, rather, I

 8     don't know what it was that they had agreed upon."  Correct?

 9        A.   Between Boban and Izetbegovic I don't know what was agreed, but I

10     know what was agreed in Geneva.

11        Q.   Sir, again with the help the usher I would like to put before

12     your -- some testimony from the Kordic case.  And for counsel it's page

13     20468, 20468 on the 6th of June, 2000.  And again, there's a Croatian

14     translation of that part again to assist you.

15        A.   I don't see that.

16        Q.   That's not what I'm looking at.  We haven't got the right ... no,

17     sorry.  We're not getting the ELMO.  We're getting e-court.  There it is.

18             Sir, did you not testify in the Kordic case under oath in June

19     2000 in response to this question the following:  "This order in January

20     1993 is a unilateral HVO order and in the relevant provinces it

21     subjugates the Muslim Territorial Defence to the HVO; correct?

22             "Answer:  Yes.  What you just said is correct?

23             "Question:  And in terms of legality it does so without legality?

24             "Answer:  There was not part of the entire agreement between the

25     Croat and Bosniak sides.  At least I do not know of this having been

Page 29779

 1     agreed with the Bosniak side or of the BH army."

 2             Now, that's what you testified to under oath in the Kordic case,

 3     being correct?

 4        A.   I think it's correct, and I think that I said today that I was

 5     not aware of an agreement.  If I'm not aware of an agreement and if there

 6     was an agreement then it's a one-sided thing; however, I was under oath

 7     then and I am under oath today and I state that was not aware of any

 8     agreement.  I stated then and I state today that the military -- that the

 9     military agreement --

10        Q.   Sir, beyond any speculation that you want to engage now, what

11     your testimony is and it's clear from everything you know, not what you

12     speculate about, but what you know, as you said in Kordic and as you --

13     isn't it true that as you say today this was a unilateral HVO order that

14     was completely illegal.

15             MR. KARNAVAS:  Objection.  Objection.  Now, we have the

16     Prosecutor testifying and taking liberties.  The gentleman has been asked

17     and has answered the question on several occasions.  He indicated that he

18     did not know whether there was an agreement between Boban, Izetbegovic,

19     Tudjman.  He stated that very clearly.  If you look at his testimony.

20     It's very consistent with his testimony here today.  He's saying I don't

21     know if there was an agreement.

22             Now, when you look at the Prosecution's questions it presumes

23     facts that are not in evidence, that have not been agreed upon.  Now he

24     can put that question to the witness and the witness can answer it, but

25     he cannot state it as fact.  Again, this is sort of the proverbial since

Page 29780

 1     when did you stop beating your wife type of question.

 2             MR. SCOTT:  Not at all.  Not at all.

 3        Q.   Sir, you said several times is you don't know whether there were

 4     any other agreements or not, and I'm taking what you say at face value,

 5     you don't know.  So putting aside what you don't know, based on what you

 6     did know at the time this was a unilateral order by the HVO that was not

 7     legal, being correct?

 8             MR. KARNAVAS:  Again, objection.  If he doesn't know something

 9     then how can he answer that question?  If he has all the facts in his

10     command then he can answer the question, but there is a certain element

11     that's missing so how can he presume to say yes this was illegal or not?

12     Assuming that there was no other agreement, yes, it would have of been

13     unilateral.

14             MR. SCOTT:  Well --

15             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  But, Mr. Karnavas, I'm a bit lost, because what

16     the Prosecutor just said was literally what he had said in the Kordic

17     case, and the witness has answered yes what you just said is correct.  So

18     could he today say it's not correct?

19             MR. KARNAVAS:  He indicated that what he said then and what he's

20     saying today is the same.  I think we -- at some point you have to stop

21     beating a dead horse.  I'm saying he's asked and answered the question.

22     Now, if you wish to put the question to him again we can hear it, but I'm

23     pretty clear that he's answered the question, Your Honour.

24             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  You didn't put it in this way a minute ago.

25     That I could agree.  A question put and answered.  That I can agree.  I

Page 29781

 1     can understand that.

 2             MR. KARNAVAS:  All right, thank you.

 3             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I don't have to agree.  I only have to

 4     understand it.

 5             MR. KARNAVAS:  Okay.  You can agree as well.

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

 7             MR. SCOTT:

 8        Q.   If you can go next, sir, to Exhibit P 01168, which should be in

 9     binder 2.  P 01168.  This appears to be an order issued by Mr. Halilovic

10     on the 16th of January, 1993, referring to an order that was apparently

11     issued by the -- this order issued or decision, excuse me, decision

12     issued by the HVO HZ HB on January 15th, 1993.  Now, directing your

13     attention to the second paragraph in light of the conversation we were

14     having just a moment ago Mr. Halilovic says:  "Regarding the fact that

15     the talks in Geneva have not been finished yesterday and that all sides

16     in talks have not signed the documents offered."  And that's a true and

17     accurate statement, isn't it?  Talks in Geneva had not been finished not

18     and all the sides in the talks had not signed the final documents or

19     any -- or documents, excuse me; correct?

