Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 30320

 1                           Tuesday, 8 July 2008

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness entered court]

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

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, please call the

 7     case.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Good morning,

 9     everyone in and around the courtroom.  This is case number IT-04-74-T,

10     the Prosecutor versus Prlic et al. Thank you, Your Honours.

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

12             Today is Tuesday, the 8th of July, 2008.  Good morning to the

13     accused, to the Defence counsel, to Mr. Stringer and his assistants, as

14     well as to all people assisting us in this case.  We are going to proceed

15     with the examination-in-chief, and let me greet Mr. Karnavas again whilst

16     giving him the floor.

17             MR. KARNAVAS:  Good morning, Mr. President.  Good morning, Your

18     Honours.  Good morning to everyone in and around the courtroom.

19                           WITNESS:  ZORAN BUNTIC [Resumed]

20                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

21                           Examination by Mr. Karnavas: [Continued]

22        Q.   Good morning, Mr. Buntic.

23             MR. KARNAVAS:  Mr. Usher, we will need your assistance to give

24     Mr. Buntic his binder.  We had to re-arrange some documents and, Your

25     Honours, you will see there is a list we provided for you which sort of

Page 30321

 1     traces the -- our intent, how we will proceed, how the documents are

 2     arranged.  So this may provide you some assistance in following along as

 3     we go from document to document.

 4        Q.   I believe you were more or less finished with your answer to eh

 5     question concerning document P 00292; so, therefore, I will move on to

 6     the next document which is P 09552; P 09552, it's a P document.

 7             MR. KARNAVAS:  The list, Your Honours, that list that we

 8     provided, I believe -- in any event.  Okay.

 9        Q.   If we look at this particular document, and it says "Order" in

10     English.  Is this an order, sir?

11        A.   This is a decree; this is not an order.  I spoke yesterday about

12     this document here.  This is a decree on the organization, operation, and

13     jurisdiction of judiciary in case of a state of war or imminent war

14     threat in the territory of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna; and,

15     also, I said yesterday that this decree was discussed and adopted at the

16     Presidency session on the 3rd of July, 1992, but that it never --

17        Q.   Mr. Buntic, you will need to slow down.  The translators will not

18     be able to keep up with you.  So please slow down, and just let me lead

19     you very quickly through this document.  Was this -- you said it was

20     adopted.  Was it ever published, this particular decree?

21        A.   This decree was never published in the Official Gazette of the

22     Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, nor was it ever applied.  It was

23     passed and adopted, but it was immediately after that, on the 17th of

24     October, that a new decree was adopted.

25        Q.   Mr. Buntic, we have some 100 documents to go through, and we will

Page 30322

 1     not be able to go through the document, unless you allow me to sort of

 2     lead you.  We will get to that document in due course.  That's all I

 3     needed for this particular document.

 4             MR. KARNAVAS:  Unless there are any questions, we will move on.

 5        Q.   We will discuss this document when we get to the one that was

 6     actually passed, published, and applied concerning the judiciary.  Okay.

 7             If we go on to the next --

 8             MR. KARNAVAS:  Unless there are any questions on this document, I

 9     will go to next document which is P 00305, very briefly.

10        Q.   We can see that this is a decision to establish the Official

11     Gazette.  My first question is:  Why was it necessary to establish an

12     Official Gazette?

13        A.   The Official Gazette was established for the transparency of the

14     work of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna.  In this particular case,

15     this is about the documents of the Presidency.  As is known everywhere,

16     every municipality in the former Yugoslavia had its Official Gazette;

17     thus, the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna deemed it necessary to have

18     its own official publication to publish all the regulations that were

19     adopted by the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna.

20        Q.   Thank you.  Well, it's interesting that you say that because we

21     had a witness here by the name of Ciril Ribicic who was on the

22     constitutional court of Slovenia; and what he said on 10 December 2007,

23     page 25498, line 10 to 19, I will be reading.

24             "Q.  And what role did the Narodni List play in the governmental

25     structure or legal structure of Herceg-Bosna?"

Page 30323

 1             Answer from our constitutional expert from Slovenia; Prosecution

 2     witness, that is.  He says:  "Narodni List published all decisions passed

 3     by the bodies of the community of Herceg-Bosna.  That was the Official

 4     Gazette such as the states have in order to publish their laws and other

 5     regulations.  One should also mention that in the former state within the

 6     republics of the former Yugoslavia, even the municipalities published

 7     their own regulations in the Official Gazettes, but," and I underscore

 8     this word, "but not a gazette that was their own; rather, in the Official

 9     Gazette of the republic that they belonged to."

10             So my question now is:  Is Ribicic correct when he says that in

11     the former system, the municipalities did not have the right or did not

12     have Narodni List Official Gazette, and they could only publish their

13     regulations in the Official Gazette of the republic?

14        A.   With all due respect to Professor Ribicic, I believe that his

15     words are absolutely wrong, because the documents that you showed me

16     yesterday show a number of instances where the municipalities published

17     their regulations in the Official Gazettes of the municipalities.  Not

18     only I but every professional in law should be aware of the fact that

19     every municipality in the former Yugoslavia had its own Official Gazette

20     in which they published regulations adopted by the respective

21     municipalities, and it was not just one municipality that had that.

22     Every single municipality in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the period leading

23     up to the war and during the war had that.

24        Q.   All right.  Thank you.  Now, if we go on to the next --

25             MR. KARNAVAS:  Unless there are any questions, I will move on to

Page 30324

 1     the next document, and that is 1D 01558, 1D 01558.  It's dated September

 2     12th, 1992.

 3        Q.   We see that it's signed by Dr. Jadranko Prlic, and I just want

 4     to -- I'm going to move through some of these documents rather quickly,

 5     Mr. Buntic, based on your previous answers yesterday, the narrative.  You

 6     talked about legal vacuums that were created; and, here, we see, for

 7     instance, Mr. Prlic saying in the very first paragraph that -- that he's

 8     enclosing some acts that were passed by the temporary executive and

 9     administrative body.  Then later on, on the second paragraph, he

10     indicates that with the decree of the president of the Republic of

11     Bosnia-Herzegovina, dated May 2, 1992, certain regulations have been

12     inherited from the former SFRY, while other regulations are declared null

13     and void.  By declaring those regulations null and void, a legal vacuum

14     has been created, the consequences of which is a fact that the whole

15     fields, especially in economy, remain unregulated.

16             So this is what you meant yesterday when you talked about the

17     passage of a law at the Presidency level, at the state level, and the

18     legal vacuums that were created; is that correct?

19        A.   That is correct, and I'm aware of this letter sent by the

20     president of the HVO, Jadranko Prlic, and sent to the Government of the

21     Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.  And this confirms what we just said

22     about the transparency of the HVO's work, and it is also in keeping with

23     what I was saying yesterday about the legal vacuums that occurred after

24     the breakup of the former Yugoslavia and after the Republic of Bosnia and

25     Herzegovina adopted documents, pronouncing null and void some of the

Page 30325

 1     regulations that had been implemented in the territory of Bosnia and

 2     Herzegovina up to then.

 3        Q.   All right.  Now, I'm going to cover two documents.  I put them in

 4     the housekeeping.

 5             MR. KARNAVAS:  Let me go back to one document, 1D 02441.  I

 6     skipped this document; it was an error on my part.  This is just a press

 7     release.

 8        Q.   It's dated 3 July 1992, and this more or less finishes our topic

 9     because we have been dealing with legislation that were passed as a

10     result of that -- those meetings held on that day.  And, here, it

11     indicates on paragraph -- on first paragraph, there's a last sentence.

12     It says:  "These decisions in no way impinge on the sovereignty and unity

13     of Bosnia and Herzegovina.  All these decisions are in accordance with EC

14     principles on the constitutional order of Bosnia and Herzegovina as an

15     independent state."

16             So my question to you, Mr. Buntic, is:  Do you agree with this

17     part of the press release that was sent out by Mate Boban; that is, that

18     the legislation that was being enacted did not infringe or impinge on the

19     sovereignty and unity of Bosnia and Herzegovina?

20        A.   I absolutely agree with this, with this release.  And I know that

21     it was published immediately after the Presidency session on the 3rd of

22     July, 1992, and that it was published in some dailies immediately after

23     the closing of the session.  It also speaks of the transparency of the

24     work of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna about its true goals and

25     intentions.

Page 30326

 1        Q.   All right.  And now going back to --

 2             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  May I just ask.

 3             MR. KARNAVAS:  Certainly.

 4             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Mr. Buntic, this document is signed by Boban.

 5     Can you tell us, do you know who drafted it?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not sure, and I'd rather not

 7     speculate.

 8             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Could it be yourself.  The formulations, could

 9     they come from you?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe there were discussions

11     about this, but I wouldn't say that I was the author of this document.

12   We discussed this after the session of the Presidency, but there were other

13   documents to this same effect, not only this one.  I believe that there

14     were several press releases after this session, after we had discussed

15     this subject; and, yes, I did discuss the subject with Boban, but I'm not

16     sure that I actually drafted the document.

17             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you very much.

18             MR. KARNAVAS:

19        Q.   Okay.  Now, just two matters I wanted to get out of the way

20     because they don't fit into any particular topic.

21             MR. KARNAVAS:  If we go to 1D 02117, and -- it's 1D 02117,

22     1D 02117.

23        Q.   And this is a conclusion, and it deals with the amounts of

24     advanced payments on salaries.  And, yesterday, you indicated how the

25     president -- the HVO, executive authority, worked and that everyone had

Page 30327

 1     one vote, and the purpose of this is to show the salaries.  And we can

 2     see that the president, vice-president, and heads of department, they all

 3     received the same salaries; is that correct?

 4        A.   I believe that this conclusion is correct and that this is what

 5     was paid in reality, and that the ratios that existed at the time were as

 6     shown in this conclusion.  I don't know whether it should be noted that

 7     these amounts translate into a minute amounts of money, maybe 150 euro

 8     for president and vice-presidents; whereas, the others received even less

 9     than that.

10        Q.   Well, the whole purpose was to show that everybody's getting paid

11     the same amount; that's the primary focus of this document.

12             MR. KARNAVAS:  And if we move on to the next document, 1D 00126,

13     again it's sort of what I would call a housekeeping matter.

14        Q.   This is a decision on the appointment of the commission --

15             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Excuse me.

16             MR. KARNAVAS:  Yes.

17             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  You say it shows -- the document shows that

18     everyone gets the same amount.

19             MR. KARNAVAS:  Okay --

20             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  But it has a whole list of six different --

21             MR. KARNAVAS:  No, no --

22             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  -- steps going from 50.000 down to 20.000.

23             MR. KARNAVAS:  Perhaps -- perhaps I didn't articulate myself

24     correctly or maybe it was lost in translation.  I was saying the

25     department heads - the president, the vice-president - the department

Page 30328

 1     heads get paid the same.  The point being is Dr. Jadranko Prlic is first

 2     among equals, and that when he signs a document, it's not his decision.

 3     It's a decision of the executive authority, and obviously -- and also we

 4     can see from this document that there are other heads and subdepartment

 5     heads which also might assist you, Judge Trechsel, when you pose that

 6     question as to who the others might have been.

 7             MR. STRINGER:  Just a very quick objection to the argument or

 8     statement of counsel characterizing the document.  I think the witness is

 9     here to talk about it and not counsel.

10             MR. KARNAVAS:  I totally agree with the Prosecutor.  I was merely

11     invited to respond to Your Honour's question, which I thought you were --

12     since I wasn't clear enough the first time, I tried to be as clear and

13     forth --

14             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you.  I probably made also mistake because

15     I ought to have, in a technique similar to cross-examination, put the

16     question directly to the witness.  It was my courtesy that I address

17     myself to you, and please do not take grudge from it.

18             MR. KARNAVAS:  No, no.  But I take the Prosecution's point and

19     I'll try to remedy it.

20        Q.   1D 00126.  This is just a decision, and we see that it's for the

21     appointment of the commission of regulations of the Croatian Defence

22     Council.  It's dated 27 November 1992.  First, if you can tell us:  What

23     is this commission for regulations, if you know very quickly, in one

24     sentence?

25        A.   This was a commission that proposed various regulations, very

Page 30329

 1     often even drafted them, and then evaluated the congruency of these

 2     regulations with regulations of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the other

 3     regulations of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna.  And this would be

 4     the shortest I can tell you about the commission for regulations.

 5        Q.   All right.  And if we look at the names, can we draw any

 6     conclusions as to the ethnicity of those who were being appointed?

 7        A.   There were two Bosniaks, Muslims, in the commission, and two

 8     Croats.

 9        Q.   All right.

10        A.   There was an equal representation, in other words.

11        Q.   All right.  Now, I'm going to go through another set of

12     documents, and this deals with other statutory decisions from other

13     municipalities.  And, Mr. Buntic, I would be ever so kind -- I would

14     appreciate it very, very much if you could be very short, because we

15     don't need to go through these documents unless the Trial Chamber has

16     questions, and then feel free to expand as much as you think is

17     necessary.

18             But we just need to show these documents to the Trial Chamber to

19     get an idea of what the other municipalities were doing.

20             MR. KARNAVAS:  1D 02261, 1D 02261.  This is a statutory decision

21     of Bosanska Posavina, and we see this is 11 May 1992.

22        Q.   You would have been familiar with this statutory decision at some

23     point or another; correct?

24        A.   I know that the Croatian Community of Bosanska Posavina adopted

25     this statutory decision, which, in my view, provides a much simpler and

Page 30330

 1     clearer solutions to the internal organization, and the functioning that

 2     may be the statutory decision of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna.

 3     I'm familiar with this decision, and this decision also points to the

 4     fact that different communities had different regulations, which also

 5     points to the fact that they were not synchronised in their activities,

 6     that they're activities were not planned in advance.  Everybody made do

 7     as they could within the given situation.

 8        Q.   All right.  And in keeping with that answer, let's look at the

 9     next document and we'll -- and other documents as well, and we'll be able

10     to see that at a glance.

11             MR. KARNAVAS:  1D 01925, 1925.  This is a -- this deals with the

12     region of North-Eastern Bosnia.

13        Q.   And we see that it talks about the Croatian Defence Council as a

14     political organization with the following objectives and tasks.  If we

15     look at the very last page, we see that this was signed on 12 June 1992

16     in Tuzla; and, of course, you must have been aware of the -- of this

17     document as well and the municipalities that it covered?

18        A.   I'm familiar with this document providing to the establishment of

19     the founding of the municipalities of Tuzla, Zivnice, Kalesija, Lukavac,

20     Gracanica, Srebrenik, Gradacac, Lopare, Brcko.  I know that the HVO was

21     established in these areas as well, and that later on these communities

22     or parts thereof served for the establishment of the Croatian community

23     of Soli.

24        Q.   And we'll come to that with the next few documents.  We just need

25     to move rather quickly --

Page 30331

 1             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Just a very small question.  Are all these

 2     communities we've now been looking at documents, are they part of

 3     Herceg-Bosna?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The community Soli -- actually,

 5     subsequently, some of these communities joined the Croatian Community of

 6     Herceg-Bosna.  I'm referring to the Croatian Community of Bosanska

 7     Posavina.  And some decisions were also issued providing for the joining

 8     of other municipalities once the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna was

 9     established on the 18th of November, 1992.

10             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you.  But at the time of these documents,

11     they were not or some were not members or did not belong to Herceg-Bosna,

12     or did they already belong to Herceg-Bosna at the time of the documents

13     we're looking at?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It should be said that, first, the

15     Croatian community of Bosanska Posavina was established around the

16     11th of December, 1992, and that only subsequently it joined the Croatian

17     Community of Herceg-Bosna.  It should also be said that in some of the

18     parts of these communities that we just mentioned or these

19     municipalities.  Later on, a Croatian community was established under the

20     name of Soli, S-o-l-i; and that it also adopted the decision to join the

21     Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna.  At this point in time, I can't

22     remember the dates, and I'd rather not speculate.

