Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 33983

 1                           Thursday, 30 October 2008

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

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

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

 6     call the case.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  Thank you, Your Honour.  Good morning, Your

 8     Honours.  Good morning to everyone in and around the courtroom.  This is

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

10     thank you, Your Honours.

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

12     Mr. Registrar.

13             Today is Thursday, October 30, 2008.  I wish good morning to

14     everybody, to the accused.  I see that Mr. Pusic is not here.  I wish him

15     a prompt recovery.  I wish a good morning to the Defence counsel, to

16     Mr. Scott, and Mr. Kruger, his deputy, and also everybody else assisting

17     us in this case.

18             First of all, I would like to issue an oral decision, a formal

19     oral decision since we've already discussed the matter, but we needed to

20     be more specific in issuing an oral decision, so I will read slowly.

21             Oral decision regarding the Prosecution request to delete

22     Mr. Neven Tomic from the Defence witness list or alternatively to

23     postpone his appearance before the Court until such time a more

24     comprehensive 65 ter summary and its discussion with Mr. Cvikl are

25     disclosed.

Page 33984

 1             On October the 15th, the Prosecution filed a motion to forbid or

 2     postpone the appearance of witness Neven Tomic until such time a more

 3     comprehensive 65 ter summary is provided and its discussions with Milan

 4     Cvikl are disclosed.  The testimony of witness Neven Tomic began on

 5     October the 27th, 2008.  During the hearing held on October the 20th,

 6     2008, the Prlic Defence informed the Trial Chamber that it did not have

 7     the statements relating to discussions between Neven Tomic and Milan

 8     Cvikl.

 9             First of all, the Chamber recalls that it had already declared

10     moot the application made by the Prosecution to receive a more

11     comprehensive 65 ter summary in its oral decision issued on October 20th,

12     2008.

13             Secondly, and having heard the response of the Prlic Defence, the

14     Chamber has decided to dismiss the Prosecution's application regarding

15     the communication of discussions between Mr. Neven Tomic and Mr. Milan

16     Cvikl.  Since there was no notes, they can't be disclosed.

17             I would like now to have the witness brought into the courtroom,

18     please.

19             MR. STEWART:  Your Honours, while the witness isn't here there is

20     a matter that can be conveniently dealt with.

21             Your Honours may recall that the Defences -- or four of the

22     Defences jointly filed a motion I think it was on the 10th of this month

23     relating to use of exhibits by the Prosecution and introduction of new

24     exhibits during cross-examination.  There has been a response from the

25     Prosecution.

Page 33985

 1             Your Honour, the response as the initial motion is just under

 2     4.000 words.  It's a fairly meaty document.  Your Honour, it does call

 3     for a reply.  We do need leave for a reply, and we ask you if Your

 4     Honours would give us that leave.

 5                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Given the interest

 7     of this issue, of course you are granted leave to reply.

 8             MR. STEWART:  Thank you, Your Honours.

 9                           [The witness entered court]

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Tomic.

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The cross-examination will now

13     continue.  I give the floor to Ms. Alaburic.

14             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, good morning to you.

15     Good morning to everyone in the courtroom.  Mr. Tomic, good morning.  I

16     think I have about 20 minutes left in light of the fact that the Defence

17     has slightly more than four hours all told, but before we continue with

18     the cross-examination I would just like to respond to the objection

19     raised by my colleague Mr. Scott that 63 leading questions were asked and

20     that the witness said yes 63 times in response to those leading

21     questions.

22             The questioning of Mr. Tomic and his responses have shown that

23     the discussion about economy and money would lead us to the very essence

24     of the case and will help us determine the centres of power that existed

25     in the HZ HB, and his examination has shown that those centres of power

Page 33986

 1     were located primarily in the municipalities whose presidents were at the

 2     same time members of the legislative body of the HZ HB.

 3             It is quite clear to me that the responses given by this witness

 4     are not something that the Prosecutor is happy to hear, and that is why I

 5     see Mr. Scott's response as an attempt to diminish the importance and the

 6     value of Mr. Tomic's testimony.  That is why I do not take seriously the

 7     objection raised by Mr. Scott that each yes or no answer is a worthless

 8     answer to a leading question, because if --

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I thought you'd finished.

10     Please continue.

11             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] I would just like to provide some

12     more explanations.  I think this is a major issue because Mr. Scott has

13     repeatedly raised such objections.

14             If we ask the witness if in 1993 Croats and Muslims signed a

15     peace agreement and then the witness says yes, I think that this is not a

16     worthless question to a leading -- worthless answer to a leading

17     question.

18             If a Judge tries to sum up the witness's testimony and then asks

19     the witness if this is a correct interpretation of his testimony and then

20     if a witness answers yes, this is correct, I don't think again this is a

21     worthless answer to a leading question regardless of who actually asks

22     the question.

23             The witness has replied affirmatively to a number of facts which

24     could be deemed as notorious in this case, and that is that the

25     representatives of the Bosnian Croats and Muslims signed the Washington

Page 33987

 1     Agreement, that the Washington Agreement envisaged a joint government

 2     based on the principle of parity, that this agreement envisaged a Joint

 3     Command over the two armies, the BH army and the HVO, again based on the

 4     principle of parity.  The fact that is also uncontroversial is that Alija

 5     Izetbegovic at one point signed the Vance-Owen Plan, so is the fact that

 6     the HVO HZ HB at one point became the government of the Croatian Republic

 7     of Herceg-Bosna, the functions held by Mr. Boban are not in contention,

 8     and I will not now list all of those facts that I firm believe are

 9     notorious by this time.

10             Some of the affirmative answers provided by this witness had to

11     do with his previous evidence or statements, and some of the answers had

12     to do with the documents that were shown to this witness.  The contents

13     of these documents make it possible to evaluate the accuracy of the

14     answers provided by this witness, and we can conclude that the answers

15     are fully in line with the contents of the documents shown to the

16     witness.

17             In light of all that I have now said, it appears that perhaps it

18     was not quite clear to Mr. Scott and maybe to some others.  Well, I will

19     now show the witness a document that we have discussed both during the

20     examination-in-chief and the cross-examination.

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment.  Before we move on,

22     we must provide some kind of an answer to what you said.  First of all,

23     I'll give the floor to Mr. Scott and then the Trial Chamber will add

24     something.

25             MR. SCOTT:  Thank you, Your Honour.  Good morning to each of Your

Page 33988

 1     Honours, and good morning to everyone in and around the courtroom,

 2     counsel.

 3             With great respect to my friend Ms. Alaburic, the comments -- her

 4     comments on the merits of the case and the merits of the substance of the

 5     answers has absolutely nothing to do with the procedural point that the

 6     Prosecution feels is very important.  Ms. Alaburic very capably gets on

 7     her feet and starts arguing the merits of her case.  I was proving this,

 8     this will show the crux of the case, this will show this, this will show

 9     that.  That's completely, completely irrelevant for this purpose.

10             The issue here is a procedural one.  It's a matter of fundamental

11     fairness in the way that the trial is being conducted, with great respect

12     to the Chamber, and it's the Prosecution continuing view and we know the

13     Chamber's ruled but we will continue to make a record on this with the

14     greatest respect to the Judges, that this is a fundamentally unfair

15     procedure to the Prosecution.

16             It is -- I have called it before, I may have said it in this

17     courtroom, I may have not.  The manner in which the co-accused are being

18     allowed to put questions to witnesses is I would consider it the perfect

19     unfairness machine.  It is the perfect unfairness machine.  It's hard to

20     imagine a less fair process.

21             Additional time is given to the Defence which doesn't count

22     against their time.  The Prosecution gets no additional time.  With this

23     witness the Prosecution gets 12 hours, four of which are not count

24     against anyone's time.  The Prosecution gets eight hours.  The Defence is

25     allowed to proceed by leading questions to a friendly witness, again no

Page 33989

 1     additional opportunity for the Prosecution to be able to respond, no

 2     additional time for the Prosecution to be able to respond to that, no

 3     indication from the co-accused as to what the nature of that examination

 4     testimony will be.

 5             Therefore, we're close with this witness and I predict there may

 6     come with a time with future witnesses, for example, where the

 7     Prosecution will have to ask to suspend or delay cross-examination, its

 8     cross-examination so it can have adequate time to respond to issues

 9     raised for the first time with no notice, because there is no notice,

10     from the co-accused.  There are a variety of issues, Your Honour, that

11     are raised by this procedure, and it is indeed -- it is, I would say,

12     very close to the perfect unfairness machine to the Prosecution.  No

13     time, no -- leading questions to a friendly witness, just a whole host of

14     matters.  It would be hard to design a less -- a less fair system to the

15     Prosecution.

16             Now, again the -- Ms. Alaburic' comments on the merits have

17     nothing to do with the arguments here, and it has nothing to do with

18     Prosecution's happiness or not happiness with the answers.  That is

19     really insulting, frankly, when any counsel makes that point.  I don't --

20     I'm sure no one in the courtroom cares if Ken Scott with the Prosecution

21     is happy with the answers or not just as I don't care whether the Defence

22     is happy with the answers or not.  That's completely beside the point.

23     We're talking here about procedural, fundamental procedural matters and

24     fairness to the parties and fairness to the Prosecution and its ability

25     to receive a fair trial.

Page 33990

 1             There is a very substantial difference, there is a very

 2     substantial difference and Judge Trechsel at least has observed this

 3     himself on some occasions that is very substantial difference in an open,

 4     narrative answer by a witness in which many things come across, nuance,

 5     limitation, qualification, detail.  Perhaps the witness is uncertain.

 6     Well, I can say this much but I can't say that.  All sorts of things that

 7     come out in a narrative answer that you do not -- neither the Chamber nor

 8     the Prosecution gets when the answer is simply yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

 9             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Don't do it 63 times.

10             MR. SCOTT:  I won't do it 63 times, I'll stop there.  It's a

11     fundamentally different process and all you have to do is compare the

12     answers given by anyone.  It's not just Mr. Tomic but any answer which he

13     says well, I can't say that or I'm not sure or maybe I can say this much

14     but more or no.  It's a completely different process, Your Honour, and

15     that is what we're working with here and that is why this process, with

16     the greatest respect to the Chamber, is unfair and frankly not only

17     unfair to the Prosecution but deprives the Chamber, deprives the Judges

18     of valuable evidence that it doesn't get by simply yes, yes, yes, yes,

19     yes.

20             So, Your Honour, that's -- that's our position.  I would also

21     note just in passing, although it's not our fundamental position at this

22     time, that the question put now, the pending question, as it were, about

23     the Vance-Owen Plan, excuse me, was not a topic raised by Mr. Karnavas as

24     far as I recall.  We talked about the Washington Agreement some.  I think

25     we talked about Dayton a little bit, but I don't remember talking at all

Page 33991

 1     about the Vance-Owen Plan which is again an example of the point of

 2     questioning by the co-accused on topics that were not raised for which

 3     the Prosecution has no notice.  I didn't -- let me just be very clear.

 4     Over the past week I have not -- I have been trying to guess -- the

 5     Prosecution is put in the position of trying to guess what the cross --

 6     what the testimony might be with no information as to the question of

 7     what the co-accused will be.  Now the Vance-Owen Peace Plan has been

 8     raised.  I am not prepared, and I'm not asking anyone to shed tears, I am

 9     not prepared to conduct cross-examination on Vance-Owen Plan.  I haven't

10     put Vance-Owen Plan documents in our bundles.  I can't do that on 10

11     minutes' notice.  I can't give the Chamber 15 copies of hard copy

12     documents on the spur of the moment on topics that are just raised.

13             It raises a variety of points, Your Honour, and I think on that

14     particular question, and that's when I rose to my feet, it was

15     inappropriate.  Counsel is clear, there maybe some things that are not

16     disputed, some basic facts of the case, so to speak.  If they're not

17     disputed, you know, counsel can't have it both ways.  They're either

18     disputed or they're not disputed, but if they're not disputed they don't

19     need to be put to the witness simply by leading questions.  No one -- no

20     one in the courtroom questions that Mate Boban was the president of the

21     Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, no one.  It's absolutely undisputed.

