Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 33471

 1                           Tuesday, 21 October 2008

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 2.16 p.m.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, kindly call the

 6     case.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  Good afternoon, Your Honours.  Good afternoon

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

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

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

11     Today is Tuesday.  Good afternoon to the accused, to the Defence counsel,

12     and the entire OTP team, and my greetings to the registrar and the

13     ushers.

14             Mr. Stringer, do you have some information for us?

15             MR. STRINGER:  Yes, Mr. President.  Thank you and good afternoon

16     to you.  Good afternoon, Your Honours and to counsel.

17             I have prepared some remarks in response to the Trial Chamber's

18     inquiry of yesterday with regard to the Prosecution position on the

19     Petkovic Defence arguments on allocating or deducting time from the

20     Defence case that is used during the examination of a co-accused witness

21     when the examination falls outside the scope of the direct examination

22     that's led by the co-accused.

23             Mr. President, just a few preliminary remarks.  I went back and

24     actually looked to see what and to what extent the issue arose during the

25     Prosecution case in chief because I think it's worth bearing in mind.  We

Page 33472

 1     want to try to maintain consistency as between the Prosecution case and

 2     the Defence cases.

 3             And I went back through the transcript and did some searches and

 4     found that at least on three occasions during the Prosecution case, the

 5     issue arose.  Back in September of 2006, witness Islamovic was testifying

 6     as a Prosecution witness; and counsel for Mr. Petkovic, actually, was

 7     questioning, and there was an objection that the questions were outside

 8     the scope of the direct examination of the Prosecution witness.  I'm

 9     referring to page 6930 of the transcript.

10             And it was actually Mr. Murphy, who was then counsel for

11     Mr. Ostojic, intervened and pointed out that under Rule 90(h), a party

12     may indeed question outside the scope of direct examination if the

13     evidence goes to that party's case.  I saw also that in October of 2006,

14     the accused Praljak filed a request for additional time to cross-examine

15     a Prosecution witness, Mr. Agic.  That was filed by the Praljak Defence

16     on the 18th of October, 2006.  And shortly afterwards on the 25th of

17     October, that Defence submission was actually joined by the Petkovic

18     team; and in that Praljak submission, they wanted to get additional time

19     for cross-examination of this witness, and they wanted to go outside the

20     scope of the direct examination, and counsel for General Praljak

21     correctly relied in his submissions on Rule 90(h)(i) as a basis for going

22     outside the scope of the direct.  And I looked at the transcript of the

23     Trial Chamber's ruling on that, and it appears that the Trial Chamber

24     granted the request because it granted additional time to the Praljak and

25     to the Petkovic Defence teams to cross-examine that witness.

Page 33473

 1             Then thirdly, I saw that in June of 2007, during the

 2     cross-examination of Prosecution witness Marijan Biskic, again, the issue

 3     was raised.  It was -- there was a Prosecution objection regarding scope

 4     of the examination.  This is page 15184 of the transcript.  And to be

 5     clear, the issue also related to whether leading questions could be asked

 6     when the examination was going outside the scope of the direct.  But in

 7     any event, the issue was raised there; and again, Mr. Murphy was invoking

 8     or invoked Rule 90(h) indicating that Mr. Karnavas was right in asserting

 9     they could go outside the scope of the direct examination and to actually

10     ask leading questions of the witness.

11             So from this limited sort of survey of the Prosecution case, it

12     raised for me, anyway, a couple of points.  First of all, which was that

13     it's clear that -- I think -- there isn't any serious disagreement that

14     Rule 90(h)(i) does entitle any party to go outside the scope of direct

15     examination if it's relevant to their case and obviously if the Trial

16     Chamber agrees that it's significant or relevant enough evidence to

17     justify doing that.

18             The Trial Chamber has always been, it appears to me, quite

19     consistent in its rulings on this issue.  I went back and I looked at the

20     guidelines issued by the Trial Chamber in advance of the Defence case on

21     the 24th of April of this year.  Guideline 3, paragraph 7 states that as

22     regards the rules governing the scope of cross-examination, the Chamber

23     recalls that pursuant to Rule 90(h)(i), cross-examination may deal with a

24     matter that has not been raised in direct examination; and what the Trial

25     Chamber did then was actually cite its earlier decision from the 10th of

Page 33474

 1     May, 2007, the decision on the mode of interrogating witnesses, in which

 2     it also made the same ruling, that a party may go outside the scope of

 3     direct under Rule 90(h)(i).

 4             However, the Trial Chamber has -- at least in my view, in the

 5     Prosecution's view until we've gotten into the Defence case, the Trial

 6     Chamber has consistently ruled is that once a party is questioning

 7     outside the scope of direct, leading questions may not be used.  And I'm

 8     not going to repeat the Prosecution's submissions on the issue of leading

 9     questions during an examination of a witness by one of the co-accused;

10     but in any event, certainly in our view the Trial Chamber has

11     consistently approved the practice and has on specific occasions allowed

12     this to occur, of course, during the Prosecution case as well as in the

13     Defence cases.

14             I think that it's worth pointing out that on those occasions

15     during the Prosecution case in chief when counsel for the Defence were

16     allowed to go outside the scope of the Prosecution direct examination

17     under Rule 90(h), there was no deduction of time from any of the Defence

18     cases, and of course, that's because there were no Defence cases and no

19     times to deduct from.

20             So right off the bat, I think that's a point that bears keeping

21     in mind because I know that one of the assertions from the Petkovic

22     Defence is that it's unfair for the Prosecution to be allowed to go

23     beyond the scope of direct now under Rule 90(h) and to not have that time

24     deducted from its overall time.  The fact is that that same rule was in

25     effect during the Prosecution phase of the case.  The Defence were

Page 33475

 1     allowed to do that, and there was no deduction from the Defence,

 2     obviously.

 3             But it's possible that -- at least in our view, the other point

 4     on this that's maybe the most significant to bear in mind, and I don't

 5     know that there's going to be a lot of disagreement on it, during the

 6     Prosecution case and from what we've seen so far in the Defence cases,

 7     it's our submission that this issue really doesn't raise a statistically

 8     -- or it doesn't involve a statistically significant amount of time.  On

 9     those occasions when a party has wanted to go outside the scope and to

10     proceed with new questions under Rule 90(h), you know, I could be wrong.

11     There may be disagreement, but I think we are talking about 10 minutes

12     here, 20 minutes there, but not in the grand scheme of things

13     statistically significant amounts of time, and I'll come back to that

14     because that's largely what drives the Prosecution's ultimate position on

15     this.

16             In regard to the Petkovic assertion that it's unfair for time to

17     be deducted from the Petkovic Defence while there's no corresponding

18     deduction from the Prosecution time since our case is over, there are

19     three points we'd make.  First, we think it's not unfair to do that

20     because, as I've already pointed out, time wasn't deducted from the

21     Defence cases back during the Prosecution case.  When they went outside

22     the scope, there was no deduction of time of the Defence cases because,

23     as I said, there were no Defence times during that phase of the case.

24             Secondly, as the Trial Chamber knows, the reason for allowing a

25     party to go outside the scope of direct and to raise new questions is to

Page 33476

 1     prevent the witness from having to come back; and with six accused in the

 2     case, it's theoretically possible that any of the Defence witnesses could

 3     ultimately be required or asked to come back several times if there was

 4     not a situation where a co-accused could go outside of the scope of the

 5     direct.  Clearly, if the Petkovic team wanted to bring back a witness

 6     called by the Prlic Defence, they could do so.  However, of course, we

 7     know that if that were to happen, that time would be deducted from the

 8     Petkovic Defence.  So it seems, again, not unfair to simply deduct the

 9     time now that the witness is here.

10             And thirdly, as the Trial Chamber knows - I'm not going to

11     belabour it - the Prosecution view, and we've said it a number of times

12     both orally and in written submissions, we do view the cross-examinations

13     conducted by the Defence teams to be cross-examination only by label for

14     the large part in that these are largely sympathetic or certainly not

15     adverse witnesses.  And so we do see it as a different situation than the

16     situation you have when the Prosecution is cross-examining Defence

17     witnesses.

18             So for those three reasons, we think it's not unfair that the

19     Trial Chamber continues to deduct time from a Defence team that goes

20     beyond the scope of cross-examination.

21             Now, so our ultimate position on is this is as follows:  Mr.

22     President, we recognise that this is not a perfect situation, but the

23     status quo, if you will, is what we are advocating; that is, these are

24     very factual driven decisions and findings that are made by the Trial

25     Chamber whenever a party -- whenever there's an objection on scope, and

Page 33477

 1     if the party is or is not within the scope of the direct examination when

 2     they're asking their questions, it's a complicated issue.  It's very

 3     factually driven, and it's not one that lends itself easily at all to any

 4     sorts of firm or set rules or guidelines.

 5             We think that it's appropriate for the Trial Chamber on a very

 6     case-by-case basis to decide whether questions are outside the scope of

 7     direct or not; and if so, we continue to assert that the Trial Chamber is

 8     correct in deducting that extra time from a Defence team that does go

 9     outside the scope of the direct examination.

10             But getting back, really, to the main point, so far we don't

11     think that this is a statistically significant amount of time.  And if I

12     may, in using the Petkovic Defence as an example because they're the ones

13     that have raised it, if at the end of the Petkovic case in chief, after

14     they have exhausted their 50 hours or their 55 hours of time, if it turns

15     out that there are a few hours that they need that they don't have

16     because the Trial Chamber had deducted those few hours from their time

17     when they were cross-examining other witnesses and went outside the

18     scope, there's nothing to prevent the Petkovic team from at that point

19     making an application to the Trial Chamber to make up that time for more

20     time.  The Trial Chamber has always been very flexible in administering

21     all of these rules.  The Prosecution asked for more time at the end of

22     its case in chief.  Time was granted.  We didn't use it, all of it, but

23     certainly I think that when you're talking about 15 minutes here, 20

24     minutes there, in the end it's not going to add up to a huge amount of

25     time that will impact ultimately the length of the trial in any real

Page 33478

 1     significant way.  And in any event, any of the teams can ask for that

 2     time back, and if they can make their showing to the Trial Chamber, I'm

 3     confident the Trial Chamber will give them the amount of time they need.

 4     But that's how we propose is the way to go, to continue doing it the way

 5     the Trial Chamber's been handling it so far, deducting time when it finds

 6     that there is questioning beyond the scope of direct, and if at the end

 7     the Defence team needs to try to recover that time in order to complete

 8     their case in chief, then they can apply to the Trial Chamber for that

 9     additional time.

10             Mr. President, just three last remarks, and these don't relate to

11     this specific issue, but rather, just to some of the other points that

12     surfaced in yesterday's proceedings because it seems to us, the

13     Prosecution, that the calendar and scheduling for the remainder of the

14     year is certainly in flux now.  Could we confirm, if possible, that the

15     week that had been envisioned for the expert witness Mr. Cvikl, that that

16     week of November 17th is an empty week and that it's not going to be

17     filled.

18             Secondly, we would encourage the Trial Chamber to --

19             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, it can be filled with a

20     witness Radovanovic.  We asked for your position regarding this witness

21     because we've already got the report.  He is a demographer, an expert in

22     demography.  It's not too complicated, so possibly he could testify in

23     that week from the 17th -- or she could come and testify in the week of

24     the 17th to the 20th.

25             MR. STRINGER:  Well, Mr. President, with respect, to the

Page 33479

 1     Prosecution would object to that.  It's -- we're still reviewing the

 2     report.  It's our intention to file our RULE 94 bis response to the

 3     report, and it's our view that Ms. Radovanovic cannot be moved forward

 4     earlier in time.  Prosecution can't be prejudiced by having just received

 5     the report and being pushed into an examination sooner than we are ready.

 6     We've got 30 days under rule 94 bis to file our response to the report.

 7     We think it's time that the --

 8             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stringer, I can listen to

 9     you, but I read the report this morning, and I can demonstrate to you

10     that I, I can cross-examine her without any problem for 2 to 3 hours.  I

11     do not need a whole month to know what questions to put to her, or the

12     more so since we've already had Ms. Tabeau who came to testify on

13     demographic problems that we are all aware of.  Of course, as per the

14     rules, you have 30 days to respond.  You can.  But you could also show

15     some cooperation since there's a gap in the calendar, and you could say

16     at least that this expert can come.  There can be examination-in-chief by

17     the Defence with possibly postponement of the cross-examination if you

18     are overwhelmed by the questions that are put.  But you are a very great

19     professional, and I don't think that you're going to be hindered by the

20     situation.  If that expert can come and testify in the week from the 17th

21     to the 20th, a big problem is then solved.

22             And secondly, if you are very prompt with regard to the eight 92

23     bis witnesses, if you state your position saying I want to cross-examine

24     this one and that one, then Mr. Karnavas can be told straightaway, and he

25     can have them be called for that week as well, and all the problems are

Page 33480

 1     solved.

 2             MR. STRINGER:  Well, Mr. President, I know the demographics are

 3     foremost in your mind today because you've been listening to evidence of

 4     that throughout the morning session.  With respect, it's the Prosecution

 5     position, Mr. President, that the Prosecution will not be prepared to

 6     examine Ms. Radovanovic prior to the week that she's scheduled for, which

 7     is the final week of November.  I understand that the Trial Chamber

 8     wishes us to have a different position, and I regret that we're not able

 9     to agree.  Obviously, the Trial Chamber is the Trial Chamber, and we will

10     abide by whatever order it issues.  But we think it's unfair to railroad

11     us, frankly, into having to proceed with our examination of what we view

12     as an important demographic expert.

13             If I could -- just to continue, we also wanted to encourage the

14     Trial Chamber if possible to set a deadline.  I don't know when counsel

15     is planning to file his rule 92 bis motions.  We are anxious to see those

16     and to file a prompt response, and we think that that would facilitate

17     all of the witness calendaring; and that was our third request, was

18     whether it's possible to get witness calendars from both the Prlic and

19     Stojic teams for November and December, at least proposed ones, because

20     everyone knows that there's a great deal of uncertainty.  But if we could

21     have some calendars and names that are at least on the table, I think it

22     would assist all of us in preparing the Prosecution's concern about

23     having - as appears to be the case with the expert Radovanovic - having

24     to prepare cross-examinations and being pressured to prepare its

25     cross-examinations at the last minute or under less, you know, than ideal

Page 33481

 1     conditions.  And we think that's unfair, and we think that if we had some

 2     potential or some proposed calendars and if we had counsel's rule 92 bis

 3     motion, it would certainly put us in a better position to prepare

 4     ourselves for the remainder of this year's proceedings.

 5             Thank you, Mr. President.

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stringer, today is the 21st

 7     of October, unless I'm mistaken.  Yes, 21st of October.  The 21st of

 8     November, that is a month away from now.  You have more than enough

 9     people in your team.  Don't tell me that you don't have somebody in your

10     team who can prepare for a whole month based on the report that you have

11     for the cross-examination.  I find it hard to believe.

12             MR. STRINGER:  Yes, Your Honour.  We do have someone who can

13     prepare, and I can assure you that the preparations are underway.  I

14     guess -- and I think you know, Mr. President, that I and all of us on the

15     Prosecution team are always anxious to try to facilitate the proceedings

16     and to accommodate the parties and the Trial Chamber.  We just got the

17     report yesterday, and I know that you've read it, Mr. President.  To be

18     perfectly honest, I have not.  I've been having to do other things.  But

19     I led the evidence of Ewa Tabeau when she testified in this case, and the

20     demographic part of the case is important to me, and I would like to have

21     an opportunity to read the report, and it's possible that our position

22     would change.  But I'm being abundantly cautious at the moment because

23     I've not reviewed the report, and I'm also troubled by the fact it was,

24     in our view, filed late without giving us enough time to prepare and to

25     consider what our position would be on it.

Page 33482

 1             I can't tell you what our -- it may be that there are parts of it

 2     we accept or that we -- we don't have strong objection to or that we --

 3     it may be that it's not complicated, as you suggest, Mr. President, but

 4     at the moment I've not read it, and so I'm not really comfortable making

 5     any concessions on the timing.

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, Mr. Stringer, you could

 7     do one thing:  Read the report without delay, and tell us whether you are

 8     in a position or not because you are going to be the one cross-examining

 9     Ms. Radovanovic, I suppose.  You can read the report, see what the

10     problem is, and within a fortnight or in two weeks' time, ask for another

11     date or to ask whether the 27th of November is okay.  We depend on you.