23             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you very much.

24             MR. KARNAVAS:  Just one minor clarification.

25        Q.   You said on page 12, line 5, that it was December 1992 that

Page 30332

 1     Bosanska Posavina was established.  Could it be December 1991 and not

 2     1992?

 3        A.   As far as I can remember, I said it was on the 12th of November,

 4     1991.  I don't know how it was recorded.  If I said anything else, then I

 5     misspoke.  A week before the establishment of the Croatian Community of

 6     Herceg-Bosna this happened, or on the 12th of November, 1991, to be more

 7     precise.

 8        Q.   All right.

 9             MR. KARNAVAS:  If we go to the next document, 1D 02258, this is

10     again dated 12 June 1992.

11        Q.   This is a decision to establish the Croatian Defence Council of

12     Banovici, and we see from the very -- from very first article, Article 1,

13     we see that the Banovici HVO shall be engaged in defence as part of the

14     armed forces of BH.  Where is Banovici, can you tell us?

15        A.   Banovici is in the north-eastern part of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

16        Q.   All right.

17        A.   And I --

18        Q.   Could you repeat yourself.  Could you repeat that last answer,

19     sir.  Were you aware that they were part of the defence of the --

20     Croatian Defence --

21        A.   I started speaking, but I didn't know whether my microphone was

22     still on.  I am aware that the Croatian Defence Council was established

23     in the municipality of Banovici, and that it was part of the Croatian

24     Defence Council of Bosnia and Herzegovina.  I believe that it was active

25     in one part of the municipality of Banovici, rather than its entire

Page 30333

 1     territory.

 2        Q.   All right.

 3             MR. KARNAVAS:  And then we go on to the next document, 1D 02259.

 4        Q.   And, here, we see a decision to form the military unit of the

 5     Tuzla HVO.  Were you aware that there was such a unit in Tuzla?

 6             This is dated 25 June 1992.

 7        A.   I'm familiar with this decision which says that the HVO was

 8     established and was active in one part of the municipality of Tuzla.

 9        Q.   All right.  Now, when you say "part," just to make sure, to tie

10     it in with your answer yesterday, because yesterday you corrected one of

11     the translations when you said "areas."  So when you say "part," is that

12     what you're referring to, that these HVO units or HVO establishments were

13     in some areas of the municipality, not the entire municipality?

14        A.   The question is connected with the topic I discussed yesterday.

15     The fact of the matter is that the HVO, specifically in this case in

16     Tuzla, was not able to be active throughout the territory of the Tuzla

17     municipality; rather, it was active only in certain areas of that

18     municipality.

19        Q.   Thank you.

20             MR. KARNAVAS:  We go to the next document, 1D 02253.

21        Q.   Here, we see this is dated 8 July 1992.  It's a decision to form

22     administrative offices in the territory of the Croatian part of

23     Teslic-Komusina municipality.

24        A.   May I?

25        Q.   Yes, please.

Page 30334

 1        A.   This is a case similar to the one we've just discussed.  Mention

 2     is made of the administrative offices being set up in the -- in a part of

 3     the territory of these municipalities.  Therefore, as the very title

 4     says, the establishment of these offices does not refer to the entire

 5     territories of these municipalities.

 6        Q.   Okay.

 7             MR. KARNAVAS:  We go on to the next document, 1D 02053, 1D 02053.

 8     We see it's dated 11 July 1992.

 9        Q.   We see that this is an order, and two things that we can point

10     out for the Judges.  One is under number 1.  It talks about men liable

11     for military service, and we see the age of 18 to 60.  And, of course,

12     number 3 which may be more important and you could comment on that, where

13     it says:  "Men liable for military service from other municipalities, who

14     are currently in the territory of Ljubuski municipality, shall be

15     escorted to their municipalities."

16             Can you comment on that?

17        A.   It is true that this is an order, and an order which relates to

18     Ljubuski municipality.  This order speaks of all the issues that the

19     municipalities had to decide upon at the time in no uncertain terms.

20     What is typical for this particular order is that the municipalities were

21     separate entities developing their own respective regulations.

22             This particular order testifies to the fact that it was very

23     difficult to organize any sort of defence in these municipalities without

24     the HVO.  What it says in this part is that the military-aged men from

25     Ljubuski were unable to leave their territory -- the territory of their

Page 30335

 1     municipality and that the authorities of the Ljubuski municipality did

 2     not allow other military-aged men to enter their territory.  What clearly

 3     arises from this document is that neither were the military-aged men from

 4     the Ljubuski municipality allowed to leave their municipality to help out

 5     those in other municipalities, and vice versa.

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation

 7     continues] ... to me particularly important.  You've just pointed out

 8     that the municipalities were autonomous.  We see in this text that there

 9     is interference by this municipality in its use of military service

10     because they prohibit all those aged between 18 and 60 from leaving their

11     municipality.

12             Should there not have been coordination at the level of the

13     military HVO, because there is a common enemy on the face of it; and if

14     each municipality does in its own corner wages its own individual war,

15     there could very well be chaos or major problems.

16             Now, this military aspect, in your view, was it relayed at the

17     level of the HVO echelons to ensure coordination; or given the situation,

18     did each do what they could?

19     THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe that this particular document

20  testifies to the state of affairs as it existed before the setting up of the

21 HVO of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna. Not only is this a document

22  which contains regulations, but it is also the reflection of the state of

23  affairs as it existed before the joint or Main Staff was set up, which could

24  exercise command over the armed units after the creation of the Croatian

25  Defence Council for the entire Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna. It points

Page 30336

 1  to the difficulties that existed in these areas and to the fact that the

 2  municipalities had to defend their own territories. They had their own

 3   armies.  This document also shows that military-aged men were not allowed

 4     to leave Ljubuski municipality and were unable to help out other

 5     municipalities such as Citluk, Siroki Brijeg, and others.  Nor were

 6     soldiers from other municipalities able to enter Ljubuski municipality,

 7     not even to help them out, according to this particular document.  This

 8     is not a document typical for Ljubuski municipality.

 9           Other municipalities issued similar regulations, but up till then

10  municipalities acted within their competencies, which pointed to the need

11  for the setting up of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, in order to

12  have a unified defence, and to establish a joint command or the Main Staff.

13             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Mr. Buntic, do you know whether similar problems

14     prevailed in the Bosniak parts of Bosnia-Herzegovina?  The Muslim

15     municipalities in the same situation, did things work there more or less

16     in the same way?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise, but I did not receive

18     any interpretation.  I'm not receiving it still.

19             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Make a sign, if you will, if you now get a

20     translation of my question.  Still nothing?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

22             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Unfortunately, I cannot speak B/C/S, but our

23     technicians and interpreters will henceforth find a solution to this

24     problem.

25             Let's try again.  Is it better now?

Page 30337

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am certain that the

 2     municipalities with predominantly Muslim population had similar problems,

 3     but I'm also sure that in their case, the municipalities did not act in a

 4     unified or uniform way, as was the case on the Croat side for instance.

 5     There was joint command in Mostar because the Bosniaks were there.  There

 6     was a 50/50 per cent division of power.  The Bosniaks, Muslims, were a

 7     massive presence in the HVO in the course of 1992.

 8             The same situation prevailed in the municipality of Stolac and

 9     Konjic in the first half of 1992; whereas, in certain other parts of

10     Bosnia-Herzegovina, there was a dominant presence of the Patriotic League

11     as an armed wing of the Party for Democratic Action.

12             For instance, in the area of Tuzla, there was a dominant presence

13     of the Territorial Defence.  In other areas of Tuzla municipality, there

14     was HVO.  Even on the Muslim, Bosniak, side, we come across similar

15     problems and solutions.

16             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you.

17             MR. KARNAVAS:

18        Q.   Okay.  I think we can move on to the next document, and probably

19     we don't need to spend so much time on this document given the questions

20     that were asked of you.

21             MR. KARNAVAS:  This is 1D 02338, 1D 02338.

22        Q.   This is a decision on general mobilisation of personnel and

23     materiel and technical equipment in the territory of Siroki Brijeg; and,

24     here, as you indicated, different municipalities dealt with it

25     differently.  This is a decision dealing with Siroki Brijeg; correct?

Page 30338

 1        A.   This is another such example.  As we discussed earlier on, it is

 2     quite evident that this decision was published in the Official Gazette of

 3     the municipality of Siroki Brijeg; in other words, the Official Gazettes

 4     of municipalities were active even in times of war.

 5        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Buntic, for that bonus part of your answer

 6     discrediting Ribicic --

 7             MR. STRINGER:  Objection to the statement of counsel

 8     characterizing the evidence, which is in the end for the Trial Chamber to

 9     assess.  I think speeches and arguments characterizing evidence don't

10     advance the cause.

11             MR. KARNAVAS:  We'll move on to the next document, 1D 00591.

12     1D 00591.

13             Mr. Usher, if you could help us here.

14        Q.   This is a general mobilisation in the Mostar municipality; so,

15     here, we see that this results -- we don't have a date, but it appears to

16     result from a meeting on 21 -- on 11 July 1992.  And, again, we see that

17     it's published in the Official Gazette of the HVO Mostar municipality on

18     the 24 July 1992, similar to what we saw the other municipalities;

19     correct?

20        A.   I should say that there is no material difference between the

21     earlier decision relating to Siroki Brijeg municipality.  As we can see,

22     different municipalities developed their own regulations, which in some

23     instances were similar, in others dissimilar; but they made do they best

24     could.

25             MR. KARNAVAS:  1D 02254, 1D 02254.  This is a statutory decision,

Page 30339

 1     the Croatian Defence Council of Teslic-Komusina.

 2             Mr. Usher, we may need your assistance again.

 3        Q.   This is dated, if we look on the second page, 28 July; and this

 4     is a statutory decision on temporary establishment of the executive

 5     authorities of administration in the Croatian part of Teslic

 6     municipality.

 7             Again, this would verify what you told us earlier, that the HVO

 8     presence were in parts as opposed to whole municipalities depending on

 9     the area; correct?

10        A.   This case also involves certain areas of municipalities.  As I

11     said earlier on, the HVO was set up in the municipalities where the

12     Croats were not a majority but were a significant presence.  As in many

13     other cases, the HVO was set up in the areas where there was such a

14     presence of the Croat population, in such areas that were only part of

15     municipalities.  In this particular instance, we have a statutory

16     decision which in its very title says that it was -- that it refers to

17     the Croat part of Teslic municipality.

18        Q.   Thank you.  And, of course, if we look at Article 3, it tells us

19     exactly the locations, that it's to "... join the Croatian regional

20     community which comprises the municipalities of Maglaj, Teslic,

21     Zavidovici, Zepce, and with headquarters in Zepce"; correct?

22        A.   This is another issue we've already discussed.  We said that out

23     of these parts of municipalities, a community of municipalities was

24     established with a view to organizing joint defence of the general area.

25             MR. KARNAVAS:  Unless there are any questions, I'll go on to the

Page 30340

 1     next document, and this is 1D 02280.

 2             Again, Mr. Usher, we will need your assistance.  I apologise for

 3     having -- for taxing you on these matters, but this is the last one.

 4     1D 02280.

 5        Q.   We see this is a decision for Orasje municipality and we don't

 6     have a particular date, but do you recall whether in the Orasje

 7     municipality there was an HVO?

 8        A.   I am certain that, throughout the war, there existed the HVO in

 9     Orasje, and that the Bosniaks and Croats in the municipality of Orasje

10     fought side by side throughout the war under the title of the HVO of

11     Orasje, and that there had never been any clashes breaking out between

12     Bosniaks and Croats in Orasje, not even when the conflicts broke out in

13     Central Bosnia and in Herzegovina.  There had never been any clashes

14     between Croats and Muslims in that particular territory.  And what's

15     more, they fought in the rankings of the HVO against their common enemy.

16             This document shows, again, that in various municipalities and in

17     various parts of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the wartime situation developed in

18     different ways.

19        Q.   All right.  And we'll see that with the next few documents before

20     we leave this area.

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I have a follow-up question,

22     Mr. Witness.  After the formation of the Croatian Community of

23     Herceg-Bosna during this famous meeting in Grude, if we look at this.

24     Looking at this document, afterwards, subsequently, municipalities joined

25     the Croatian Community of HB, Herceg-Bosna, such as this municipality; is

Page 30341

 1     that indeed the case?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That was indeed the case.  In some

 3     instances, certain municipalities or parts thereof joined the Croatian

 4     Community of Herceg-Bosna at a later date.  There were also instances of

 5     complete communities of municipalities formed elsewhere joining the

 6     Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna.

 7             I want to note, once more, that the Croatian community of Bosnian

 8     Posavina joined the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna later on.  In this

 9     particular case, we had a fully-fledged community; whereas, in other

10     instances, there were only individual municipalities.

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very good, Witness.  With this

12     document, we don't know whether there was a debate within the

13     municipality Croat and Muslim, or if it is the president of the

14     municipality, Mr. Dzojic, who as a member of the HDZ must decide this for

15     himself.  Do you know if there were internal discussions or not?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am familiar with the internal

17     discussions that took place in the municipality of Orasje.  That

18     municipality was part of the Croatian Community of Bosnian Posavina.  I

19     believe that this particular document speaks to the individual course of

20     action taken by Orasje municipality.  I believe that this document was

21     issued earlier on, and that later on the entire Croatian Community of

22     Bosnian Posavina with all the municipalities contained therein joined the

23     Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna.

24             JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] Witness, a rather technical

25     question.  Did you -- have you already seen this document?

Page 30342

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have the document before me here.

 2     I am not sure whether I've seen the document before or not, but I have

 3     seen before a document whereby the entire Croatian Community of Bosnian

 4     Posavina decided to join the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna.  I also

 5     said that I believe that the document I have before me was issued before

 6     the Croatian Community of Bosnian Posavina decided to join the HZ HB.

 7     That's why I said that this particular document related to Orasje

 8     municipality only and was issued before the joining documents.

 9             JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] You're going well beyond my

10     question.  You're not sure whether you have seen it before or not,

11     whether you've seen this document before.  What is striking is that,

12     although it is signed, it carries no date, and this in spite of two

13     spaces specifically provided for indicating the date.

14             Do you by any chance have an explanation for this?  If not, I

15     would not be surprised but I need to ask the question.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think I've answered

17     the question.  I said that I've never seen the document before.  I see it

18     now for the first time.  I have it before me, and that's why I said that

19     this was my opinion, while saying that I'm looking at the document now

20     for the first time.

21             However, in view of the fact that I am aware of the internal

22     discussions that took place in Orasje municipality, I said that I

23     believed that this was a document issued by them autonomously.  So I'm

24     just presuming that's what I'm saying.

25             JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] Thank you.

Page 30343

 1             MR. KARNAVAS:  Thank you.  If we go on to 1D 02255, 1D 02255.

 2        Q.   This is a decision on the Usora HZ joining the Croatian Community

 3     of Herceg-Bosna in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and we see that it's dated

 4     20 August 1992.  Were you aware of this event; that is, that there was a

 5     decision?

 6             MR. KARNAVAS:  Mr. Usher, we may need your assistance.

 7        Q.   If you can look at the document very quickly; and, again, I'm --

 8     we have to move rather quickly.

 9        A.   I'm familiar with the document.  I've seen it before.  Again, as

10     I indicated earlier on, the joining party here is not a municipality but

11     a community.  The Croatian Community of Usora decides to join the

12     Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna.  I'm familiar with the document

13     because I saw it before on several occasions.

14        Q.   Okay.

15             MR. KARNAVAS:  If we look at 1D 02262, 1D 02262.

16        Q.   This is a decision for Zepce municipality to join the Croatian

17     Community of Herceg-Bosna, and it's dated 21 August 1992.  Just very

18     quickly, did Zepce join the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, as is

19     reflected in this decision?