22             So it's -- there's no point in putting -- there's no point in

23     saying well, I'm only going over matters that are not disputed.  If

24     they're not disputed there's no reason to put them to the witness.

25             So Your Honour with that all that, that states our concerns and

Page 33992

 1     the position of the Prosecution on these matters.  Thank you.

 2             MR. KARNAVAS:  Mr. President, if I may just have one moment.

 3     We've taken up 20 minutes of time now in front of the witness on this

 4     issue.  There is a continuing objection from the Prosecution to these

 5     matters.  I don't think that it's necessary to stand up all the time.  I

 6     would suggest, I would suggest, because there are some valid points that

 7     are being made on all sides, I don't necessarily agree with everything

 8     that everybody is saying, but this is a sort of procedural issue that

 9     should be dealt with perhaps through a special hearing, either 65 ter

10     outside the courtroom, but I just think that to have these sort of

11     objections and procedural issues raised over and over again while the

12     witness is here away from his family and home, and we're trying to get

13     the evidence on and the witness back, I just think we're wasting a lot of

14     valuable time in the courtroom.  Though I do take everybody's point at

15     hand, but we may just want to deal with this at a separate hearing.

16             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, please allow me.  I

17     think I do have the right to respond to the second round of the

18     objections raised by Mr. Scott.  The time that I will take up to do that

19     can be deducted from my time allotted for the cross-examination, because

20     I fully agree with what Mr. Karnavas said about not keeping the witness

21     longer than necessary here in The Hague.

22             As far as leading questions in cross-examination are concerned, I

23     think that Mr. Scott is unjustified in raising this issue yet again after

24     the Trial Chamber has already ruled on this issue and allowed leading

25     questions in the cross-examination by the Defence.  I think that our

Page 33993

 1     learned friends from the Prosecution, by re-raising this objection,

 2     insult the Trial Chamber.

 3             If the Prosecution believes that the decision by the Trial

 4     Chamber is not fair or lawful, the Prosecution can ask the Trial Chamber

 5     to take into account, to consider the issue once again and then take

 6     further measures.  Until this is done, I move that the Trial Chamber

 7     prohibit the Prosecution from raising the standing objection again and

 8     again during the cross-examination of the Defence.  And I would like to

 9     also note here that the Prosecution has here mixed up the issue of

10     friendly witnesses and leading questions in cross-examination.  We have

11     already dealt with this in a motion that we filed.

12             Secondly, as regards the time allotted to the cross-examination

13     to the Prosecution and the Defence, I object once again, and I protest

14     against the fact that the Defence is treated as a whole.  I don't want

15     the Petkovic Defence to be treated as such.  I would like to -- us to be

16     treated as a single entity, separate entity.  In accordance with the

17     Rules of Procedure and Evidence each of the accused is accorded the same

18     right in this case as if they were tried separately.  The Petkovic

19     Defence is not happy with the time allotted for its cross-examination

20     because we only have six -- one-sixth of the time that the Prosecution

21     has.

22             Secondly, as regards this objection raised by the Prosecution in

23     which they claim they are not accorded a fair trial, I would like to

24     remind the Judges that no international covenant on human rights or any

25     other international treaty does not guarantee the Prosecution the right

Page 33994

 1     to a fair trial.  The right to a fair trial is the one that is given to

 2     an accused, and that is why there are different procedural mechanisms in

 3     place to protect the rights of the accused to the presumption of

 4     innocence and other rights.

 5             As regards the concern expressed by my learned friend Mr. Scott

 6     that the Judges might be misled regarding some questions and answers,

 7     well, I don't doubt that the Judges will be able to give proper weight to

 8     each and every answer including those given to leading questions.  I'm

 9     fully cognisant of the fact that answers provided to leading questions

10     are less well valuable than those given to open-ended questions, but I

11     also know this:  If an answer given to a leading question is corroborated

12     by a number of documents and answers given by other witnesses, then the

13     answer given to these leading questions -- question has great weight.

14             As regards the part of my cross-examination that deals with the

15     Vance-Owen Plan, I have to say that I did not ask a single question.  I

16     do not intend to ask any questions about the Vance-Owen Plan.  I will ask

17     this witness about the plan for the visit to the municipalities in April

18     1993.  Once I'm done with this document it will be quite clear that I'm

19     not raising the topic of the contents of the Vance-Owen Plan, but I will

20     follow up on the part of the cross-examination where we determine that

21     the witness visited parts and municipalities of Herceg-Bosna and was

22     aware of the situation in the field.

23             This is all I have to say in my response.  I would like to thank

24     you, Your Honours, for the time you've given me.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] On those numerous issues that

Page 33995

 1     were raised and which go in various directions, the Chamber has already

 2     issued decisions, provided guidelines.  The Chamber ruled that the

 3     accused, the co-accused, can during the cross-examination ask questions

 4     to the witness of another accused.

 5             Now, this raises the issue whether leading questions should be

 6     asked or, rather, neutral ones.  On that issue, since it is a

 7     cross-examination within the Anglo-Saxon exception of the term, questions

 8     may be of a leading nature, but if it is a cross-examination, i.e., the

 9     follow-up questions on first cross-examination, then of course questions

10     should not be leading.

11             And, Mrs. Alaburic, you are right.  You are right.  We give more

12     weight to the answer to a question that's not leading and less weight

13     when the question was leading.  This is a technical matter, if I may say

14     so.

15             Mr. Scott observed that 63 times the witness said yes.  In order

16     to avoid this maybe you should use another method, i.e., when you've

17     listened to the witness's answer, you could try and sum up the question,

18     sum up the answer, and then ask an open question so that the witness has

19     the opportunity to say yes, no, or to provide other information.

20             Take an example:  Document 1D 02003.  You could have said this is

21     a document that wasn't used by Mr. Karnavas although he initially planned

22     to do so, it is a programme of the visits in the various municipalities,

23     can you have a look at the document.  Then the witness will say yes.

24     Then you could ask could you please tell the Trial Chamber what this

25     document is about and then the witness will say well, this document is a

Page 33996

 1     programme for ten visits organised by various people including me and so

 2     on and so forth.  Then you could ask the witness why were such visits

 3     organised and then the witness will answer, well, this document talks

 4     about municipalities 3, 8, and 10, and then we-- we distributed those

 5     municipalities among themselves, and then you will say what about these

 6     municipalities, what are there, and then you will be talking about the

 7     Vance-Owen Plan, and then you ask what is this plan, according to you,

 8     and then maybe you can conclude this line of questioning with a question

 9     that may be leading:  Isn't that proof that this document shows that as

10     of the 9th of May you implemented the various aspects of the Vance-Owen

11     Plan and then he will say yes or he will say no and then maybe he will

12     supplement his answer.

13             It is a technical issue.  My colleague Judge Trechsel would like

14     the floor.

15             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I would like to go back to the issue of leading

16     questions, but first I look at what in the transcript on page 11, lines

17     20 and following to 25 is written down, and I've heard that you have

18     actually said that.

19             I wonder, Ms. Alaburic, whether you are really serious in saying

20     that, that there is no fair trial for the Prosecution but only for the

21     Defence.  You are right if you refer to the covenants, but we have a

22     Statute, and I would have supposed that you know the Statute, which in

23     Article 20 clearly charges the Court, the Chamber, with seeing to it that

24     the trial is fair.  And we have a number of case law, very clear-cut case

25     law of the Chamber of Appeals of this Tribunal which clearly says that a

Page 33997

 1     trial cannot be fair if fairness is granted only to the Defence.

 2             So I am really surprised that you could tell the Chamber

 3     something like this.  And if you're talking about disrespect to the

 4     Chamber, I think this is closer than what you accused the accusation, the

 5     Prosecutor of doing.  I'm a bit shocked, I must say, by such words.

 6             Now, as to leading questions, we have already decided that

 7     leading questions should not be posed in the so-called cross-examination

 8     when in fact it is nothing but the continuation of direct, and at one

 9     point you have said, and I think it was in relation to document 1D 02003,

10     there is one document Mr. Karnavas didn't have enough time to cover so

11     I'll take it up.

12             Now, where is fairness if you pretend that in direct Mr. Karnavas

13     would have had to ask open question, whereas now you taking over the same

14     document and the same issue are allowed to ask leading questions?  That

15     defies any logic and any concept of fairness.  And indeed basically the

16     accusation is right in saying that you should when you go in the same

17     direction as the main counsel to his witness, then you should not change

18     the modes and ask leading questions all through because that would really

19     be unfair.

20             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours, for these

21     clarifications and the positions you have put forward.  If you allow, I

22     will reply to the considerations and the position of His Honour

23     Judge Trechsel.

24             First about document 1D 02003.  If you look at all documents

25     which the Defence of Mr. Prlic has handed in for the interrogation of

Page 33998

 1     this witness, you will not find that document among them.

 2             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I'm sorry, Ms. Alaburic.  Could you stay with

 3     the facts?  I have not said that it had been put.  I have quoted you.

 4     You said Mr. Karnavas didn't have the time to go into this document.  You

 5     can look it up.

 6             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honours.  I literally

 7     said, and I carefully pick every word I utter in this courtroom, I said

 8     that this document was initially prepared for the interrogation of this

 9     witness, but it was left out from the last chart, and as I think that

10     this document contains some important facts, I shall deal with it.  These

11     were my words literally, unless they were rendered differently in

12     English.  If that is the case, I will listen to the tape once more and

13     ask for a correction of the transcript.

14             As for the interrogation of the witness about that document, I

15     must first say that my questioning about this document had only started,

16     then we started speaking about various things.  I have not completed

17     questioning the witness about this document.

18             I was interested in whether the witness remembers that the

19     programme was adopted, whether he remembered the government session where

20     it was adopted, whether he really visited the municipalities, and the

21     document reads that the intention was to familiarise the people on the

22     ground with the Vance-Owen Peace Plan.  Therefore, I think that this is

23     not a leading question but simply a joint reading of the document.

24             Secondly, about the right to a fair trial --

25             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Ms. Alaburic, with all respect I think now you

Page 33999

 1     are discussing the decision of the Chamber and you should -- yes, of the

 2     Bench, and you should not do that.  I'm thinking back of what

 3     Mr. Karnavas reasonably said, and I think you should continue with the

 4     examination.

 5             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Honourable Judge, I care much

 6     about your opinion, and I appreciate your position, and if you say that

 7     you're shocked by anything I said, I have the purely human need to

 8     explain, and this is about the fairness of the trial and the right to a

 9     fair trial.  That's a topic we could discuss for hours, a topic with

10     which I have dealt extensively in my country.

11             In my opinion there is a difference between the right to a fair

12     trial as a guaranteed human right and the right of a citizen and the

13     notion of a fair trial in the sense of devising a concrete procedure and

14     setting rules for it.

15             When we say the right to a fair trial, I always understand that

16     to mean a human and civil right, and such a right in no country is

17     guaranteed to the Prosecution but only to the indicted.

18             If we discuss another concept, namely fair trial, then an

19     elementary rule is that procedural rules must be defined so that both or

20     several parties to a proceeding have the same right to be able to prove

21     their arguments.

22             I believe that our understanding of these terms does not differ.

23     I do not question the -- that -- I don't put it to question that this

24     procedure should be fair toward all parties to the proceeding, including

25     the Prosecution.  We would not be satisfied with the proceedings if the

Page 34000

 1     Prosecution did not have the right to put forward all its arguments in

 2     enough time and elaborate them the way it thinks fit.

 3             I would like to remind that the Defence of General Petkovic has

 4     always supported the Prosecution when it asked for additional time to

 5     question one of its witnesses or asked for -- for additional time for new

 6     witnesses once it had been denied to them.  We have always reacted in

 7     such a manner.