12     You are the one who can tell us whether you are able to because you were

13     the one asking questions of Ms. Tabeau; therefore, you are the number one

14     in the Prosecution team when it comes to demographics.  So very quickly,

15     you'll be able to tell us whether you can or not or whether you need

16     further time.  Do we agree on that?

17             MR. STRINGER:  Yes, Mr. President, absolutely.

18             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Did you have

19     another topic?

20             MR. STRINGER:  No, Mr. President.  That's all.

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

22             MS. ALABURIC:  [Interpretation] Your Honours, good afternoon.

23     Good afternoon to you.  Good afternoon to everybody in the courtroom.  If

24     I may just be allowed a single minute to reply to the words of my learned

25     friend, Mr. Stringer, about cross-examination, Defence cross-examination

Page 33483

 1     in relation to two issues that weren't raised in chief.

 2             First of all, in any legal matter when an accused is trying to

 3     stand up because one of his rights have been violated, at least in his

 4     opinion, the extent of this violation or purported violation is not in

 5     itself of any substance whatsoever.  Therefore, it does not in the least

 6     matter whether Petkovic's overall time for the presentation of the

 7     Petkovic Defence would be taken away from in terms of time to a large

 8     extent or to a small extent.

 9             The next question is, does an accused have the right to raise

10     other issues on cross-examination that weren't raised in chief?  I'm also

11     very glad that the OTP and the Petkovic Defence agree entirely on their

12     interpretation of Rule 90(h).  We therefore believe that there is now no

13     doubt about the fact that both the Defence and the OTP have the right on

14     cross-examination to go into issues that go beyond the scope of the

15     examination-in-chief.

16             My third remark, what remains in doubt is whether such

17     examination by Defence teams should be considered as cross-examination

18     length-wise or if this is miraculously transformed somehow into an

19     examination-in-chief and therefore deducted from the time allocated to a

20     Defence team.

21             I would like to draw everyone's attention to the fact that no one

22     in this courtroom has so far come up with any objections or, indeed,

23     observations to the effect that the subjects that I used in my

24     examination of the witness were subjects outside the scope of the

25     examination-in-chief.

Page 33484

 1             I would also like to draw everyone's attention to Rule

 2     90(h)(iii).  The Trial Chamber has the power to allow or disallow the

 3     questioning of a witness on other subjects.  I believe that by making no

 4     ruling at all on my cross-examination, the Trial Chamber either believed

 5     that my examination was in no way outside the scope of the chief or

 6     tacitly agreed to have me proceed as I did.

 7             One thing that cannot be disputed is that the decision rendered

 8     by this Trial Chamber on the right to cross-examine outside the scope of

 9     the chief is something that must be adopted ahead of time so that any

10     Defence that takes this approach can decide under what circumstances they

11     will be adopting this approach or, indeed, dropping this approach.

12             It is by no means possible for any rule known to this court to

13     have the situation as follows:  A part of the cross-examination by a

14     Defence outside the scope of the chief to not be treated as

15     cross-examination while any time used for such examination is deducted

16     from a Defence's overall time.

17             By way of a conclusion, General Petkovic's Defence does not

18     believe that the most important issue is the issue of equal treatment for

19     both the OTP and the Defence.  Rather, we believe that what is at stake

20     here is the just nature of this trial, the application of the rules, and

21     especially in this case, Rule 90(h).

22             Thank you very much, Your Honour.

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation

24     continues] ... and the situation in the days to come rest on the

25     shoulders of Mr. Karnavas, so he will have to tell us how many 92 bis

Page 33485

 1     witnesses will come and testify - four or more, we don't know - after the

 2     13th of November.  For the time being, there's nothing during the week of

 3     the 17th of November and the 24th of November, also, since Mr. Stringer

 4     wishes to cross-examine the witness at a later stage.

 5             So there are two weeks ahead of us that could be used to hear the

 6     92 bis witnesses or their evidence, so we need to have the list very

 7     quickly to know which witnesses can be called.  Otherwise, we will have a

 8     gap since Cvikl cannot be translated before the 22nd of December, which

 9     means that Cvikl's testimony will not start before the 12th of January

10     when the court is back in session, the week from the 12th to the 16th.

11     So we will hear Cvikl, and the week after that we will hear the first

12     witness of the Stojic Defence team.

13             This is how things stand.  I stand to be corrected, however.  Mr.

14     Karnavas, is this how you see things also?

15             MR. KARNAVAS:  Good afternoon, Mr. President.  Good afternoon,

16     Your Honours.  Good afternoon to everyone in and around the courtroom.

17             I'll be very brief and very blunt.  First, with respect to the

18     four 92 bis witnesses that have been previously cross-examined by the

19     Prosecutor in previous cases, they, especially they - and I mean Mr.

20     Stringer and Mr. Scott - know exactly who they want to call.  They know

21     the testimonies; they know what they testified.  Essentially, we want to

22     introduce their prior testimonies.  So they can tell us very easily

23     without being so coy as to which one of these witnesses they wish to

24     call.  That would eliminate some of the guessing that's going around.

25             Second of all, with respect to the other four witnesses, as I

Page 33486

 1     indicated, I'm still waiting for one of the statements.  We did receive

 2     the third one today.  We hope to have that by the end of the week.

 3             As far as the expert demographer, and let me just remark the

 4     following:  They have an entire demographic team.  The two reports, one

 5     is about 25 pages at best if you stretch it.  The other one is about ten

 6     pages.  The reports are an analysis of their expert reports.  So when you

 7     consider they have several demographers, an entire demographic team

 8     behind them, plus an armada of Prosecutors, I find it, frankly,

 9     incredibly troubling to hear that a month is insufficient to determine

10     whether they're capable of cross-examining this particular expert.

11             Now, the problem with this particular expert is that she is also

12     a professor, so we would like to have that testimony taken this year if

13     possible.  We would urge the Court to force the Prosecutor to come up to

14     speed.  Frankly, had I received this report on Sunday night or Monday

15     morning, I would have read it by now, especially when the Trial Chamber

16     invited the Prosecutor for their remarks today.  One would think that

17     they would at least glance at it.  So I do think that perhaps the Trial

18     Chamber should force the Prosecutor and give them a deadline to look at

19     it and come back.  And I don't believe and I take offence to the remark

20     that was made - perhaps it was made in haste - that somehow the Trial

21     Chamber is trying to railroad the Prosecution.  The Trial Chamber is

22     merely trying to exercise its discretion and trying to push this trial

23     along as expeditiously as possible.

24             Lastly, on the one issue that was raised concerning

25     Ms. Alaburic's motion, I must say that I found the Prosecutor's remarks

Page 33487

 1     very balanced, and I believe that the ultimate -- the ultimate conclusion

 2     which was at the end of the case, the Trial Chamber would have an

 3     opportunity to assess whether the lawyers were efficient and whether they

 4     do need some additional time because it would be reasonable.  I think

 5     that's an adequate solution.  And I think far too much time is being

 6     spent on this issue.  We're spending more time debating this issue than

 7     actually time being spent questioning outside the scope.  Thank you.

 8             MR. STEWART:  Could I just raise one question, Your Honour, which

 9     occurs to me to arise out of all this, which is that when Mr. Karnavas is

10     finished his case, if he comes to conduct this sort of examination of

11     other Defence witnesses, how would the adjustment be made of his time?

12     Because he will have finished his case, so he will be in the same

13     position as the Prosecution.  So I'm just wondering -- it's just a

14     question, really, how it's all going to work then because some sort of

15     equality of treatment among the Defence teams is also presumably inherent

16     in the Trial Chamber's thinking.

17             MR. KARNAVAS:  That's why we've been asked to reserve time.  We

18     were allocated a certain amount of time, and we're reserving about eight

19     hours.  So that should make sure that none of the Defence are going to be

20     treated disproportionately somehow; the first team is going to have the

21     advantage.  In fact, I would dare say the first team has a disadvantage

22     above everybody else because we have to prepare in a less amount of time

23     and try to manage our case, especially this type of a case.  Thank you.

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, Ms. Alaburic.  This

25     is what I had understood.  Mr. Karnavas since he did not have all his 95

Page 33488

 1     hours had set aside a few hours in case such a situation arose.  That is

 2     the answer he has given you, but that is what I had understood.

 3     Ms. Alaburic.

 4             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I believe that my

 5     learned friend Mr. Karnavas should find this a simple task because in

 6     order to present his case, he was given just slightly under twice the

 7     time of some of the other Defence teams.

 8             What I would like to draw your attention to is this:  One issue

 9     is additional time being granted for hearing the witnesses of other

10     Defence teams.  This is beyond dispute, and this is something that has

11     already been applied in this courtroom.  We'll take some of the time and

12     allocate it to our Defence to additionally hear certain other witnesses.

13     This is something that no one is trying to challenge.

14             What we are talking about here is additional issues within the

15     bounds of time already allocated for cross-examination.  So let's say I

16     have 20 minutes for my cross-examination.  The question remains whether

17     within those 20 minutes I have the right under Rule 90(h) to broach other

18     issues as well.  And what if I wish to ask additional questions in

19     relation to these 20 minutes allocated to me?  Of course, I will have to

20     use up some of the time that has been allocated to the Petkovic Defence

21     team.  Thank you very much.

22             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stringer.

23             MR. STRINGER:  Thank you.  Just a few remarks in response to

24     counsel.  Yes, we know who four of the eight -- well, we know who all the

25     witnesses are in the 98 bis, and four of them have testified here before,

Page 33489

 1     and we know who they are.  And I said yesterday, we can file a response

 2     very fast.  We're not being coy.  We just need the motion.  Just file the

 3     motion, and we'll respond, and we can all move forward.  That's the

 4     point.  We don't file motions.  We don't make motions like this orally.

 5     Put the paper into the registry, and we'll file our response, and we can

 6     all move ahead.  That's as simple as it needs to be.  It doesn't have to

 7     be nasty, and it doesn't have to be coy, and we're not being coy.  We

 8     just want to have a motion to respond to.  That's all.

 9             I'm not suggesting, Mr. President, that the Trial Chamber is

10     trying to railroad the Prosecution.  I think it's evident that the Prlic

11     Defence has tried to railroad the Prosecution in respect of these two

12     experts.  Both of these reports have been filed months after a deadline.

13     We've talked about this before, and I know the Trial Chamber doesn't seem

14     to be troubled by that.  But again, none of this can work to the

15     prejudice of the Prosecution, and that's -- all we're doing is trying to

16     protect ourselves and give ourselves the ability to prepare having

17     received both of these reports very late -- very late in the game.  So

18     those are my only remarks, Mr. President.  Thank you.

19             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stringer, of course the

20     Trial Chamber is concerned.  Of course we have realized that these

21     reported had not been filed as had been said in March and April.  Of

22     course we contemplated the possibility of dismissing these reports

23     because the deadlines had not been abided by.  But we also took into

24     account issues that related to the work of the Defence team, that have a

25     heavier workload, that don't have the same resources as you do, that find

Page 33490

 1     it more difficult to get ahold of these experts, so all of this is quite

 2     complicated.  After having spent a lot of time thinking about this, we

 3     felt that in the interest of justice it would be preferable in the future

 4     that all expert reports for those upcoming witnesses be filed at least

 5     two months ahead of time, two months before the witness in question comes

 6     to testify in order to abide by the 30-day deadline of the 94 bis rule of

 7     our rules of procedure in evidence.  So in the future, it has to be two

 8     months.

 9             Of course we are concerned about it.  The Trial Chamber is trying

10     to put both parties back on track because if everybody derails, then it's

11     a disaster.  This is why we suggest guidelines.  We are trying to do our

12     best.

13             Our last topic, Mr. Karnavas -- Mr. Karnavas, on Thursday the

14     30th of October, could we possibly switch from the morning to the

15     afternoon?  This is an application made by the Seselj Chamber.  Could we

16     possibly switch and sit in the afternoon and not in the morning as

17     planned?

18             MR. KARNAVAS:  We would be more than happy to accommodate Mr.

19     Seselj in the Seselj Chamber.  That would not be a problem, Your Honour.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  So we will sit on

21     the 30th of October in the afternoon.

22             Let's bring the witness in, and I shall tell the witness that we

23     have been involved in procedural matters.  We need a few IC numbers.

24     Registrar, please.

25             THE REGISTRAR:  Thank you, Your Honour.  One of the parties have

Page 33491

 1     submitted his objection to the list of documents tendered by the

 2     Prosecution through witness Zelenika, Mirko.  These objections submitted

 3     by the Prlic Defence team have been given Exhibit number IC 00868.  Thank

 4     you, Your Honour.

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

 6                           [The witness entered court]

 7                           WITNESS:  MARINKO SIMUNOVIC [Resumed]

 8                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, sir.  You have

10     been waiting since quarter past 2.00.  I'm sorry, but we have had to deal

11     with a some of procedural matters.  And we were not able to call you in.

12     I apologise for this and for having made you wait, but we could not do it

13     any other way.

14             According to the registrar's calculations, you should have one

15     hour and 50 minutes left, unless I'm mistaken.

16             MR. KARNAVAS:  I believe I have slightly less than that, Your

17     Honour.  I believe it's an hour and 5 minutes or something to that

18     effect, but...

19             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I was overgenerous with you as

20     you can see.

21             MR. KARNAVAS:  I think we will be finished perhaps as early as a

22     half an hour from now.

23                           Examination by Mr. Karnavas: [Continued]

24        Q.   Good afternoon, sir.

25        A.   Good afternoon.

Page 33492

 1        Q.   If I could go back to where we were yesterday in that last -- we

 2     are at the second-to-last, penultimate chapter on distribution of

 3     humanitarian aid; and if I could focus your attention on document 1D

 4     00303.  And when you have it, let me know.

 5        A.   I have located the document.

 6        Q.   All right.  Now, this concerns the Livno municipalities dated 11

 7     May 1993.  Have you had a chance to look at it prior to coming to court,

 8     this document, during the proofing session?

 9        A.   Yes, yes, but not before that.

10        Q.   Not before that.  Now, in looking at this particular document, we

11     can see that the humanitarian -- the criteria set out by the Livno

12     municipalities, can you tell us whether looking at what is being done in

13     the Livno whether Mostar was doing the same thing, setting criteria, that

14     is for the humanitarian aid?

15        A.   Yes.  The coordinating committee in cooperation with the social

16     welfare centre worked on setting up these criteria, and the records were

17     set up according to the rules that we discussed yesterday.

18        Q.   All right.  Is Livno doing anything differently than what Mostar

19     is doing at this time?

20        A.   It is possible that the quantities allocated for distribution

21     were different in viewing the overall amount of humanitarian aid

22     received.  Anyway, all distribution criteria were based on the

23     availability of the aid.

24        Q.   All right.  Well, let me focus your attention now for

25     illustrative purposes on Article 28, Roman numeral XXVIII.  Do you have

Page 33493

 1     it, sir?

 2        A.   Yes, I do.

 3        Q.   From here we can see that it sets out certain criteria, 5

 4     kilograms of flour per person in a household and so on and so forth.  Are

 5     we to understand that Mostar had similar criteria, these sorts of items?

 6        A.   Yes, especially since this reminds me of the criteria that the

 7     ICRC applies, and a little below -- anything below that would be

 8     insufficient for distribution.  So these are minimum quantities and

 9     minimum criteria applicable to distribution to either families or

10     individuals to satisfy the minimum needs that they have in a month.

11        Q.   All right.  Well, you indicated this would be minimum

12     distribution.  What if - hypothetical - what if in your warehouse you

13     have various items, but because of the number of people that you need to

14     distribute the aid to, you cannot meet the minimum distribution per

15     person?  What happens then?

16        A.   Then we have a problem, and we would solve this problem in a

17     variety of ways.  We would look at the plan for the forthcoming influx of

18     aid, if we had any notices thereof, and then we would postpone the

19     distribution pending the arrival of these forthcoming quantities.

20             If we were not certain that humanitarian aid would arrive any

21     time soon, then we would conduct the distribution according to

22     priorities, but then again, not below the minimum quantities required for

23     sustenance, the ones that are presented here.

24        Q.   All right.  Well, yesterday, we talked about the situation in

25     Mostar in April and May, and you had indicated based on the charts that

Page 33494

 1     we saw that collectively, the coordinating committee had very few

 2     resources available for distribution; and you also indicated from your

 3     notes that there were some 30.000 displaced persons in Mostar, correct?