20        A.   Everything I said in relation to the earlier document on Usora

21     applies to this one.  I'm familiar with it, I've seen it before; and,

22     similarly, this is a municipality located in the north-eastern part of

23     Bosnia-Herzegovina.

24        Q.   All right.

25             MR. KARNAVAS:  1D 02257, dated 21 September 1992, 1D 02257.

Page 30344

 1        Q.   And, here, we see it is signed by the HVO president of Zivinice

 2     municipality, where he states:  "Based on the agreement with Mr. Boban

 3     reached in Grude on setting up an HVO brigade in the four municipalities

 4     of Tuzla, Zivinice, Lukavac, and Lopari ..." and so on.  Were you aware

 5     of this?

 6        A.   I don't recall seeing this document before, but I know that

 7     discussions took place on this subject.

 8        Q.   All right.

 9             MR. KARNAVAS:  If we go on to the next document, 1D 00265.

10        Q.   And this is a decision to establish the political and legal

11     status of Orasje municipality, dated 29 September 1992.  And, again, this

12     would tie in to what you said earlier, but now we're talking about the

13     Orasje municipality as a political, legal, and territorially associated

14     unit.

15        A.   I'm familiar with the document.  As is quite evident, it was

16     published in the Official Gazette of the municipality of Orasje.

17        Q.   All right.

18             MR. KARNAVAS:  If we go on to the next document, 1D 02260,

19     1D 02260, dated 14 October 1992.

20        Q.   This is dealing with North-East Bosnia, Tuzla.  These are

21     conclusions from a session of the HVO of the North-East Bosnia held on

22     13 October 1992; and it talks about, if we look at under number 1, that

23     the name HVO of North-East Bosnia is going to be changed, I guess, to HVO

24     Community of Soli based in Tuzla.  And I guess that's what you were

25     referring to earlier; correct?

Page 30345

 1        A.   Correct.  When talking about one of the previous documents, I

 2     said that the Croatian Community of Soli was established later on, and

 3     this document speaks about that precisely.

 4        Q.   All right.

 5             MR. KARNAVAS:  1D 01981, 1D 01981.

 6        Q.   Here, we have minutes of a meeting of the HVO Banovici, Lukavac,

 7     Tuzla, and Zivinice, held on 15 December 1992.  If you could look at that

 8     very quickly.

 9             And we can see, in the third paragraph, it talks about:  "The

10     Draft Statutory decision on temporary organization of executive authority

11     and administration in the territory of the Soli HZ was read out."

12             Again, this would tie in with your earlier remarks; correct?

13        A.   Correct.  It ties in with my earlier remarks, but I've never seen

14     this document before.  It does tie in with what we have discussed so far.

15        Q.   All right.

16             MR. KARNAVAS:  And then I think the last document in this chapter

17     is 1D 02013.

18        Q.   And, here, we have the statutory decision on the temporary

19     organization of the executive government and administration in the area

20     of the Croatian Community of Soli.  So, apparently, this would tie in

21     with the previous document that we just covered, the minutes of the

22     meeting; and we can see from the very first article, this concerns the

23     establishment of a body of executive -- go ahead --

24        A.   The executive, yes.

25        Q.   The executive government and administration.  And then in Article

Page 30346

 1     2, which you might wish to comment, it says:  "The HVO is a provisional

 2     body which shall discharge its powers until regular executive government

 3     and administration is established."

 4             Can you just briefly comment on that part before we leave this

 5     chapter?

 6        A.   As may be seen, this is a statutory decision on the temporary

 7     organization of executive government; and, again, I emphasize in one part

 8     of Teslic municipality, the document confirms the previous remarks about

 9     this municipality, which is also in the north-eastern part of

10     Bosnia-Herzegovina.  And this decision illustrates the fact that

11     municipalities continued to adopt decisions in order to regulate certain

12     issues.  As we have seen, some municipalities and some communities of

13     municipalities then subsequently joined the Croatian Community of

14     Herceg-Bosna.

15        Q.   All right.  Thank you.

16             MR. KARNAVAS:  We'll go on to the next segment, and I want to

17     deal with now 14 August 1992 because on that particular day there was a

18     session of the Presidency of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna that

19     was held in Grude.  And we can see that from document 1D 01659, 01659.

20        Q.   Do you have it, sir?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   Okay.  Just look at it, just go through it very quickly.  If you

23     look at it, you'll come across your name.  So I suspect that you were

24     present during that particular meeting; correct?

25        A.   I was present, yes.  I was present at the meeting of the

Page 30347

 1     Presidency of the HZ HB.

 2        Q.   Okay.  And just -- the Judges may have some questions on this

 3     document.  I just wanted to point out a couple of things.  One, if we go

 4     on to page 8 in the English version, I don't -- it would be under

 5     number -- it was after the report that was given by Bozo Rajic.  And it

 6     would be under paragraph 6, which after the report paragraph 6, it's on

 7     page 8 in the English version.  We see that there's a gentleman by the

 8     name of Ivan Azinovic, Konjic HVO.  Do you have it, sir?

 9        A.   I can't find it actually.  Can you refer me to the correct page

10     in B/C/S?

11        Q.   I'll try to do that.

12        A.   I've got it now.  Thank you.

13        Q.   Okay.  And it just says here that:  "Sefer Halilovic has ordered

14     all equipment be seized from HVO, and that the HVO in this territory be

15     declared the aggressor and a paramilitary unit.

16             "He proposed that the convoy with humanitarian aid be allowed to

17     pass, but only the part that contains food and after reloading, while

18     equipment should be blocked until an agreement is reached."

19             Were you aware of Mr. Halilovic's activities as reflected here by

20     Mr. Azinovic in Konjic; that is, that he was seizing the equipment and

21     declaring HVO to be the aggressor?

22        A.   Problems in the municipality of Konjic, as may be seen in this

23     document, involved the HVO and BiH army or the Patriotic League.  They

24     started after the summer of 1992.  As may be seen from the document,

25     Mr. Azinovic informed the Presidency of those problems; although, before

Page 30348

 1     the summer of 1992, Konjic was a peaceful area in which there were no

 2     conflicts whatsoever between the HVO and the units of the Muslim or the

 3     Bosniak side.

 4             I'm also aware of the fact that a large number of skirmishes

 5     arose from the fact that Mr. Halilovic's role increased.  Even Azinovic

 6     from Konjic speaks about that in this particular case.  Konjic is a

 7     municipality which is north of Mostar on the border between Bosnia and

 8     Herzegovina.  In other words, this is the -- in the area surrounding the

 9     border between Bosnia and Herzegovina.

10        Q.   All right.  Now, I'm not going to cover every instance where you

11     spoke.  The Judges may wish to question you on that.

12             MR. KARNAVAS:  That's an invitation, by the way, Your Honours.

13        Q.   But I'm going to focus your attention on page 11 under paragraph

14     number 13, because there you do speak about the decree on the application

15     of the Law on Court Fees.  And, here, it says you gave some explanations.

16             This would be page 12 for you in the Croatian version.  So if you

17     could just please tell us if you recall what your remarks were concerning

18     the amendments that were made related to court fees.

19        A.   Under item 12, you can see that this is about the decree on the

20     application of the RBH KZ and the SFRJ KZ in the territory of the

21     Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, as well as the decree on the

22     application of the Law on Court Fees.  Both decrees relative to both the

23     republican and federal regulations, the only thing that they changed was

24     the fact that the fees expressed in the dinars of the former Yugoslavia

25     as the legal tender were then converted into the Croatian dinars.  No

Page 30349

 1     other provision of any of the two laws was changed or modified by these

 2     two decrees.  They were adopted verbatim as they existed before then.

 3        Q.   All right.  Now, we heard testimony a couple of weeks ago of a

 4     gentleman who was able to assist us a little bit on financial or monetary

 5     issues in Bosnia-Herzegovina at the time.  But very briefly, if you could

 6     tell us, why the Croatian dinar, why not the Bosnian-Herzegovinian dinar

 7     or the Deutschemark or some other currency?  Why that currency?

 8        A.   When it comes to Yugoslav dinars at the time that we're talking

 9     about, which is August 1992, they did not exist in any of the monetary

10     transactions in the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina.  I'm not a financial

11     expert, but I believe that this may be explained by the fact that the

12     payment transaction service that was in charge of the payments both in

13     Bosnia and Herzegovina and in the former Yugoslavia no longer functioned.

14             Yugoslav dinars could not reach the area; and, indeed, they

15     didn't reach the area.  And at that particular time, I don't think that

16     Bosnian dinar had been issued as a legal tender; and if it had been, then

17     just like the Yugoslav dinar, it was exposed to the galloping inflation

18     and devaluation.

19             At that time, in this area of the Croatian Community of

20     Herceg-Bosna, most of the payments were effected in Croatian dinars

21     because Croatian dinars were most easy to be had and somewhat less was

22     carried out in German marks.  We were faced with one of the possibilities

23     then, to adopt Croatian dinar as the legal tender, and there were plenty

24     of Croatian dinars in circulation.  And the second possibility was to

25     adopt German mark, the currency that was in very short supply.

Page 30350

 1        Q.   Okay --

 2        A.   And a third option, and please let me finish, was to issue one's

 3     own currency as the legal tender; and there was even a fourth option and

 4     that was to effect payments in kind.

 5        Q.   Okay.

 6        A.   And I fully believe that the last option is -- was really out of

 7     the question, that it wasn't acceptable.

 8        Q.   All right.  We're going to have to move a little bit quicker on

 9     the next few documents.

10             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  If I may.

11             MR. KARNAVAS:  Certainly.

12             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Just a question of understanding.

13             In the previous paragraph, number 12, one speaks of the RBH KZ.

14     Could you tell me what "KZ" is as an abbreviation?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "KZ" is the criminal law.

16             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you very much.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

18             MR. KARNAVAS:

19        Q.   All right.

20             MR. KARNAVAS:  We'll go on to 1D 0005, and we see that this is

21     dated September 1992; well, the Official Gazette, that is.

22        Q.   But, at the bottom, we see Boban's name, 14 August 1992, and this

23     is a decree on application of the Law on Court Duties.  And then just

24     very quickly, as you indicated, if we look at number -- if we look at

25     Article 2, we see that the:  "Dinar values stipulated in the Law on Court

Page 30351

 1     Duties on Municipal Tax Fees issued before this decree came into effect

 2     shall be changed into Croatian dinars ..."

 3             So that was based on the explanation you gave us earlier,

 4     correct?  These are just examples for the Court to see.

 5        A.   Correct.  This corresponds to what I previously said, but I would

 6     still like to read Article 1 which confirms what I said also.  This

 7     reads:  "The Law on Court Duties of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina

 8     shall also be applied in the territory of the Croatian Community of

 9     Herceg-Bosna."  And as has already been said, everything remained the

10     same save for the fact that Yugoslav dinars were transformed into

11     Croatian dinars.

12        Q.   Right.  And then if we look at the preamble, it also -- it also

13     makes reference to a decision proclaiming an imminent threat of war; and

14     it states it's the Official Gazette of the Republic of

15     Bosnia-Herzegovina.

16             MR. KARNAVAS:  Now, if we go on to the next document, P 00449,

17     the preamble looks more or less the same as the previous document.

18        Q.   This is a decree on the application of the Criminal Code of the

19     Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.  Again, as you indicated in your previous

20     answer, if we look at Article 1 and then Article 2, again, it reflects

21     the dinar value.

22             Other than what you've already told us with respect to the

23     previous document, which was number 5, 1D 0005, anything else to comment

24     about this document which deals with the criminal code?

25        A.   This is yet another example showing that the laws of the former

Page 30352

 1     Yugoslavia were adopted and applied to the full, as well as the laws of

 2     the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, save for those parts that mandated

 3     interventions, because without those interventions or corrections, it

 4     would not have been possible to apply these regulations.  And this also

 5     refers to the criminal code.

 6        Q.   All right.

 7             MR. KARNAVAS:  We can go on to the next document, P 00440,

 8     P 00440.

 9        Q.   And this is a decree on the organization and responsibilities of

10     the departments and commissions of the Croatian Defence Council.  And

11     perhaps if you could tell us a little bit about what exactly these

12     commissions are about, just very briefly, one sentence, and then I'll

13     focus you to a particular article.

14        A.   This decree regulates commissions as special, professional,

15     technical bodies established by the HVO of the Croatian Community of

16     Herceg-Bosna.  I know that there were, for example, commissions:  A

17     commission for regulations, a commission for restructuring and

18     development, and that there was also, for example, a commission for war

19     crimes.

20        Q.   All right.  Now, if we look at Article 7, we see that:

21     "Departments and commissions of the HVO shall cooperate with the

22     republican bodies in the preparation of acts which confirm the policy of

23     the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina and in the preparation of laws and

24     other regulations and general acts, referring to issues of the equality

25     of the constituent peoples of the Republic after Bosnia and Herzegovina."

Page 30353

 1             Now, if you could comment on that a little bit because it may be

 2     of some interest to the Judges, keeping in mind this is 14 August 1992.

 3     Here, HVO clearly, Article 7, says that they shall cooperate, and it

 4     would appear that the cooperation is to be with the state.

 5        A.   As may be seen from the text of this regulation, of its Article

 6     7, that is, it points to cooperation between the departments and

 7     commissions with the republican bodies.  And as it may be seen here,

 8     they're supposed to cooperate in the preparation of the documents of the

 9     Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina concerning the issue of equality of

10     constituent peoples.  In addition to what is contained in the Article 7

11     of this regulation, I believe that this regulation was motivated by the

12     previously signed agreement between the president of the Republic of

13     Bosnia and Herzegovina, Alija Izetbegovic, and Franjo Tudjman in

14     Medjugorje.

15             That agreement called for cooperation between the HVO of the

16     HZ HB and the republican bodies.  That is why according to that agreement

17     it was necessary to establish certain commissions and bodies which would

18     be tasked with finding a peaceful solution within the framework offered

19     by the European Community during the peace talks about Bosnia and

20     Herzegovina.

21        Q.   Okay.  I think that helps us.

22             MR. KARNAVAS:  If we go on to the next document, P -- yes.

23             JUDGE PRANDLER:  I follow your advice, and I ask a question.  The

24     Article 7 which you referred to and Mr. Buntic answered this question,

25     your question.

Page 30354

 1             I would only like to ask you, Mr. Buntic, about the following:

 2     Article 7 speaks about the cooperation, but somehow it is not very clear

 3     for me when it says that departments and commissions of the HVO shall

 4     cooperate with the republican bodies in preparation of acts, et cetera.

 5     And, again, in the second paragraph, it also says the:  "Departments and

 6     commissions of the HVO shall cooperate with administrative bodies of

 7     other states ..."

 8             Now, as far as the first part of Article 7 is concerned, it

 9     speaks about cooperation, as I already mentioned this, but I do not see

10     how the cooperation is being followed in case e filaci [phoen].  There

11     are certain divergent views or whatever the means to reach some

12     conclusions, to reach some compromises, et cetera, because here we speak

13     only about cooperation but there is no mention of the hierarchical, in a

14     way, acting in conformity of the laws and regulations adopted by the

15     republic; that is, Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

16             And in other words, the cooperation before me in this sense would

17     only mean that there is cooperation between and among equals.  This

18     article suggests that the major position of that time of HVO was that it

19     was a cooperation among equals, because we do not find here anything

20     which would indicate that in terms of discussion or disagreements what

21     kind of laws and regulations should be applied.

22             It is my question that, in case of conflicts between two regimes,

23     let's say regime as applied and as established in Herceg-Bosna and regime

24     as applied and, of course, established by the republican bodies in

25     Sarajevo, what was the mechanism which would overcome the divergencies of

Page 30355

 1     views and rules?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] From the previous decrees passed by

 3     the Presidency of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, which is the

 4     decree on the application of the criminal code, the decree on the

 5     application of the Law on Criminal Procedure, on judicial fees, as well

 6     as of all the other regulations passed by the Croatian Community of

 7     Herceg-Bosna, it is obvious that all these decrees -- laws were adopted

 8     in full, save for in those parts where interventions were necessary.