 8             I believe that we have clarified all possible misunderstanding

 9     and that we can continue to question the witness.

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please proceed, Mrs. Alaburic.

11     Continue your cross-examination.

12             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

13             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] That said, if you address a new

14     topic which has not been addressed by Mr. Karnavas, put questions that

15     are not leading.

16             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I will do that, but

17     when I return to this document, I will say why I think that this document

18     bears upon the topics raised in the direct examination.

19                           WITNESS:  NEVEN TOMIC [Resumed]

20                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

21                           Cross-examination by Ms. Alaburic:  [Continued]

22        Q.   Mr. Tomic, yesterday I thought about your replies to my questions

23     and tried to evaluate them, my questions that were leading, and you

24     mostly answered yes or no, and I thought -- I think I've shown why

25     nothing else was possible, but I think that my question and your reply

Page 34001

 1     were left suspended in midair, so to speak, why you, when we speak about

 2     the highest of priority you meant the defence of Bosnia-Herzegovina in

 3     the part that it concerned the HZ HB.  You answered affirmatively.

 4             Please look up document 1D 1934 in my set of documents.  That is

 5     your document on the functioning of the financial system, dated August

 6     12, 1993.  Would you please read to us the end of the last sentence in

 7     the second paragraph.

 8        A.   "As such conduct is on the rise, at least since the collapse of

 9     the newly established system, we are forced into discussion with heads of

10     finance departments of municipal HVOs at a meeting held on 4 August 1993

11     in Ljubuski and subsequently at a meeting with representatives of

12     municipalities held at Siroki Brijeg on 5 August to warn them of such

13     conduct and consequences it may cause for our community, which may

14     eventually affect the defence of the areas of the Croatian people in the

15     Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina."

16        Q.   Please slow down for the sake of the interpretation.  Tell me,

17     Mr. Tomic, why are you mentioning the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina in

18     this document or to be more precise the defence of the area of the

19     Croatian people in Bosnia-Herzegovina?

20        A.   In our activities we never neglected the fact that the areas in

21     which the Croatian people lives is part of Bosnia-Herzegovina and that it

22     is -- it constituents part of the state of the Republic of

23     Bosnia-Herzegovina.

24        Q.   Thank you.  Let us return to the document where we stopped our

25     cross-examination, and that's document 1D 02003, and that is a programme

Page 34002

 1     of the visit to the municipalities which adopted by the HZ HB on April

 2     the 9th, 1993.

 3             Tell us, Mr. Tomic, in the direct you were answering to questions

 4     pertaining to the establishment of a joint government headed by

 5     Mr. Jadranko Prlic about the correspondence between Jadranko Prlic with

 6     Alija Izetbegovic about the establishment of that government.  Tell me

 7     how that to do with the implementation of the Vance-Owen Plan or with

 8     some other territorial organisation.

 9        A.   It had to do with the implementation of the Vance-Owen Plan.

10        Q.   Is it visible from this document what your duties were?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   Can you tell us which the -- they were?

13        A.   Our duty was to go to these provinces, that is the municipalities

14     and the provinces put forward by the Vance-Owen Plan and to familiarise

15     them with the content of the Vance-Owen Plan and to prepare the heads of

16     the municipalities for the reorganisation of the system in line with the

17     Vance-Owen Plan.

18        Q.   Did you at the HVO meeting before going to the ground, did you

19     speak about this organisation of work and the Vance-Owen Plan?

20        A.   Yes.  The meeting took place on the 3rd of April, and the -- it

21     was about the programme adopted on the 9th of -- which was later adopt on

22     the 9th of April and prepare everybody who had to be involved.

23        Q.   After this visit to the municipalities, did the HVO HZ HB plan

24     to -- plan any other activities for the implementation of the Vance-Owen

25     Plan?

Page 34003

 1        A.   This was an initial activity that we had to launch so as to

 2     implement the agreement.  Subsequent activities depended on whether or

 3     not the basic issue was implemented, namely the establishment of the

 4     central government at the republican level.

 5        Q.   As you participated in these activities, did you personally

 6     sincerely believe and want the Vance-Owen Plan to be implemented?

 7        A.   I have said so already.  We really were very sincere in our

 8     intention regarding the implementation of the Vance-Owen Plan or any

 9     other plan that would put an end to the war, because we knew that in the

10     long term we would be unable to preserve the system which was created as

11     a temporary one.

12             I said that in 1994 we had 130.000 budget beneficiaries, speaking

13     about salaries only, and any other solution of -- for the functioning of

14     the system would have been a more favourable variant.  That's why we had

15     a genuine interest in the implementation of such a plan and at this time

16     the Vance-Owen Plan.

17        Q.   Thank you very much for your answers.  There is another topic

18     that I feel, Mr. Tomic, you are the best witness to address this with.

19             In the examination-in-chief you mentioned that the political

20     option that the Muslims from Bosnia-Herzegovina advocated was a

21     centralised state based on the principle of one man, one vote.  Is this

22     what you said verbatim to Mr. Prlic's Defence counsel?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   Please tell us, what was the option that was advocated by the

25     Croats from Bosnia-Herzegovina?

Page 34004

 1        A.   The option that was advocated by the BH Croats was put forward at

 2     the time when the referendum, question for the referendum for the

 3     independence of Bosnia-Herzegovina was being formulated.  The BH Croats

 4     supported the independence, and they wanted and they expected that

 5     Bosnia-Herzegovina would be established as a community in which all three

 6     constituent peoples would have equal rights.  This has always been our

 7     political option.

 8        Q.   Let us clarify this community of three constituent peoples.  Did

 9     that mean that the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina would have to be set

10     up as a federation?

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You have moved on to another

12     subject.  I would like to stick with the document we saw a while ago

13     before talking about constituent people.  This is a follow-up.

14             Now, you shared the work out when you went to visit these

15     municipalities.  You went to the third [Realtime transcript read in error

16     "Serb"] municipality.  I can see here that Mr. Prlic was asked to go to

17     Mostar.  I realise that this programme of visits was then cut down and

18     should only last three days.  Was this because a briefing had been

19     planned?

20             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if you allow me, let

21     me correct the transcript.  At line 9 it is stated that you said that

22     Mr. Tomic was charged with going to Serb municipalities.  The -- what we

23     received in the Croatian interpretation is the province number 3.

24             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  The third municipality.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I said debriefing, not

Page 34005

 1     briefing.

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, the plan envisages that those

 3     activities should end by the 16th of April for a very simple reason, in

 4     order to be able to plan further activities of the HVO HZ HB, because its

 5     members were supposed to go out in the field and the effort was made to

 6     do all this within a certain period of time in order to be able to

 7     continue with the activities, the sessions of the HVO HZ HB.  It was my

 8     task to go to the municipalities in province number 3.  Unfortunately, at

 9     that time there was only one municipality that was controlled by the

10     Croatian Defence Council, the municipality of Orasje in the Bosnian

11     Posavina, and together with Mr. Stipo Ivankovic who hails from that area

12     I went there and I spoke to the people in the municipality of Orasje.  I

13     took that opportunity to check how things were functioning on the ground,

14     especially in terms of the financial system.  All the more so because

15     this area was an island where -- an isolated area where the HZ HB

16     regulations were in force.  This area, it was the easiest for that area

17     to move on to the application of the Vance-Owen Plan in terms of the

18     provinces.

19             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What I'm interested is -- in is

20     this:  In Orasje how did the municipality receive this plan?  They must

21     have asked questions.  Was this an advantage or not?  Would all the

22     problems be solved with this plan?  What did the future hold?

23             The people you met, were they enthusiastic?  Were they skeptical?

24     Did they have reservations?  Were they reticent when you exposed this

25     plan to them?  What did they tell you?

Page 34006

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The area of the Bosnian Posavina is

 2     well-known for the cooperation between Muslims and Croats in the defence

 3     effort, and really there were no obstacles for the implementation of this

 4     plan based on the response of the people from the municipality of Orasje

 5     and the people who had fled there from other municipalities in province

 6     number 3 who were now staying in Orasje.  That was my perception after my

 7     visit there.

 8             Let me just illustrate, give you an example.  The boats that were

 9     used to take us from Croatia into Bosnia-Herzegovina flew the flags of

10     the HZ HB and of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and at that time I

11     would say there was a great deal of positive anticipation.  They felt

12     that this would put a stop to any tensions and would make it possible to

13     build the system as it was envisaged in the Vance-Owen Plan.

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You must have held a meeting

15     with Zubak, Valenta, Buntic, Perkovic, Maric, Prlic, and other people

16     during your visit.  Was there an overall impression which people shared

17     after this visit?  Were people very favourable towards this plan, had a

18     moderate view, were reticent?  What was the general feeling about this

19     plan?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The general impression was

21     positive.  For the most part the remarks made had to do with the parity,

22     that we should insist on the parity that was envisaged in the Vance-Owen

23     Plan, but the feeling was that the Croats were ready to implement the

24     Vance-Owen Plan.

25             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]

Page 34007

 1        Q.   Let me follow up on what His Honour Judge Antonetti said to

 2     conclude this topic.  What was this internal organisation of

 3     Bosnia-Herzegovina that the representatives of the Croatian people in

 4     Bosnia-Herzegovina wanted?  I'm talking about the period in -- period of

 5     1992, 1993.

 6        A.   Well, this was a system or an organisation that would take on

 7     board the fact that the Croats, despite the fact that they were in the

 8     minority in Bosnia and Herzegovina, would get a solution that would

 9     guarantee equal rights to them, that they would be equal with the other

10     peoples in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

11        Q.   In other words, that they should not be out-voted -- or, rather,

12     that there should not be a state based on the principle of one man, one

13     vote, which would lead to them being out-voted.  Did I understand you

14     correctly?

15        A.   Yes, correctly.  That is why I said that there was this corollary

16     to the referendum question that the Croats used when they expressed their

17     free will at this referendum.  Yes, an independent Bosnia-Herzegovina,

18     but which would not result in less rights for Croats and that would have

19     been the result if the one vote, one man principle would be applied.

20        Q.   Mr. Tomic, you used to be an official in the youth organisation

21     in the old system.

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   Can we then conclude that you were quite familiar with the

24     Yugoslav political system?

25        A.   Yes, that's correct.

Page 34008

 1        Q.   Now I would like you to help me explain to the Judges something

 2     that I think is very important.  How come that Bosnia and Herzegovina, in

 3     the socialist Yugoslavia, was able to function as a unitary state, yet

 4     after Yugoslavia broke down this was no longer possible, at least in

 5     accordance with the views presented by the Croat representatives?  And we

 6     know that the representatives of Serbs had the same or similar views.

 7             Let me ask you this question I'm sure that you'll be able to

 8     answer.  In socialist Yugoslavia was there a socio-political organisation

 9     that was called the League of Communists of Yugoslavia?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   Could you please tell us, this League of Communists of

12     Yugoslavia, was this an integrative factor in the political organisation

13     of Yugoslavia?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   An integrative factor in the Yugoslav political community.  Do

16     you recall the Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, that

17     the Slovenian delegation left and the Croatian delegation left the hall

18     but remained in Belgrade?

19        A.   Yes, I do remember this event.

20        Q.   Do you remember the comments at the time that this marked the

21     beginning of the end of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia and most

22     likely the beginning of the breakdown of the Yugoslav society, the

23     Yugoslav state?

24        A.   Yes, I do.

25        Q.   Tell us, at the time when Yugoslavia broke up and when Bosnia and

Page 34009

 1     Herzegovina became an independent state, was there a similar integrative

 2     factor in Bosnia-Herzegovina or was there no such integrative factor in

 3     terms of some political organisation or any other institution?  Perhaps

 4     let me ask you another question.

 5             In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the League of Communists, did it have

 6     the kind of personnel policy that made sure that Croats, Muslims and

 7     Serbs and representatives of other peoples would have -- would be

 8     assigned to various functions on the principle of parity?