 4        A.   Yes, that's correct.

 5        Q.   Well, let's say now, hypothetically speaking, that you only have

 6     enough for 15 or 20.000.  Why not -- why not distribute to all but

 7     distribute less than the minimum quantity as prescribed by the criteria,

 8     so at least, then, everybody gets a little bit?

 9        A.   I think that such distribution would only cause dissatisfaction

10     among beneficiaries, and that would cause the situation to deteriorate

11     because as much as those people were needy, they were still unwilling to

12     be treated subhumanely, so we took very good care not to create

13     additional problems for these people, not to offend them by offering them

14     such meager quantities.  So any distribution in such minor quantities

15     would be seen by them as humiliation.

16        Q.   All right.  Let's go on to the next document, 1D 02763.  1D

17     02673.  And in this particular document, we see various certificates.  Do

18     you have that, sir?

19        A.   Yes, yes.

20        Q.   You can see at the top of the page, Social Welfare Centre Mostar,

21     24 May 1993 on the very first one, and perhaps on some of the others we

22     have the same date.  This Social Welfare Centre Mostar, this is the

23     municipality of Mostar, social centre, correct?

24        A.   Yes, yes.

25        Q.   Now, in looking at -- let's look at the first certificate.  Maybe

Page 33495

 1     you can help us out here.  This certifies a Mr. Izet Curic, that he is an

 2     employee of the Mostar Social Welfare Centre and employed as a social

 3     worker.  Did you know this individual?

 4        A.   Yes.  I knew him personally.

 5        Q.   And could you please tell us what a social worker did within the

 6     social welfare centre?  Concretely, what were the sort of tasks that

 7     social workers were doing?

 8        A.   Well, this certificate is not actually a certificate or a proof.

 9     These were actually issued to employees of the social welfare centre in

10     order to allow them to go into the field to assess the situation and the

11     needs there and to analyse the method of distributing humanitarian aid in

12     cooperation with people from humanitarian organisations operating in

13     local communes.

14        Q.   All right.

15        A.   So they were employees of the social welfare centre; and at the

16     same time, based on this certificate as proof, they were allowed to go

17     out into the field and to assess the situation there.

18        Q.   All right.  Well, yesterday we saw the chart, and you discussed a

19     little bit about how the food was ultimately distributed at the commune

20     level:  People got cards, they would come to the commune centre, and then

21     they would receive their aid.  Am I stating your testimony correct from

22     yesterday?

23        A.   Yes.  That's how it was.

24        Q.   Okay.  Now you're telling us that individuals such as Mr. Curic

25     as a social worker would go into the field and make assessments.  Would

Page 33496

 1     he be making assessments at the commune level to see whether particular

 2     individuals met the criteria in order to get the card so that they could

 3     go to the commune when food was being distributed?

 4        A.   One of the main task was precisely that, which is that in

 5     cooperation with the local commune commissioner, he assesses a situation

 6     as a professional and check whether the aid was received by those who

 7     have properly certified cards, whether there are some newcomers who need

 8     to be given a status and issued with a card.  So the whole process of

 9     validity and confirmation of the cards was under the supervision of this

10     person from the social welfare centre.

11        Q.   And by looking at the name, and of course you know the gentleman,

12     can you tell us whether he was a Croat or a Muslim or a Serb?

13        A.   Judging by the name he was a Muslim; but since I know him

14     personally, I can confirm that.

15        Q.   All right.  Let's just look again at the second certificate.

16     This is for a Mr. Fehim Sunagic.  He's also a social worker.  This is

17     again dated 24 May 1993.  Did you know this individual?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   What nationality is he?

20        A.   The same like the previous one, a Muslim.

21        Q.   And the next certificate, again, dated 24 May 1993, a Mr. Mehmed

22     Buric?

23        A.   He's also a Muslim.

24        Q.   Did you know this individual?

25        A.   Yes, yes, I did.

Page 33497

 1        Q.   And he was doing the same work as the others that were doing, if

 2     you know?

 3        A.   Yes, yes.

 4        Q.   Then we have a Ms. Elvira Colic.  She is employed as a protocol

 5     officer.  Did you know Ms. Colic?

 6        A.   Yes.  And what's written here as a description of what she did is

 7     correct.  I know that this is what she was doing at the time.

 8        Q.   All right.  Can you tell us what a protocol officer does or did

 9     back then?

10        A.   Keeping records of incoming mail, making categorization of cards

11     received by the centre to be verified and certified, and all other

12     supporting documents that were delivered to that institution.

13        Q.   Is this individual Muslim or Croat?

14        A.   She was also a Muslim.

15        Q.   The next certificate [French interpretation], is she a Muslim?

16        A.   [French interpretation] She was also a Muslim, and I had many a

17     cup of coffee that she made for me.

18        Q.   And what about the next certificate, a Ms. Hata Colic [French

19     interpretation]?

20        A.   The same.  This lady was a Muslim, and she did the same job as

21     the previous one.

22        Q.   Then we go on again, the next certificate is [French

23     interpretation] Pervan [phoen]?

24        A.   The same.

25        Q.   And what did she -- she's -- you can see that she is a social

Page 33498

 1     [French interpretation]?

 2        A.   Yes, yes.  There were 32 local communes in Mostar, which required

 3     a large number of people to be out in the field monitoring the situation.

 4        Q.   And finally, the last certificate, 26th of May, 1993.  Do you see

 5     this name to know whether this is a Muslim or a Croat?

 6        A.   This is a Muslim woman, since this is a female and the status and

 7     the reason for issuing this certificate was the same; only the time frame

 8     was different.  If anyone was required to go out, they had to have this

 9     kind of certificate on themselves in order to prove that they are

10     authorised social workers working in the field.

11        Q.   All right.  If we request go on to the next document, 1D 02771.

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, please.  Witness, I

13     have three questions for you.  I think they are relevant based on these

14     eight documents that we've just seen.  I noticed that for most of the

15     documents, they were written on the 24th of May, 1993; but for the last

16     one, that was drawn up on the 26th of May, 1993.  We know that all the

17     people mentioned in the documents are Muslims.  You told us that you knew

18     them because you discussed things with them.  You even said that you

19     would take -- you would have coffee with one of them.

20             Based on this, I have three series of questions.  So these are

21     Muslims working in the social work centre.  Where did they live?  Did

22     they live in East or West Mostar?  Where did these people live?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  They were living in West Mostar,

24     Your Honour.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  So they were living

Page 33499

 1     in West Mostar.

 2             Most of the certificates concern women.  I suppose these women

 3     had husbands; they were married.  Did these women speak about their

 4     husbands?  What did they do?  What was their occupation?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  Believe me, I don't know.  There

 6     were men, as well, on this list, but I don't know their personal

 7     situations.

 8             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you did not know their

 9     personal situation in any detailed manner?  You talked about their work

10     with them, I suppose, about their lives, didn't you?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  No.  I didn't have time to discuss

12     their lives with them.  We always only talked about work during working

13     hours.

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.  But when you would

15     discuss with them, would they mention the problems that there were at the

16     time?  Did they, for instance, say that they at any point in time they

17     had learned that Muslims had been arrested, had been transferred to

18     Heliodrom?  Did they speak to you about it, or were these topics you

19     would never speak about?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't discuss those things with

21     them.

22             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] They were working in West

23     Mostar, and you said they also lived there.  Could they move about

24     freely, or would they come up with problems?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  Of course.  They had no problems

Page 33500

 1     moving around.  They would come to work, go out into the field, and the

 2     purpose was these certificates to allow them to go out into the field, so

 3     they had absolute freedom of movement.  If Your Honours would like to

 4     know, I could tell you that at the time in West Mostar, there were about

 5     8.000 Muslims, 2 and a half thousand Serbs, and about 1.000 others in

 6     addition to 30-odd-something-thousand Croats, and these figures are more

 7     or less accurate.

 8             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment.  From what you say,

 9     back then in May, say, in West Mostar, there were 8.000 Muslims?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  Yes.

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] How many Croats in West Mostar,

12     roughly?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  About 30.000.

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes.  30.000, you said so.  So

15     there were 8.000 Muslims moving around without any problem; is that so?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  Of course.  They were

17     beneficiaries.  Anyone who was capable of doing work or becoming engaged,

18     they were engaged, and they were doing all sorts of work; and there were

19     no problems in that respect.  And this was already a time when the

20     situation was somewhat normalised as compared to the initial stage when

21     the conflict started; but as time went on, the situation progressed.

22             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Were there men, women, children

23     among the 8.000 Muslims?  The children - for instance, the children of

24     your employees - would they go to school or not?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  If the schools were open, yes, but

Page 33501

 1     I can't remember now whether schools were working at the time or not.

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You do not know whether the

 3     schools were working?  Did you yourself -- did you have children?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  My children were with my mother

 5     and father in Peljesac in Croatia as refugees.

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] No because if you told me that

 7     you had children --

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  Your Honour, lots of women and

 9     children had left the war zone and become refugees, and that took place

10     at the very beginning when the conflict broke out in April 1992 in

11     Mostar.

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Yes.  Another

13     question.  Judge Mindua.

14             JUDGE MINDUA:  [Interpretation] Witness, two small questions.

15     Could you remind me, how many people were employed in this social centre

16     in Mostar in May 1993?  We've just seen eight certificates, but I'd like

17     to know how many altogether there were there.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  I can just give you an approximate

19     answer, but I think that there were up to 30 employees.

20             JUDGE MINDUA:  [Interpretation] Very well.  So out of 30 --

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  But not more than 30, as far as I

22     know.

23             JUDGE MINDUA:  [Interpretation] Fine.  So these eight

24     certificates for Muslims, is that the overall number of Muslims working

25     in the centre, or were you just giving us some examples?

Page 33502

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  I don't think so.  These were the

 2     people who were required to go out into the fields; and in view of the

 3     overall situation and the need for them to cooperate with the local

 4     commune staff, they were issued with these certificates in order to allow

 5     them to go out into the field.  The other employees who didn't need to go

 6     out normally came to their offices and did their job at the centre.

 7             JUDGE MINDUA:  [Interpretation] Thank you.  Just one more

 8     question:  What was the, say, political affiliation of the people

 9     employed in the centre?  In other words, did the employer, the centre as

10     such, did it know the political affiliation of every employee?  Did they

11     know what political party they would belong, for instance?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  I don't think that I'm able to

13     give you an answer to this question.  I just met these -- with these

14     people within our work and the scope of our work, and I knew nothing

15     about their political affiliations or any thoughts that they might have

16     on this subject.

17             JUDGE MINDUA:  [Interpretation] Very last question.  We have seen

18     the certificates, mostly delivered to female employees.  If these women

19     were married, did some of them have Muslim husbands?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  Your Honour, I absolutely don't

21     know who they were married to.  That was their personal affair, and I can

22     say nothing about that.  All I can say, that there were lots of mixed

23     marriages in Mostar, Muslims married to Croats or -- Muslim men married

24     to Croat women and vice-versa, but I don't know anything about these

25     particular cases.

Page 33503

 1             JUDGE MINDUA:  [Interpretation] Thank you very much.  You've

 2     answered my questions.

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas.

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You're welcome.

 5             MR. KARNAVAS:  Thank you, Your Honours.

 6        Q.   If we turn to the next document, 1D 2771.  And the next few

 7     documents, in fact, are more or less the same with the exception of the

 8     last document in this bundle.  This document, we see that there's a list

 9     of welfare beneficiaries, and it's dated 25 June 1995.  We see that at

10     the top.  Do you know for what period of time this list was for?

11        A.   If I look at the date on this document, this appears to be June

12     1993, possibly May or June.  I think June.

13        Q.   It must be a translation error on my part or in the English

14     version.  Okay.  Now, looking at this document very briefly, I know we've

15     looked at it together, and there is a --

16             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, you're right.  In

17     the English translation, it's dated 1995; but if you look at the

18     original, I see 1993.

19             MR. KARNAVAS:  Yes, Mr. President.

20        Q.   And if we look at this document, there are 70 names.  Can you

21     tell us by looking at the names whether within this list you have Muslim

22     names?

23        A.   More than 25 if my count is correct.  28, a total of 28, I think,

24     that I've come across.

25        Q.   Thank you.  Just as a representation, for instance, number 3,

Page 33504

 1     number 6, number 7, number 10, number 12, number 15, number 16, number

 2     17:  These are all Muslim names, correct?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   All right.  We won't go through the rest.

 5             If we look at the next document, 1D 02769, do you recognise this

 6     document, and if so, what is it?

 7        A.   This is another list of eight beneficiaries in a different local

 8     commune.  This was drawn up to indicate categories of aid as well as a

 9     status of beneficiaries and then various groups of those.  The document

10     is quite complete, thorough.  It has all the information: address,

11     father's name, name, ethnicity.  It's all reflected in this document, and

12     it's crystal clear.

13        Q.   It's dated 16 August 1993, correct?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   And can you tell us, who would have prepared this document?  Who

16     was responsible for preparing this document?

17        A.   This document was drawn up by the governing commissioner for this

18     local commune in cooperation with commissioners of the social welfare

19     centre and commissioners of the humanitarian organisations who worked in

20     these local communes.

21        Q.   Now, we know at the time - that is August 1993 - you were still

22     with the Red Cross.  Would you have come across this document or this

23     sort of a document in your work?

24        A.   I had an associate who worked with humanitarian aid who would

25     have known about a document like this because he checked the status and

Page 33505

 1     distribution of humanitarian aid and cross-referenced them with lists

 2     drawn up by commissioners across local communes.  Based on the final

 3     result in terms of how many beneficiaries there were, we would distribute

 4     aid.  So this associate of mine probably had a chance to look at all

 5     these documents in each of the local communes.

 6        Q.   All right.  Now, if we look at the next two documents, 1D 0 --

 7             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone for Mr. Karnavas, please.

 8             MR. KARNAVAS:

 9        Q.   -- the next two documents, 1D 02768 and 2774.  These are more or

10     less the same sort of lists, correct?

11        A.   Yes, the distinction being this is a new local commune with new

12     names.

13        Q.   All right.  Well, what about 1D 02770 dated 31 August 1993?  It

14     says "list families of civilian victims of the homeland war."  Can you

15     please tell us what this list is about, or is it somewhat similar to the

16     ones that we have seen already?

17        A.   Yes, but this is a different kind of category.  People who

18     suffered in the war.  They were also, in a way, jeopardized and therefore

19     were entitled to special aid.

20        Q.   All right.  Let's look at the final document in this chapter, 1D

21     02659.  2659.  This is a report on work in 1994.  If you look at the end

22     of this report, before we get to the chart, we see your name as

23     president.  That would have been president of the Red Cross of the

24     municipality of Mostar, correct?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 33506

 1        Q.   And I assume since it bears your name and signature that you

 2     would have been responsible for the preparation of this particular

 3     report?

 4        A.   Of course.  I had to submit a report every year to the assembly

 5     of the Red Cross on the work of the Red Cross over the previous year.  If

 6     you look at this report, particularly in relation to the one that we

 7     looked at yesterday, you can observe a continuity in the work of the Red

 8     Cross, a continuity in its work across a number of different areas.

 9             Furthermore, there is new information here about newly arisen

10     situations in 1994.  This report shows a somewhat improved situation as

11     compared to the previous year.

12        Q.   And of course, if we look at the last page, the chart, we can see

13     that the food or the resources that were available month per month are

14     relatively good compared to what we saw in 1993, at least that one period

15     of April and May 1993; is that right?

16        A.   Yes, that's precisely what it shows.  This list is about the rate

17     of arrival of food in Mostar Red Cross in 1994.  I sort of missed the

18     list in relation to the first six months because if we had that, we would

19     be able to see that there was sufficient aid.  The quantities are no

20     longer as they were back in 1993 in the thick of the war.  The quantities

21     of aid were also reflection of the trust in the work of the Red Cross,

22     the transparency of its activities, the quality of both reception and

23     distribution.  This is one thing that I can state with the greatest

24     amount of certainty.

25             If you look at this report, you can see that on a daily basis

Page 33507

 1     there were over 32 tonnes of various kinds of aid passing through.  These

 2     are no negligible quantities.  In addition to its ambition to have aid

 3     distributed to everyone, the Red Cross was facing a great deal of

 4     trouble, and it required a huge effort to accomplish all of these tasks

 5     in the best possible way.  Needless to say, we could not have done this

 6     alone.  There were local commune commissioners always at hand to get

 7     their men and go and get help, representatives of the civil protection

 8     who helped us load and unload aid.  There were various activists as well

 9     as employees of the Red Cross who went about their work on a regular

10     basis.  They would monitor the situation, incoming goods, goods being

11     distributed, as well as anything else included in this report.