 9             And when I spoke about the interventions, I said what those

10     interventions were; like, for example, when Yugoslav dinars were

11     transformed into Croatian dinars in order for the law to be applied.

12             When we're talking about this, I believe that what is striking is

13     the cooperation with other states.  But in my previous answer, I said

14     that this Article 7 was by and large motivated by the previously signed

15     agreement between Messrs. Tudjman and Izetbegovic, as presidents of two

16     states.  This agreement envisaged the establishment of certain

17     commissions which would work to overcome and find solutions to the

18     problems that existed at the time and coordinating all the regulations.

19             As a result of all that, immediately after the meeting between

20     Tudjman and Izetbegovic in Medjugorje, I had a meeting with the deputy

21     minister of justice of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and we discussed the

22     issues of judiciary.  It was this conversation between the minister of

23     justice of Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina and me that took place in

24     Medjugorje which resulted in the decree on the fact that the decree on

25     military courts was never published and it was never applied.  In keeping

Page 30356

 1     with our agreement, me and Mr. Jusuf Halilagic, the deputy minister of

 2     justice of Bosnia and Herzegovina, at our session on the 17th of October,

 3     we adopted a new decree on district military courts and district military

 4     prosecutor's offices, which was published in the Official Gazette of the

 5     Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna and which was applied in practice, and

 6     which was coordinated with the positions of the republican Ministry of

 7     Justice.

 8             JUDGE PRANDLER:  Thank you, Mr. Buntic, for your answer.

 9             MR. KARNAVAS:  Just a point of clarification.

10        Q.   When you indicated that the decrees on the military courts were

11     not implemented, you were referring to P 09552 of 3 July 1992 that we

12     spoke of yesterday, and I cut you off and I said we will cover that later

13     on; correct?

14        A.   Correct.  That's the decree I was referring to.

15        Q.   And what --

16        A.   With your permission, yesterday, in answer to Their Honours'

17     question about subdepartments, this is something that we discussed.  And

18     this particular decree in Article 12 regulates the setting up of

19     departments and subdepartments, both Articles 12 and 19.  Article 19

20     lists all the subdepartments within the HVO.  As we can see, there is a

21     total of 13 of them.  That's why I had difficulties yesterday in listing

22     them all.

23        Q.   Okay.  I have one follow-up question, but we can take care of

24     that after the break.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.

Page 30357

 1             We are going to break for 20 minutes.

 2                           --- Recess taken at 10.34 a.m.

 3                           --- On resuming at 10.56 a.m.

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, you have the

 5     floor.

 6             MR. KARNAVAS:  Thank you.

 7        Q.   Mr. Buntic, I want to go back to the question that was asked of

 8     you by Judge Prandler.  This is a follow-up question; and when I look at

 9     the question, it would appear that at least the impression is that from

10     reading this particular article, that the Judge believes that you have

11     two different states operating in the same territory, two different

12     regimes; in other words, that the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna is a

13     state within a state.

14             Could you please explain to us, was that the case?

15        A.   That was not the case, nor do I believe that this is what follows

16     from Article 7 and the meaning it conveys.  I have already talked about

17     what I believe the -- what it was that immediately motivated Article 7.

18     The Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna recognised and never called into

19     question the sovereignty and independence of the Republic of

20     Bosnia-Herzegovina.  This follows from all of its documents, wherein

21     almost every heading of the document, you can read Republic of

22     Bosnia-Herzegovina and then below that Croatian Community of

23     Herceg-Bosna.

24             In addition to that, all of the regulations passed by the HZ HB

25     state clearly that those were merely provisional regulations valid only

Page 30358

 1     while there was a state of war.  These regulations were the result of

 2     necessity, and we were able to see that the regulations were passed only

 3     for those areas where it was strictly necessary in order for the

 4     legislation of Bosnia-Herzegovina to be applied.  We were able to see for

 5     ourselves, based on the enactments, decrees, and regulations we looked at

 6     before, that these were passed only where it was strictly necessary.

 7             I don't believe that this particular article implies that there

 8     were two states in existence.  Simply, these were entities that were

 9     treated as such, that through peacemaking negotiations aimed at finding a

10     settlement of the crisis, all the three parties to these negotiations

11     were treated as equals.

12        Q.   And just --

13             JUDGE PRANDLER:  I'm sorry, Mr. Karnavas, but I would like to

14     thank Mr. Buntic for his answer, and I have to be very frank that I'm

15     grateful to you, too, because you asked your question which was my

16     question, too.  But I was probably more cautious than you were and that

17     is why you put it in shorter form.  But I admit that it was my original

18     intention to ask this question because the same Article 7 speaks about a

19     cooperation with the authorities of the republic.  And, also, at the same

20     time, in the second paragraph, it speaks about the cooperation with other

21     states.  So that is why I asked the question.  And I thank you both for

22     the answer.  Thank you.

23             MR. KARNAVAS:  Now, if we go on to the next document, P 00429.

24        Q.   We see that it's dated 14 August 1992, and we see that this is a

25     decision on the election of the president of the Croatian Defence Council

Page 30359

 1     of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, Dr. Jadranko Prlic.  You would

 2     confirm that it was on this day that this decision was passed; correct?

 3        A.   Correct.  I talked about this decision yesterday.  It was passed

 4     on the 14th of August, 1992.  I said that Mr. Jadranko Prlic was

 5     appointed president of the HVO only on the 14th of August, 1992.  So,

 6     yes, that's the decision.

 7        Q.   Now, could you please explain to us --

 8             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Witness, you were in Grude

 9     because your name is indicated.  I'm trying to understand this election.

10     Is it the fact that Mr. Boban had far too much work because he had

11     several hats, or is it because those who voted for Mr. Prlic were trying

12     to better control Mr. Boban by putting in place someone from the election

13     of the municipalities?  In this election, did it have political

14     significance or was it a reorganization of the powers or no purpose

15     whatsoever?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think there were various reasons,

17     as we were able to see yesterday.  In the period running up to the

18     14th of August, that's to say mid-August 1992, all the powers were in the

19     hands of Mr. Mate Boban, who, as we were able to see yesterday, was the

20     president of the Presidency of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna,

21     the president of the HVO, therefore, of the executive government as well,

22     and the president of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, which was a

23     third function.  He was also the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces;

24     that is to say, of the military section of the HVO.  And he was also

25     deputy president of the Croatian Democratic Union, the strongest Croat

Page 30360

 1     political party in Bosnia-Herzegovina which had as its followers 95

 2     per cent of the Croats in Bosnia-Herzegovina.  It could be said that all

 3     the powers were concentrated in the hands of Mr. Mate Boban alone.

 4             One of the reasons might well have been the fact that he could no

 5     longer carry all the various hats that he had.  Another reason could have

 6     been an attempt at separating the various powers, the legislative from

 7     the executive power.  The attempt was made through the decree of the

 8     3rd of July, which was, in fact, implemented only on the 14th of August,

 9     in such a way that the executive civilian authority got as its president

10     Mr. Jadranko Prlic.

11             This relates to the civilian segment or the executive branch of

12     authority of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, whereby the

13     then-hitherto president, Mate Boban, was replaced by Jadranko Prlic.

14     After that, Mr. Mate Boban held to all the other different functions that

15     he had.

16             MR. KARNAVAS:

17        Q.   All right.  Now, Mr. Buntic, prior to August 14, 1992, how much

18     work was actually done by the HVO?

19        A.   We were able to see that, up until the 14th of August, heads of

20     offices or departments of the Croatian Defence Council had been

21     appointed:  The head of the defence department, head of the department of

22     the interior, head of the department of justice and general

23     administration, and head of the department for the economy, I believe.

24     I'm not sure whether Mr. Prlic, prior to this appointment, had been

25     appointed head of the finance department.

Page 30361

 1        Q.   Okay.  But other than these appointments, concretely, how much

 2     legislation had been passed?  How many meetings were held?  How much

 3     actual work was done?

 4        A.   To my knowledge, the first meeting of the Presidency of the

 5     Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna was at the same time a constituent

 6     meeting of the HZ HB on the 18th of November, 1991.  The second meeting,

 7     as arises from some of the documents, was held on the 15th of May of

 8     1992.  A third meeting was held on the 3rd of July, 1992.  The 14th of

 9     August meeting was the fourth meeting of the Presidency of the HZ HB.

10             It's difficult for me to cite the exact number of decrees or

11     decisions taken by the Presidency of the HZ HB; however, on the basis of

12     the various minutes and documents we were able to see here, we can

13     conclude that a number of regulations in the form of decrees was passed,

14     as well as decisions that certain appointments to certain posts within

15     the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna were made.

16        Q.   Let me be a little more specific.  How many meetings between the

17     heads of departments were held prior to the 14th of August?

18        A.   As far as the HVO is concerned, none.

19        Q.   All right.  This was my --

20        A.   When it comes to that executive branch of government, not a

21     single meeting had been held.

22        Q.   All right.  Thank you.

23             MR. KARNAVAS:  If we go on now, we're going to go on to a

24     transcript of a meeting 17 September 1992.  It's 1D 02366.

25        Q.   We don't have time to cover it all.  The Judges may have

Page 30362

 1     questions.  This meeting took place in Zagreb, and I just want to look at

 2     two portions of it and then have you comment; and then if the Judges wish

 3     to ask you to -- to ask any further questions, that would be fine.

 4             In this particular instance, you do recall being at this meeting

 5     on 17 September 1992, do you not?

 6        A.   Yes, I do.

 7        Q.   And were you aware at the time, by the way, that you were being

 8     tape recorded, you, along with everybody else?

 9        A.   No, I wasn't.

10        Q.   All right.

11        A.   I wasn't aware that we were being taped.

12        Q.   All right.  Now, if we look at page 27 in the English version

13     where Mr. Prlic begins speaking towards the bottom, that's where it

14     starts.  And I'm going to go to actually page 28, and there he talks

15     about what the Serbs want or their option, the Muslim option; and then he

16     comes to the Croat option, and that would be on the fourth paragraph on

17     page 28 in English.

18             He says, and I quote:  "The Croats, at least the soldiers in the

19     Croatian Defence Council and the people who are involved, the organs of

20     authority, have a clear political aim.  It has been clear to me ever

21     since I became involved in this and since I have been in this post.  This

22     aim is the forming and ordering of Bosnia and Herzegovina in accordance

23     with the principles of the European Community; that is, the constituting

24     of Bosnia and Herzegovina through three national units."

25             Now, let's just move on, just think about that, and I want to go

Page 30363

 1     to where you speak.  This would be on page 16.

 2             MR. KARNAVAS:  You will note, Your Honours, that this has a

 3     different number, this document, because we translated pages that were

 4     not translated by the Prosecution, this being an excerpt of it.

 5        Q.   Here, we have you speaking and you talk about the situation, and

 6     I'll just read portions of it.  You say:  "I think we must make a

 7     distinction between important and unimportant facts, i.e., between

 8     contested and uncontested ones.  I would count the following as important

 9     and uncontested fact.  Firstly, according to the current Constitution of

10     Bosnia-Herzegovina, it is defined as a complex state consisting of three

11     constitutive elements.  Secondly, I do not know of any other multi-ethnic

12     community in the world arranged in accordance with the unitary principle.

13     Thirdly, since the beginning of the peace talks on Bosnia-Herzegovina

14     under the agencies of the international community, the findings of the

15     Badinter Commission, the European Community, and the United Nations have

16     been offering a solution to the effect; that is to say, configuring

17     Bosnia-Herzegovina as a complex state ."

18             I won't read the rest, the Judges may have some questions, and it

19     is rather interesting.  Due to time, I simply cannot.

20             Having heard of what Dr. Prlic said and now having heard your own

21     words or parts of them, could you please explain to us what is being said

22     here.

23        A.   I recall being at this meeting held on the 17th of September,

24     1992.  Its purpose -- or rather, it followed an earlier meeting in

25     preparation for the London Conference, peace conference, to find a

Page 30364

 1     resolution to the crisis in Bosnia-Herzegovina.  It was organized by the

 2     international community.  That was the reason why this meeting was held

 3     in Zagreb.  At this meeting, those of us from Bosnia-Herzegovina

 4     presented our views which we believed we were supposed to advocate at the

 5     peace conference on Bosnia-Herzegovina.

 6             I remember the fact that the speech by Jadranko Prlic is mostly

 7     reflected in this transcript, and that it, indeed, tallies with what

 8     you've read out.  I can also confirm that my intervention, the part which

 9     you cited, is accurate or is accurately reflected in the part that you've

10     read out.

11             It is also true that I spoke more extensively than is reflected

12     here, but that the part you quoted does constitute the gist of what our

13     discussion was about and of what Mr. Prlic and I advocated at that

14     meeting.  The position we advanced was that of the HVO, of the Croatian

15     Community of Herceg-Bosna, and it was the subject of discussion at a

16     meeting which preceded the visit to Zagreb.

17        Q.   Okay.  Thank you.

18             MR. KARNAVAS:  Unless there are any questions from the Bench, I

19     will go on to the next topic.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Sir, without doubt, the

21     intervention of Mr. Prlic during this meeting and yours are crucial

22     interventions and really at the heart of the indictment; and so I must,

23     therefore, ask you a follow-up question.

24             When we compare what Mr. Prlic says and what you yourself state,

25     it is almost the same thing with just a few nuances.  But your

Page 30365

 1     intervention before President Tudjman, you're at some point interrupted

 2     by someone who says:  "That's not true."

 3             President Tudjman says to the speaker:  "Wait a moment.  Let

 4     Mr. Buntic finish and you will speak after him."

 5             And you ended on the question of the platform, and the person who

 6     doesn't agree with you is Mr. Vlado Pandzic.  I don't know who that

 7     person is but you will tell us, and this Pandzic rejects your comments

 8     and notably through question of the HDZ platform.  And it would appear

 9     that he states the following:  That the Croatian people is sovereign in

10     Bosnia-Herzegovina and would seem to challenge the legality of the other

11     ethnic groups.  In other words, he takes the opposite view.

12             Then there are other speakers who take the floor, and I'd like to

13     know ultimately what is Mr. Tudjman's conclusion; but, unfortunately, not

14     all the pages have been translated.  I find no trace of the conclusion.

15             Do you recall, because to be in the presence of a head of state,

16     that isn't an everyday occurrence.  So you no doubt have in your mind a

17     specific recollection of that meeting and the fact that Vlado Pandzic

18     interrupted you.  Who is this Mr. Vlado Pandzic?

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Vlado Pandzic is a member of

20     the Croatian Democratic Union.  I think he was on the executive committee

21     or the Presidency of the HVO, and I believe he was deputy in the

22     parliament of Bosnia-Herzegovina.  The discussion between Mr. Pandzic and

23     myself had to do with the fact that - if I remember correctly - I was

24     critical of Mr. Pandzic.

25             I criticised the HDZ for not having come forth with their own

Page 30366

 1     proposals as to what the future structure of Bosnia-Herzegovina should

 2     be, for not having come up with that proposal within the framework of the

 3     parliament of Bosnia-Herzegovina.  We're referring to it here as a

 4     platform, although -- or rather, both the SDS and the SDA had come up

 5     with their own proposals, and I criticised the HDZ for not having taken

 6     up their own position as to the future structure of Bosnia-Herzegovina

 7     while the BH parliament was still in session.

 8             Mr. Pandzic's view was different from mine.  He believed that

 9     they had a firm position on that.  The discussion between Mr. Pandzic and

10     myself revolved around that issue.

11             My understanding of a political platform was one that embraced a

12     broader view which did not contain specific solutions or proposals for

13     the future internal organization of Bosnia-Herzegovina.  This is

14     something that I plainly described by saying that one ought to

15     distinguish important matters from unimportant matters and contested

16     matters from uncontested matters.