20        A.   I don't have the exact chronology of events before me, but I

21     think that we were already in New York by then.  On the 16th of January

22     it's possible that we were already in New York.  I cannot say that now

23     but at any rate the Vance-Owen Plan had not been accepted yet in its

24     entirety.

25        Q.   So this statement is accurate.  Regarding the fact that the talks

Page 29782

 1     in Geneva have not been finished yet and that all sides in talks have not

 2     signed the documents offered is a true and accurate statement; correct?

 3        A.   Yes, but what is referred to is Geneva and the talks were no

 4     longer being held in Geneva but in New York.

 5        Q.   If you can go, please, to Exhibit P 01186.  It should be in the

 6     same binder, hopefully fairly close to the other one.  This appears to be

 7     a communication by Arif Pasalic dated the 18th of January, 1993, directed

 8     to the HVO Main Staff, responding to an order that's referenced there,

 9     the number that we can look at, issued -- informing you in your capacity

10     of chief of the HVO Main Staff in January 1993.  That was Mr. Petkovic,

11     wasn't it?

12        A.   Yes, I think that Mr. Petkovic was Chief of Staff of the HVO.

13        Q.   Now, I'd like you to look at paragraph number 3.  Mr. Pasalic

14     says:  "I am informing you that I do recognise the HVO Main Staff as a

15     superior command for coordination of activities on front lines and combat

16     operations against the enemy, Chetniks, and the remnants of the former

17     JNA.

18              "4.  Throughout the entire work and all activities I will

19     consider your Command as legally valid as regarding the activities from

20     item 3.

21              "5.  I cannot carry out item 2 in your order due to the fact

22     that the 4th Corps of the Bosnian army and its units are not under your

23     command regarding such decisions and there execution."

24             Now, all of those are true and accurate statements, are they not,

25     if you know?

Page 29783

 1        A.   I don't know that.  I haven't read Mr. Pasalic's letters.  This

 2     is his letter, and I have nothing to testify about that, but what I can

 3     testify to is that after the 15th there was a meeting between

 4     Mr. Halilovic and Mr. Petkovic, and they agreed upon something, but I

 5     don't know what that was.  I did not attend these talks.

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, it's quite interesting

 7     to compare Mr. Pasalic's last document with Halilovic's letter dated

 8     January 16.  Pasalic is writing on January 18th, two days later.  Looks

 9     that there are some discrepancies between the two.  Halilovic seems to

10     totally reject Mr. Prlic's document, totally reject it.  However, when

11     you scrutinise Mr. Pasalic's document or letter, he seems to recognise

12     that there is a superior command, that would be the HVO, this is on item

13     3, but the difference with Mr. Prlic's document is as to the 4th Corps

14     that would be integrated into the HVO, because he seems to believe or to

15     say that he's not against Mr. Prlic's document.  He does recognise that

16     the HVO will be in charge of things, but the 4th Corps would not be

17     dissolved into the HVO.  So it looks like things are extremely confused

18     between Halilovic, Pasalic.

19             So if I'm not mistaken, if I understood everything, you didn't

20     know of the ins and outs and you were not aware of all these documents

21     being sent from one to the other, because all of you were in New York at

22     the time.  All the politicians and decision-makers were over in New York.

23             So -- so in your back -- in the back of decision-makers, of

24     politician decision-makers, don't you believe that the military were

25     playing their own cards?

Page 29784

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have already stated to the

 2     Honourable Trial Chamber that in the BH army there were certain

 3     disagreements.  Especially Mr. Halilovic was making decisions on his own.

 4     Then this gentleman Mr. Pasalic, he was out of Sarajevo and in a way he

 5     was together with the HVO and it seemed to me that he understood the

 6     situation better.  He was not opposed as you noted and understood so

 7     well, Your Honour, whereas Mr. Halilovic was opposed to this.

 8             I cannot say with any degree of certainty whether we were in

 9     Geneva or New York, and it doesn't matter for these purposes after all,

10     but at any rate we were attending the talks.  We would return to Zagreb

11     on the 20th and then went back.

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But if you, the politicians,

13     had been aware of all these military documents, would you have decided to

14     put a tend to all this and, you know, so that people would understand

15     that there were interferences going on in the negotiation process, or

16     would you have thought that this was quite normal given the circumstances

17     at the time?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We tried, or at least I tried on my

19     part to have the negotiations succeed and for us to abide by the

20     agreements reached.  We did abide by quite a few things, but

21     unfortunately many things were done in contravention of the agreements,

22     and many of our agreements or orders were not respected by the military

23     leadership.

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

25             Please proceed, Mr. Scott.

Page 29785

 1             MR. SCOTT:

 2        Q.   Sir, let me put to you, with due respect to the Chamber and to

 3     the president, let me put to you a different proposition, and that is in

 4     reality, sir, isn't it correct that there is no inconsistency between the

 5     Halilovic document and the Pasalic document in this:  They both reject

 6     implementation of the Prlic decision and a general recognition that in

 7     those three provinces, 3, 8, and 10, that the HVO is to either

 8     subordinate itself in its entirety -- excuse me, the ABiH is to

 9     subordinate itself in its entirety to the HVO or to leave those

10     territories?  They both consistently state that position while, while,

11     Mr. Pasalic, perhaps being a bit more nuanced, says well, he agrees that

12     when we're fighting the Serbs we're happy to take our cue from you on an

13     operational basis.  But in paragraph 5 of the Pasalic -- Pasalic

14     communication he clearly says, "We are not carrying out the orders as

15     referenced in item 2, to subordinate in general our army to the HVO."