12             MR. KARNAVAS:  All right.  Unless there are any questions from

13     the Bench, I'm going to move to the final chapter of my --

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just one minor question.  We've

15     just seen this report.  It concerns the year 1994.  With regard to the

16     previous year, is there a similar report?

17             MR. KARNAVAS:  Your Honour, if I may refresh everyone's memory,

18     we saw that yesterday, but we can go back to that if you wish to make

19     some comparisons; and that would be number 2651, Your Honour.  That would

20     have been the -- I believe the third chapter of the list of documents,

21     and that was where we looked at some of the charts yesterday, if you may

22     recall, for the various months.

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes.  The reason why I was

24     asking you this is that I had not forgotten about Document 2651, and I

25     think that for the year 1994 you chose another format, is that right, to

Page 33508

 1     show your activity?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  Well, it's obvious if you

 3     cross-reference the two documents, but the substance remains the same.

 4     There were different sectors in the work of the Red Cross, and reports

 5     were submitted in relation to each of these in a slightly abbreviated

 6     form.  Later reports in relation to 1995, 1996, and on for as long as I

 7     was still with the Red Cross were much shorter.  None of the activities

 8     and tasks performed were ever omitted, nevertheless.

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, the time has come

10     for the break.  We're going to break now, and you can deal with your last

11     chapter after the break.  Let's break for 20 minutes now.

12                           --- Recess taken at 3.42 p.m.

13                           --- On resuming at 4.08 p.m.

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Court is back in session.

15     Judge Prandler has a question.

16             JUDGE PRANDLER:  Thank you, Mr. President.  Yesterday, we have

17     already talked about the international relationship as far as the Red

18     Cross movement is concerned and the Red Cross Red Crescent movement, and

19     I would like to revisit that problem and ask you, Mr. Simunovic, the

20     following question.

21             Just before we adjourned, the report, your report of the

22     activities of the municipal organisation of Red Cross Mostar in 1993 had

23     been mentioned by Mr. Karnavas; and then if we look at the report in

24     English translation of it, then we will see that the -- Red Cross Mostar

25     in the major heading, Red Cross Mostar, then Bosnia and Herzegovina, and

Page 33509

 1     then Red Cross of Croatia, Republic Herceg-Bosna, and then again township

 2     organisation Mostar.

 3             Now, my question is about the following, that the -- as we also

 4     mentioned yesterday, as a rule, the international Red Cross and Red

 5     Crescent movement accepts one organisation from and in each country, and

 6     we have here in the title Bosnia and Herzegovina, but as a republic, of

 7     course, I assume, at the same time the name of your organisation is being

 8     mentioned here as Red Cross of Croatia, Republic Herceg-Bosna.  The

 9     question is, was that organisation as such and your name officially

10     accepted by both, by the international committee of Red Cross, that is

11     ICRC, and by the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red

12     Crescent Societies?  I'm interested in this question also from the point

13     of view of my own experience that at that time in Hungary and Budapest

14     the regional delegation of the International Federation of Red Cross and

15     Red Crescent Societies had been established just for dealing with --

16     mainly with the problems which were created by the tragic events in

17     former Yugoslavia.

18             So my question is, therefore, that was there any official

19     recognition by the two mentioned international organisations, that is

20     ICRC and the international federation of your organisation?  Did you have

21     any - quote, unquote - "official" contacts with them, and did you have,

22     for example, contacts with their Geneva-based centres and organisations?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  I thank you for this question,

24     Your Honour.  I can expand at great length on this subject since I have

25     witnessed all the developments surrounding the transformation of the Red

Page 33510

 1     Cross in Bosnia-Herzegovina starting with Day 1 and my arrival in Mostar,

 2     all the way up until my very last day with the Red Cross.

 3             As for the use of the Red Cross symbol, the only legal Red Cross

 4     in Bosnia-Herzegovina internationally recognised up until the war was the

 5     BH Red Cross, which had a cross as its universally recognised and

 6     acknowledged symbol.  There was nothing that was questionable about the

 7     use of that symbol.

 8             As for international recognition by the International Red Cross,

 9     that did not occur pursuant to a request from the Sarajevo body back in

10     1993 when the request for recognition was first submitted; the reason

11     being, that particular body did not exercise any control over the work of

12     the various institutions throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina.  Nevertheless,

13     the use of the symbol and cooperation with the International Committee of

14     the Red Cross and the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red

15     Crescent Society was never placed in doubt because of this situation that

16     prevailed.

17             It wasn't before the 15th of December, 2000, at an international

18     conference of the International Red Cross that the BH Red Cross society

19     was fully officially recognised.  The following year at the general

20     session, all the documents were adopted.  On the 15th of December,

21     rather, we held a founding assembly of this unified body for all of

22     Bosnia-Herzegovina, and then on the 8th of May, the Red Cross day the

23     following year, the international recognition followed.  It wasn't before

24     then that these issues were resolved and the Red Cross symbol was

25     confirmed and ratified as our national symbol, as well, although that

Page 33511

 1     symbol had up to then been used in all of the 169 local commune

 2     organisations that had been hard at work, although there was no unifying

 3     structure.

 4             In the Republika Srpska, you had the Republika Srpska Red Cross,

 5     which also submitted a request for international recognition; however,

 6     the response they got seven days later was that this was unfortunately

 7     impossible because their activities did not cover the entire territory of

 8     an internationally recognised country.  The Red Cross of the Croatian

 9     Republic of Herceg-Bosna never submitted a request for international

10     recognition to begin with.  It was established only for the purpose of

11     coordination in that particular area.

12             What was required was an institutional response to all of the

13     tasks that were arising after the law on the Red Cross of the Croatian

14     Republic of Herceg-Bosna had been adopted.  Cooperation with

15     international societies of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent, the

16     Budapest office and the new office that was established in Bosnia and

17     Herzegovina was very good.  Your humble servant actually had occasion to

18     visit to Budapest office and all their other offices.  I also had a

19     chance to be involved in all of the activities surrounding the founding

20     session in Geneva in 1999 as an observer.

21             So as regards your question and the situation, this was something

22     that was seriously considered, and this was fully under the control of

23     the people who were involved with the work of the Red Cross.  We were

24     also aware of the fact that in some predominantly Muslim municipalities

25     there was the Red Crescent, and they were active too.  Nevertheless, they

Page 33512

 1     didn't have the required structure, and they never submitted any sort of

 2     individual request for any form of recognition whatsoever.  Therefore, as

 3     I said yesterday, for purely humanitarian reasons and needs - and that

 4     was why they were around in the first place - we indicated the problem of

 5     their existence.  Nevertheless, we believed that the aid that they as an

 6     organisation were providing was reason enough for us to not raise this as

 7     a problem or an issue.  At the time they were working in the area, it was

 8     more important to get more aid rather than raise the issue of the symbol

 9     they were using because they weren't using their symbol officially.  But

10     since aid was coming in from that source, as well, we didn't mind,

11     although we did in fact indicate this problem.  All the institutions of

12     the Red Cross were using one symbol and one symbol alone:  the cross.

13     Today it is still the cross.  And now it is an internationally recognised

14     association, a society in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

15             JUDGE PRANDLER:  [Microphone not activated] Sorry.  I would like

16     to thank you, Mr. Simunovic, for your very argumented answer, and I would

17     like to then say that it is what I also believed, that before 2000, that

18     is before the international conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent

19     Societies in Geneva in 2000, your society like they are once in Bosnia

20     and Herzegovina in a way acted in a de facto way without a final

21     confirmation of the respective international bodies; but of course, you

22     have done your work, and of course, then the official recognition came in

23     2000.  Thank you very much.

24             MR. KARNAVAS:

25        Q.   Just one point of clarification on the record.  Page 41, line 7

Page 33513

 1     to 8.  It wasn't caught on the transcript.  I did hear on the

 2     translation.  The gentleman indicated, and I will ask for a confirmation,

 3     where he said that the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna never submitted

 4     any documentation for international recognition, is that correct, to the

 5     Red Cross?

 6        A.   Yes, yes, that's correct.  We did not submit any request for

 7     international recognition, being as we were aware of the fact that we did

 8     not enjoy authority over the entire territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina and

 9     aware as we were of the fact that the republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina was

10     an internationally recognised country.

11        Q.   I just wanted to make sure we got that clarification.  And one

12     more point picking up on the question that was asked of you:  The

13     international Red Cross, the ICRC was on the ground in Mostar during

14     1992, 1993, monitoring and assisting your work; is that correct?

15        A.   Yes.  This is certainly correct, but during the period of the

16     most intense clashes they moved their office to Medjugorje.  The rest of

17     the time, we had worked directly with that institution.  International

18     Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Associations only merged at

19     a later stage, and they got in touch directly with these Red Cross

20     organisations, including ours in Mostar.

21        Q.   All right.  I was --

22             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just one point of detail.  The

23     Red Crescent was mentioned.  I wanted to ask a question yesterday.  We

24     didn't have time for me to do so, so I'll put it straightaway.  There was

25     a Red Cross crescent, and there was also Merhamet.  How did they both

Page 33514

 1     work?  Did they work together, or were they rival organisations?  I'm

 2     talking about the Red Crescent and Merhamet.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  Given the fact that upon obtaining

 4     membership in the coordinating committee both institutions are the

 5     representatives along with all the other humanitarian organisations,

 6     there was no competition in the sense of causing each other problems.

 7     There was a certain amount of rivalry in the sense of getting as much aid

 8     into the country as possible.  As to their mutual relations outside the

 9     coordinating committee, I'm really not privy to that kind of detail.

10     However, I did work with both these organisations, and our relations were

11     good.

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

13             MR. KARNAVAS:  Thank you, Your Honours, for those questions.

14        Q.   And now let's go to the very last chapter.  We'll be very brief

15     on this.  This has to do with the issue of public kitchens.  It has come

16     up before with one particular witness from the Prosecution, and I just

17     want to get some of your testimony in regards to this.

18             If we look at 1D 02773 -- do you have it, sir?

19        A.   [In English] Yes.

20        Q.   And it's dated 15 July 1992.  We can see that this is on

21     establishment of soup kitchens, conditions and criteria, and I take it

22     you have looked at this -- you have looked at this document, correct?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   And did you know the director, Mr. Enver Pavlovic?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 33515

 1        Q.   All right.  Can you tell us whether, indeed, at that time in

 2     Mostar there were soup kitchens?

 3        A.   If I may, I would like to interpret this document a little.  This

 4     is --

 5        Q.   We were going to get to that step by step.  First, you're going

 6     to -- so let me lead you with my questions, and then we'll get to the

 7     document.  So the first general question:  Were there soup kitchens?  So

 8     were there soup kitchens at the time?

 9        A.   Yes.  There are now, as a matter of fact.

10        Q.   All right.  And could you describe so at least we have some sort

11     of a mental picture of what a soup kitchen looked like and where they may

12     have been at that time.

13        A.   Soup kitchens were set up in buildings where it was possible to

14     prepare food in an organised way and where there was sufficient room for

15     numbers of people to come and have a cooked meal.  Sometimes, food that

16     was cooked would be taken elsewhere outside the building itself.  Certain

17     locations were quite remote within the town itself, and some people who

18     were in need of this sort of service would have been at too much of a

19     risk going there on a daily basis to fetch their food.

20        Q.   All right.  How many meals a day were these soup kitchens cooking

21     or providing?

22        A.   Depending on the capacity of each of these and depending on their

23     locations, the largest one was producing between 700 and 800 meals a day,

24     and this is the one that was based at the Herzegovina restaurant, which

25     enjoyed the best conditions, objectively speaking, for preparing an

Page 33516

 1     amount of food like that.

 2        Q.   All right.  Did you ever eat in any of these soup kitchens to see

 3     the quality of the food?

 4        A.   Of course, I did.

 5        Q.   Please tell us, you know, how was it?

 6        A.   The chef would draw up a weekly plan of meals to be prepared.

 7     That plan was then followed, and humanitarian workers had this

 8     organisation scheme that we had and that we explained about yesterday in

 9     terms of distributing humanitarian aid, so this was then distributed.  As

10     for the basic supplies such as fresh meat or spices, which were the sort

11     of staples that hardly ever arrived as humanitarian aid, this was

12     something that was financed from the budget of the social welfare centre;

13     and the social welfare centre was one of the co-founders of the soup

14     kitchens.  Each day, a warm meal would be cooked with the exception of

15     Sundays when beneficiaries would be given some sort of a dry ration.

16        Q.   Okay.  Now, you mentioned "chef," and I was going to ask you, who

17     cooked these meals?

18        A.   Professional cooks who were employees of these soup kitchens.

19     They were employees, as a matter of fact, of the social welfare centre

20     and were under the supervision of all the sanitary institutions, the

21     objective being to prevent any disease from spreading.  They were under

22     the supervision of all the other medical institutions, as well, when it

23     came to the health and hygiene standards being applied to the food that

24     they were preparing.  In addition to those professional cooks, there were

25     people there who helped with processing food stuffs in terms of preparing

Page 33517

 1     them for cooking.

 2        Q.   All right.  And if I understood your previous answers, the Red

 3     Cross along with other organisations were providing some of the food

 4     stuffs that would be actually cooked at these soup kitchens.  Is that --

 5     did I understand you correctly?

 6        A.   Yes.  The Red Cross provided a quantity of flour to the bakeries

 7     on both sides in order to allow the soup kitchens to bake enough quantity

 8     of bread, and that was a daily obligation of the Red Cross.

 9        Q.   Did any of the international organisations such as UNHCR, ICRC

10     complain of the fact that soup kitchens were being set up in order to

11     feed the hungry and the needy?

12        A.   Not to my knowledge.

13        Q.   All right.  Finally, before we get to the document, before we get

14     there, my last question is, does someone have to qualify in order to go

15     to the soup kitchen to receive a meal?  Do they need some sort of a

16     ration card, or could they just show up?  What was the procedure, if you

17     could tell us.

18        A.   In order to make an assumption of the daily number of

19     beneficiaries to arrive, an assessment would be made of those who want or

20     need to go to a soup kitchen, and a certain number of people had cards of

21     soup kitchen beneficiaries; however, any soup kitchen was open for anyone

22     who on that particular day had no other possibility of getting a meal.

23     And this number accounted for perhaps 3 to 5 percent of the total number

24     of users.

25        Q.   All right.  Now let's go to the document.  Now we're ready.  1D

Page 33518

 1     02773.  And if I may just point out a couple of things.  You can see in

 2     the middle of the page that there are facilities on the right bank and on

 3     the left bank of the Neretva river.  Can you confirm whether those

 4     kitchens were indeed in place at this time, because this document is

 5     dated 15 July 1992.

 6        A.   Some of them, yes, but some of them were just -- only being

 7     planned to be opened, so this document also contains an initiative for

 8     new ones to be opened.

 9        Q.   All right.  Now, you wanted to comment about this document.  What

10     else is it that strikes you about this document?

11        A.   Well, this document, in my view, was a good basis for launching

12     an important humanitarian initiative or category, and that is to ensure

13     warm meals for the needy; and this initiative was welcomed by

14     humanitarian organisations and the Red Cross.  And from within the

15     schedule of work of the coordinating committee, one can see that the soup

16     kitchens were at the top of priority for providing locations and sites

17     where people would receive aid.  But that, of course, applied only to

18     those locations that could be used for soup kitchens and preparation of

19     food.

20             As far as the work of soup kitchens is concerned, as I said

21     earlier, they still exist in Mostar, one on the left bank and the other

22     one on the right bank, although Mostar is not a divided town any longer,

23     and they still have their beneficiaries.  In other words, there are still

24     needy people who do not have proper conditions for making or cooking

25     their own meals.

Page 33519

 1        Q.   All right.  Thank you.  If we go on to the next document, and the

 2     next set of documents, actually, are sort of related or interrelated.  1D

 3     02767.  We see this one is dated 12 November 1993, and this is the social

 4     welfare centre, and we note the acting director is Marko Bevanda.  I

 5     assume that you know this gentleman.

 6        A.   Yes, I know Mr. Bevanda.

 7        Q.   It says here in the very first paragraph:  "By a decision of the

 8     Mostar municipality HVO approving the opening of a soup kitchen in

 9     Mostar, number 01-380/93 of 21 October 1993, a former facility of the

10     Herzegovina GP construction company..." and it gives the address.  Can

11     you confirm whether, indeed, that soup kitchen opened and was operating?