17             Conclusions reached at the meeting were as follows:  President

18     Tudjman endorsed the idea and principles, the gist of which was conveyed

19     in Mr. Prlic's speech as well as mine.  It was also concluded that at the

20     forthcoming peace conference, we ought to advocate precisely the issues

21     that were touched upon in Mr. Prlic's speech as well as mine.  This is

22     something that we did in the subsequent negotiations that took place at

23     the peace conference.

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Prlic was recording the

25     principles of the European Community.  Is it your sense that this was to

Page 30367

 1     be taken into consideration by Tudjman and all the participants?  Does

 2     that mean that not just anything could be done?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I should like to remind the

 4     Trial Chamber of the fact that by that time, the Badinter Arbitration

 5     Commission had already expressed its conclusions which were publicised,

 6     and according to which Bosnia-Herzegovina was a state of three

 7     constituent peoples, and that the treaties of the international

 8     community, namely, the UN Charter, the Paris Declaration, and other

 9     international instruments, were to be applied by that state.  This

10     included the international regulations which had to do with the rights of

11     peoples and ethnic minorities.

12             The Badinter Commission also expressed clear views about the fact

13     that all the entities in Bosnia-Herzegovina had a right to formulate

14     their own administrative structures in the field of justice

15     administration, police, education, and other areas of vital national

16     interests.

17             At the end of the day, a recognition of Bosnia-Herzegovina -- or

18     rather, the recognition of Bosnia-Herzegovina in the month of April was

19     achieved on a condition that it recognise and accede to these treaties.

20     Therefore, our views expressed at this meeting in Zagreb were based on

21     these very views advanced by an international arbitration commission on

22     Bosnia-Herzegovina.

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you very much for this

24     lengthy answer.

25             Mr. Karnavas, you have the floor.

Page 30368

 1             MR. KARNAVAS:  Thank you.

 2             Okay.  We're going to move on to another area, and dealing with

 3     matters that occur on or about October 17, 1992, that's the general topic

 4     area.

 5             First document is P 00596.

 6        Q.   And with some of these documents, Mr. Buntic, we don't need to

 7     dwell on too much; others we will have to, but if you bear with me.

 8             MR. KARNAVAS:  P 00596.  We see that these are the rules of

 9     procedure of the Presidency of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna.

10        Q.   And I take it you would confirm that, correct?  You would confirm

11     one that you recognise these as the rules and that these rules were being

12     applied.

13        A.   Yes.  These are the rules of procedure that were passed on the

14     17th October 1992 at the Presidency session, and it was applied in the

15     work of the Presidency of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna.

16        Q.   All right.

17             MR. KARNAVAS:  Now we'll move on to the next document.  P 00684,

18     P 00684.

19        Q.   And we'll probably have to spend some time on this, not too much

20     I hope, and the Judges may have some questions.  This is a decision on

21     amending the statutory decision of the provisional organization of the

22     executive power and administration in the territory of the Croatian

23     Community of Herceg-Bosna.

24             And, very briefly, we see from Article 1 that the HVO has the

25     power to adopt decrees, decisions, dispositions, and conclusions.  We

Page 30369

 1     have a definition of these instruments, and we see the hierarchy.  Still

 2     with Article 1, we see that it says that:  "The HVO shall also decide by

 3     a conclusion when it does not adopt other documents."

 4             Then it also says:  "In case not suffering delay, the HVO shall

 5     adopt enactments falling within the competence of the Presidency of the

 6     HZ HB with the understanding that it shall be duty-bound to submit these

 7     enactments for consent to the Presidency of the HZ HB at the first

 8     session of the Presidency allowing the adoption of such enactments."

 9             Then it goes on that:  "These enactments indicated in the

10     preceding paragraph," the one I just read, that is, "shall be in force as

11     of the day of their adoption ..."

12             Now, it would appear that on 17 October 1992, as a result of

13     Article 1, the powers of the HVO, this temporary executive authority,

14     their powers were to some extent increased.  Would you not agree with me

15     on that?

16        A.   This decision was adopted, and a similar one was adopted by the

17     parliament of the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina.  A decision was made

18     to provide for a situation in which the parliament could no longer be

19     convened, and its powers were transferred on to the Presidency of the

20     Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.  The parliamentary body could not be

21     convened during the war, and its authorities were delegated to a smaller

22     and more operational body.

23             The purpose of the decision which was adopted on the 17th of

24     October at the Presidency session, the Presidency of the HZ HB, was if

25     not the same then at least similar, and the goal was more or less

Page 30370

 1     identical.  The authorities of the larger and bulkier, so to speak, body

 2     were delegated to a smaller body, and the Presidency by this decision

 3     authorised the HVO to make decisions in emergencies and also to adopt

 4     regulations that would otherwise fall within the purview of the

 5     Presidency.

 6             At the moment when this statistician was adopted, we did not

 7     think that the Presidency of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna would

 8     never be convened again.  The decision was adopted in order to provide

 9     for the adoption of the regulations between the two Presidency sessions.

10     That was the meaning of this decision, and then any regulations that

11     would have been adopted in such a way in emergency would be submitted for

12     a ratification to the Presidency.  Then if the Presidency approved them

13     they would remain in effect; and if the Presidency failed to approve

14     them, then they would no longer be implemented and they would no longer

15     be in effect as of the date when the Presidency adopted a decision to

16     that effect.

17        Q.   Okay.  Thank you.

18             MR. KARNAVAS:  Unless there are any questions, I will be moving

19     on, Your Honours.  1D 0073.  And, again, we can go through some of these

20     documents rather quickly.

21        Q.   We see this is 17 October 1992.  This is a decree on the

22     establishment of a department of the public prosecutor's office of Bosnia

23     and Herzegovina on the territory of the Croatian Community of

24     Herceg-Bosna during the war -- during war or the imminent threat of war.

25     And from Article 1, we see that this is an affiliate department.

Page 30371

 1             Now, this is what you were speaking about yesterday, some

 2     creative measures had to be taken such as establishing affiliate or

 3     branch departments or offices, and this is an example of it; correct?

 4             MR. STRINGER:  Objection to the leading question, Mr. President.

 5             MR. KARNAVAS:  Your Honour, it was based -- it was based in part

 6     on the testimony of the gentleman from yesterday.  I can understand the

 7     Prosecution wanting to eat up my time, but that was the purpose of the

 8     narrative.

 9             MR. STRINGER:  Well, I'm not trying to eat up counsel's time,

10     Mr. President, but I do think that there is something that the witness

11     can contribute in introducing the document as opposed to counsel.

12             MR. KARNAVAS:

13        Q.   If you could comment very briefly on this document, keeping in

14     mind the comments that you gave us yesterday, your rather lengthy

15     narrative on this topic.

16        A.   I would like to refer to my testimony provided yesterday, during

17     which I explained the reasons for which this decree was adopted and the

18     reasons preceding the establishment of the department of the public

19     prosecutor's office in Mostar.  This is not about the establishment of a

20     body of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna.  It is just one

21     department of the republican body, which is clearly stated under

22     Article 1 of this decree.

23        Q.   That would be fine.

24             MR. KARNAVAS:  If we go on to the next document, 1D 00074.

25        Q.   This is a decree on the implementation of the Law on Public Order

Page 30372

 1     and Order of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina on the territory of

 2     the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna during war or the imminent threat

 3     of war.  And, here, I just want to focus a little bit on Article 1.

 4             It says:  "The Law on Public Law and Order of the Republic of

 5     Bosnia and Herzegovina," it goes on, "shall be applicable on the

 6     territory of the Croatian Community."  And then under Article 2, we see

 7     some amendments.

 8             If you could very briefly tell us, these amendments, what do they

 9     reflect, just very quickly?

10        A.   It arises from this decree that the republican law of

11     Bosnia-Herzegovina is being adopted, the law that regulates this matter.

12     And the law is being adopted in its totality, save for in the part in

13     which Yugoslav dinars are being translated into Croatian dinars.  The

14     rest remains in effect.

15        Q.   All right.

16             MR. KARNAVAS:  Now, let's look at 1D 00075.

17             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I'm sorry.

18             You are saying, Mr. Buntic, that this decree says that, as it

19     stands, the law for the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina is being

20     adopted.  Now, if I look at this text here, I find - I hope I'm not

21     mistaken - Article 4 where it says:  "The Presidency of HZ HB appoints

22     the deputies to the republican public prosecutor's office."

23             Article 4.  Am I in the wrong document because that probably is

24     not --

25             MR. KARNAVAS:  You are.

Page 30373

 1             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I am.  Okay.

 2             MR. KARNAVAS:  That's in the previous document.

 3             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Oh, yes.  I'm sorry.

 4             MR. KARNAVAS:  But --

 5             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I'm sorry.  Let my words become chocolate, as we

 6     say.

 7             MR. KARNAVAS:  Well, we can go back to 1D 00073.

 8             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  No.  It's not necessary because this is not

 9     claimed to be taking over the --

10             MR. KARNAVAS:  Right.  And the purpose, Your Honours, is to show

11     that the laws themselves, the substantive part, is the same except for

12     the monetary values that are being amended.

13             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I can see that.  Thank you.

14             MR. KARNAVAS:

15             Now, if we go on to the next document, 1D 00075.

16        Q.   The same would apply for this particular decree; that is, without

17     leading you too much, that it is the same law that is being adopted with

18     the exception that there's some amendments in Article 2 dealing with

19     monetary fines that will be reflected in dinars.  Correct?

20        A.   This is just another example showing that all the laws of

21     Bosnia-Herzegovina were adopted with some necessary interventions that

22     had to be implemented in order for the laws to be applied in practice.

23        Q.   And can we say the same thing for 1D 00076, 1D 00076, which is

24     the decree on the change of the Republic of BiH Law on Public Gathering

25     in the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna?

Page 30374

 1        A.   Everything that was said about the previous documents applies to

 2     this one, and everything that I provided as answers to your previous

 3     questions may be an answer to this question as well.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  Thank you.

 5             MR. KARNAVAS: Now, if we go to the next document, which is

 6     1D 00087.

 7        Q.   We see that here just very quickly, just so the Chamber can get

 8     an idea, this is a decision to appoint the district military prosecutor

 9     in Mostar and a deputy district military prosecutor.  And, so, do you

10     recall whether these individuals actually served at some point or another

11     as a result of this decision?

12        A.   This is a decision to appoint the district military prosecutor

13     and the deputy district military prosecutor, which was adopted on the

14     17th of October, 1992.  If the names of these persons are correct, they

15     were, indeed, appointed.  Mladen Jurisic was appointed to the post of

16     district military prosecutor, and Ekrem Insanic and Mario Bogdanovic were

17     appointed to the posts of deputy district military prosecutors.

18        Q.   Okay.  Are all three of them Croats?

19             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Mr. Karnavas, you content yourself with a

20     partial answer, because you have also asked whether these persons did

21     actually take up and exercise their function .

22             MR. KARNAVAS:  Yes, you're right.

23             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Did they actually function once they had been

24     nominated?  Did they take office and act the role that they were

25     assigned?

Page 30375

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] After the appointment, they did

 2     take their roles.  They worked in their respective posts, but they could

 3     not assume their posts immediately because there were no premises of the

 4     district military court, i.e., there was no building where they could

 5     work.  That's why they could not embark on their work immediately after

 6     being appointed.

 7             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Do you have an idea, can you tell the Bench when

 8     they did actually start, when the infrastructure was sufficient?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was sometime in spring 1993.  It

10     was only then that the premises were re-appointed.  They started working

11     sometime in March or April 1993.  It's very similar to the situation with

12     this Tribunal.  It certainly didn't start working on the day when it was

13     established, and the same goes for the Prosecution, I believe.  I believe

14     that it took some time for the Prosecutor's office to become fully

15     operational.

16             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  And that would be time after March or April?

17     They start in March or April, but then until they are functional some

18     more time elapses?  Did I understand that correctly?

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Only in March or April they moved

20     into the offices in a building of the school of law in Mostar.  That's

21     when they were given premises where they could work.  And you, of course,

22     know that it takes some time for any decisions to be made and especially

23     when it comes to judiciary.  This was just the beginning.  This was just

24     the moment when the conditions were put in place to allow them to start

25     working.

Page 30376

 1             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you.  I absolutely understand that.  And

 2     can you give some precision or some indication on how long it took from

 3     the taking of office in the physical sense until they had become

 4     operative?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe that they become -- they

 6     became operational sometime in summer or autumn 1993, but I say that it

 7     was sooner in the summer than in the autumn.

 8             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you very much.

 9             Excuse me, Mr. Karnavas.

10             MR. KARNAVAS:

11        Q.   And very quickly on the names, are they all Croats that were

12     being appointed?

13        A.   Mr. Jurisic and Mr. Bogdanovic are Croats, and Mr. Insanic is a

14     Muslim, a Bosniak.

15        Q.   All right.  Now, I'm going to go through about three or four

16     other documents very quickly.  These are just decisions on appointments,

17     if you could confirm that.

18             MR. KARNAVAS:  The next document is 1D 00088.

19        Q.   And we see that this is a decision to appoint -- to elect a

20     president of the high court in Mostar.

21        A.   I confirm that this decision was indeed adopted on that day.

22        Q.   Okay.

23             MR. KARNAVAS:  And then 1D 00081.

24        Q.   This is a decision that relieves the judge of the lower court in

25     Capljina, because we'll see that he's going to be going to another duty.

Page 30377

 1     So can you confirm this decision?

 2        A.   I confirm this decision, and I also confirm that Mr. Katic was

 3     relieved of his duty as judge and was appointed as prosecutor by another

 4     decision.

 5        Q.   All right.

 6             MR. KARNAVAS:  And 1D 00086.

 7        Q.   We have a decision where four judges were appointed to the

 8     district military court, dated again 17 October 1992.  Can you confirm

 9     that this decision was passed; and to follow-up on some of the questions

10     from Judge Trechsel, did they actually take their post at some point and

11     begin to work, as you've indicated?

12        A.   Everything that is said about the decision concerning military

13     prosecutors applies to the military court as well.  It is about the same

14     buildings which was reappointed for that person and it only happened in

15     spring 1993, which means that they started working only then.

16        Q.   All right.

17             MR. KARNAVAS:  Now, if we go to the next document, 1D 00083.

18        Q.   Here, we have a decision to appoint Kresimir Zubak, who was a

19     lawyer from Doboj and, as I understand it, was also a judge there at some

20     point.  He's appointed as vice-president of the Croatian Community.  Can

21     you confirm this decision?

22        A.   I confirm that this decision was adopted at the Presidency

23     session on the 17th of October, 1992.

24        Q.   All right.

25             MR. KARNAVAS:  Now, if we go on to P 00590, P 00590.

Page 30378

 1        Q.   And I would ask you to kindly read the title of the decree

 2     because, as I understand it, it may need to be corrected from the English

 3     title that we have here.  This is from the Official Gazette.  So could

 4     you please tell us what -- read the title to this decree.

 5        A.   This is a decree on district military prosecutor's offices in the

 6     territory of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna in times of war or

 7     the immediate threat of war.  Article 3:  "The district military

 8     prosecutor's office shall prosecutor perpetrators of criminal acts that

 9     fall within the jurisdiction of district military courts and are subject

10     to prosecution ex officio.  Accordingly, it shall ..." --

11        Q.   Okay.  No, that's fine.  Just so we know, was this decree

12     actually applied to your understanding?

13        A.   Yes.  This decree was applied, as I already told you yesterday.

14        Q.   Okay.

15             MR. KARNAVAS:  Now, if there are no questions from the Court and

16     the Judges, I'll move on.  All right.

17             P 00594.

18        Q.   This is a decree on the establishment of a department of the

19     public prosecutor's office of Bosnia and Herzegovina on the territory of

20     the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna.

21             Now, two questions:  One, did this decree come into effect; and

22     secondly, and more importantly, what exactly did this department of the

23     prosecution's office do?