 9        A.   Yes.  That was the case.  I know that in Mostar, the Mostar

10     municipality, the president of the socialist league, the president of the

11     trade union, the president of the municipality, the president of the

12     youth organisation, the president of the war veterans organisation, those

13     were the functions where the League of Communists decided whom to

14     appoint, and this was done on the basis of the ethnicity.  And if the

15     mayor or the president of the municipality was a Croat at one point, he

16     was succeeded by a Serb or a Muslim and the functions were rotated in

17     this manner.  Out of the eight functions three belonged to Croats, three

18     to Muslims, two to Serbs, and there was this rotation in addition to this

19     so that each people had their representatives in the government.

20        Q.   Was this a way to ensure the equality of all the constituent

21     peoples in Bosnia-Herzegovina?

22        A.   In this manner this was implemented in that system.

23        Q.   At the first multi-party election in Bosnia and Herzegovina at

24     the end of 1991 the nationalist parties, the ethnicity-based parties won.

25     A leading question but you can also say no.  Does that mean that at that

Page 34010

 1     time in Bosnia-Herzegovina the integrative factor that could through the

 2     personnel policy or in any other way would guarantee the equality of the

 3     constituent peoples disappear, that they disappear at that time?

 4        A.   Well, at that time the parties that won the election for all

 5     intents and purposes started taking care of their peoples within Bosnia

 6     and Herzegovina.

 7        Q.   Do you recall the amendments to the constitutions of Bosnia and

 8     Herzegovina in late 1991 when the composition of the Presidency of Bosnia

 9     and Herzegovina was changed?  The rule that the Presidency of Bosnia and

10     Herzegovina should comprise -- I'm now talking off the top of my head but

11     I'll let my colleagues correct me if I'm wrong but by the end of 1991 the

12     rule was that three representatives should be from the Muslim ethnic

13     community, two from the Serb community, one from the Croat community and

14     there would be one representative of other ethnic groups, and at one

15     point this solution was replaced by a provision that the Presidency of

16     the BH should comprise two representatives of each constituent people,

17     Muslims, Serbs, and Croats, and one representative of other ethnic

18     groups.  Do you recall that?

19        A.   I know that the Presidency was constituted in this manner, but I

20     don't recall those changes.  I do remember that there were two Croats,

21     two Muslims or Bosniaks, and two Serbs and one representative of other

22     ethnic groups of Yugoslav.

23        Q.   Could you please tell me whether the representatives of the Croat

24     people wanted Bosnia and Herzegovina to be set up as a complex state

25     comprising several constituent units and that each of those constituent

Page 34011

 1     units should be set up in such a way that the criterion of ethnicity be

 2     taken into account and that then those constituent units would reach a

 3     consensus at the state level and decide on all key national interests and

 4     rights on the basis of this consensus which would prevent the

 5     representatives of any of the peoples from out-voting the representatives

 6     of the other peoples?

 7        A.   Yes, in that context.

 8             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this has completed

 9     my cross-examination.

10             Mr. Tomic, I would like to thank you.

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Tomic, I have a follow-up

12     question.  I was very interested by the question asked on the Communist

13     League of which you were a member and on the issue of disintegration

14     linked to the 1991 elections, and in the questions and answers you

15     provided I felt that the political parties which took part in the 1991

16     elections were parties based on ethnicity rather than on particular

17     political or economic platforms.

18             According to you, what was the reason for this, for the fact that

19     some parties were more based on ethnicity than on political platforms?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My personal opinion is that the

21     Communist system over a long period of time tried to build an artificial

22     nation, the Yugoslav nation and eliminating other nations or ethnic

23     groups in the process.  In other words, the number of Croats, Serbs, and

24     the Muslims would decree at the expense of the Yugoslavs whose number

25     would rise.

Page 34012

 1             This concept, of course, engendered a certain degree of

 2     dissatisfaction, but while the Communist Party was strong and while it

 3     had mechanisms of coercion at its disposal the function -- the system

 4     functioned, but it engendered a great deal of dissatisfaction, discontent

 5     among the people, particularly if we add to this mix that -- that

 6     religious communities were excluded from public life, and this caused

 7     some frustration for them, and I think that at the time when this system

 8     in Yugoslavia was at its lowest point, was at its weakest, economically

 9     first of all, that the forces that had suffered this frustration got

10     stronger, and they simply destroyed this concept that the Communist Party

11     had been building for such a long time.

12             Let me go back to Mostar to illustrate this point.  According to

13     the 1991 census, there was a substantial percentage of Yugoslavs in

14     Mostar.  It was a city where there were four or five barracks of the

15     Yugoslav People's Army.  In accordance with this concept advocated by the

16     Communist Party it was an integrative factor.  It was a key element of

17     this sense of Yugoslavdom.

18             There was Soko defence industry in Mostar.  People from all other

19     Yugoslavia worked there.  They were assigned to go there.  And when the

20     pre-election campaign was under way, at the city stadium we had the same

21     number of followers or people who had come to follow the campaign for all

22     the parties, the SDA, the HDZ, the SDS, but the same also went for the

23     Reformist Party and the SDP party, the party that was the successor of

24     the Communist Party.

25             So this was a phenomenon in Mostar that told me that people

Page 34013

 1     didn't know how to -- what to decide and how all this would come out, but

 2     the -- when the election results came in you could see that there was a

 3     landslide victory for the ethnicity-based parties.  So the question was

 4     over a course of maybe 15 or 20 days between the rallies that were

 5     organised by the SDP and The reformists, where had all the Yugoslavs

 6     gone?  Because those parties did not get the votes of the Yugoslavs at

 7     the municipal election.  The people voted for -- as I've already

 8     explained to you, the group of frustrated people, and after the elections

 9     the picture that emerged gave a clear right to the SDA, the HDZ, and the

10     SDS to set up the city government, and the remaining two parties did not

11     participate in the establishment of the government.  Something similar

12     happened at the level of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

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

14     a non-leading question can lead to a very long answer?

15             Who is next?

16             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.  Good

17     morning to everybody in the courtroom.

18                           Cross-examination by Ms. Nozica:

19        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Tomic.  Mr. Tomic, you can

20     confirm that we've known each other for a number of years and we know

21     each other well, but we haven't spoken about the documents I'm about to

22     show.

23        A.   Correct.

24        Q.   That means I'll need a little more time, but as I'm going to

25     dwell upon matters regarding financing almost exclusively, I believe that

Page 34014

 1     this will shorten the procedure.

 2             Before I start, I would like to follow up on the question asked

 3     by Ms. Alaburic about the organisation of Bosnia-Herzegovina according to

 4     the wishes and the -- and the visions of the three peoples in

 5     Bosnia-Herzegovina.

 6             You said what the wish of the Croatian people was.  We know that

 7     throughout the conflict there has been this disparity between the

 8     interpretation of the Sarajevo government on the other hand and the HZ HB

 9     on the other hand about the organisation of the future

10     Bosnia-Herzegovina.

11             If you could, briefly outline to the Chamber whether that problem

12     still exists today.  You used to take part in politics, and nowadays you

13     are a citizen, and I know that you're -- you are still interested in

14     politics.  You are a political person.

15             The problem of Bosnia, which still cannot start functioning due

16     to the continuing conflict of these concepts in Bosnia, is it still

17     around in spite of all the declarations of agreeing to the present-day

18     organisation of Bosnia?  Does the Croatian people still have a problem

19     with realising the position it was -- it has been promised since 1992?

20        A.   My personal view of the situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina today is

21     completely in accordance with the high representatives of the

22     international community especially the High Rep and other people who had

23     been involved in matters in Bosnia-Herzegovina before.  The political

24     situation is very bad.  The satisfaction of all three peoples due -- the

25     elections held so far has asserted -- have asserted the domination of

Page 34015

 1     ethnic parties, which to me shows that there is still dissatisfaction

 2     with the organisation of the state and that there are continuing attempts

 3     to strive for protection through strengthening ethnic homogeneity instead

 4     of opting for people with a programme and a vision that are able to

 5     introduce Bosnia-Herzegovina into the community of European peoples and

 6     the international community.

 7             We keep speaking about constitutional change, and it's a fact

 8     that the Croats are marginalised in Bosnia-Herzegovina with regard to

 9     their influence.  Bosnia-Herzegovina under the Dayton Accord was

10     organised as a compound of two entities.  In the federation there have

11     been changes as compared to the Washington Agreement which guaranteed

12     parity and protection, but in the federation that principle has been

13     abandoned due to the demands by the Bosniak side arguing that a

14     significantly smaller people cannot be allotted the same number of

15     ministers as the Bosniak people.  So it's the same old story which

16     resulted in the fact that instead of parity in the government, we now

17     have disparity, and there's a situation in which Croats can be

18     down-voted.  That's the reason why the chamber of peoples in the

19     federation often stops legislative initiatives, thus protecting the

20     constituent quality of peoples.  And this then hinders all activities.

21             At the state level the Bosniaks are trying, just as I said when

22     we were establishing the federation, I was a member of the first council

23     of ministers that was established after Dayton, and after long debates

24     and when the Serbs from the Republika Srpska started participating in the

25     state structures and once a law was adopted for Bosnia-Herzegovina, a law

Page 34016

 1     full of compromise, there was resistance to the implementation or

 2     enforcement of these laws, because immediately after the publishing of

 3     the laws the Bosniak side wanted them to be amended and to the effect

 4     of go -- moving into the direction of a normal civil state, as they said,

 5     and this resulted in the construction on the part of the Serbs at state

 6     level and also on the part of the Croats, who felt that this was another

 7     step away from the parity brought about by Dayton.

 8             For example, when the first council of ministers was established,

 9     there were two co-presidents, a Serb and a Bosniak, and the -- a Croat

10     was the vice-president.  The Croat could never chair a session, but

11     instead one week, the sessions would be chaired by a Serb and the other

12     week by a Bosniak, a Muslim.

13             What followed were the activities of the Bosniak side to change

14     Dayton and to abolish the Republika Srpska, which certainly resulted in a

15     mobilisation on the Serb political scene which rose to defend Dayton, and

16     the present situation is the following:  The Bosniaks still want to build

17     a centralised state based on the principle of one man, one vote.  The

18     Serbs, fearing that the Republika Srpska could be abolished, are

19     threatening that they will obstruct and no longer take part in the work

20     of the authorities.  So they are dissatisfied and in conflict with their

21     partner, with their former partner in government, because the government

22     was formed by a coalition of three parties.  And the Croats are

23     dissatisfied because they're part of a federation in which they feel they

24     haven't resolved the issue they have always wanted to resolve based on

25     the principle of equality.  They now try to assert that at state level,

Page 34017

 1     but there -- there they come into conflict with the Bosniaks because --

 2     who think that this is an issue to be dealt with and which is resolved at

 3     the level of the federation.

 4             So the situation is very difficult and complex, possibly the most

 5     problem-ridden ever since Dayton, because even after a series of change

 6     and reform-oriented legislation and financial help from the international

 7     community, the World Bank, the European Bank, the IMF, et cetera, but the

 8     political -- that political issue is the issue of all issues still.

 9        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Tomic.  You basically explained, I would say

10     briefly explained this complex political situation.

11             Can we then say that the issue of the position of each people in

12     Bosnia-Herzegovina, bearing in mind the various views of the leaders of

13     the Bosniak, Croatian, and Serbian peoples are still in existence the

14     same way as they were in the 1990s?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   To explain it to the Chamber, you mentioned the council of

17     ministers several times.  Under the Dayton Accord this was basically the

18     government at state level, wasn't it, the only institution with executive

19     powers?