12        A.   Yes, at this address.

13        Q.   It then goes on to say that: "As this facility has no fixtures

14     and fittings and we have information that the Herzegovina Hotel has

15     fixtures and fittings that would serve this purpose, we hereby ask for

16     your approval for the requisition of the fixtures and fittings necessary

17     for the opening of a soup kitchen."  Do you know the Herzegovina Hotel?

18        A.   I do.

19        Q.   Which side is it, the left or the right?

20        A.   On the right-hand side.

21        Q.   Okay.  And what sort of fixtures and fittings are they talking

22     about, if you know?

23        A.   Well, the premises of GP Herzegovina, that is, their former

24     canteen lacked chairs and tables.  It also lacked big pots for cooking,

25     and it was not a suitable area to open a soup kitchen.  Therefore, the

Page 33520

 1     director of the social welfare centre addressed the bureau for economy of

 2     the municipality of Mostar to approve the use of the necessary equipment

 3     for the Hotel Herzegovina, which was not operating at the time, in order

 4     to establish the soup kitchen, and that is how it happened.

 5        Q.   All right.  And let's look at some of the other documents that

 6     would assist in that.  1D 02766 dated 16 November 1993.  Here we see that

 7     there's an approval of the requisition of the necessary fixtures and

 8     fittings from the Herzegovina Hotel, and we see the header, "the economic

 9     office," a Vlado Bevanda.  I take it you know this gentleman as well?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   And then going on to the next document, 1D 02765, this is 22

12     November 1993.  This is from the acting director a Marko Bevanda writing:

13     "We hereby ask you to approve the following tools and feeding items for

14     the basic operation of the soup kitchen..." and we can see the various

15     items, and this is to the Mostar IRC.  Do you know what -- what is this

16     -- who is this request to?

17        A.   I know that's the international rescue committee, an organisation

18     which was active in Mostar; but in its programme, it was not involved in

19     providing humanitarian aid in food, but rather, helped by providing items

20     that were needed to launch businesses and other economic facilities.  So

21     one could describe it more as providing something that was intended for

22     reconstruction of the town to clean the facilities.

23        Q.   All right.  And finally, 1D 02764.  This is dated 8 December

24     1993.  And here we have a report, and this -- have you had a chance to

25     look at this report?  This is, again, by the deputy director, Mr. Marko

Page 33521

 1     Bevanda.

 2        A.   I saw this report only during an earlier preparation, but I know

 3     that all this was happening at the time and that it happened as

 4     described.

 5        Q.   And I take it the soup kitchen functioned as it was expected to?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   Thank you.  I was going to ask you -- that concludes this

 8     chapter.  I was going to conclude my questioning by asking you about the

 9     events after 1994, post-Washington agreement, but I believe we covered

10     that with Judge Prandler's question and you quite nicely told us about

11     the continuing evolution of the Red Cross in Bosnia Herzegovina.

12             So with that, I want to thank you very much, sir, for giving

13     evidence at this stage, and we hope that you would be as forthcoming with

14     the others as you have been with us.

15             MR. KARNAVAS:  Your Honour, that concludes my direct examination.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  Excuse me.  I would also like to

17     thank you for leading this part nicely, and I thank to all of you who

18     asked me questions in this introductory section.

19             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We shall now address the second

20     part and hear Defence counsel representing the other accused.  Since Mr.

21     Karnavas has had three hours, so you will half an hour and a half.  I

22     don't know how you are going to share your time.

23             MS. PINTER: [Interpretation] [Previous translation continues]...

24     Your Honour.  Good afternoon to everyone in the courtroom.

25                           Cross-examination by Ms. Pinter:

Page 33522

 1        Q.   Good afternoon, Mr. Simunovic.  On behalf of General Praljak's

 2     Defence team, I would like to ask you few questions for the information

 3     of the Chamber, and pursuant to the decision of the Chamber, I'm

 4     referring you to a document that was used by Dr. Prlic's Defence team,

 5     and that's document 1D 02761, which was mentioned on pages 68 and 69 of

 6     the record of yesterday's session, as well as on page 89 of the record,

 7     line 9, where mention was made of family cards and individuals who took

 8     care of those cards.

 9             Mr. Simunovic, you have the set of documents in front of you, and

10     I would kindly ask you to look at document 3D 03178.  You would agree

11     with me that this is a family card similar to the one that we saw

12     yesterday and that was issued by the Rodoc local commune?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   This card refers to the Strelcevina local commune?

15        A.   Yes.  You can see that it --

16             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  Will the speakers please

17     pause between questions and answers.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  This local commune covers the

19     centre of the town, and it is a pretty large local commune.

20        Q.   I apologise to the interpreters.  I'm going to repeat the

21     question because due to the pace the question was not recorded in the

22     transcript.  My question was, what was the area covered by Strelcevina

23     local commune.  Strelcevina.

24             MS. PINTER: [Interpretation] I've just been warned that according

25     to the transcript, it seems that his honour Judge Antonetti is leading

Page 33523

 1     this examination, and that was recorded on page 51, line 16; therefore, I

 2     would like the transcript to be corrected in the sense that this

 3     examination is being led Nika Pinter.

 4             Mr. Simunovic, can we now go through --

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I know that I ask a great many

 6     questions, but you shouldn't attribute to me questions that I haven't

 7     asked.

 8             MS. PINTER: [Interpretation] Precisely, especially if you do not

 9     agree with them.

10        Q.   Let us now go through this card.  On the left-hand side, it reads

11     what the nationality of the recipient of the aid is.  Is that correct.

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   We see that is he a Muslim?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   That he is teacher?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   And also listed are his family members?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   They were all receiving humanitarian aid?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   Who filled out these cards?

22        A.   Government commissioners for a specific local commune after they

23     conducted the procedure that I described earlier in cooperation with the

24     social welfare centre and humanitarian organisations.

25        Q.   As we can see, this first card refers to a person who is a Muslim

Page 33524

 1     by ethnicity.  Is that correct?

 2        A.   That's what it reads.

 3        Q.   On the next page, we see the dates indicating what?

 4        A.   The first column on the left indicates the type of the aid

 5     received, and it's stated in codes.  If we recall what we spoke about

 6     yesterday, this was the list that was put up as public notices in local

 7     communes, and it's indicated that the distribution took place.  The

 8     column on the right contains the dates, when the distribution actually

 9     took place.

10        Q.   Therefore, this is not the date until which the distribution was

11     provided but actually the date when it was delivered.  Can you now look

12     at document 3D 03227, which comprises of a number of documents, and these

13     are family cards as well.  However, on the first one, we see that it was

14     issued in the Zahum local commune?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   Can you tell us what these dates on the front cover indicate?

17        A.   These dates indicate the dates when this card was certified or

18     confirmed by the social welfare centre.

19        Q.   This family card was held by a Muslim person according to the

20     details there?

21        A.   His name is Palandzic --

22             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  Will the speakers please

23     pause between questions and answers.

24             MS. PINTER: [Interpretation]

25        Q.   So this is the Zahum local commune?

Page 33525

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   This is a different street now, isn't it?  This street is 8 Dzuka

 3     [phoen], number 4, right?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   Is there a such a street in Mostar?  Dzika [phoen], Dzuka?

 6             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreters note:  The English interpretation

 7     will resume once the speakers have been kindly reminded to observe a

 8     pause.  Thank you.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  So the address is 8 Dalmatian,

10     Assault, Corps.  It's an acronym.

11             MS. PINTER: [Interpretation]

12        Q.   Very well.  Can you go back to the first file, please.  What

13     address is this?

14        A.   Ilicka 4.

15        Q.   Is this a street?

16        A.   No.

17        Q.   Thank you.  Can you please go to the next file now.  Zahum again.

18     The person in question, Nusret Suta?

19        A.   Yes, I've got it.

20        Q.   Thank you.  Again, Asim Duka, 8, right?  The street?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   Again, the date aid was received, right?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   And number of other files that we have here.  Can you please go

25     to the one where it says "beneficiary, Ljubo Barasic."

Page 33526

 1        A.   I've got it.

 2        Q.   Oh, you have.  Great.  According to the information contained in

 3     this file, he seems to be an ethnic Croat?

 4        A.   Yes, that's right.

 5        Q.   And we see that he was also receiving aid at almost the same time

 6     intervals, right?

 7        A.   Yes, roughly speaking, without considering the detail.

 8        Q.   But all this can be checked, right?

 9        A.   Yes, of course.

10        Q.   And you can confirm for our benefit that these files were issued

11     to all those who were entitled to receive these family files?

12        A.   Yes, certainly.

13        Q.   Fine.  Can you now just leaf through these documents and tell me

14     if they're all in reference to these family cards or files that we have

15     been speaking about over the last two days?  The commissioners filled

16     them out; and based on these, people received humanitarian aid?

17        A.   Yes.  The same procedure applied throughout Mostar municipality.

18        Q.   Can you now please open 3D 03249.  Again, this is a set of files

19     of family cards.  Can you please just briefly skim through them.  Have a

20     look and tell us if this is in reference to Mostar.  And can you confirm

21     that these are the same kind of files?

22        A.   Yes, these are two major streets, Stjepan Radic Street and

23     Vladimir Nazor Street.

24        Q.   Fine.

25        A.   Ante Zoric Street as well.  That's what I see here.

Page 33527

 1        Q.   Fine.  May I, therefore, conclude that we have a copy in front of

 2     us of authentic files that were issued to citizens of Mostar back in 1992

 3     and 1993?  You are able to confirm that for me, aren't you?

 4        A.   Yes, no problem.  I can confirm that for you.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  Having looked at these family files recording the

 6     dates on which humanitarian aid was received as well as the persons who

 7     were the recipients, can you agree with the conclusion that in terms of

 8     distributing humanitarian aid, the Muslims were at no disadvantage

 9     whatsoever?  They were in no way kept from receiving humanitarian aid,

10     were they?  They were in fact receiving humanitarian aid under the same

11     conditions and under the same terms as the Croats, right?

12        A.   Yes, but I would like to confirm this the other way around.  They

13     were receiving aid under the same conditions, on the same terms.  They

14     were in no way at a disadvantage as far as receiving aid was concerned.

15     If you look at the record, you will see that they were real beneficiaries

16     of humanitarian aid.

17             MS. PINTER: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.  This concludes

18     my cross-examination.

19             Just for purposes of information, I would like to say that

20     information in relation to the family files is information that was taken

21     from a document or a CD that has the following number:  3D 03151 and 3D

22     03152.  This is a database, and the documents that were presented are

23     mere samples, standing for dozens and hundreds of family files contained

24     in those CDs.  Thank you very much.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I have a question for the

Page 33528

 1     witness.  Could you look at document 3D 03227 on page 3D 361611 and 3D

 2     361612.  Do you have it?

 3             MS. PINTER: [Interpretation] This is in reference to Halil

 4     Pintula, if I may be of assistance.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Halil Pintula.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  Yes.

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What I'm interested in are

 8     stamps on all these cards.  On the first page, even though it's not very

 9     legible, the stamps are stamps that belong to who?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  Your Honour, if I look at the

11     files that I have, and they have been presented already, 1D 02761 and the

12     rest that we've been looking at, the stamp above, or rather, in this case

13     Halil Pintula, the right upper corner, is the social welfare centre.

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, please turn the page and

15     you will see a stamp, which I believe is the stamp of the Red Crescent.

16     1612.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  Yes, I see that, but it's quite

18     illegible.

19             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, we can see a crescent.

20     You agree with me on that?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  Yes.  I have a clearer view on the

22     screen.

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So the fact that there is a

24     stamp of the Red Crescent, would this mean that this social welfare

25     centre and the Red Crescent were working together because the stamps are

Page 33529

 1     used on the documents?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  The Red Crescent as an

 3     organisation was a member of the coordinating committee for collection

 4     and distribution of humanitarian aid.  It is quite possible that this

 5     particular person at this point in time received his or her own

 6     allocation of aid on the premises of the Red Crescent.  This individual

 7     went on an individual basis to the Red Crescent.  They brought their file

 8     along and got some sort of aid.  The date was subsequently recorded, all

 9     this handover of aid.

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Which would explain why there

11     is a stamp of the Red Crescent here?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  Aid was distributed in this case

13     on the premises of the humanitarian organisation known as the Red

14     Crescent, and this is something that I omitted earlier on.  Sometimes aid

15     was distributed on the very premises occupied by these various

16     humanitarian organisations, especially in relation to some -- the

17     peculiar types of aid, orthopedic braces and tools, aids, that sort of

18     thing.

19             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.  I believe my

20     colleague has a question for you.

21             JUDGE MINDUA:  [Interpretation] Witness, could you please look at

22     the card on document 1D 002761.  1D 002761.  Please look at document --

23     the document which we've been shown awhile ago, 3D 003249.  We have two

24     different cards; and like our Presiding Judge, I'm interested in the

25     stamps.  On the first document, 1D 002761, I see the stamp which is the

Page 33530

 1     stamp of the Serb brigade of the HVO, 9th battalion; and on the other

 2     cards which were shown to us by Ms. Pinter, we have no stamps of any

 3     brigade whatsoever.  I don't know if you can give us an explanation for

 4     this.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  I believe that I can.  In this

 6     particular local commune, they recorded something else in these files,

 7     too, namely who the members were of the military units.

 8             JUDGE MINDUA:  [Interpretation] If I've understood you correctly,

 9     the family who was the beneficiary was a family of military people?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  Yes.

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

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If we are to understand this

13     properly, there are HVO soldiers who did not have enough to eat, and they

14     had to resort to the social welfare centre in order to get aid, various

15     forms of aid?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  One could put it that way, but the

17     reason for any file to be issued was the social conditions under which an

18     entire family, for example, was living.  I happen to know this very

19     family.  The husband is an invalid.  They had every right to be on this

20     list for aid distribution.  These are cards and files from the local

21     commune of which I am a native; therefore, I know all of these people

22     personally.

23             MR. KARNAVAS:  Your Honour, just one correction.  I believe the

24     gentleman said the wife of the -- the wife is the invalid, not the

25     husband.

Page 33531

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  Yes.

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, it's the wife.  The

 3     husband is called Ahmo.  Is that right?  What's the husband's name?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  Ahmo.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And the husband was a member of

 6     the Serb brigade of the 9th battalion, of the HVO; is that right?  He was

 7     a member of the Serb brigade.  There was an error on the transcript.

 8             I can't check the transcript and listen to what the witness is

 9     saying.  So he was a member of the HVO.  Now, what you are saying is

10     interesting because if I look at the date, 6th of March, 1993; 7th of

11     April, 1993; 18th of August, 1993; 16th of September, 1993; 28th of

12     October, 1993; 18th of December, 1993; 1st of February, 1994.  That

13     soldier, that HVO soldier, was he a Muslim or a Croat?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  Muslim.

15             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So he wasn't arrested, was he?

16     He wasn't captured by the HVO, was he, and taken prisoner since he

17     receives the aid throughout the year 1993?  So he was still a member of

18     the HVO unit, I understand.

19             As far as you know, did a lot of the Muslims remain?  A great

20     many or just a few?  What percentage?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  I can't say.  I can't talk about

22     the percentage, but I know that there were those who remained.

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  It's sometimes a

24     small detail like this one that one is able to understand things.

25             Mr. Karnavas:

Page 33532

 1             MR. KARNAVAS:  Apparently, his answers are not getting into the

 2     transcript because he's confirmed it.  He said, yes, yes, this was

 3     earlier.  Now, I don't know whether it's not being translated or it's not

 4     being picked up because of the court reporter.  I just wanted to point

 5     that out, and of course, the gentleman would have to affirm those answers

 6     as opposed to shaking the head.

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, witness.  Please say it

 8     again.  This Muslim soldier remained in an HVO unit because it's not been

 9     recorded in the transcript.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  Yes.

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Alaburic.

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

13                           Cross-examination by Ms. Alaburic:

14        Q.   Mr. Simunovic, my name is Vesna Alaburic.  I'm an attorney at law

15     from Zagreb, and along with my learned friend Nicholas Stewart, an

16     attorney from London, I defend General Milivoj Petkovic.

17             Witness, have we ever met?  This is for the Chamber to be able to

18     judge my examination of you as a witness.