24        A.   We spoke yesterday about the reasons behind the establishment of

25     the republican prosecutor's office, i.e., the council of the republican

Page 30379

 1     prosecutor's office in Mostar.  This was because the public prosecutor of

 2     Bosnia and Herzegovina could not exercise his authorities in any

 3     territory outside of Sarajevo.  It was physically impossible.

 4        Q.   All right.  And did this decree actually go into effect?

 5        A.   This decree did go into effect, and it was applied for as long as

 6     the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna existed.

 7        Q.   All right.  And attached to this particular exhibit, we see two

 8     other decrees:  One on the implementation --

 9             JUDGE PRANDLER:  I already would like to ask in a way the

10     expression of the affiliate department.  Here, we see:  "During war or

11     the imminent threat of war, an affiliate department of the republican

12     public prosecutor's office," et cetera, "shall be established ..."

13             I wonder if, under this affiliate, it would like to suggest that

14     it is in addition to other departments which have been working already,

15     or does it mean some special kind of status, to speak about affiliation?

16     I'm not quite sure that that in the original B/C/S, the "uredbu," et

17     cetera, if this affiliate is included or not.  Probably Mr. Buntic may

18     tell us what the affiliate department would have meant to mean.

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In our judicial practice or in our

20     judiciary practice, there always existed court branch offices and

21     prosecutor's branch offices.  For example, the municipal court in Mostar

22     had its branch offices or affiliated offices in Citluk and Nevesinje in

23     other municipalities there, and there were days when judges worked in

24     these affiliated departments.  Just like the department in Citluk which

25     was affiliated with the court in Mostar was never an independent court.

Page 30380

 1     It was just a department of the municipal court in Mostar.  The same

 2     applied to the municipality of Nevesinje.  These two departments or

 3     branch offices did not have the status of a legal subject.  They were

 4     just parts of the republican prosecutor's office if we are talking about

 5     the prosecutor's office, or the republican courts if we're talking about

 6     the court.

 7             JUDGE PRANDLER:  I thank you, Mr. Buntic, for this explanation.

 8     My problem is that in the title of the decree itself, it says:  "Decree

 9     on the establishment of a department of the public prosecutor's

10     office ..."

11             Whereas, in Article 1, it says:  "During the war," et cetera, "an

12     affiliate department of the republican public prosecutor's office," et

13     cetera, "shall be established ..."

14             Now, it is why I asked the question what the affiliate means,

15     because in the title of the whole decree, we do not have this affiliate,

16     but we do have it in Article 1.  So it might be not a very important

17     question, frankly, but I just wanted to clarify if there is any

18     difference between the two expressions as they are figuring in the major

19     title and in Article 1.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not sure if the translation of

21     the Croatian version is correct.  In Article 1, there appears the word

22     "izmjesteno" which does not exist in the heading, which was translated in

23     English, I don't know how.  But what it means is that it is outside of

24     the head office.  The republican courts and prosecutor offices normally

25     had their head office; whereas, this term practically means that it is a

Page 30381

 1     branch office, it is not housed in the main seat of a court of law.  I

 2     don't know if that's what you are referring to.  It's relocated.

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I think you referred here to

 4     the problem of translation.  What you meant in Article 1 is that it's

 5     devolved or delocated because of the circumstances of war.  Is that what

 6     you meant, that it's not affiliated, it's devolved?  A prosecutor who has

 7     been relocated, as it were, because circumstances dictate that he should

 8     be elsewhere than where he should normally be, that's why you used this

 9     term delocated -- relocated?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, relocated.  I believe that

11     would be the right term.  That it is relocated; that would be the

12     appropriate term.

13             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Mr. Buntic, I have another question.  I'm

14     somewhat surprised or I wonder why here the Presidency of Herceg-Bosna

15     nominates or creates an office for the public prosecutor of Bosnia and

16     Herzegovina; that is, one entity for another entity.  How is this legally

17     possible?  I see you smile.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, my only answer would

19     be the question:  Who else could have done it?  There was nobody else;

20     nobody else could have done that.  I'm going back again to what I said

21     yesterday.  The same thing happened elsewhere in Bosnia-Herzegovina.  The

22     relocated departments were established in Bihac, Tuzla, and Zenica as

23     well, because the republican prosecutor could not reach those areas.  Had

24     the Presidency of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina even passed a

25     decision, there was no way for them to forward it to us in Mostar.  There

Page 30382

 1     was no other practical solution, and we had to find one.

 2             We kept highlighting, however, that this would remain in force

 3     while there was a war on, while there was a state of an imminent threat

 4     of war.  We were not able to reach Sarajevo, nor were we able to wait for

 5     the decisions of the Presidency.  We had to find functionable solutions

 6     and models.  We had no use for any other ones that didn't work.  They had

 7     to be workable.  We were faced with problems which we had to solve and

 8     solve them in a way that was workable.

 9             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I can understand that, but then why not a

10     department of the public prosecutor's office of the Croatian Community of

11     Herceg-Bosna?  Why give it a name of Bosnia and Herzegovina?  Because I

12     suppose that this prosecutor's office could not function outside of

13     Herceg-Bosna either.  Why attach to it the Bosnia and Herzegovina label?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was always our intention to

15     highlight that this was a prosecutor of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and that it

16     was only his deputies that were relocated to that area who worked within

17     a relocated department; in this particular instance, it was in Mostar.

18             We wanted to emphasize the fact that the structure belonged to

19     Bosnia-Herzegovina and to the republican prosecutor's office.  The

20     situation involving courts was similar.  When we will be referring to the

21     Supreme Court, the reasons behind that particular solution were similar.

22             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you.  You have answered my question.

23             I think Mr. Karnavas is getting impatient.

24             MR. KARNAVAS:  [Microphone not activated]

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, just one moment.

Page 30383

 1             Witness, I'd just like to go back to the time of Yugoslavia, when

 2     there was a prosecutor.  Was there a prosecutor in Mostar in the days of

 3     the former Yugoslavia?  In the days of the federal republic, was there a

 4     prosecutor?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At the time, there existed the

 6     municipal prosecutor's office in Mostar, that is to say, the prosecutor

 7     in the first instance; and the district public prosecutor's office,

 8     that's to say, the prosecution in the second instance.

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.  When the JNA left, the

10     Serbs left, I assume that the prosecutor was Serbian so he had to leave;

11     or was he Croat or Muslim?  I don't know.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't remember specifically all

13     the names from that period, but I do know that most of the members of the

14     prosecutor's office in Mostar were Serbs; whereas, in the courts, there

15     was a presence of Serbs that was in proportion larger to their share in

16     the ethnic make-up.

17             We had cases of Serb judges who remained there throughout the war

18     in their capacities as judges or prosecutors, and were never removed from

19     those positions by the HVO.  I also said yesterday that most of them,

20     most of the Bosniaks, that's to say, Muslims, who were members of the

21     prosecutor's office or judges, remained in their positions.  None of them

22     were removed or demoted.  I believe some of them even advanced in their

23     professions, and there is among the documents here a decision which can

24     confirm this, I believe.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] When the Republic of

Page 30384

 1     Bosnia-Herzegovina was recognised, did they have the time to appoint a

 2     prosecutor in Mostar or not?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, no.  It was at that

 4     point in time precisely that problems emerged and that an all-out war

 5     broke out in Bosnia-Herzegovina after the referendum for the independence

 6     of Bosnia-Herzegovina was held; in other words, as soon as the Bosniaks

 7     and Croats voted in favour of an independent Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbs

 8     at their own referendum voted for the Republika Srpska, war activities

 9     escalated and Sarajevo became encircled.

10             From that point on, Sarajevo could not be reached, and we're not

11     talking only about the courts.  We're talking about the parliament, the

12     government, the Presidency.  The Serbs had by that time already abandoned

13     all these structures:  Parliament, Presidency, and government.  The

14     Bosniaks and Croats kept these structures alive until such time as they

15     were able to meet again.

16             However, as soon as this situation emerged and the war activities

17     broke out, it was impossible -- it became impossible for the government,

18     the Presidency, and the parliament to meet regularly.  We were forced to

19     find a solution to make decisions in the absence of those organs.  Even

20     where these organs were able to make decisions, it was impossible to

21     physically forward them to Mostar.

22             I don't know if I've answered your question.

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.  And that's perhaps why,

24     in Article 3, you required that the prosecutor should be a citizen of the

25     Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina?

Page 30385

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This definition was taken over from

 2     the earlier law.  There's nothing novel about that.  We're not asking or

 3     we're not making a requirement for that person to be a resident of the

 4     HZ HB or to in any way be present in the HZ HB; merely that he has to be

 5     a citizen of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation

 7     continues] ...

 8             MR. KARNAVAS:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 9        Q.   Attached to this particular document, that is, P 00594, we also

10     see a decree on the implementation of the Law on Public Order; and,

11     again, there's also an implementation on the Law on Road Traffic and

12     Safety.  And I take it your previous concerning the changes applied to

13     these two decrees?  There's no need to dwell on them.  Just if you could

14     confirm that, that would be fine.

15        A.   I confirm that.  We've already discussed it.  These were merely

16     amendments with the purpose of translating Yu dinars into Croatian

17     dinars.

18             MR. KARNAVAS:  P 00592.

19        Q.   Again, this is 17 October 1992.  This is a decree on district

20     military courts in the territory of the Croatian Community of

21     Herceg-Bosna in a state of war or an imminent threat of war; and, here,

22     we can see in Article 2 -- or Article 1 that were establishing --

23     Article 2, I'm sorry:  "When performing their functions, district

24     military courts shall act independently and shall administer justice on

25     the basis of the Constitution and the law."

Page 30386

 1             Again, this is -- based on your previous answers, this was a

 2     necessary decree because of the conditions; correct?

 3        A.   Yesterday and today, we discussed the reasons behind these

 4     decrees.  This decree has to do with district military courts.  It was

 5     applied in the territory of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna.  It

 6     was first harmonized in consultation with the deputy minister of justice

 7     of Bosnia-Herzegovina.  This is also something I referred to today.

 8             This type of regulation was passed elsewhere in

 9     Bosnia-Herzegovina to the effect that in the territories under the

10     control of the BH army, district military courts and district military

11     prosecutor's offices were set up almost in the same way as had been done

12     in the HZ HB and the territory it covered.

13        Q.   All right.  Now, you said when you met with this minister, who

14     again was the ethnicity and what was his ethnicity or national make-up?

15        A.   Deputy minister of justice of Bosnia-Herzegovina, that was Jusuf

16     Halilagic.  As I've already said --

17        Q.   Okay --

18        A.   -- we met in Siroki Brijeg.

19        Q.   And what was his national make-up?  These may not seem very

20     consequential to outsiders; but for this case, trust me, every question I

21     ask is pretty important.  So, was he a Croat?

22        A.   I apologise for not answering right away.  Jusuf Halilagic was a

23     Muslim or a Bosniak.

24        Q.   All right.  Now, staying with this document, very briefly go to

25     Article 5 (b).  I just want to see if maybe you can help us with this a

Page 30387

 1     little bit, a comment:  "The Supreme Court of Bosnia-Herzegovina, or in

 2     cases where communications have been disrupted, the relocated Chamber of

 3     the Supreme Court of Bosnia-Herzegovina, which has itself -- which has

 4     its seat in Mostar, shall hear appeals against the decisions of the

 5     district military courts, in such cases are mentioned in Article 18,

 6     paragraph 2."

 7             Now, I take it from -- this would tie-in with your answers

 8     yesterday where you indicated that a chamber of the Supreme Court was

 9     established because Sarajevo was under siege, basically.  Is that

10     correct?

11        A.   I stand by the answer that I believe I already gave to that

12     question.

13        Q.   Okay.

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, Article 5(b), in fact,

15     recognises that the Supreme Court of Bosnia-Herzegovina is competent

16     unless communications with Sarajevo are disrupted, but the natural

17     Supreme Court remains that of Bosnia-Herzegovina.  That's what seems to

18     be written in Article 5(b).

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think it is best to read it out,

20     and then you -- we can see how it is translated into English.

21             Article 5(b):  "The Supreme Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, or

22     in cases where communications have been disrupted, the relocated Chamber

23     of the Supreme Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which has its seat in

24     Mostar, shall hear appeals against the decisions of district military

25     courts, if such cases are mentioned in Article 18, paragraph 2."

Page 30388

 1             In other words, what this article expressly states is that the

 2     Supreme Court of Bosnia-Herzegovina has the jurisdiction to hear appeals,

 3     and where the Supreme Court is unable to hear such cases because

 4     communications have been disrupted, and there were such cases documented

 5     at the time, the relocated Chamber of that court in Mostar will -- would

 6     hear these cases.

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.  Thank you.

 8             MR. KARNAVAS:  [Microphone not activated]

 9             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

10             MR. KARNAVAS:  If we go on to the next document, 500 -- I mean,

11     P 00589, P 00589.

12        Q.   Here, we see the actual decree on establishing an office of the

13     Supreme Court on the territory of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna

14     in wartime or when there is an imminent threat of war.  And just as

15     you've explained, we see Article 1.  It talks about:  "A relocated office

16     of the Supreme Court ... is to be established ..."

17             Article 2 talks about seven judges to be appointed.  And we look

18     at Article 3, which indicates that the office shall be responsible for

19     carrying out functions cited in Articles 39 of the Law on Regular Courts,

20     and it refers to the Official Gazette of Bosnia -- of the Republic of

21     Bosnia-Herzegovina.

22             So that's what you were talking about.  This decree establishes

23     the relocated office that we've been speaking about; correct?

24        A.   Correct.  While we were referring to the relocated department of

25     the public prosecutor's office, I said that everything that applied to

Page 30389

 1     the relocated office of the republican prosecutor also applied to the

 2     relocated Chamber of the Supreme Court of Bosnia-Herzegovina.  I don't

 3     know if there's any need for me to give any further explanation.  I

 4     believe that the regulations were quite similar, and that we've already

 5     discussed them.

 6        Q.   That's fine.

 7             MR. KARNAVAS:  1D 00085.

 8        Q.   I don't mean to rush you, Mr. Buntic.  It's just that time is

 9     of -- time is my enemy in this courtroom at times.

10             MR. KARNAVAS:  1D 00085.

11        Q.   This is a decision to appoint the deputy head of the department

12     of justice.  This is another example of an appointment being made.  Do

13     you recall whether this individual actually took his position based on

14     this decision?

15        A.   Correct.  This is an appointment of Karlo Sesar, who was an

16     attorney-at-law from Mostar, to the post of deputy head of the justice

17     department.

18        Q.   Very well.

19             MR. KARNAVAS:  If we go on to the next document, 1D 01979, 1979.

20        Q.   This is dated 10 August 1993.  It's a list of HZ HB HVO acts, and

21     it says:  "Approval requested."  Without going through the document

22     itself in any detail, could you please describe to us in one sentence

23     what this document reflects.

24        A.   The president of the HVO, Mr. Jadranko Prlic, informs the

25     Presidency of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna through this letter

Page 30390

 1     of all the enactments passed by the HVO which fell under the competence

 2     of the Presidency.  I will go back to what I said earlier.

 3             On the 17th of October, 1992, the Presidency passed a decision

 4     authorising the HVO to pass regulations from the purview of the

 5     Presidency where the situation dictated that.  This is a list of the

 6     enactments passed by the HVO, which the HVO president submits to the

 7     president of the HZ HB for approval.

 8             In other words, these were the enactments passed on the basis of

 9     the decision of the 17th of October, 1992, and were forwarded for

10     approval to the Presidency.

11        Q.   Thank you.  And that ties in with your previous answer, as you

12     told us when there was an amendment to the statutory decision; am I

13     correct?

14        A.   Yes.  That's the 17th of October, 1992, amendment.

15        Q.   All right.

16             MR. KARNAVAS:  Now, the next document is 1D 02545, 1D 02545,

17     dated -- it's 46, I'm told.  So it's 1D 02546.