16             Now, that's what the two documents taken together say, don't

17     they?

18        A.   Yes, but he wouldn't mind having a Joint Command as envisaged.

19     Mr. Prlic's document does not ask for the BH army to be subordinated to

20     the HVO.  Rather, both armies should be subordinated in accordance with

21     the peace agreement that was achieved in Geneva.  That means that in

22     certain provinces the HVO is in command, and in others the BH army.

23     However, both commands have to include the other structure, too,

24     depending on the number of soldiers and other elements that were

25     discussed in Geneva.

Page 29786

 1        Q.   Sir, you've just made exactly the same mistake, I put it to you,

 2     that the HVO made in January 1993.  You said on page 89, line 24, "The

 3     peace agreement that was achieved in Geneva."  There was no peace

 4     agreement in Geneva in January 1993.  It was talks.  It was talks, talks,

 5     talks.  And to use my previous metaphor, the fat lady hadn't sang yet.

 6     It was just talks.  Correct?

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.  Please leave -- let

 8     the witness answer and then we will give you the floor.

 9             Witness, please answer, and then we will hear the counsel.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've already said, and I think

11     there is no need for me to repeat this yet again, that the peace plan was

12     finally adopted between the Croats and the Muslims in Washington, the

13     definite one in all segments.  In Geneva, all three parties agreed to

14     only what the bare necessities were, and I think that was confirmed by

15     the Security Council, and those are the principles for the BH and the

16     military agreement that I have in my documents that hadn't been signed

17     but that had been agreed upon.

18             MR. SCOTT:

19        Q.   All right.  Sir, we'll have to leave your position --

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes.  Wait a minute, Mr. Scott.

21     Ms. Tomic wants to take the floor.

22             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] I just wanted to say that

23     probably this is a language mistake, because my colleague Mr. Scott said

24     to the witness what he said in the first sentence.  However, at first and

25     later on, I think this is page 90, line 2 and line 3, he says things that

Page 29787

 1     were discussed in Geneva, talked in Geneva, whereas he clearly explained

 2     in the continuation of his text what he meant by this.  So I think this

 3     is a language mistake and that this has to be read fully rather than

 4     mislead the witness to the effect that he said something he hadn't meant,

 5     but everything becomes obvious when you read the whole answer.

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, on this problem you

 7     seem to be contradicting with the Prosecutor.  I think I understand what

 8     you're saying.

 9             In Geneva there were principles that had been accepted by the

10     three parties.  There was no plan that had been sign, but at least there

11     was an agreement only the guidelines.  Is this what you want to say?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, correct.  I think that the

13     principles were signed too.

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So if I understand you well,

15     Mr. Prlic's document, according to you, complies with these guidelines

16     and these principles.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Prlic's document, the military

18     part of the agreement, is in line with these principles.  However, the

19     military negotiations in Geneva, apart from the Plenary Session, took

20     place separately.  They were separate from us politicians.  The military

21     document was also agreed upon but not sign.  What was said was that until

22     there is a complete package, that is to say the borders of the provinces,

23     that is to say the transition government, and everything else that we've

24     talked about here, until all of that is finalised, this is not definitely

25     done, but there was a military agreement that was there by way of an

Page 29788

 1     agreement rather than as a definite Vance-Owen Plan.

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So according to you, there was

 3     an agreement on the principles regarding the military aspects, and

 4     notably regarding the resubordination of ABiH and HVO units either to one

 5     or the other.  Is this how we're supposed to understand your position?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  I don't have the plan in

 7     front of me right now, but what the plan envisages is first and foremost

 8     the end of the conflict.  Secondly, withdrawal of units to one's own

 9     provinces, one's own, provisionally speaking, nine provinces plus the

10     tenth one is Sarajevo.  The withdrawal of Croats and Muslims and

11     certain -- in certain provinces, that can have to do with both segments.

12     And that is where an agreement is reached within the command where both

13     are represented.

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Mr. Scott, we'll

15     resume tomorrow I'm sure on the same topic, but it's now 7.00 p.m.

16             Witness, let me reassure you, rest assured we're sitting in the

17     morning.  Mr. Scott has an hour and 30 minutes left.  Mr. Karnavas will

18     have some redirect, but maybe it won't take him two days.  We'll see.  So

19     with some luck, you might be done tomorrow.  That's all I can say so far.

20     I'm not in control of this.  I'm not keeping the clock, unfortunately.

21             So Mr. Scott has an hour and 29 minutes left, and we will meet

22     again tomorrow morning at 9.00.  Thank you.

23                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.00 p.m.,

24                           to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 24th day

25                           of June 2007, at 9.00 a.m.