19        A.   No.

20        Q.   Okay.  Since we haven't met, we've had no opportunity to discuss

21     this case as a result.  Let me ask you questions now that only have to do

22     with the answers you provided yesterday when asked about your visit to

23     Heliodrom, about the clash of the 9th of May, 1993.  I will quote certain

24     portions of your answers to you, and then we'll take one step at a time

25     and analyse your answers.  If need be, I will be showing you certain

Page 33533

 1     documents and confronting you with previous statements about these

 2     circumstances.

 3             If I'm not mistaken, you say that you lived near Heliodrom and

 4     you're quite familiar with the area, right?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   What about the clash on the 9th of May, 1993?  How many times did

 7     you visit Heliodrom?

 8        A.   What period are you referring to?

 9        Q.   I'm talking about what occurred on the 9th of May.  There were

10     civilians that were captured there.  They were released on or about the

11     18th of May, so I'm talking about the nine or ten days.  How many times

12     did you visit Heliodrom throughout that period?

13        A.   I think at least three times, but the first day was my longest

14     stay there, or visit.

15        Q.   When you say the first day, you mean the 9th of May, right?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   My learned friend Mr. Karnavas asked you a question yesterday.

18     This is at page 61, lines 3 and 4.  I'll quote in English.

19             [In English] At some point you were asked to be to the Heliodrom

20     on or about May 9.

21             [Interpretation] You answered affirmatively.  Who asked you to go

22     to Heliodrom?

23        A.   I came to Heliodrom having previously learned about the situation

24     that had come about involving the people who were inside.  I can't

25     specifically remember right now whether there was such a thing as an open

Page 33534

 1     invitation by anyone for me to come.  I do know, however, that I went

 2     there as soon as I had arrived in town and as soon as I'd learned about

 3     the situation and the developments at the time.

 4        Q.   So you were asked this question that I quoted.  Does that not

 5     mean that your answer should be negative because no one had ever asked

 6     you to actually go and visit Heliodrom.

 7        A.   Yes, you could put it that way.

 8        Q.   Later on in response to some questions - and again, the pages are

 9     19, 20 and 21 - you say you learned what had actually happened.  You go

10     on to say that a number of people that same night were put up at

11     Heliodrom.  Mr. Simunovic, what exactly was it that you learned had

12     happened on the 9th of May in Mostar?

13        A.   I learned that a lot of people from the town itself because of

14     the war had been moved to Heliodrom.  I saw more of that later on when I

15     watched TV footage, more than I had witnessed myself at the time I was at

16     home.

17        Q.   If my understanding is right, you actually received information

18     that certain people who were living along the confrontation line had now

19     been moved to Heliodrom for security-related reasons.  Is my

20     understanding correct?

21        A.   I understood your assumption only as soon as I arrived at the

22     scene.  I was a humanitarian worker, and all I knew at the time was that

23     some people had been put up there.  A considerable number of people,

24     perhaps I should say.

25        Q.   Can you tell us who shared that with you, the fact that people

Page 33535

 1     had been put up at Heliodrom?

 2        A.   It's difficult to trace this information back to its source now.

 3     I was with the Red Cross, and all those who were living in Mostar at the

 4     time knew about what was going on, but I was living in Radoc, and I had

 5     no idea.  I had a different approach to information, generally speaking,

 6     rather, different access to information that than the people who were

 7     living in Mostar itself.  When I met some people that morning, everybody

 8     was talking about that and the situation that had occurred.

 9        Q.   What time of day was it, roughly speaking, on the 9th of May when

10     you reached Heliodrom?

11        A.   This may have been at about 10.00 a.m. or thereabouts.  I first

12     drove into town and then back, so this would take a total of about two

13     hours, roughly speaking, the round trip.

14        Q.   Do you remember how many buildings were there at Heliodrom?

15        A.   If you include the former aviation school, then there were quite

16     many buildings there.  I would perhaps require some time to do the math

17     because there's this main street on the way in, and then there are

18     buildings either side of that road.  And of course, there's a parallel

19     street with yet more buildings that were previously used for the purposes

20     of the aviation academy that at the time belonged to the former JNA.

21        Q.   You told us yesterday at page 63, lines 19 and 20, that you

22     walked up to this building where the military command was, quoted.  As

23     far as I understand, that was the only building you ever went to, right?

24        A.   Yes, that's right.

25        Q.   So you went a total of three times, and that was the only

Page 33536

 1     building you ever went to.  Is that right?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   Do you know who the warden was, the deputy warden and all the

 4     other officials who were in charge of the Heliodrom prison?

 5        A.   The first person I was in touch was a man named Stanko.  I think

 6     his last name was Bozic.

 7        Q.   Do you perhaps remember what he was?

 8        A.   Oh, you mean his position?  I think he was in charge of logistics

 9     or security or something or other.  Later on, I met Mr. Josip, as well,

10     who was a logistician or whatever.  Anyway, there were these two persons

11     that I spoke to about their needs and what the Red Cross might provide in

12     terms of humanitarian aid.

13        Q.   Let's look at this other gentleman who you say was called Josip.

14     Can you perhaps remember his last name?  Josip Praljak, perhaps?

15        A.   Yes, that's right.

16        Q.   My learned friend Mr. Karnavas asked you whether you were in

17     touch with anyone who was in charge of coordinating all the activities

18     going on at Heliodrom, and your answer was that you were in touch with

19     the officer who was in charge of logistics in those buildings.  This is

20     at pages 62 and 63 and then lines 22 through the bottom of that page 62

21     and the first three lines on page 63.  So you were in touch with the

22     chief officer in charge of logistics in those buildings.  Can you tell us

23     the name of that person?

24        A.   I was only ever in touch with two persons there, the persons that

25     I mentioned a minute ago.

Page 33537

 1        Q.   Was any of them wearing a uniform?

 2        A.   They were both wearing uniforms, as far as I can remember.

 3        Q.   Was either of them or both of them, as far as you know, members

 4     of any military unit of the HVO?

 5        A.   I don't know anything about that.

 6        Q.   Did either of them or both of them tell you about what was

 7     happening at Heliodrom, why these people were being kept there, what were

 8     the plans about these people?

 9        A.   Well, basically, we only talked and discussed how we can help

10     these people.  There were many people there.  I still -- up to this date,

11     I don't know how many people were there, and the longest conversation was

12     about one hour and one and a half hours, and it was focused on what they

13     needed for their kitchen and what we were able to supply to them.  We

14     didn't tackle any other issues.

15        Q.   So can you please confirm once again that apart from contacting

16     Mr. Bozic and Mr. Josip Praljak, you did not have any contact with anyone

17     else in Heliodrom and discuss the conditions prevailing there?

18        A.   No, I didn't.

19             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this concludes my

20     cross-examination.  Thank you.

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

22     arising from Ms. Alaburic's question.  You met with two people in charge

23     of Heliodrom, Mr. Stanko Bozic and Mr. Josip Praljak.  You met them for

24     humanitarian questions.  You wanted to know what kind of assistance you

25     could provide since your mission was to provide assistance.  Earlier on,

Page 33538

 1     you said that there were a lot of people.  You didn't know exactly how

 2     many.  It's very interesting because you first saw Mr. Bozic; did he give

 3     you the impression that he didn't know anything about the situation that

 4     prevailed and that he was, therefore, unable to tell you whether he

 5     needed 1.000, 2.000, 5.000, or 10.000 meals because he could not forecast

 6     the future; or was your impression that he knew that those people were

 7     going to stay there for quite some time and he may have asked you to make

 8     sure you could provide some kind of follow-up logistics for some time?

 9     What was your impression?  Did he seem to be overwhelmed by the events?

10     Did he seem to not to know at all how those people were going to stay

11     there, in what condition, or did he come across at somebody who was very

12     organised?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  Believe me, it is difficult to

14     recall the whole situation given the panic that was also enveloping me.

15     The quantity of aid that the Red Cross at the time was able to provide

16     gave me concern, and I was really worried to what extent I would be able

17     to respond to their requirements.  That is why I remained for only a

18     short while and then went back to the Red Cross to check what we had

19     available.

20             I believe that Mr. Bozic, as well, who was the first one who I

21     met, was also concerned about how we would be able to provide help and

22     assistance to such a large number of people.  When he saw me, he was

23     somewhat relieved.  However, our response in terms of humanitarian aid

24     was not an adequate one because we didn't have available goods on stock,

25     and that was perhaps the reason why I didn't go there many times

Page 33539

 1     afterwards.

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you were not able to help

 3     him much because you did not have much in your warehouses.  That's what

 4     you just said, isn't it?  But at your level, did you think you could try

 5     and contact international organisations that were present on the ground

 6     for them to take care of the logistical problem because you were not able

 7     to?  But the organisational level had everything they needed.  They can

 8     organise air lifts.  They have means and resources.  Did you think of

 9     such a possibility?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  Your Honour, you put it very

11     nicely; however, the response of international organisations in such

12     situations was not as rapid as one would have expected.  They had their

13     respective warehouses most often located outside of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

14     For supplying aid in wartimes, they requested extra security from

15     international army units in order to be able to pass through in a secure

16     way, and this issue could not have been settled in three or five days.  I

17     sent out an appeal to the Red Cross organisations in the neighbouring

18     countries [as interpreted], and there was some response, but the

19     situation that we can see from these reports could not have been resolved

20     within ten days by which time many people had left.

21             I think that the major role in providing these people with aid

22     was the HVO reserve because there were no other organisations present

23     there.  We were primarily concerned with hygiene and to a lesser extent

24     with food because we didn't have sufficient food as I explained

25     yesterday.

Page 33540

 1             MR. KARNAVAS:  Your Honour, just two technical points.  I believe

 2     the gentleman didn't say "neighbouring countries" but "neighbourhood."

 3     By that -- I'm told that he must have meant or would have meant

 4     neighbouring municipalities.  And also further down, he mentioned --

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  Yes, I meant municipalities.

 6             MR. KARNAVAS:  Where it says "HVO reserves," the gentleman

 7     indicated HVO logistics.  Perhaps you could confirm that he said

 8     logistics as opposed to HVO reserves.  It does make a difference.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  Yes, yes.

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Apparently, there was a

11     problem.  You mentioned logistics and the reserves the HVO may have had.

12     So if one is to understand properly, you realised there were problems,

13     but you did not have the means to solve them.  Is that a possible

14     conclusion?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  Well, that is a possible

16     conclusion, not to resolve it completely.  We responded to the extent

17     that we were able to.

18             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

19             Now we've got the other Defence team.  We've had [Realtime

20     transcript read in error, "2D"] 3D, 4D, now 5D.

21             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC:  Your Honours, I wanted to suggest that

22     since we are nearly at the time for a break to take one now, and I will

23     distribute binders to the interpreters' booths, and then after that we

24     can continue.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Absolutely.  I said we had 3D,

Page 33541

 1     4D, 5D.  I didn't mention 2D.  I can see there's 2D on line 3, page 70.

 2     Ms. Nozica, I'm not mistaken.  You didn't say anything, did you?

 3             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.  I would like to

 4     greet everyone in this courtroom.  We are getting up out of according to

 5     our normal sequence.  The first one was 3D.

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Let's have a

 7     20-minute break.

 8                           --- Recess taken at 5.30 p.m.

 9                           --- On resuming at 5.52 p.m.

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The court is back in session.

11     Defence counsel, you have the floor, but there's always somebody missing.

12     The witness is not in the courtroom.

13             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC:  Your Honours, I would like just to advise

14     the Chamber that during the break we consulted with our client, Mr.

15     Coric, and on his suggestion we are not going to cross-examine this

16     witness.  Thank you.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Mr. Ibrisimovic.

18             MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

19     Mr. Pusic's Defence is following your instruction when it comes to

20     questioning the contacts with the accused, and in that sense we decided

21     not to conduct any cross-examination.

22             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Ms. Nozica, you are

23     the last Defence counsel, therefore.

24             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.  For the

25     record, I would like to say that the testimony of this witness does not

Page 33542

 1     refer to Mr. Bruno Stojic in any way, but I would like to ask him a few

 2     questions about the things that he apparently has knowledge of it.  This

 3     is going to be a cross-examination that will deal with only one issue.  I

 4     would like to the witness to try and explain to us on the basis of the

 5     document that is prepared already in the binder which facilities at

 6     Heliodrom the witness visited on the 9th of May, or rather, can the

 7     witness try and identify these facilities for us.  I would like to note

 8     that we had attempted to do this with another witness before during the

 9     Prosecution case, but we were not lucky enough to have a witness who was

10     able to identify this.  However, we have today a witness who claims to

11     have been at Heliodrom, and I suppose he will be able to do that.

12                           Cross-examination by Ms. Nozica:

13        Q.   Good afternoon, Mr. Simunovic.

14        A.   Good afternoon.

15        Q.   My name is Senka Nozica --

16             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Nozica, I have just had a

17     quick look at your document.  You could have included some photographs

18     unless the photographs have already been downloaded in the e-court

19     system.  Now, if you need to recognise something, it's better to have

20     photographs, I believe.

21             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, thank you for this

22     suggestion.  We do have photographs in the documents that were supplied

23     to us by the Prosecution.  However, I would like to ask the witness to do

24     the identification on this map.  This is another Prosecution document.

25     If we put it on ELMO, I would kindly ask him to mark the facility that he

Page 33543

 1     visited on the map.

 2        Q.   So, sir, as I told you, my name is Senka Nozica, along with my

 3     colleague Karim Khan represent Mr. Stojic in this trial.  Will you please

 4     look at this document that's 2D 00136 [Realtime transcript read in error,

 5     "0016"].  This is the only document that was given to you, and I would

 6     like to ask the usher to put the last sheet of this document on the ELMO,

 7     the last page, and I'm going to ask you to try, since on page 2 of this

 8     document you have -- or rather page 3, you have an explanation of what

 9     represents what.  I haven't shown you this document before; is that

10     right?

11             Sir, first tell me, have I ever had any contact with you, to make

12     it clear for the Chamber?

13        A.   No, not in relation to this story, but we did meet during our

14     travels.

15        Q.   Thank you for reminding me.  You are younger than I am, and I'm

16     glad that you haven't forgotten it, but we never met concerning this

17     issue.

18             Can you please tell me, can you find your bearings in this map,

19     this layout of the former HVO barracks, and it also says "the Heliodrom

20     concentration camp."  And I would like to repeat once again for the

21     record that this is an OTP document.

22             Can you please look at these numbers and the list of all the

23     facilities.  I would like to hear which of these facilities you visited

24     on the 9th of May and where you met Mr. Bozic and Mr. Praljak as you

25     said.  And my second question is, according to what you know, where these

Page 33544

 1     detainees were kept in these facilities.

 2        A.   Believe me, I find it difficult to orientate myself with this

 3     document since I cannot see any markings 1, 2, et cetera, except for

 4     those ones that are larger and which are outside the border of the

 5     compound.

 6        Q.   Sir, can you please try with what you had on the side, and it has

 7     been enlarged on the screen.  You can see what is written there, kitchen,

 8     command, school, sports hall, and beneath it said "SVZ."

 9        A.   I was only in this facility marked "command."

10        Q.   So that's the facility, and the usher will help you.  Can you

11     just mark this building.  Put a circle around it and put number 1.  The

12     first one is "command" from left to right, it's handwritten; "kitchen,"

13     and above that -- I see where your pencil is, so there it is.  Can you

14     please -- if that is the facility in question, can you mark it and just

15     put a line on the side and a figure 1.

16        A.   [Marks]

17        Q.   So for the record, we can say that this is the command building

18     which you visited.

19             If possible, can you tell us, did you know in what other

20     facilities and buildings civilians were being kept at the time?  If you

21     cannot identify them on this layout sketch, do you know at least how

22     these facilities were called and what was their previous usage at the

23     time when this was a JNA barracks?

24        A.   Believe me, I don't know where they were, these people who were

25     there.  While this was a JNA barracks, we as children were strictly

Page 33545

 1     forbidden to access it; therefore, I'm more familiar with the former air

 2     force high school than the military compound itself, which at the time

 3     was separated from the high school.

 4        Q.   After or before this event, did you ever come to this area

 5     following the departure of the JNA?

 6        A.   No.  I never went there to inspect the facility and look at it.

 7     I very rarely went to that area.

 8        Q.   Did Mr. Bozic or Mr. Praljak tell you where the persons who were

 9     brought there, in a way for their own protection, were being kept?