18        Q.   This is an Article from Slobodna Dalmacija, 28 October 1992, and

19     we can see that your name -- you're being quoted, the head of the

20     department of justice.  I want to read a couple of parts and then have

21     you comment very quickly.

22             You say in the second paragraph -- or it's said, it's reported:

23     "To begin with, he recalled that the founding enactment of November 1991

24     defined the HZ of Herceg-Bosna as a cultural, economic, and regional

25     entity of the Croatian people and other peoples who live in the

Page 30391

 1     territory.  Mr. Buntic explained in more detail that the goal of its

 2     foundation was also its development into a constitutional unit of the

 3     Croatian people in BH.

 4             "The goal, according to Buntic, was grounded in three vital

 5     facts:  First, the Constitution of BH defined that state as a community

 6     of three peoples; furthermore, nowhere anywhere in the world is there a

 7     multi-ethnic community as a unitary state; and, third, the EC Commission

 8     for BH proceeding from the fact that BH is a compound state of three

 9     constituent peoples put forward the concept of a new Constitution in this

10     respect, and so it was directly on such constitutional principles that BH

11     also received international recognition."

12             Mr. Buntic, was this the position that you held then, as is

13     reflected in this article dated 28 October 1992?

14        A.   It is true that this is my statement.  It was accurately conveyed

15     here.  The only thing where I disagree with this article is that the

16     journalist styled me as a minister, and I was not a minister.  I was a

17     head of the justice department.  Everything else, however, is accurate.

18        Q.   And if we were to go back to the previous document that we saw

19     the transcript, that is, the presidential transcript of September, are

20     these more or less the same?

21             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  May I just comment on the last thing you have

22     said, Mr. Buntic.  You made a case, and we've heard this before, in the

23     difference between and head of department.  Is there a legal basis for

24     such a difference?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There is, and the difference is

Page 30392

 1     significant.  It's not a minor difference.  The Croatian Community of

 2     Herceg-Bosna was not a state, nor did it ever wanted to be one.  What is

 3     emphasized in this statement of mine which was published by a newspaper

 4     is that throughout the existence of the Croatian Community of

 5     Herceg-Bosna, its primary goal was to defend the territory from

 6     aggression, and it succeeded in that.  Just a moment.

 7             The second goal --

 8             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I hear that, and I've heard it before.  I know

 9     that ideology.  But I'm a bit depressed now because it seems that I come

10     from a non-state, because the state where I come from - Switzerland, it's

11     no secret - has only departments and the heads of departments are called

12     head of department.  Does that mean that Switzerland is not a state?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not sure that the comparison is

14     fair.  Judging by what I know about the Swiss constitution, it contains

15     confederal elements, so the Swiss model is not purely a federal model.

16     We may agree to disagree.  I preceded my words by saying that this is

17     what I know.

18             In this particular case, I adhere by my words, and that is that

19     the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna never wanted to become an

20     independent state.  Its primary goal was to organize defence, the defence

21     of its own territory; and the secondary goal was to establish a

22     constituent unit of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina in that area.

23     That goal was never a hidden agenda.  You must see that.  I promoted it

24     in public.  I always promoted that goal during international

25     negotiations, during the talks that were transcribed.  And you can see

Page 30393

 1     here that I consistently adhered to what was transcribed and stated at

 2     several places.  There were no aberrations, there were no hidden agendas,

 3     there were no different policies, and at different times; the goals were

 4     always the same.

 5             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I'm not addressing the issue behind it, only the

 6     terminology.

 7             Am I correct in understanding you as saying:  We choose on

 8     purpose the term "department" rather than "ministry" to demonstrate that

 9     Herceg-Bosna was not supposed to be regarded as a state?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It did not have a legal foundation

11     for that.  It didn't -- it wasn't a state.  It did not have a

12     constitution.  It did not have any legal foundation to call me or anybody

13     else who was the head of any department at the time a minister.  Those

14     were not ministries.  Those were just these departments.  If you have a

15     ministry, then its head is a minister; if you have departments, then its

16     head is only the head of that department.  This was a regional community

17     of municipalities which was not a state.  It did not have ministers;

18     therefore, it could not have ministers as such.

19             I personally was not very pleased when I was called minister.

20     Some other people were pleased.  But I myself did not like being called

21     minister.  And as I said here, the journalist wanted to flatter me and

22     portray me as something else to the general public.

23             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Excuse me for stopping you, but I do it for

24     Mr. Karnavas.

25             MR. KARNAVAS:

Page 30394

 1        Q.   All right.  I have a follow-up question on this because if we

 2     fast-forward a little bit to the creation of the -- or the establishment,

 3     I should say, of the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna, there we do see

 4     that ministries as opposed to heads of departments are called for.

 5             Now, can you explain that, that transition from department to

 6     ministry; that's number one.  And number two, should the Trial Chamber

 7     from the fact that now we have ministries as opposed to departments, that

 8     now the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna is a state within a state?

 9        A.   I believe that certain parallels should be drawn here as well

10     between what had existed up to then in Yugoslavia and what was happening

11     on the international scene.  When the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna

12     was being constituted, the international community had offered the

13     Owen-Stoltenberg peace plan which implied a confederation of three

14     constituent units in Bosnia and Herzegovina.  This was to be at the

15     confederal model of the organization of the state of Bosnia and

16     Herzegovina.

17             In practical terms, this would mean that there would be a

18     contract between three independent states, a confederal state, the

19     federal level would have only very minor parts of state authorities and

20     all the other competencies and authorities would remain with the

21     constituent units.  The foundation for the establishment of the Croatian

22     Republic of Herceg-Bosna was the stage reached in the peace talks within

23     the peace conference on Bosnia and Herzegovina.

24             The plan that was offered was partially adopted.  Its

25     constitutional principles were adopted, and the main sticking points were

Page 30395

 1     some minor territorial issues.  The Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna

 2     based its foundation in the Owen-Stoltenberg plan.  It considered this

 3     plan a favourable solution for Croats in Bosnia-Herzegovina.  They deemed

 4     the plan acceptable, and they acted or reacted by establishing the

 5     Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna.

 6             If we're talking about a confederation, then we are talking about

 7     an alliance of sovereign states; and it is only logical that in such a

 8     state, the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna would have been a state with

 9     its ministry.  And this would have been the case if the Owen-Stoltenberg

10     plan had taken off the ground.  The only ministries that would have been

11     at the federal level were the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of

12     Foreign Affairs.

13             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.  We need to take a

14     20-minute break.

15                           --- Recess taken at 12.40 p.m.

16                           --- On resuming at 12.59 p.m.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We have exactly 45 minutes

18     left.

19             MR. KARNAVAS:  Thank you, Mr. President.

20        Q.   Mr. Buntic, I have one last question regarding the document that

21     we were discussing.  But before I do that, I just want to pick up on your

22     last answer, because you described to us basically your understanding of

23     the Owen-Stoltenberg, what it envisaged; that is, three republics.  If

24     you could in one sentence, just tell us, when you compare the

25     Owen-Stoltenberg plan and what ultimately emerged at Dayton under the

Page 30396

 1     Dayton Peace Accords where you have two entities - the federation which

 2     came about from the Washington Agreement and the Republika Srpska - are

 3     there any major differences between those two peace plans?

 4        A.   In my view, there are major differences.  Again, I can only give

 5     you my opinion, nothing else.  What happened in Dayton is not what I

 6     consider a good solution for Bosnia-Herzegovina.  I would have never

 7     personally accepted that solution, and I still claim that Vance-Owen Plan

 8     and the Owen-Stoltenberg Plan were much better solutions for Bosnia and

 9     Herzegovina.

10             And as may be seen from all of my public appearances and

11     propositions, I believe it was a clear constitutional foundation, a

12     foundation in international documents for both the implementation of

13     Owen-Stoltenberg and Vance-Owen plans.  The solution as it was at the

14     moment and was adopted for Bosnia and Herzegovina is what I consider --

15             THE INTERPRETER:  The witness's microphone is off.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm having problems.

17             I'm not aware of any such similar model in the world.  I don't

18     know of any one state that consists of three constituent peoples which

19     has been organized in the way Bosnia and Herzegovina has been organized.

20     For one people to be recognised the rights that have been denied to the

21     other two peoples, that would be the gist of the whole situation.

22             MR. KARNAVAS:

23        Q.   All right.  Setting aside that aspect, when it comes to the

24     relationship between the entities and the state in the Dayton Peace

25     Accords versus, say, the relationship between the republics and the state

Page 30397

 1     and the Owen-Stoltenberg Plan, that is, the powers that were given to the

 2     republics, you know, and those that were kept by the state in the one

 3     plan and again the powers given to the entities and those that were kept

 4     by the state; are there any major differences there?

 5        A.   When it comes to the differences between the Dayton and the

 6     Washington Agreements, then we're talking about two entities; and if

 7     we're talking about two entities, I could say that the Serbian entity has

 8     kept the rights that were envisaged by the Owen --

 9        Q.   Mr. Buntic, I'm trying to draw a parallel between the powers that

10     the republics would have had in the Owen-Stoltenberg and the state.  You

11     said the state would have certain powers.  The rest would be allocated to

12     the republics.

13             Now I'm asking you to look at the Dayton.  Never mind that the

14     Croats were bundled together with the Muslims as a result of the

15     Washington Agreement to form the Federation.  Setting aside that, when

16     you look at what was envisaged initially and what was being implemented

17     initially at Dayton, the powers given to the entities and those that were

18     kept by the state, are there similarities or differences between the two

19     peace plans?

20        A.   I'm not sure that I have understood you properly, but I already

21     started answering you.  When it comes to the entities, the powers are

22     very similar.  The Owen-Stoltenberg implied two entities, and the other

23     agreements implied three entities --

24             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's correction:  The other way

25     around.

Page 30398

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But according to Owen-Stoltenberg,

 2     there were three entities; and according to the Washington and Dayton

 3     Accords, there are two entities.  And I already started talking in that

 4     sense and answering you in that sense.

 5             MR. KARNAVAS:

 6        Q.   Thank you.  My apologies for framing the question inartfully, but

 7     that's basically what I wanted to bring to the Trial Chamber's attention.

 8             Then, just one last point with respect to this last document,

 9     which was 1D 02545, we can see in the very last paragraph of your -- of

10     the interview where you're attributed to having said:  "The department

11     head, Buntic, pointed out the need for representatives of the Muslim

12     people to take on their share of responsibility in those provisional

13     authorities.  According to him, during the recent visit to Mostar by

14     President Alija Izetbegovic, accord was reached on a proposal that the

15     Muslims in Mostar should participate in the authorities, administrative

16     organs, and public activities in a ratio of 50/50; and at the level of

17     the constituent units, namely, HZ of Herceg-Bosna, they should

18     participate with 35 per cent."

19             Could you please explain that to us.  I don't recall having much

20     testimony in this courtroom in the last two and a half years about Alija

21     Izetbegovic being in Mostar.  We briefly touched on it, but maybe you

22     could elaborate a little bit before we go on to the next segment.

23        A.   This information was obtained from the then-leadership of the SDA

24     for the region of Herzegovina about this visit by Mr. Izetbegovic.

25     People that I contacted informed me that some agreements were reached,

Page 30399

 1     and that the HDZ and the SDA were participating in the power in the ratio

 2     of 50/50 in Mostar, and in Herzegovina the ratio would be 35 per cent.

 3     I'm giving you this on the basis of the information that I received from

 4     the then-leadership of the SDA for Bosnia-Herzegovina, i.e., based on my

 5     conversation with Dr. Ismet Hadziosmanovic.

 6        Q.   [Microphone not activated].

 7             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone for the counsel, please.

 8             MR. KARNAVAS:  Thank you.  This deals primarily with the

 9     judiciary.  So we'll first start off with P 01264, P 01264.

10        Q.   And I just want to focus your attention on page 3 in the English

11     version where it says:  "Formal oath."  We can see from this document

12     that this is the 21st Session of the Croatian Defence Council meeting on

13     22 January 1993, and all I want to do is focus your attention where it

14     says "formal oath."

15             MR. KARNAVAS:  If we look at item 2 on page 2, Your Honours, at

16     the bottom, we can see that this is the oath that would be given to

17     judges.

18        Q.   It says, and I quote:  "I pledge that I will abide by the

19     Constitution, the law, and other existing regulations, and through

20     conscientious work, I will protect the interests and the state system of

21     the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna and the Republic of BH, and that I

22     will perform my duty and task conscientiously."

23             Now, no doubt, the judges are asking themselves why the Croatian

24     Community of Herceg-Bosna first, and then the Republic of BH.  And can we

25     draw any conclusions from that, that would be contrary to this, to any

Page 30400

 1     allegiance to the state, that is?

 2        A.   You can see here that this statement was adopted at the meeting

 3     on 22nd January 1993; thus, we are already in 1993.  And today, as I'm

 4     reading this statement, I can see that some things may be changed, that

 5     the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina could precede the Croatian

 6     Community of Herceg-Bosna.  I'm talking about the order of the words.

 7             As for the rest of the statement by which the judges are asked to

 8     abide by constitutions and laws of both the Republic of Croatia -- of

 9     Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as the Croatian Community of

10     Herceg-Bosna, I believe that the rest of this statement is correct, this

11     oath.

12             The only thing, as I've said, it could be the inversion of places

13     between the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Croatian Community

14     of Herceg-Bosna.  But what is implied here is that the constitutionality

15     of both should be respected.

16             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  An additional question on this text of the oath.

17     Is "Bog," God, a word that refers equally to the Judeo-Christian God, and

18     for Mohammed to Allah; or is it to be understood as a

19     Catholic-Christian's god.  And attached to the question, an atheist

20     judge, is that conceivable and could he have sworn otherwise?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This was discussed.  The issue was

22     discussed, and I know that Bosniaks who took the oath.  I had taken with

23     them before the ceremony; and for them, it was Allah.  There were no

24     problems with that.  The overall atmosphere was one of understanding and

25     respect.

Page 30401

 1             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you.

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In the former Yugoslavia in the

 3     federal republic, would judges take an oath?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  They did take an oath.  The

 5     wording was similar to the wording of this oath.  But when the state is

 6     mentioned here, the oath implied that they were to uphold the state of

 7     the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia.  And this did not imply

 8     just the state that it was but its ideology, the socialist and communist

 9     ideology that were contained in the title of the state.

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But in that particular oath,

11     was any reference made to God, or was this something that was added later

12     on?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There was no reference of that sort

14     in the previous statement.  God was not mentioned.  The former regime was

15     atheist, and there was a ban on mentioning God or indicating God in any

16     shape or form.  And if the oath had been worded in that way, it would

17     have been contrary to the then-constitution of the socialist and

18     communist Yugoslavia, as existed at the time.  An oath of this type would

19     have been incriminated, and whoever wanted -- might have wanted to push

20     that would certainly have been prosecuted.  By including this word, a

21     distinction was being made between the new regime and the former regime

22     during which God could not be mentioned for over 40 years in any shape or

23     form.

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

25             MR. KARNAVAS:

Page 30402

 1        Q.   Okay.  Thank you, Mr. Buntic.  Now we're going to move rather

 2     quickly on some documents, and others I will have you comment more on

 3     them.  So I just need a confirmation on a couple of documents to start

 4     with.

 5             MR. KARNAVAS:  One is 1D 01179, 1D 01179.

 6        Q.   These are minutes of the 4th Session of the Croatian Community of

 7     Herceg-Bosna, 22 September 1992.  We see that your name is there, having

 8     participated.  And, of course, if we go to page 4 in the English text, I

 9     don't know exactly on what page it's yours, but we see that you do

10     mention or you give an explanation on the judicial system and propose the

11     election of judges to the district and military courts.

12             Can you confirm that at that session, you provided these

13     explanations?  We will get to the laws.  I just need the confirmation for

14     the purposes of this document.