20        A.   Yes, the council of ministers became the state government after

21     Dayton.

22        Q.   All right.  Let us now continue with the questions about

23     financing.  You explained to us during direct that these issues as

24     feeding the budget or channeling the re -- the funds from the budget was

25     being debated at government sessions.  I will show you one of the -- some

Page 34018

 1     minutes from these sessions for you to say whether the problem was almost

 2     identical throughout 1993 or including the end of 1992.  The document is

 3     P 00950.  These are the minutes of the government session held on the

 4     23rd.  This is barely legible, but anyway, it was in December 1992.  You

 5     were present at that session, weren't you?

 6             I'll refer to page 4 in the Croatian version at 10, and it's on

 7     page 7 of the English text.  This is basically the first fully legible

 8     paragraph.

 9             The principle how funds were requested by some departments and

10     how they were approved.  The HVO HZ -- "At the proposal of the HVO HZ HB

11     Defence Department a decision was issued unanimously setting aside.

12             "The sum of 50.000 Croatian dinars ...

13             "The sum of 30.000 Croatian dinars for assistance to the

14     disabled."

15             And now what follows:  The sum of 90.000.000 Croatian dinars is

16     to be set aside as an advance payment for the Defence and 15 million for

17     the Department of the Interior, and at the end it says these funds will

18     be paid out of the HZ HB budget until the end of the year.

19             Can you please explain whether this was the principle of the

20     distribution of funds based in 1992 and did you expect at the end of the

21     year that possibly in the following year you will have the funds that you

22     will be able to grant without down payments?

23        A.   This is the end of the year.  We started raising or collecting

24     funds from customs and part of the taxes due to the poor functioning of

25     the SDK.  That's why I'm saying part of the funds, and that's when we

Page 34019

 1     started to allocate funds at the sessions of the HVO HZ HB in accordance

 2     with the resources available and in accordance with our estimates of what

 3     we would be able to raise by the end of the year, which was important for

 4     the department of defence and the department of the interior to be able

 5     to plan, because they were the most significant budget beneficiaries.

 6     And this -- that's why this reads that the funds will be paid out until

 7     the end of the year.  Obviously we didn't have them at our disposal at

 8     that time.

 9             At that moment it was still too early to start thinking about a

10     classical budget for 1993, but that's why we introduced the system I had

11     mentioned earlier of monthly and quarterly plans for the departments to

12     enable us to allocate the funds raised reduced in proportion or not.

13        Q.   I have another document, the minutes of the government session

14     dealing with this.  I believe that before the break I'll be able to

15     complete that.

16             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before -- before we move to

17     another document, I'd like to dwell on this one, because there is

18     something that I find very interesting.

19             Mr. Stojic takes the floor at some stage and said that the

20     military courts are not functioning, and he explains that there are 1.000

21     police reports waiting to be dealt with and this is causing a problem in

22     investigations.  And he also referred to detentions, and of course

23     there's also a problem there because there aren't any judicial decisions.

24             Following Mr. Stojic's intervention, it seems that judges and

25     prosecutors would be appointed, that's at the very end of the document,

Page 34020

 1     in order to try and address this situation.  Of course appointing judges

 2     and prosecutors have financial implications, budgetary implications, and

 3     so on.

 4             So we are now in December 1992.  It will take some time before

 5     all these people are appointed and before the system starts running

 6     again.

 7             According to you, was the system going to work again?  And I'm

 8     talking specifically about military courts.  In other words, during the

 9     year 1993 were you told of problems related to the fact that there

10     weren't any prosecutors, that there weren't any judges, that there was no

11     investigation, that there was no money?  Were you told that there was a

12     problem in that area?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We were informed by the heads of

14     the defence department about the drafting and about the impossibility to

15     punish those who had left their units or the battlefield because there

16     was no judicial system in place.

17             I believe that it was only during that month that we allocated

18     some funds to the judicial department for the reconstruction of

19     buildings, because in Mostar the buildings were badly damaged.  There

20     were no windowpanes, et cetera, and this was -- these funds were meant

21     for the re-establishment of the judicial system.

22             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You are saying that you made an

23     effort, but my question is was it working or wasn't it working -- or

24     wasn't it working, or wasn't it working properly?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my opinion it was functioning

Page 34021

 1     poorly.

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It is now 10.30.  We need to

 3     have a break.  We shall have a 20-minute break.

 4                           --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.

 5                           --- On resuming at 10.53 a.m.

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Nozica.

 7             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

 8        Q.   Mr. Tomic, with regard to the functioning of the judiciary that

 9     His Honour Judge Antonetti asked you, could you please confirm whether

10     the reason for what you say that it never functioned properly, was one of

11     the reasons the permanent persistent lack of funds in the justice system?

12     You told us that the lack of funds was pervasive throughout the HVO

13     system, but did this lack of funds reflect as one of the factors to the

14     overall functioning of the judiciary?

15             THE INTERPRETER:  The microphones are off for the witness.  Could

16     they please be switched on.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Well, I have already

18     said that some of the -- part of the jurisdiction of the budget of the

19     HVO HZ HB was to fund the district courts, the district public

20     prosecutors' offices, the municipality's financed municipal courts.

21     Those municipal courts did not exist in each and every municipality

22     before the war.  Mostar was the centre in this context, I would say, and

23     in Mostar there was a problem with the facilities that had to be

24     reconstructed.  Money was needed for that.  There was the personnel

25     problem, too, because lots of people left.  The first to leave were the

Page 34022

 1     Serbs who had taken part in the judiciary.  Most of them left, followed

 2     by many women who left together with their children and families as

 3     refugees.  And also there was this issue of salaries, wages for those who

 4     worked there.  It was a persistent issue when it came to providing

 5     conditions for the proper operation of the judiciary.

 6        Q.   In addition to the wages was there also a problem of equipment

 7     and appropriate premises, adequate premises where judicial organs could

 8     work?

 9        A.   Well, I did mention that buildings had sustained damage, and the

10     HVO HZ HB first provided assistance to the judiciary by funding the

11     reconstruction of some of the facilities and also by providing money for

12     the wages and also some basic texts and equipment such as computers.

13        Q.   Thank you.  Can we now move on to the topic that we raised

14     earlier.  Could you please look at document P 01137.  It is the next

15     document in the Defence binder.

16             These are the minutes from the meeting of the HVO HZ HB session

17     of the 15th of January, 1993.  I note here that you were not present at

18     this meeting, but could you please look at page 3 in the Croatian

19     version, item 6.  That's at page 4 in the English version.  We are

20     talking about the very same things that you mentioned when you talked

21     about the submission of the quarterly proposals.

22             Let me just read this.  I'm sure that you went through these

23     minutes later.  Do you perhaps recall of this development?

24             It says here at the top of the page, page 3 in the Croatian

25     version:  "The draft financial plan of the Defence Department of the HVO

Page 34023

 1     HZ HB for the period from the 1st of January to the 31st of March, 1993,

 2     is submitted by the Defence Department of the HVO HZ HB.

 3             "Following a discussion of the said draft, the following

 4     conclusion was unanimously reached:

 5              "We must exert maximum efforts to ensure salaries for members of

 6     the armed forces and the settling of their material expenses."

 7             Mr.  Tomic, does this fully confirm what you've told us about the

 8     quarterly plans, financial plans, and can we see from this that there

 9     still isn't enough funds because the conclusion states that maximum

10     efforts must be made to ensure that those funds are obtained?

11        A.   Well, this conclusion was passed in accordance with the valid

12     decree on the budget that funds should be planned for quarterly periods.

13     The defence department did submit this request, and it was obvious

14     that -- that this request could not be complied with.  And in this

15     context, this conclusion gives an incentive to make this effort to obtain

16     the funds that could then be channeled into at least part of the salaries

17     and material expenses of the personnel of the armed forces as indicated

18     here in the conclusion.

19        Q.   Could we now look at how this proceeded, what the financial

20     situation was when it came to the financing of the defence effort.  The

21     next document is P 01324.  These are the minutes from the HVO session.

22     The date is the 27th of January, 1993.  You attended this session.  The

23     page reference is 2 in the Croatian version, page 3 in the English

24     version where it says, before the agenda is discussed, before item 1, it

25     says:  "Finally the head of the Defence Department, Mr. Stojic, asked the

Page 34024

 1     HVO of the HZ HB for assistance in materiel and technical equipment,

 2     particularly special purposes equipment, protection equipment, in

 3     addition to implementing the financial system as soon as possible so that

 4     the assistance could be realised."

 5             Mr. Tomic, we can see here that some 13 days later Mr. Stojic

 6     again presses the issue about implementing the financial system, making

 7     it operational, because it is obvious that there are some problems in

 8     terms of financing the defence.  Do you agree with that?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   Let us look at the next document.  That would be document

11     1D 01183.  Yes, it's correct in the transcript.  These are the minutes

12     from the HVO session.  The date is the 18th of March, 1993.

13             Mr. Tomic, I picked and chose some, just some of the documents to

14     make sure that these problems persisted throughout the year.  So now

15     we're in March.  You were present at this session.

16             Can we please look at -- we can see on the agenda under item 4:

17     "Draft Decree on the protection of military persons with a military

18     disability caused by the war at the time of an imminent threat of war or

19     the state of war in the area of the HZ HB."

20             This item is discussed at page 4 in the Croatian version, and

21     it's page 2 in the English version.

22             Could we now look at the procedure, how things were proposed by

23     various departments.  We can see that this draft decree on the protection

24     of disabled war veterans when there is an imminent threat of war or a

25     state of war in the area of the HZ HB, and there is also the draft decree

Page 34025

 1     on a one-off financial assistance.  Both were submitted by the defence

 2     department.

 3             Mr. Bozic, Mr. Slobodan Bozic, notes that in accordance with the

 4     previous conclusion of the HZ HB HVO, drafts of the above-listed decrease

 5     have been composed, and an opinion on them must be sought from the

 6     finance department of the HZ HB HVO.

 7             And now we can see that in items A, B, C, and D Mr. Zubak

 8     proposes certain amendments.  And then it goes on to say:  "The decree on

 9     the protection of disabled war veterans and the decree on one-off

10     financial assistance were adopted unanimously under the following

11     conditions:  The HZ HB HVO Defence department and the regulation

12     commission of the HZ HB HVO should add legal and technical details to the

13     decree in accordance with the above-listed objections.  The date of

14     implementation is the 1st of April, 1993."

15             Let me now move on to the conclusion, and this is the conclusion

16     of the HVO.  "Organise and collect information on the payments made to

17     members of the armed forces of the HZ HB on these reasons," and then it

18     says that the decree shall be implemented on the 1st of April, 1993, and

19     this will be done after information on the payments has been collected

20     and recorded.  And in item 3 the defence department, the department of

21     the interior and the subdepartment of labour, social welfare and family

22     are tasked with implementation of item 1.

23             Mr. Tomic, is this a good example of the way in which the heads

24     of departments proposed the draft laws or other legal instruments that

25     the HVO had to finally pass?  Was this how it was done?  A draft is

Page 34026

 1     submitted, it is discussed, if there are any proposals or any remarks

 2     this is done, and then this is all reaffirmed in the conclusions.

 3             Can we say that this was the methodology how the proposals or

 4     drafts by certain department heads were actually adopted?

 5        A.   Yes.  This was the way that I described earlier.

 6        Q.   Can we then conclude, Mr. Tomic, that the heads of the

 7     departments or departments actually depended on the debate at the

 8     sessions of the HVO or, in other words, that each of their proposals,

 9     draft decrees or recommendations for personnel appointments were up for

10     and that changes and demands could be made and that their drafts and

11     proposals would then not be adopted in the way that they were tabled?

12        A.   Yes.  There was this possibility.  The head of a department

13     tables an appointment or a draft decree at the session of the HVO where

14     it is debated.  If the majority is opposed, then the head of the

15     department can decide to withdraw the document that was tabled or any

16     other proposal, draft a new one or take on board the remarks or

17     criticisms that were made, you can see that Mr. Zubak here dealt with

18     some legal details, and incorporate them in the final version of the

19     decision.  And then after this is taken to the vote it becomes a document

20     of the HVO HZ HB.