10        A.   I don't remember them mentioning any specific buildings, no.

11        Q.   Very well.  Under number 1 that you have put, can you put today's

12     date - I believe it's the 21st of October, 2008 - and sign it, please.

13     And I would like to get an IC number for this layout, and with this I've

14     finished.  Thank you, sir.

15             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You are welcome.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, can we have a

18     number, please.

19             THE REGISTRAR:  Yes, Your Honour.  The diagram shall be given

20     Exhibit number IC 00869 [Realtime transcript read in error, "00369"].

21     Thank you, Your Honours.

22             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, just a small follow-up

23     question.  Ms. Nozica wanted you to recognise the buildings, and I

24     understand that so many years later, it's a tall task for you.  As far as

25     you recollect, Witness, when you got there and arrived in your car, did

Page 33546

 1     you have to pass a military checkpoint, or were there soldiers standing

 2     at the entrance, or were you able to get straight to the buildings?  If

 3     you remember, of course.  I understand if you don't.

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  I only passed through the

 5     checkpoint at the very gate of the compound.  This is at the far right

 6     where this road ends.  So that is the last point on the right, and that's

 7     the road leading beneath these buildings that are marked black.  This is

 8     where the gatehouse was and where access to the building was, and this is

 9     still a gatehouse where people enter this compound.

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] At the checkpoint, both you and

11     I when we did our military service, we had to pass checkpoints.  The

12     soldiers that were there, did they have to refer to their superiors

13     before letting you go by?  Did they check your papers, or did they ask

14     you to wait?  What did they actually do, and did they have to wait to see

15     what they needed to do?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  Since, Your Honour, I was in a

17     marked vehicle, and since I was a person known to people in the town, I

18     didn't have any problems gaining access.  I only explained the reason for

19     my visit, and I was allowed to pass through without any problems.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In other words, the soldiers

21     knew you.  Since you had a vehicle with markings on it, it's true that

22     the enemy can enter in disguise.  You were able to enter because they

23     recognised you; is that right?  Ms. Nozica.

24             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, just a little

25     intervention.  On page 72, line 12, I called up document 2D 00136,

Page 33547

 1     whereas the transcript reflects 2D 0016; and my colleague is also

 2     reminding me that IC number is also incorrect.  That's on page 74.

 3     According to my records, it should be 8.  Probably, we have passed 369 a

 4     long time ago.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Mr. Prosecutor, you

 6     have the floor.

 7             MR. LONGONE:  Thank you, Your Honours.  Good afternoon, Your

 8     Honours.

 9                           Cross-examination by Mr. Longone:

10        Q.   Good afternoon, witness.  My name is --

11        A.   Good afternoon.

12        Q.   My name is Miguel Longone, and I will conduct the

13     cross-examination on behalf of the Prosecution.

14             MR. LONGONE:  Your Honours, before starting with the

15     cross-examination, yesterday was an issue raised with the witness

16     regarding some names of ICRC and Red Cross workers that the witness has

17     been in contact with during the war, and I wanted to ask the Trial

18     Chamber whether they want me to name those people to refresh the

19     recollection of the witness in closed session or...

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It is better to mention the

21     names in private session since measures have been granted.  It's better

22     to move into private session.  Registrar, can we move into private

23     session for a few moments, please.  Mr. Longone, do we have any

24     documents?  I have nothing.

25                           [Private session]

Page 33548

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14                           [Open session]

15             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we are back in open session.

16             MR. LONGONE:

17        Q.   Mr. Simunovic?

18        A.   [In English] Yes.

19        Q.   Yesterday, we were referring to the principles of the Red Cross

20     -- of the MUP, not the Red Cross.  And in that respect, we were referring

21     to which were the principles of that movement.  Do you remember that?

22     You mentioned that the aim of the Red Cross was to protect and to assist

23     all the victims of the conflict, isn't it?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   And the principles that they follow in order to protect those

Page 33549

 1     victims of the conflict, all of them, were based on humanity?

 2        A.   Solidarity, unity.

 3        Q.   And humanity?

 4        A.   Humanity, solidarity, unity, neutrality, and there's one more,

 5     but I can't remember it now.

 6        Q.   Do you remember the word "impartiality"?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   So impartiality was another one of the principles, isn't it?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   And there's a Bosnia regional Red Cross, and certainly, the

11     Herceg-Bosna Red Cross of Mostar agree to respect and apply these

12     principles in their work, isn't it?

13        A.   I have to tell you that you've misspoken.  There was no Bosnian

14     Red Cross in Mostar.  There was a municipal Red Cross organisation in

15     Mostar, which was part of the Red Cross of Herceg-Bosna.  And if you

16     allow me, I would like this to be accurately stated.

17        Q.   I would ask you again the question.  Did the regional

18     Herceg-Bosna Red Cross and the Herceg-Bosna Red Cross of Mostar apply the

19     principles of the Red Cross movement that we discussed just a moment ago?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   And would you agree with me, sir, that the work of the Red Cross

22     in times of conflict is to make respect agreement regarding specially the

23     safe passage of humanitarian assistance?

24        A.   The Red Cross was in a different position.  The Red Cross was to

25     be provided with safe passage of humanitarian aid by the authorities in

Page 33550

 1     charge and not vice-versa, for the Red Cross to ensure secure and safe

 2     passage; and on all ID cards of members of the Red Cross, it states that

 3     safe and free passage should be guaranteed and participation in

 4     activities.  It was not, therefore, the Red Cross that secured the

 5     traffic; rather, others on the basis of the conventions were supposed to

 6     provide that for the Red Cross.

 7        Q.   It would be the government that was in charge?

 8        A.   Police, and some services that have been established, and if

 9     there was some kind of congestion and other institutions with their

10     security services.  In one word, all the institutions that the Red Cross

11     member would come across, once they show their ID -- Red Cross ID,

12     representatives of these institutions were supposed to let them pass

13     through provided they have a valid reason.

14        Q.   And if those principles were not respected or their work was

15     stopped, you would request, actually, to let -- your mandate to be

16     executed, isn't it?

17        A.   In that eventuality, we would send a report to the International

18     Committee of the Red Cross and the local authorities or whoever was

19     responsible in a certain institution or the superiors of whoever stood in

20     the way of the Red Cross, given, of course, the fact that the Red Cross

21     people had a good reason to want to be let through.

22        Q.   And one other of the works of the Red Cross was not only

23     regarding a humanitarian system but to have access to prisoners and to

24     assess their condition, isn't it?

25        A.   Yes, but this mandate is something that is determined only for --

Page 33551

 1     by the International Committee of the Red Cross.

 2        Q.   And in this respect, sir, if we can go to the Exhibit that you

 3     discussed with the Defence in your direct examination, 1D 02434.  It's in

 4     the Prosecution binder, in the first binder.  Do you have it with you,

 5     sir?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   And in this respect, sir, you see there is a representative of

 8     the regional Red Cross and the Red Cross of Mostar that signed an

 9     agreement in Geneva on the 8 May 1992, isn't it?  If you see page 1D

10     51-0468 of that exhibit.

11        A.   I'm sorry.  I am afraid I don't understand what you're saying.

12     Can you please repeat that for my benefit.  Thank you.

13        Q.   That the agreement regarding those principles of the Red Cross

14     and the work of the Red Cross, the regional Red Cross and the Red Cross

15     of Mostar of the Herceg-Bosna regional Red Cross, were signed by a

16     representative of them in Geneva on the 8th of May, 1992; and the name of

17     that person is in the page I have indicated to you, 1D 51 -0468?

18        A.   I don't see that person's name on this page.

19        Q.   There are four persons mentioned in that agreement.  Number 3, do

20     you recognise the name of Mr. Sito Coric, sir?

21        A.   No.

22        Q.   Could you please read what it says beside Sito Coric?

23        A.   [In English] President of Croatian Democratic Community.

24        Q.   Sir, Mr. Miljenko Brkic [phoen] was the representative of the Red

25     Cross - the regional Red Cross back in Herceg-Bosna?

Page 33552

 1        A.   No.  Mr. Miljenko Brkic was president of the Croatian Democratic

 2     Party, community, party at the time.  It was on his behalf that he signed

 3     this and was actually present.

 4        Q.   Sir, if you can please look at -- so you are saying that Mr. Sito

 5     Coric was not representing the regional Red Cross at that time?  Is that

 6     your answer?

 7             MR. KHAN:  Your Honour, he said he doesn't recognise the name of

 8     Mr. Coric.  The question was quite clear, and the answer, also, was

 9     clear.

10             MR. LONGONE:  Thank you very much, counsel.

11        Q.   Do you remember whether Mr. Sito Coric was a member of the

12     regional Red Cross of Herceg-Bosna, sir, in Geneva?

13        A.   I'm sorry, my esteemed Prosecutor.  I'm reading this document in

14     front of me.  Mr. S. Coric was the representative of Mr. Miljenko Brkic.

15     There is nothing here that has anything to do with the Red Cross.  In

16     addition to that, I have no idea what you are asking me.  I might be able

17     to imagine how he placed Mr. Brkic in this context, but more about that

18     later, I suppose.

19        Q.   I don't want to you imagine anything, sir.  Let's focus on

20     Exhibit 1D 02433 dated 20 May 1992.

21        A.   I'm sorry.  Can you repeat that number?

22        Q.   1D 02433.

23        A.   [In English] Okay.

24        Q.   You have your translation, sir, under the B/C/S.  I think it's

25     under the English.  The B/C/S and the English are together in that

Page 33553

 1     document, is it?  Have you find the translation under the same document?

 2     Yes.  If you go further you will see, I think, a translation in B/C/S.

 3        A.   Yes.  No, no, no, I apologise.  No, I've got a different document

 4     now.  Just a second, please.  [English] I have not the translation for

 5     this document.  But it's not the same document.  It's not translation of

 6     this.  I know English.  That is absolutely different document.  Different

 7     ...

 8        Q.   Sir --

 9        A.   Yes.  Okay.  Okay.

10        Q.   Did you find it?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   Right.  Did you see, sir, at the end of that document who the

13     regional Red Cross of Herceg-Bosna is appointed as its representative in

14     Switzerland?

15             MR. KARNAVAS:  Your Honour, I think that's a misrepresentation of

16     the document.  I suggest the gentleman read it correctly.  Who is he

17     representing, the interest of the Croatian community of Herceg-Bosna and

18     the Croatian Democratic Union, HDZ.  That's why the confusion.

19             MR. LONGONE:

20        Q.   Sir?  Would you please -- sir, would you please read the last

21     paragraph of that document, the regional -- starting "The regional Red

22     Cross of the Herceg-Bosna community appoints..."  Will you please

23     continue with that sentence, sir.

24        A.   [Interpretation] "Authorised representative in Switzerland

25     regional Red Cross of the HZ Herceg-Bosna hereby appoints Mr. Simon Sito

Page 33554

 1     Coric."  And I, by your leave, have never seen this document before.  I

 2     wasn't with the Red Cross at the time, and I was not familiar with these

 3     kinds of powers.

 4        Q.   Sir, the document that we were discussing before is from Geneva.

 5     You mentioned that you started to work in June 1992 with the Red Cross,

 6     with the Herceg-Bosna Red Cross, isn't it?  That was your testimony

 7     yesterday.

 8        A.   What I said is I started working with the Mostar Red Cross in

 9     late June; and after I came to that position, I became familiar with the

10     activities of the regional Red Cross of Herceg-Bosna at the time.

11        Q.   And, sir, you said that you knew the principles of the movement

12     of the Red Cross, isn't it?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   You have to get familiar with them.

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   You have to read agreements, isn't it?

17        A.   Yes.  The agreement was never in the archive of my Cross.

18        Q.   Sir, you said that you have read the statutes and the agreements

19     of the Red Cross?

20        A.   I read the statute and the booklet with the mandates of the

21     international movement of the Red Cross.  To a large extent, they were

22     adopted by this agreement.  Then I had looked at the agreement with the

23     Defence team.  The first time I laid eyes on this document was during my

24     proofing by the Defence but not before that time.

25        Q.   And in that agreement, if we go back, now, then, to the agreement

Page 33555

 1     of 2, 1992, that we were previously discussing, exhibit 1D 02434, Mr.

 2     Sito Coric was representing the regional Herceg-Bosna Red Cross in

 3     Geneva.

 4             JUDGE PRANDLER:  Mr. Longone, I would really like to say that,

 5     first of all, the number of the exhibit had not been listed here in the

 6     transcript; so therefore, please kindly repeat that number.  And another

 7     remark of mine is that you, both of you, you are overlapping each other,

 8     and please kindly slow down, both of you.  Thank you.

 9             MR. LONGONE:  Yes, Your Honour.  I repeat the exhibit number that

10     we were discussing previously, 1D 02434.

11        Q.   You have it with you now?

12        A.   Yes, yes.

13        Q.   And there in page 2 of that exhibit --

14             MR. KOVACIC:  I'm sorry to interrupt, but in 1D 0234 [sic] there

15     are a couple of documents.  Which one the Prosecutor is referring to now

16     specifically?

17             MR. LONGONE:  I was referring to the -- I will give you the page.

18     1D 51-0469.

19             MR. KOVACIC:  And how can you be sure that the witness is looking

20     to proper one if he is not given the sub-number?

21             MR. LONGONE:

22        Q.   Witness, did you find the page?

23        A.   Yes, yes.  I've found it.

24        Q.   Would you agree with me, sir, that the action plan signed and

25     agreed by the regional Red Cross Herceg-Bosna was according with the aim

Page 33556

 1     of the International Committee of the Red Cross?

 2        A.   What action plan are you talking about?  This is a plan by the

 3     International Committee of the Red Cross, ICRC.  [In English] It's not

 4     plan for international -- local Red Cross.

 5        Q.   Sir, if we go to page 1D 51-0477 of that exhibit.  You see the

 6     signature of Sito Coric, a representative of the regional Red Cross?

 7             MR. KARNAVAS:  Your Honour, he keeps saying the representative of

 8     the regional Red Cross.  Where does it say that is he a representative of

 9     the regional Red Cross?

10             MR. LONGONE:  We have seen that the regional Red Cross appointed

11     Mr. Simon Sito Coric as his authorised representative in Switzerland.

12        Q.   Sir, do you see the signature of Sito Coric on that page?

13        A.   [Interpretation] Yes.  I would like to ask you, though, to go to

14     1D 570101 at the very beginning of the transcript so you see what the

15     respective capacities of participants in this meeting were.  It reads

16     here, representative of the HZD -- representatives of the HDZ.  The HDZ

17     was represented by at that meeting Mr. Coric -- Saric [phoen].

18        Q.   He was representing the regional Red Cross in that meeting?

19        A.   This is simply not alleged by this document.  I do apologise, but

20     I think we are just going around in circles with no need at all.  We are

21     fusing, as it were, two documents that are really not from the same

22     source, are they?

23        Q.   Sir, let's go to Exhibit 1D 02655 from the Defence.  1D 02655.

24     That's the statute of the regional Red Cross of the Herceg-Bosna

25     community.

Page 33557

 1        A.   Yes, I've got it.

 2        Q.   In Article 2 of that statute, on page 2, it says that the

 3     regional Red Cross is a voluntary humanitarian organisation.

 4        A.   Yes.  Go ahead.  Shall I go on reading it, or will you oblige?

 5        Q.   Respond my answers.  Article 2 says that the regional Red Cross

 6     is a constituent part of the Red Cross of Bosnia-Herzegovina, isn't it?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   And that was on the 20 May 1992?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   Article 3 states that the regional Red Cross consists of

11     municipal Red Cross organisations, isn't it?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   And that the main objective or among the purpose of work if we

14     see -- if we go to page 3 of the same document, if you see in Article 8,

15     is to ensure preservation of peace among people, among the purposes of

16     their work.

17        A.   Yes, in keeping with international principles.

18        Q.   In Article 9 of the following page, to assist victims in armed

19     conflicts?

20        A.   [In English] Which bullet?

21        Q.   To take part in organising and providing social, medical, and

22     material aid.  Do you see that paragraph, sir?

23             MR. KARNAVAS:  Why not point to the right -- you know, just say.

24     Which one is it?  Make it easy for the witness.

25             MR. LONGONE:

Page 33558

 1        Q.   Point 7.  Under Article 9.

 2             MR. KARNAVAS:  Third from the bottom.

 3             THE WITNESS: [In English] Okay.

 4             MR. LONGONE:

 5        Q.   Did you agree with that, sir?

 6        A.   [In English] Yes.

 7        Q.   And the following -- the following bullet point it says is to

 8     collect, organise, keep, and provide the data on victims of armed

 9     conflicts?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   And carry out other activities of tracing service?