15        A.   Unfortunately, I can't just say yes.  I believe that this calls

16     for an explanation.  If you look at the date of this session, we can see

17     that this was on the 22nd of September, 1992; and that in this particular

18     case, proposals were tabled based on the previously adopted decree, a

19     decree that was adopted on the 3rd of July, which was never adopted in

20     the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna as we know, and it was never

21     published.

22             These proposals were tabled based on that decree that was never

23     adopted and applied, and we have already spoken about that before this

24     Trial Chamber.  And we said that the decree that was, in fact,

25     implemented was passed on the 17th of October, 1992.  In other words,

Page 30403

 1     these were proposals with the caveat that they were tabled based on a

 2     decree that was never applied.  And that's why these proposals were never

 3     adopted, but, rather, the proposals that were adopted were those that

 4     were adopted after the 17th October 1992.

 5        Q.   All right.  Thank you.

 6             MR. KARNAVAS:  Now, unless there are any questions from the

 7     Bench, I'll move on to the next document, which is P 00543.

 8        Q.   This is from minutes of the 5th Session, 29 September 1992.

 9     Again, we see that you're named as having been present; and, again, I

10     just need just a confirmation, sir, because we will get to some of the

11     details later on.

12             If we look on page 8 in the English version, we see that you

13     report that:  "The department works in a very difficult condition -- or

14     works in difficult conditions (no telephone, machine workshop is in the

15     same building, no police security)."  And then you propose that the

16     Presidency meet more often and that the Presidency separate the

17     jurisdiction of the HVO from that of the Presidency.

18             Now, perhaps you would comment on this because this might be of

19     some importance.  We can see that you're having difficult conditions; but

20     the latter part, the separation between Presidency and the HVO and your

21     urging the Presidency to meet more often.

22        A.   Already yesterday, we spoke at great length about some

23     ambiguities with regard to the separation between the powers of the

24     Presidency of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna and the executive

25     body.  I believe that we elaborated that topic yesterday.  We spoke about

Page 30404

 1     the powers that were concentrated in one person who united several

 2     functions, and he could not discharge all of them.  That's why

 3     regulations had to be adopted in order to separate all these powers and

 4     authorities.  That is one thing.

 5             Here, it is pointed for the need for the Presidency to meet more

 6     often because such meetings - and we already said that the authorities

 7     that were handed over to the HVO - that these were valid between the

 8     Presidency sessions which called for decisions to be made urgently.  And

 9     we know that after the session which took place on the 17th of October,

10     no single Presidency session was ever held again; and that at the

11     Presidency sessions - and I don't know whether it has been reflected on

12     all the records - but I remember that at many sessions of the HVO, this

13     need was pointed out.

14             It is true that this was discussed, and I believe that the record

15     correctly reflects my discussion.  I was at that meeting, and I remember

16     my words very well.

17        Q.   All right.  Thank you.

18             MR. KARNAVAS:  Now we go on to the next document, which is

19     P 00559.

20        Q.   And these are the minutes from the 6th Session, 7 October 1992;

21     and here's where you will need to give us some explanations.  If you

22     could be as brief as you can, unless of course the Trial Chamber asks the

23     question and then you can go ahead, be as expansive as you want.  But in

24     looking at item 3, this is on page 3 of the English version, and I'm

25     going to be looking at page 3 and page 4.

Page 30405

 1             Here, it says that you proposed two versions of a decree on

 2     temporary establishment of courts and proceedings before courts in the

 3     area of HZ HB.

 4             Now, you already talked earlier about a draft that was never

 5     published and never implemented.  When we look at what you -- these

 6     minutes, we see that there is version 1 and version 2.

 7             MR. KARNAVAS:  And, of course, I was referring to the earlier

 8     document for Your Honours' attention, which was P 09552, when I said that

 9     he had indicated that it was drafted but never actually implemented or

10     published.

11        Q.   Which of the two versions was implemented ultimately that is

12     reflected in this, in these minutes - can you just answer that question

13     first - version one or version two?

14        A.   The minutes clearly show that the department of justice and

15     general administration drafted two versions.  The argumentation in favour

16     of version one was presented here.  It was stated that by adopting

17     version one, one would avoid the setting up of a dual justice

18     administration system, one would guarantee the legality of the decisions

19     rendered by it.  It allowed for the possibility to abolish the decisions

20     challenging jurisdiction.  It was also said that this version was

21     discussed with representatives of Bosniaks or Muslims, or rather, the

22     minister of justice of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

23             Ultimately, version one was adopted and implemented at the

24     meeting of 17 October 1992 of the HVO HZ HB.

25             Version two provided for the establishment of a separate and

Page 30406

 1     autonomous system.  We said that this was adopted at the meeting of the

 2     3rd of July and had never been applied simply because it had never been

 3     published in the Official Gazette of the HZ HB.

 4             This was something we discussed earlier on reference to some

 5     documents, and here you can find an explanation of why that was the case.

 6        Q.   Thank you.

 7             MR. KARNAVAS:  Now, unless there are any questions -- sure.

 8             JUDGE TRECHSEL:

 9             MR. KARNAVAS:  I will allow Judge Trechsel to --

10             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I'm sorry.  Maybe I'm again mistaken in the

11     document; but the last-but-three lines from the paragraph of 4, I read:

12     "Since that is not possible due to the above reasons, the draft decree

13     (version two) was unanimously agreed..."

14             And you have just said, Mr. Buntic, that the decision had been

15     for version number one.  So I find it difficult not to see a certain

16     contradiction, but probably I have something wrong.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Such an interpretation is possible,

18     too; however, what I'm talking about is what the Presidency of the HZ HB

19     decided upon.  At the 17th of October, 1992, meeting, as you can clearly

20     see, version one was adopted on the organization and run of the justice

21     administration system:  The decisions on setting up the department of the

22     Supreme Court of the Republic of BH, the department of the republican

23     prosecutor's office, the department of the republican misdemeanours

24     court.  In other words, the justice administration system of the BH

25     remained intact, and district courts were set up based on the same

Page 30407

 1     principles and the practice employed by the Bosniaks.  I'm talking about

 2     what was officially carried, publicised, and implemented in our work.

 3             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you.

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You are right, Your Honour, in

 5     saying --

 6             MR. KARNAVAS:

 7        Q.   Mr. Buntic, do you allow for the possibility that perhaps the

 8     minutes are wrong; in other words, that there it was recorded wrong?

 9     Because if you look at the rest of the sentence, and then if you could

10     look at the Croatian version with the ERN number 0403995 --

11             MR. KARNAVAS:  Mr. Usher, if you could assist us here, I can

12     point to the -- Mr. Usher, if you could be so kind to assist.  And, of

13     course, this is a follow-up from Judge Trechsel's question.

14             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  [Microphone not activated].

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Evidently the text in brackets,

16     "version two," deviates and departs from the full tenure and meaning of

17     the discussions at the meetings, as well as from the explanations and

18     conclusions provided.  In my view, the text in brackets, namely, the word

19     "two" was a mistake.  It should instead read "one."  This is what follows

20     from the text as it stands.  It follows that the word "two" is an error.

21             The text in its entirety indicates that version one was adopted,

22     because the text then says:  "The Presidency of the HZ HB should be

23     personally acquainted with version one."  In other words, the Presidency

24     should become familiarized with version one, not two.  In my view, this

25     is a typographical error in the minutes.

Page 30408

 1             MR. KARNAVAS:

 2        Q.   And I take it - again, a follow-up question from Judge Trechsel's

 3     question - if we were to look at the actual implementing instruments and

 4     compare them with the two versions, what was actually implemented

 5     ultimately would be version one versus version two.  That's the

 6     conclusion that could be drawn by doing such a comparison?

 7        A.   Based on the document subsequently issued by the Presidency, it

 8     becomes obvious that version one was adopted.

 9        Q.   Thank you.

10             MR. KARNAVAS:  Unless there are any questions, we go on to the

11     next document, 1D 02001.

12        Q.   And this is - again, we're going to move rather quickly -

13     9 October 1992.  There are proposals for elections, and I just want to --

14     we see your name at the bottom.  I want to focus your attention to the

15     last paragraph.  It says:  "The Presidency of the Republic of Bosnia and

16     Herzegovina has already appointed the following Muslim members of the

17     District Military Court in Mostar," and then we see three names.  Is that

18     correct, sir?

19        A.   It is correct that this is my letter sent to the municipal board

20     of the Mostar Party of Democratic Action, to the president personally,

21     wherein I inform the president of the Mostar SDA that the Presidency of

22     the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina had in the meantime appointed the

23     three judges listed therein.  We can clearly see that all the three

24     judges were of Bosniak ethnicity, and this letter asks the SDA to provide

25     their nominations for the president of the misdemeanour court in Mostar,

Page 30409

 1     for the president of the lower court in Mostar as it was called at the

 2     time, and their nominee for the president of the district military court

 3     in Mostar.  The nominees were, in fact, sent to me and forwarded to the

 4     department for defence in order for these appointments to take effect.

 5             In addition to the three judges, therefore, which were nominated

 6     by the Presidency for judges of the high court in Mostar, Mr. Memic was

 7     subsequently appointed; in other words, there were four Bosniaks and four

 8     Croats in all.

 9        Q.   All right.  Thank you very much.

10             MR. KARNAVAS:  If we go on to the next document, 1D 00113,

11     1D 00113.

12        Q.   This is a decree, it's on the Law on Civil Procedure, and, of

13     course, we saw similar such decrees dealing with -- I don't know if it

14     was criminal or criminal procedure.  But if we look at again where this

15     decree adopts what is already in existence with the change of the amounts

16     quoted in dinars; correct?

17        A.   Correct.  Everything we said about the legislation of

18     Bosnia-Herzegovina having been taken over also relates to the litigation

19     law, and the only thing that was changed was the translation of the

20     Yugoslav dinars into Croatian dinars.

21        Q.   Thank you.

22             MR. KARNAVAS:  1D 00131, 1D 00131.

23        Q.   This is a decree on the implementation of the decree laws on the

24     adoption of the Law on Administrative Disputes and so on.  I just want to

25     point to Article 3.  It says here:  "The Supreme Court of Bosnia and

Page 30410

 1     Herzegovina, department in Mostar, shall be responsible for

 2     administrative disputes."

 3             Now, for those of us who are not familiar with the legal system,

 4     could you please explain Article 3 to us.  Why was it necessary for the

 5     Supreme Court to handle administrative disputes?  And I assume the reason

 6     that we have the department in Mostar is because, as you've indicated,

 7     the Sarajevo -- the Supreme Court in Sarajevo was blocked.

 8        A.   Correct.  As was the case with other decrees, this one, too,

 9     changes the Law on Administrative Disputes only to the extent necessary

10     for that particular law to be applied.  One of these areas was the

11     impossibility for the appeals to reach the relevant court in Sarajevo,

12     and you can see in Article 2 that the provisions not to be applied will

13     be the ones referring to proceedings before the federal court; in other

14     words, the court of the former Yugoslavia.  In all its other provisions,

15     the law remained the same and remained in force.

16        Q.   Thank you.

17             MR. KARNAVAS:  1D 00133.

18        Q.   This is another decree.  This is on the Law on Executive

19     Procedure implementing -- implemented as a republican law in

20     Bosnia-Herzegovina at the time of war or imminent threat of war.  Again,

21     as we've indicated before, we can see that it's grounded in the

22     republican law, with the exception of Article 2 which amends the quoted

23     fees.  Would that be correct?

24        A.   Correct.

25        Q.   All right.

Page 30411

 1        A.   This is a federal law on the enforcement procedure; and as we can

 2     see, the only intervention was in the conversion of sums from Yugoslav

 3     dinars into Croatian dinars.

 4        Q.   Okay.

 5             MR. KARNAVAS:  If we look at 1D 00138.

 6        Q.   This one is a decree to amend the Law on Court Duties.  And

 7     again, if we just look through it, this basically, consistent with your

 8     previous answers, just sets out the monetary values.  It changes to

 9     reflect the Croatian dinar as a result of the challenges as you've

10     indicated before; correct?

11        A.   Correct.  In contrast to the other decrees, this particular

12     decree, due to a galloping inflation which completely devalued court

13     fees, a more extensive intervention had to be made which went beyond the

14     conversion of Yugoslav dinars to Croatian dinars; that's to say, the fees

15     had to be raised to compensate for the devaluation of the currency.

16        Q.   Thank you.

17             MR. KARNAVAS:  If we go on to the next document, 1D 00139,

18     1D 00139.

19        Q.   This is a decree on the application on the rules of procedure of

20     regular courts.  And I just wish to point out a couple of things for your

21     comment on, again very briefly.  Article 5, we can see the dinars are

22     being changed to reflect Croatian dinars; but Article 2, it says:  "In

23     the text of the Rules of Procedure of Regular Courts, the words 'Ministry

24     of Justice and Administration' shall be replaced with the words

25     'Department of Justice and General Administration of the HZ HB ...'"

Page 30412

 1             Was there a reason for that change?

 2        A.   A specific reason was the fact that the republican Ministry of

 3     Justice was physically cut off and was not able to discharge its duties;

 4     and under Article 2, these duties were deferred to the department of

 5     justice and general administration.  And as you rightly state, in

 6     Article 5, the amounts were converted into Croatian dinars.  All the

 7     other provisions of the rules of procedure remained the same.

 8        Q.   And, again, I want to go back to the question that was --

 9             JUDGE PRANDLER:  Mr. Karnavas, I'm sorry to --

10             MR. KARNAVAS:  That's okay.

11             JUDGE PRANDLER:  -- interrupt you, and we are now approaching the

12     end of today's meeting.  But anyway, I have of course listened carefully

13     to your questions and the answers concerning the Croatian dinars issue,

14     and somehow I am a bit perplexed since last time when Mr. Primorac was

15     here, that time Mr. Primorac and the documents which you have submitted

16     mainly wish to suggest and to demonstrate that actually it was not the

17     Croatian dinars which had been mainly used.

18             Now during the very last -- during the presentation of the last

19     documents, I believe that, probably I am not wrong, when I say that here

20     everywhere the Croatian dinars are being mentioned, like in one of the

21     last documents, that is, 1D 00139, 00139.  And then in that one, in that

22     decree, Article 5, it says that:  "In all provisions of Article 1 of the

23     Rules, the word 'Croatian' shall be added before the word 'dinar.'"

24             So my only question is that probably we should give some further

25     attention to this issue as far as the use of the Croatian dinar is

Page 30413

 1     concerned.  Thank you.

 2             MR. KARNAVAS:  Thank you for that observation, Judge Prandler,

 3     and I can assure you - you may rest assured - that that issue will be

 4     dealt with when we have the head of the department of finance who will

 5     come here and he will explain to us why it was necessary.  So I trust you

 6     can wait until the head of -- that will be in September.  It's not too

 7     far off.  But we will answer that question for you.

 8             I just wanted to, in the time that we have left, just ask one

 9     question that might go back to the question that was asked by Judge

10     Trechsel with respect to "ministry" versus "department."

11        Q.   I know terminologically speaking, terminologically speaking, in

12     Bosnia-Herzegovina in a hierarchical sense, "ministry" versus

13     "department," are they at the same level or is one above the other?  And

14     I'm saying that as a result of Article 2 in this particular decree, which

15     is 1D 00139; and, again, this is a follow-up question from Judge

16     Trechsel.

17        A.   In a nutshell, as a rule, departments are only portions of

18     ministries, because in Bosnia-Herzegovina, ministries are composed of

19     departments, which are in turn composed of several offices, and so on.

20        Q.   Thank you very much.

21             MR. KARNAVAS:  I think that's it for the day.

22             And I hope, Judge Trechsel, with that explanation, now you can

23     rest assured that at least in Switzerland, we know that a department is

24     the same as a ministry.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.

Page 30414

 1             Witness, you will return for the hearing tomorrow at 9.00, and

 2     Mr. Karnavas has one hour, 30 minutes left.  Pleasant afternoon.  See you

 3     tomorrow.

 4                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m.

 5                           to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 9th day of

 6                           July, 2008, at 9.00 a.m.