21        Q.   The HVO could also make suggestions as to what needs to be

22     amended, reaffirm this in the conclusion, conclusion and order that this

23     be done in that manner; is that correct?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   Could we please look at page -- at the last page just to confirm

Page 34027

 1     something about a document that Mr. Karnavas asked you about.  We can see

 2     that item 11 at the last page of the minutes indicates that an amount of

 3     5 million is set aside for the purposes of the Sarajevo HVO, the

 4     municipal HVO.

 5             For the transcript we saw the document 1D -- 1D 02114 allocating

 6     those found the Sarajevo HVO, and we can see that this was done at this

 7     session of the HVO.

 8             Let me ask you just one brief question regarding the Sarajevo

 9     HVO.  At that time, from the time when the aggression against Sarajevo

10     started up until the end of 1993, the HVO defended Sarajevo together with

11     the BH army against the Serb aggressors, against the city itself and

12     Bosnia; is that correct?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   Now I've moved on to October.  Let me show you the document that

15     was already shown to you by my colleague Mrs. Alaburic.  That's document

16     P 505799 [as interpreted].  P 0 -- let me repeat.  P 05799.  That's the

17     minutes from a session of the HVO.  The date is the 9th of October, 1993.

18     The reason why I'm showing you this document, apart from the fact that

19     you were present at this meeting, together with the document 1D 1934, let

20     me remind you it's not in my binder but that's your letter, your report

21     about the functioning of the financial system that you submit on the 12th

22     of August, 1993.  And Judge Trechsel asked you in this regard whether

23     anything changed after this warning of yours, and you said that something

24     did indeed change, and I will ask you to what extent, because I will --

25     in light of the fact that at this session on the 9th of October, 1993,

Page 34028

 1     now I'm talking about page 2 in the Croatian version, that would be page

 2     3 in the English version, that's conclusion number 3 where the HVO passes

 3     a conclusion on the basis of the single financial system to ensure that

 4     payments are made into the budget in order to pay salaries to the troops

 5     in accordance with the standard criteria.  Not a single state organ,

 6     public or other enterprise may start out paying salaries before the

 7     troops have received their salaries.

 8             I wanted us to -- I wanted you to tell us clearly how much things

 9     changed, objectively speaking, after this letter that you sent, because

10     it appears to me that based on this document and other documents that

11     followed that qualitatively speaking, no major changes occurred?

12        A.   Well, this was yet another appeal or an attempt to exert pressure

13     to ensure that the system would finally become operational.  And as I

14     said, through the 1994 budget, satisfactory steps were taken.  Up until

15     that time we're talking about makeshift solutions, one-upmanship with the

16     municipalities that were trying to cover up funds that they had.  And

17     also they used funds in an improper manner.

18        Q.   Mr. Tomic, you said something quite interesting yesterday, that

19     after some unfortunate events on the battlefield, militarily speaking,

20     the municipalities would always try to keep the money for themselves and

21     would try not to pay them into the budget of the HVO.  Did I understand

22     you correctly?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   Was this yet another thing that affected the defence effort and

25     affected negatively the effort to defend the parts of the HVO that were

Page 34029

 1     under attack?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   We're about to conclude this topic.  Let me just confirm what you

 4     said.  That's document P 06689.  This is a document sent to the

 5     presidents of the HVO by the president of the government.  That's the

 6     16th of November.  The government of the Republic of Herceg-Bosna is

 7     already elected, and the prime minister, Mr. Prlic, states in the first

 8     passage -- I'm sure that you've seen this document.  Appeals or urges the

 9     municipalities and the ministries to make this financial system

10     operational because this was causing great problems to the government

11     that had just been formed; is that right?

12        A.   Yes, precisely.

13        Q.   Thank you.  Let me now move on to a different topic.  Could you

14     please look at document 2D 00891.  It's a session of the HVO dated the

15     9th of April, 1993.  You attended this meeting.  I would now like to go

16     through this with you to see how and what authority heads of the

17     departments had within HVO.

18             Page 8, first passage.  That would be page 6, third paragraph in

19     the English version.

20             It says here:  "At the proposal of the Defence department of the

21     HVO unanimous decision was made about entering into contracts with the

22     metal processing company Uzor in Siroki Brijeg about the manufacturing of

23     the shells to be signed by the head of the defence department of the HZ

24     Hb according to the prices and quantities listed in the contract."

25             Do you remember such a conclusion being passed?

Page 34030

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   Now I'm going to put questions to you in relation to the next

 3     document, 2D 00980.  This is a decision on the conclusion of a contract

 4     with the mentioned company authorising the head of the defence department

 5     to conclude this contract.  Mr. Tomic, on the basis of this one can see

 6     that the HVO in respect of such contracts gave authority to heads to sign

 7     contracts like this, is that correct?

 8        A.   Well, I think that this was an exception.  At the proposal of the

 9     head of the defence department, because I think that it had to do with

10     the first contract, and it was a privately owned company, too, so that

11     was the reason why this proposal was made to make such a decision by the

12     HVO HZ HB, because at that time there were -- there was no public

13     procurement and there was no other way of dealing with things in a

14     transparent fashion, especially in relation to private companies.

15        Q.   Before that, I would like to correct something on page 47, 18.

16     The 2D 00980.  That is the actual reference.  And then I'm going to ask

17     you when this system of public procurement and checking the system as

18     such started operating.

19        A.   It was incorporated in the budget for 1994 as an obligation.

20        Q.   Thank you.  Mr. Tomic, during the direct examination you were

21     shown a decision on the implementation of Article 25 of the law on

22     customs and tariffs in the territory of the HZ HB at the time of an

23     imminent threat of war and state of war, and that was a document that you

24     are certainly familiar with.  I did not put it in my binder.  1D 00019.

25             In Article 4 of this decision it is stated that the armed forces

Page 34031

 1     of the HZ HB and the RBiH are exempt from paying customs duty on goods

 2     that are imported and that are used for the development of these

 3     services.  So this tax exemption or customs exemption pertain to the army

 4     and -- of Bosnia-Herzegovina as well; right?

 5        A.   That's right.

 6        Q.   Did this decision pertain to gasoline, crude oil, fuels?  Were

 7     these the goods that were being imported?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   The HVO and the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, were they exempt from

10     turnover tax in respect to these goods too?

11        A.   Turnover tax follows the provisions of customs regulations.  So

12     if there was an exemption from customs duty, then the same applied for a

13     turnover tax.

14        Q.   Were there gasoline stations in the HZ HB where fuel was provided

15     for defence needs and was this recorded?  Do you know that?

16        A.   Most of the gasoline stations were mobilised by the

17     municipalities and for the most part these were formerly socially own,

18     state-owned gasoline stations.  And many units actually took fuel there

19     by handing in appropriate documents that they had received from their own

20     logistics people.

21        Q.   The managers of these gasoline stations, did they have to keep

22     precise records as to how much fuel they issued for defence purposes so

23     that they would be tax exempt and customs duty exempt for those

24     quantities?

25        A.   Exactly.

Page 34032

 1        Q.   Do you remember that there was some abuse and that some gasoline

 2     stations pretended to have issued more fuel to the HVO precisely in order

 3     to dodge these tax obligations and customs duty obligations?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   Now let us look at document P --

 6             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Ms. Nozica, I just note that you are leading,

 7     leading, leading, leading and this is not a different matter.  It isn't

 8     the same line as the main interrogation and so it would be preferable if

 9     you could come back to open, more open questions.

10             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, perhaps I did not

11     realise that I was putting leading questions.  I give the witness the

12     possibility to explain what his knowledge is in respect of every one of

13     my questions.  I did not proof this witness, and of course I depend on

14     the witness himself in terms of the progress I can make.

15        Q.   Have you found document P 01410?  This is an order from Mr. Bruno

16     Stojic showed several times here in the courtroom, and he is issuing

17     Mr. Andabak an order to take over the complete business documentation of

18     gasoline stations of Peric Ljubuski, Dodig-Citluk and Bosnjak Posusje,

19     Dodig-Citluk and Bosnjak Posusje, in order to ensure payment of sales tax

20     and in that way secure funds for financing units of the Croatian Defence

21     Council.

22             This document was submitted to you, I see down here.  Do you

23     remember anything in relation to this document?  And then I'm going to

24     show you further on the documents that relate to that.

25        A.   Yes, I remember, of course, the entire situation in this regard,

Page 34033

 1     because practically this was a takeover of the powers of the finance

 2     department, because they were in charge of collecting turnover tax.

 3     However, these are three privately owned companies, gasoline stations,

 4     that is, that had not been mobilised.  There was information and so on

 5     and so forth they were not paying all taxes, that they were handling this

 6     in a different way, and the municipal department of the municipalities of

 7     Ljubuski, Citluk, and Posusje had not established this.  This is the

 8     period before the financial police was established.  This point in time

 9     regulations had just been adopted and they -- the police started working

10     in the first quarter of the year.

11             After the documentation was compiled, certain reports were made.

12     Finally this documentation was sent on to the financial police and the

13     financial police dealt with these cases fully and they made decisions

14     that were in accordance with the regulations prevailing in HZ HB.

15        Q.   In relation to your question I'm going to put -- in relation to

16     your answer I'm going to put a few questions to you.  The records of fuel

17     issued to the HVO, were they supposed to arrive to the defence

18     department, to logistics there?  Did they have to have records of all

19     quantities that had been issued in order to see whether these were

20     actually the quantities that were supposed to be issued in accordance

21     with the orders?

22        A.   If the orders for taking over fuel were issued by the defence

23     department or its services then that would have to go to the defence

24     department to see what the situation was, to see what the documents

25     issued were on the one hand and the fuel issued on the other hand.

Page 34034

 1     Practice showed and we had orders from municipalities that also made this

 2     possible, and for the most part this was not sent to the defence

 3     department of the HVO.

 4        Q.   Tell me, please, if the defence department received information

 5     that some gasoline stations are showing larger quantities of fuel and

 6     that those that were in the original orders, were they duty bound to ask

 7     for a check of the work of these gasoline stations and the taxes paid?

 8        A.   Precisely.  That was the procedure involved.

 9        Q.   Would you tell me in this specific case the head of the defence

10     department, did he actually carry out these checks or only if he received

11     information that something irregular had happened, did he only ask for

12     documentation then in order to establish what it was that was irregular,

13     is this the gist of his order?

14        A.   Finally that is its nature.  These documents would ultimately be

15     dealt with by the financial police of the HZ HB.

16        Q.   Excellent.  Let us look at another document now.  Let us see if

17     that is the document that would tally with what you said just now.  That

18     is the next document 2D 01475.  This is a handwritten document, minutes.

19     I don't know whether you remember it and whether you have ever seen it.

20     Inopetrol Posusje, was that actually Bosniak Posusje?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   The next one is circle Medjugorje.  Is that Dodig-Citluk from

23     that list?

24        A.   Precisely.

25        Q.   And we also have Peric Ljubuski and that can be seen in the other

Page 34035

 1     document.  This shows that the actual amount involved was 1.184.798

 2     Deutschmarks that was paid or, rather, this much less.  Do you remember

 3     that this was roughly the amount involved and do you remember that it was

 4     paid in subsequently?

 5        A.   After the financial police dealt with this case file, and it was

 6     the meritorious institution because you see even the right names of the

 7     companies are not mentioned here but, rather, the surnames of the owners,

 8     whereas on this paper we see the actual names of the companies involved.

 9     Also, there's a remark down here circle Medjugorje duty to pay taxes on

10     outgoing wholesale invoices to check against the invoices of the SDK.  So

11     this remark already says that this amount is not certain and it has to be

12     checked against the invoices of the SDK of Mostar.  The financial police

13     dealt with the matter.  They issued appropriate decisions, and they paid

14     a certain amount.  It was less than this, but it was a significant amount

15     at the time.