12             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  We cannot interpret a

13     witness who keeps talking in two different languages at the same time.

14     Thank you.

15             MR. LONGONE:

16        Q.   Could you please repeat your answer, sir.  It was not recorded.

17             JUDGE PRANDLER:  I'm sorry.  Mr. Simunovic, the interpreters

18     would like to ask you to use only one language because you sometimes

19     speak Croatian, and sometimes you speak English, and it is very difficult

20     for them to follow you.  And also, I ask you again to be really a bit

21     slowing down more because it is a very difficult question and to also to

22     name the very paragraphs or mention the very paragraphs about which you

23     would like to ask the witness to speak.  Thank you.

24             MR. LONGONE:  I will, Your Honours.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  I apologise, but I am still

Page 33559

 1     waiting for a question from the Prosecutor.  The Prosecutor is asking me

 2     to read the text.  Is that really necessary?  If so, I'll just oblige and

 3     I'll read this text, which by the way has already been recorded and

 4     translated.

 5             MR. LONGONE:

 6        Q.   Sir, would you agree that the regional Red Cross and the Red

 7     Cross of Mostar among the basic programatic tasks had to collect,

 8     organise, keep, and provide the data on victims of armed conflicts and

 9     carry out other activities of a tracing service?

10        A.   Yes, and we did that.

11        Q.   And they have to inform - that's the following bullet point -

12     they have to inform citizens with human rights stemming from the Geneva

13     Conventions and additional protocols with the conventions and to inform

14     citizens about them?

15        A.   Of course.  We did that, too, whenever we could.

16        Q.   And if we go to page 5 of the same article, of the same exhibit,

17     you have Article 13, and there is a structure of the Herceg-Bosna

18     regional Red Cross.  You have the basic Red Cross organisation, the

19     municipal Red Cross organisations, and the original Red Cross.  Could you

20     please indicate, were -- the Herceg-Bosna Red Cross from Mostar that you

21     were belonged to that you were the president, where in this category you

22     will put that Mostar Red Cross?

23        A.   The Mostar Red Cross was a municipal organisation of the Red

24     Cross.  It comprised basic organisations of the Red Cross in schools,

25     local communities, and other areas throughout Mostar municipality.

Page 33560

 1        Q.   If we can go now to 1D 02660.

 2        A.   [In English] Okay.

 3        Q.   And if we can see -- at the bottom of Article 2, do you recognise

 4     the statute, sir?

 5        A.   [Interpretation] Yes.

 6        Q.   Is your signature at the front of the statute?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   So this is a statute of the Mostar municipal Herceg-Bosna Red

 9     Cross, isn't it?

10        A.   That's what it says, and that's how it was.

11        Q.   And Article 2 of that statute, in page 2 at the bottom, it says

12     that the regional -- that the Red Cross of Mostar is part of the regional

13     Red Cross, isn't it?

14        A.   No.  It reads that the municipal organisation was part of the Red

15     Cross of the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna.

16        Q.   And the Red Cross of the republic of Herceg-Bosna, was that the

17     original Red Cross, sir?

18        A.   At the beginning, yes, but then later it became what it says.

19        Q.   Sir, one of the reasons you mentioned the creation of the

20     regional Red Cross of Mostar and the local Red Cross was a broken

21     communications, isn't it?

22        A.   Yes, but I would really like to ask you one thing.  Don't keep

23     linking the regional Red Cross and the Mostar Red Cross all the time.

24     There was no regional Mostar Red Cross.  There was the regional Red Cross

25     of Herceg-Bosna and the municipal Red Cross in Mostar, and that's what

Page 33561

 1     all the documents say.  And that's just for ease of understanding, and

 2     that's why I would like to kindly ask you to keep the two terms apart, if

 3     at all possible.

 4        Q.   Sir, the local Red Cross of Herceg-Bosna from Mostar was part of

 5     the regional Red Cross of Herceg-Bosna, isn't it?

 6        A.   The municipal Red Cross of Mostar was part of the regional Red

 7     Cross of Herceg-Bosna and later part of the Red Cross of the Croatian

 8     Republic of Herceg-Bosna.

 9        Q.   And you said in the beginning of your testimony that the regional

10     Red Cross and the Red Cross of Mostar, the Herceg-Bosna one, so the

11     Herceg-Bosna regional Red Cross and the Herceg-Bosna Red Cross from

12     Mostar were an integral part of the Red Cross from Bosnia-Herzegovina,

13     isn't it?  That's what you said in the beginning of your testimony?

14        A.   The municipal Mostar Red Cross was part of the Red Cross of

15     Bosnia-Herzegovina and the regional Red Cross of Herceg-Bosna up until

16     the establishment of the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna.  After that,

17     the municipal Mostar Red Cross was only part of the Red Cross of the

18     Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna because at the federal level the Red

19     Cross did not function and could not perform these tasks.

20        Q.   And if we move to Exhibit 1D 2661 -- do you have the exhibit with

21     you, sir?

22        A.   Yes.  I apologise.

23        Q.   There were some questions about whether -- about the neutrality

24     and impartiality and independence of the regional Red Cross or the

25     Herceg-Bosna Red Cross, as you want to name it.  And would you agree with

Page 33562

 1     me, sir, that in October 1994 the Herceg-Bosna Red Cross was not anymore

 2     in a humanitarian organisation and non-governmental one but a state

 3     humanitarian organisation, isn't it?

 4        A.   This is true in part.

 5        Q.   Well, sir, could you please read the first sentence of Article 1

 6     of the exhibit I just mentioned to you.  It's on page 1.  Could you

 7     please read that aloud.  The Red Cross of the Croatian Republic of

 8     Herceg-Bosna.  Could you please read it.

 9        A.   "... is a state humanitarian, voluntary social organisation of

10     general benefit and interest, which embodies the work of the mission and

11     the principles in the International Committee of the Red Cross and enjoys

12     the special protection --

13             [In English] Excuse me.  I --

14             MR. KARNAVAS:  Slow down.

15             MR. LONGONE:

16        Q.   So the first part of the sentence was:  Until a state -- could

17     you please read it back again, sir.

18             MR. KARNAVAS:  Slowly.

19             MR. LONGONE:

20        Q.   And slowly for the benefit of the Court.

21        A.   "The Red Cross of the Croatian Republic of Herceg Bosnia is a

22     state humanitarian, voluntary social organisation of general benefit and

23     interest..."

24        Q.   Sir, in the same article but the second paragraph.  Would you

25     agree with me that this Red Cross, the Herceg-Bosna Red Cross was

Page 33563

 1     established by the law and other regulations of the Herceg-Bosna

 2     republic?

 3        A.   Yes.  The activity of the Red Cross is determined by other

 4     regulations because the activity of the Red Cross is about issues of

 5     social welfare, health issues, education.

 6        Q.   Sir, if we move to Article 4 in page 2 of the same exhibit,

 7     Article 4 of the statute of the Herceg-Bosna Red Cross, the last

 8     paragraph of that statute.

 9        A.   [In English] Excuse me --

10        Q.   The last paragraph of Article 4, sir.

11        A.   [Interpretation] I apologise.  You confused me.  You talked about

12     the statute, but this is probably the law, not the statute.

13             MR. KARNAVAS:  Excuse me --

14             MR. LONGONE:  The law of the Red Cross, sir.

15             MR. KARNAVAS:  And perhaps the gentleman could be looking at the

16     hard copy because the hard copy is provided to you as opposed to looking

17     at the screen.  It might be easier for you.

18             MR. LONGONE:

19        Q.   You always have -- under the English version.  You have the B/C/S

20     one in the hard copies.  But if you have Article --

21             MR. KARNAVAS:  It's in the binder.  Help him out.

22             MR. LONGONE:

23        Q.   In Article 4 -- did you find it, sir?

24        A.   Yes.  Go ahead, please.

25        Q.   In Article 4, the last paragraph Article 4, it says that "The

Page 33564

 1     government of the Herceg-Bosna republic and the relevant ministry shall

 2     approve the statute of the Red Cross of the Herceg-Bosna Republic."

 3     Isn't it?

 4        A.   That's what it says, yes.

 5        Q.   It was not as you mentioned in the beginning such an independent

 6     and neutral organisation, isn't it?

 7        A.   Again, in part, this was an auxiliary organ helping the federal

 8     institutions in the sense of carrying out its mandate and its commitments

 9     under the Geneva Conventions.  The state, or rather, any state must

10     determine what the purview would be of its Red Cross.  As far as I know,

11     in most countries that are members, this is something that is determined

12     by law.  In Bosnia-Herzegovina, a law was adopted on the Red Cross at the

13     federal level.

14        Q.   Sir, you didn't answer my question.  Isn't it true that the

15     relevant ministry of the Herceg-Bosna republic monitored the activities

16     of the Herceg-Bosna Red Cross and had the authority to approve the

17     statute?

18             MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Objection.  Just a minute, please.

19     This question contains two questions, two separate matters.  I move that

20     my friend keep the matters apart, or the questions.  One is the relevant

21     ministry of the Herceg-Bosna, can it monitor the activities of the

22     Herceg-Bosna Red Cross; the other issue being a different issue

23     altogether, did it have the authority to prove the statute?  And we've

24     heard evidence about that too:  When a social organisation is set up,

25     then the statute is later submitted for approval, and these are two

Page 33565

 1     entirely different matters.

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Longone, in your questions,

 3     two topics have been addressed.  Please take one after the other.

 4             MR. LONGONE:

 5        Q.   Sir, isn't it true that the relevant ministry of the government

 6     of the Republic of Herceg-Bosna was entitled -- was in charge to approve

 7     the statute of that Red Cross?

 8        A.   That's not what it says.  The government approved the Red Cross

 9     statute.  The Red Cross statute was drafted by the members of the Red

10     Cross assembly.  The reason the statute was approved --

11        Q.   Sir, we just read Article 4, and it says, The government of the

12     Herceg-Bosna Republic and the relevant ministry shall approve the statute

13     of the Red Cross of the Republic of Herceg-Bosna.  Isn't it, is what it

14     says there in the law?

15             MR. KHAN:  Your Honour, it's not going to be very helpful -- as

16     the witness articulated earlier, the document says what the document

17     says.  If my learned friend is trying to get the witness's evidence about

18     what lays behind the document or how it operates in practice or what laid

19     behind it, that's an entirely different matter, and it was one, in my

20     respectful submission, that the witness was attempting to answer at page

21     93, line 21.  Sorry, line 18.

22             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, the Prosecutor through

23     these documents and his questions would like to establish a connection

24     between the fact that the Red Cross of Herceg-Bosna was dependent upon

25     the government.  You answered briefly by saying that in democratic

Page 33566

 1     states, if I remember correctly, the law provides for the creation and

 2     monitoring of Red Cross organisation.  I must say that I don't know much

 3     about this.  As far as you know, in various countries - let's take the

 4     case of Spain, for instance - do you know whether it is a government that

 5     prepares a text on the Red Cross, and the statute needs to be approved by

 6     the government?  Is this how it works?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]  I don't know specifically about

 8     Spain, but I can tell you about the background and the reasons why the

 9     statute needed approving by the relevant federal body and the relevant

10     ministry because the government works like this:  A particular ministry -

11     in this case, ministry of social welfare - puts forward a proposal, and

12     that is why the ministry is relevant here, the reason being this:  In the

13     law on the Red Cross in the Red Cross statute, there are activities that

14     are listed.  There is work that is specified that is directly linked to

15     the mandate of the Red Cross.  If there is no correlation, if there is no

16     document that has been adopted, it is as a result difficult to protect

17     and preserve one's mandate.

18             And then let's go back to the original story.  It's very

19     difficult to persuade someone to let through an employee of the Red Cross

20     carrying a Red Cross card.  It is highly important for everyone,

21     including the appropriate authorities, to be familiar with the function

22     and nature of the work of the Red Cross.  The country itself was

23     duty-bound under a set of international conventions that it would monitor

24     and support such activities, so this is the gist, and that is why laws

25     are passed.  That is why approval is granted for the statute in order not

Page 33567

 1     to have any contradictions there.

 2             In its later work, the Red Cross would be implementing

 3     everything, all of its commitments under the statute.  The law provides

 4     general principles and modalities in the broadest possible sense as to

 5     how the organisation would work and what its links would be to the

 6     authorities, in essence.

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Longone.

 8             MR. LONGONE:  Thank you, Your Honours.

 9        Q.   Sir, this was a Red Cross that was supposed to work for all the

10     people, isn't it?

11        A.   All those facing certain situations.  All those in needs but

12     always in keeping with its own needs.

13        Q.   And this organisation, sir, was the one that -- the only reason

14     why they was not working with the Bosnia-Herzegovina Red Cross was

15     because there were broken communication links and because of the war

16     situation?

17        A.   Yes.  If we go back to the Red Cross statute, the regional Red

18     Cross of Herceg-Bosna, this invokes in its preamble the statute of the

19     Bosnia-Herzegovina Red Cross, which allows for the possibility for the

20     Red Crosses throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina to be established in

21     municipalities, in regions, too, if that is what the circumstances call

22     for, the statute from before the war.

23        Q.   Thank you, sir.  On Article 20 of the same document we were

24     discussing, the same decree in page 6.

25        A.   Can you please repeat the number.

Page 33568

 1        Q.   Article 20.

 2        A.   Okay.

 3        Q.   It refers again that the government of Herceg-Bosna of the

 4     Republic of Herceg-Bosna and the relevant ministry shall monitor

 5     application of the law in the activities and work of the Red Cross of the

 6     Republic of Herceg-Bosna, isn't it?

 7        A.   That's what it says, and I find it logical.

 8        Q.   And did you find logical also Article 21:  The Red Cross of the

 9     Republic of Herceg-Bosna shall take over all rights, obligations, and

10     property of the Red Cross of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the territory of

11     the Croatian republic of Herceg-Bosna.

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   This is the Red Cross, the Herceg-Bosna Red Cross that you

14     mentioned that was working for all people during the war?

15        A.   Yes, because part of the Herceg-Bosna Red Cross was the municipal

16     Red Cross in Mostar.  All the property that the Red Cross had, the

17     municipal organisation in Mostar, now became the property of all the

18     organisations that were active within the Herceg-Bosna Red Cross, not

19     just Mostar.

20        Q.   Sir --

21        A.   Any Red Cross.

22        Q.   And sir, isn't it true that the reality was that the Herceg-Bosna

23     Red Cross didn't want to work with the Bosnia and Herzegovina Red Cross

24     and didn't want to work with the Bosnian Muslim people, isn't it?  You

25     were part of it.  You know that very well, isn't it?

Page 33569

 1        A.   I don't know where you got this conclusion.  Personally, I

 2     disagree.

 3             MR. LONGONE:  Mr. President, I have two exhibits to finish, and

 4     they're very important, and then we finish with this part of the

 5     cross-examination.  If you allow me, two more minutes.

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It is already 7.00.  If it's

 7     only a few minutes, yes.

 8             MR. LONGONE:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 9        Q.   If you see Exhibit P10691.

10        A.   Can you please repeat the number.

11        Q.   10691.  P10691.  It's in the binder.  That one.

12        A.   It's not in this binder.

13        Q.   It's in the second binder, sir.

14        A.   [In English] One minute. [Interpretation] Just a moment.

15             MR. KARNAVAS:  Your Honours, I'm told that this is not in

16     e-court, and if it is not, I would object to this document being shown to

17     the witness at this point in time.  We certainly should be entitled to

18     look at the document and to raise any objections that may be necessary,

19     and it seems to me that even going through two documents assuming that

20     they are in e-court is going to take about ten minutes at this rate.  So

21     I would ask, given that the translators have been working very hard, that

22     we end the day.  We can begin again tomorrow.  We've got plenty of time.

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Longone, you have heard the

24     objections.  We need to check whether this has been downloaded into the

25     e-court system.  Since we are in no hurry, we can resume tomorrow.  It is

Page 33570

 1     now a few minutes past 7.00.  I would like to apologise vis-a-vis the

 2     interpreters because we have overstepped our time.  We shall look into

 3     this again at a quarter past 2.00 and address this document tomorrow,

 4     P1069.  Enjoy your evening.

 5                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.02 p.m.,

 6                           to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 22nd day of

 7                           October, 2008, at 2.15 p.m.