16        Q.   Tell me, please, was this time also the time when the HVO had

17     this chronical problem of financing?  It has to do with the beginning of

18     1993.

19        A.   Exactly.  And this reaction of the defence department, that is

20     how I understood it, was practically yet another attempt to ensure even

21     more resources and to show on the other hand that there is an intensive

22     search going on and that all methods would be resorted to in order to

23     ensure resources for the budget of the HZ HB.

24        Q.   Thank you.  I would like us to look at the next document.  We

25     finally have only two more documents to deal with, and this is a topic

Page 34036

 1     which indeed was not raised in the examination-in-chief and I am indeed

 2     in the hands of the Trial Chamber as to whether they are going to take

 3     this time away from my own time, and it has to do with procurement of

 4     weapons from Croatia and payments of these weapons and the other way

 5     around, having the HVO sell some weapons to Croatia.

 6             Mr. Tomic, I'm just going to make a brief introduction as to why

 7     I'm asking you this.  The reason is that the indictment says that Croatia

 8     provided material assistance fully to the HVO HZ HB.  There are documents

 9     that speak to the contrary, but in respect of this topic I'll just ask

10     you briefly.

11             Did you know, Mr. Tomic, that the citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina

12     at the very beginning the war in 1992, those who were living abroad, do

13     you know whether they paid certain amounts of money for the defence of

14     these areas and for the defence of Croatia?  Could you briefly tell the

15     Court whose citizens were working and living abroad for the most part?

16     I'm referring to Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.  And whose citizens paid

17     the largest amounts of money?

18             You said that at that time the system was not functioning, the

19     payment system, so what accounts were used to have this money paid?

20        A.   We saw in the decisions of the municipalities that they all went

21     after a particular source of revenue and that is our workers who were

22     temporarily employed abroad.  Also through associations of citizens from

23     their own municipality that existed throughout Europe and in America too.

24     They asked for help, and Mostar had prepared this kind of a document

25     asking for help.  However, when we started working on the budget of the

Page 34037

 1     Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna, we also thought that we could

 2     incorporate on the revenue side donations from our people, from the

 3     diaspora throughout the world who were calling and saying that they were

 4     willing to help their homeland.  Most of the Croat -- Croatian diaspora

 5     is originally from Bosnia-Herzegovina.  However, what was said then was

 6     that an agreement had been reached with Croatia that these resources

 7     should be centralised.  So that people from municipalities and

 8     Herceg-Bosna and the Republic of Croatia would not turn to one and the

 9     same people and associations living abroad.  So in that context we never

10     planned for these resources in the budget as donations from the diaspora.

11     These resources were allocated to a special account or to a multitude of

12     accounts in banks in Austria and elsewhere, and these accounts were used

13     by authorised persons from the Republic of Croatia.

14             I know from the contacts that we had that Mr. Jozo Martinovic,

15     who was at first the Minister of Finance in the government of the

16     Republic of Croatia, that he was one of the signatories, and Mr. Susak,

17     who was the minister for immigrants when this project started.  Later on

18     he became the minister of defence of the Republic of Croatia.

19        Q.   Mr. Tomic, even if these citizens wanted to make payments to

20     banks in Mostar or in HZ HB, to banks there, did these banks function at

21     all?  Could they do it?

22        A.   Until the Croatian bank DD in Mostar was established and its

23     operations with foreign countries, it was impossible to make direct

24     payments in the territory of HZ HB.  That is to say one could use only an

25     account in Croatia or in some other country.

Page 34038

 1        Q.   Can you just tell us so that we could be as specific as possible,

 2     when was Hrvatska Banka, the Croatian bank established in Mostar?

 3        A.   The operations towards the end of 1992.  The operations vis-a-vis

 4     foreign countries started towards the end of the first quarter of 1993.

 5        Q.   Mr. Tomic, on the basis of what you've been saying so far, can I

 6     conclude that the resources that were coming from Croatia were in fact

 7     the money that was paid by citizens who originally hailed from

 8     Bosnia-Herzegovina, paid as their assistance the HVO?  Can it be

 9     interpreted that way?

10        A.   Certainly.

11             MR. SCOTT:  I'm going to object to that question unless there is

12     a foundation for this witness being able to account for every dollar,

13     every kuna or every dinar coming from [Realtime transcript read in error

14     "to"] Croatia to [Realtime transcript read in error "from"] Bosnia.  I

15     don't really think he can do that, so I object to speculation.

16             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We've taken note of your

17     objection.  Please continue.

18             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   I'm done with this topic, and now I will ask you based on two

20     documents how things functioned between Croatia and Herceg-Bosna.  Let us

21     look at document P 01511.

22             These are the minutes of the 16th session held on the 18th of

23     February, 1993.  I'm referring to the conclusions on page 1 in the

24     Croatian version.  Actually, it's page 2, but they are both -- in the

25     Croatian version they are both on one page.  And in the English version.

Page 34039

 1     I don't know if you were present, but this reads:  "The defence

 2     department of the HZ HB HVO is to make a request for the most essential

 3     goods from the Republic of Croatia through the HZ HB financial department

 4     in order to be reimbursed through the HZ HB Elektroprivreda and HEP."

 5             Mr. Tomic, if you read this conclusion by itself, it follows that

 6     HZ HB delivered electric power to Croatia and got something in return so

 7     that the electric power was not delivered for free.

 8        A.   Yes.  This happened in the situation when the Elektroprivreda

 9     HZ HB had delivered power from the power plants Busko Blato and Capljina,

10     and so the Croatian side had to pay for that.  It is for -- it goes back

11     to previous periods when power was delivered from the area of HZ HB.

12        Q.   Can you tell us what HEP is?

13        A.   HEP is a Croatian -- the Croatian electric power company from

14     Zagreb.  And they agreed that some of their debts toward the -- would be

15     paid to the HVO HZ HB through the delivery of goods of Croatian

16     producers.  Those are mostly meat products by Pik Vrbovec and other goods

17     produced in Croatia.

18             As the finance department needed to account for that compensation

19     between HEP and Elektroprivreda as well as HVO HZ HB, this was a request

20     to submit a list of products that we could send to the Croatian side,

21     that is HEP, so that they could make us an offer for this compensation.

22             MR. SCOTT:  Excuse me, Your Honour, just to interrupt and for

23     what it's worth but I would like the record to be as accurate as

24     possible, I don't know if I misspoke or if it was a question of

25     translation, but in any event it's left the page now but on page 55 of

Page 34040

 1     the transcript today at line 24 and 25, when I stated my objection, what

 2     I meant -- what I intended to say, whether I said it or not I don't know,

 3     but every kuna or every dollar coming to -- it's recorded in the

 4     transcript as coming to Croatia from Bosnia and what I certainly intended

 5     to say if I did not was every kuna or every dinar coming to Bosnia from

 6     Croatia.  Just so the record's clear.  Thank you.

 7             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   Now that the transcript has been corrected, we can move to the

 9     next document.  Please take a look at document 2D 01476.  Can you

10     remember anything -- and I'll try to remind you.  This is an invoice

11     dated 15th of April, 1993, submitted by the defence department and its

12     head Bruno Stojic to the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Croatia,

13     the provision, procurement and production department, based on a contract

14     dated December 10th, 1992, and it follows from this invoice that the HVO

15     or the defence department is selling to the Ministry of Defence of the

16     Republic of Croatia a land cannon with spare parts, tools and an

17     accessory kit as well as an aircraft cannon with spare parts, tools, and

18     an accessory kit.  The prices are set here.  They amount to a total of

19     471.460 Deutschmarks.

20             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Ms. Nozica --

21             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you.

22             JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] It's not extremely important but

23     I think it's three cannons and two aircraft cannons and not one each, if

24     you look at the document.

25             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Yes, I agree.  It's about three land

Page 34041

 1     cannon and two aircraft cannon.  I failed to say that but it is obvious

 2     from the document.

 3        Q.   Mr. Tomic, can you remember anything regarding this document?

 4        A.   The defence department, like all budget beneficiaries, could

 5     generate some own revenue.  For that revenue -- that revenue was part of

 6     the report on the financial aspect of the budget that is submitted to

 7     the -- submitted at the end of the year so that the finance department

 8     could not directly see how this revenue is generated except for the total

 9     sums that were mentioned in the relevant documents in their total value.

10     And these were the amounts that were part in the annual reports.

11        Q.   Mr. Tomic, I'm not showing this document to you only to show how

12     much revenue was generated in this way.  I would like to know why this

13     came about.  First to see that the -- there was a business relation

14     between -- in place and to show that the HVO, having drafted this

15     contract on the 10th of December, 1992, is giving some of its equipment

16     to Croatia from which we can conclude whether or not they are preparing

17     for an offensive in the war.

18             Can you -- do you agree with me that we can conclude as much from

19     this document with regard also to the information that you had about this

20     revenue having arrived to the defence department?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   Thank you.  This concludes my interrogation.

23             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  May I?  I would like to ask one or two more

24     questions.  You were asked whether you were aware of this transaction and

25     your answer was rather general.  Were you aware, do you remember this

Page 34042

 1     transaction, these five guns?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't remember that concrete

 3     transaction from the time it took place, but it was mentioned in the

 4     financial report of the defence department for the year 1993, and it is

 5     part of the own revenue, a chapter of their overall revenues.

 6             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you.  I would be interested to know what

 7     kind of guns these were and where they came from.  Were they produced

 8     within the area of HZ HB?  Were they used material?  Were they new?  Can

 9     you tell us anything about that?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Unfortunately, I cannot say much

11     about that.

12             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you.

13             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] If you permit, we will have a

14     Defence witness, Mr. Stojic, who will explain what kind of cannon this is

15     about.  We only asked the witness what he was in a position to know.

16             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  That's perfectly all right.  Thank you.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Tomic, I'd like to ask you

18     a much more general question on the basis of this document.  This

19     document shows a link between the HVO and the Republic of Croatia.

20     However, my question is focused on the relationship from the Republic of

21     Croatia to HVO on the financial aspects of things.

22             To your knowledge did the Republic of Croatia grant loans,

23     whether official or not, to the HZ HB at that time?  Regular loans with

24     documents?  I could give you examples.  For instance, a loan in 1998

25     between the Islamic Republic of Mauritania and an African development

Page 34043

 1     fund.  So these things happen in international law.  You can have loans

 2     between states and other states or between states and institutions.

 3             So to your knowledge did financial links exist between the

 4     Republic of Croatia and the HZ HB?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No contractual relationship existed

 6     between the Republic of Croatia and the HZ HB.  There was financial aid

 7     based on the funds raised from the diaspora.  Those accounts, as I said,

 8     were in Austria and other countries where that money was remitted.

 9             The people who were authorised to manage those accounts did not

10     channel that aid to the HZ HB.  That aid came from other sources, and the

11     money that was on foreign accounts in convertible currency was used for

12     the defence of the Republic of Croatia.

13             For example, I've already said that at the moment when the

14     accounts were opened Mr. Martinovic was Minister of Finance and Mr. Susak

15     was the minister of emigres.  They went to foreign countries and lobbied

16     among the Croatian emigres to send money.  And it went through these two

17     persons, not institutions.

18             Mr. Susak later became the minister of defence of the Republic of

19     Croatia, but his activity was that of a signatory of an account opened in

20     Filah [phoen] or other places where these accounts were.

21             Mr. Martinovic, after, when he was no longer Minister of Finance

22     went to the Privredna Banka where he had come from also and was in the

23     position to influence the use of those resources, and if he would sign an

24     order for a certain amount in Croatian dinars as aid, the Privredna Banka

25     Zagreb --

Page 34044

 1             THE INTERPRETER:  Sorry, the interpreters cannot follow.  Could

 2     the witness repeat once more slowly, more slowly.

 3             MR. KARNAVAS:  Your Honours, perhaps he could repeat the last

 4     part of the answer.  It was very clear that at some point the translation

 5     stopped.  So if you could go a little slower.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All right.  It's about that part

 7     when Mr. Martinovic, when he ceased to be minister went to the Privredna

 8     Banka Zagreb, and he still remain a signatory together with Mr. Susak,

 9     authorised to withdraw money from that account.  And the transfers that

10     came to that account for any reason, and the reason must be stated for a

11     transfer to be effected, the -- they used the resources at their disposal

12     such as the interest payable on the part of the Privredna Banka.  And

13     those amounts in Croatian dinars were then forward as aid to the HZ HB,

14     and the Privredna Banka, instead of buying foreign currency in the

15     market, would simply cover that amount from the account in Filah.

16             So that -- in other words, that was a compensation of the -- the

17     amounts that they had remitted and which stemmed from the donations of

18     emigre Croats.

19             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] As far as the budget of the

20     HZ HB is concerned I assume there were documents relating to the budget

21     which all and everyone can see, and that I'm -- in these documents I'm

22     sure we can see revenues and expenses columns.  And if there were

23     revenues that were -- did not come from the budget, this would be

24     mentioned.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.

Page 34045

 1             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Do you transfer budget items to

 2     other budget items?  For instance, amounts that were allocated to a

 3     particular budget item for X, Y, Z reason, you would reallocate those

 4     amounts to other items.  Did that ever happen?  What I mean is perhaps

 5     defence items.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I must say that for 1992 and 1993

 7     there was no real budget in the sense you are using the word.  The budget

 8     was only formed for 1994.  And when a reallocation of funds was necessary

 9     that exceeded the planned amounts by 10 per cent or more, the budget had

10     to be rebalanced, especially if the amounts from the current reserve of

11     the budget are not sufficient.

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  I'm now turning to

13     other Defence counsel.  I don't know how much time you have had so far,

14     two hours, perhaps.  I'm about to tell you.  Two hours and 26 minutes.

15     One hour 17 minutes for the first Defence team and one hour 19 minutes

16     for the second Defence team.  Ideally we should be able to finish today

17     so that the Prosecution can start its cross-examination next week.  That

18     said, this will be very tight.  I hope there won't be too many

19     objections.  I had hoped we could be sitting on Wednesday, but that will

20     not be the case.  We will only be able to have a hearing on Monday and

21     Tuesday, which will make it very short.  At 1.00 on Tuesday there's a

22     Plenary Session for the Judges to elect the president and adopt two

23     articles amending the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.  I hope that this

24     will be finished by a quarter past 2.00.  As far as I'm concerned, I will

25     be standing at the door at 14 minutes past 2.00.

Page 34046

 1             So what is it to be?

 2             MS. PINTER: [Interpretation]  Thank you, Your Honours.  As far as

 3     I know, it's only the General Praljak Defence that will be

 4     cross-examining this witness, so I expect that we will not have to go

 5     beyond today.  The cross-examination by General Praljak's Defence will

 6     pertain to the answers the witness gave in the examination-in-chief at

 7     pages 33707, lines 16 through 24; 33708, line 18 through 25; 33709, lines

 8     22 through 25; 33713, 33714, 33738.  Those are the pages in the

 9     transcript.  The date is the 27th of October.  So the first day of the

10     examination-in-chief.

11                           Cross-examination by Ms. Pinter:

12        Q.   [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Tomic.  Let us go back to

13     1992 to Mostar to the situation that prevailed in Mostar in early --

14     let's say up until mid-1992.  I would like to ask you to look at document

15     1D 00909 which is in the small binder that you have in front of you.  I

16     will now ask you whether you were aware or whether you knew Mr. Slobodan

17     Lang, Dr. Slobodan Lang.

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   Did you have an opportunity to meet with Dr. Lang?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   Could you please tell us when?

22        A.   It was -- well, we first met in May in Mostar.  I think it was

23     the logistics centre that was set up in the basement of a building in

24     Mostar.  The building was called Lesnina, and that's where I met

25     Mr. Lang, who told us about his experience from Dubrovnik, and that's

Page 34047

 1     what stuck in my mind.  That's why I remember his visit to Mostar.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  Now I would like you to look at this document, which

 3     is entitled the "Drama of Mostar, the 9th and the 10th of May 1992."  It

 4     is signed by Dr. Lang, among other signatories, and I would like to ask

 5     you this:  Do you recall this claim and can you confirm it that all the

 6     barrels were trained on the town on the 9th of May and that the town was

 7     encircled?  I mean Mostar.

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   You mentioned this, but would you agree with me that about 65 per

10     cent of the civilians had left Mostar at that time?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   Can you confirm that the civilian structure that had been

13     inherited from the previous system either did not exist or was not

14     functioning, was in disarray?

15        A.   Yes, that's what I was talking about.

16        Q.   Is it true -- is it true that on the 7th of May the town was

17     completely cut off in terms of telecommunications?  1992, yes.  I'm

18     talking about 1992.

19        A.   Yes, I do know that this was in early May, and I assume that the

20     date is correct.

21        Q.   At that time that we're talking about in May?

22        A.   Yes, in early May.

23             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note, the speakers are kindly

24     asked not to overlap.

25             MS. PINTER: [Interpretation]

Page 34048

 1        Q.   It says here and I don't know if you can remember that, but at

 2     any rate, that in the afternoon on the 9th an artillery attack was

 3     launched on Mostar and that it last for almost 24 hours and that several

 4     thousand shells were fired.  Do you recall that, the atmosphere, the

 5     situation, the shelling of Mostar?

 6        A.   Yes, I do remember the situation.  Now, whether it was on the 9th

 7     or the 10th, I can't really play that back in my mind, but I do remember

 8     this action that is described here, an attempt to launch a tank attack

 9     from the south.  And I remember that the HVO members repelled the tank

10     attack, and I know that it was about that time.

11        Q.   Fine.  Thank you.  As you go through this document were you able

12     to read the other claims about the ambulances that were no longer there,

13     about the burial of those who had been killed in the Liska park?

14        A.   Yes.  In fact, one of my family members was buried in the Liska

15     park because it was impossible to carry out the regular funeral.

16        Q.   So can you confirm that the claims made in this letter or report

17     by Dr. Lang tally with what you experienced, saw, went through?

18        A.   Well, I have to apologise, I haven't read this through.  But up

19     until the middle of page 2 it reflects in its entirety the atmosphere as

20     it prevailed in Mostar.  I can go on to the end.

21        Q.   Yes, please do.

22        A.   Because I have not seen this document before.  Yes.

23        Q.   So you can confirm.

24        A.   Yes, it does correspond with the situation as it was in Mostar at

25     the time.

Page 34049

 1        Q.   Thank you very much.  I have only one question for you, and then

 2     with the permission of the Trial Chamber General Praljak would like to

 3     talk to you about the year 1992 and the situation in Mostar and the

 4     events in Mostar and in Hercegovina.  Let me just ask you this:  Do you

 5     know who Radoslav Zovko is?  Have you heard of him?

 6        A.   Is that Radoslav Zovko -- I think there was a friar or a priest,

 7     his name was Radoslav Zovko.

 8        Q.   Yes, that's right.  Have you heard about the "Mostarski Dnevnik,"

 9     the "Mostar Diary"?

10        A.   Yes, I have.

11        Q.   Thank you very much.  Now, with your permission General Praljak

12     would like to continue the cross-examination of this witness regarding

13     the situation in Mostar and in Herzegovina in 1992 about the events in

14     which he himself took part and has direct knowledge of.

15             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, before I give the

16     floor to General Praljak, I have a few questions based on this document.

17     These events occurred on the 9th and 10th of May, 1992.

18             Sixty-five per cent of the population, according to this

19     document, this amounts to 70.000 people, left Mostar.  These people who

20     left Mostar, I assume among those people there were both Croats, Muslims

21     and maybe Serbs.  Did some of these people come back again or did they

22     leave for good?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In this exodus all people left

24     because they wanted to take care of their families.  The male members of

25     the family would put their families up in some hotel or with their

Page 34050

 1     families in Western Herzegovina, Croatia, or wherever further afield,

 2     would -- and then they would go back in order to try and protect their

 3     property, houses, apartments, to be there and to take part in the

 4     defence.  And then as operations in Mostar after the liberation from the

 5     JNA and the reservists subsided, some of the family members came back but

 6     then they left again when the conflict broke out between Croats and

 7     Muslims in Mostar.

 8             Nowadays in Mostar, the bottom line, to use the financial term,

 9     is that today most of the people who had come back are Croats.  A part of

10     Bosniaks had come back and some of the Serbs had also come back.

11             As far as the residents of the city itself, the urban population,

12     for the most part Muslims went back to Sarajevo, not to Mostar because

13     they couldn't find their way around in the new circumstances.

14             Some of my best friends who were Bosniaks preferred to go back to

15     Sarajevo instead of Mostar because Mostar has suffered a huge influx of

16     rural population that imposed their values.  The refugees had come in

17     from all over Bosnia from rural areas, and they enjoyed the status of war

18     heroes and they had a negative attitude towards the return of the

19     original residents of Mostar, and that's why most of them decided not to

20     come back to Mostar but to go to Sarajevo.

21             As far as Serbs are concerned, lots of Serbs, the urban Serbs

22     from Mostar, remained in Belgrade.  Some of them remained in Trebinje.

23             As for Croats from the urban population, quite a few of them

24     remained in Zagreb or in Split.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I notice that from Hum,

Page 34051

 1     Orlovac, and "forteca," the Hum hill, I mean, shots were fired, and

 2     according to the document religious buildings were hit in the process,

 3     dioceses, cathedrals, churches.  As far as you know, the shelling by the

 4     Serb artillery, do you know whether they damaged any mosques?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI:  All the mosques or some mosques?  Since you

 7     were the mayor of Mostar in the year 2000, you know this town pretty

 8     well.  Maybe you could tell us whether all the mosques were hit or just a

 9     few mosques?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At the time I participated together

11     with my colleagues in Mostar writing a book about the urbicide in Mostar

12     and there was an exhibition in Split as part of our effort to collect

13     aid, and in this document you can see the images of the damage caused to

14     all public buildings in Mostar, and I think that most of the mosques had

15     been hit.  The minarets were torn down on some of them or had suffered

16     damage.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You were an author to this book

18     "Urbicide," were you?  This is a book we have seen already.  I see that

19     this document talks about the Old Bridge, which is the crux of the matter

20     for this Trial Chamber.

21             When the Serbs fired shots, as far as you know do you know

22     whether the Old Bridge was damaged?  I don't mean destroyed, because it

23     didn't fall in 1992, but was it slightly damaged, seriously damaged, only

24     damaged in part?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, there was some damage, and I

Page 34052

 1     remember that timber and tyres, car tyres, were used to protect the

 2     bridge from further targeting.

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] My last question, and I believe

 4     my colleague would like to put questions to you also.

 5             I can see in this document that the authors of this document,

 6     Mr. Slobodan Lang, talks about the press and seems to indicate, at any

 7     rate, in May 1992 that -- that no foreign journalist, be he or she,

 8     Bosniak or a Croat, on the spot in paragraph 2.  So it seems that nobody

 9     could recount what had happened.  Was that the feeling you had also, that

10     the international press or national press had not been allowed in and was

11     not present when the shelling occurred?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's my impression.  And one

13     of the first projects that we had in the Special Purpose Council was to

14     procure equipment for the Mostar radio station that we obtained through a

15     donation by a company from Croatia.  And after this station was set up

16     you could at least hear the reports from Mostar that could then be

17     rebroadcast by others, because in Mostar the media were just not present.

18             JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Witness, my question was initially

19     a twofold question, but the Presiding Judge has put the first part of the

20     question.  I'd like to get back to the 9th and the 10th of May.  The

21     document says that it's really dramatic for Mostar, the events that are

22     described here, and that this is really and truly dramatic.  The

23     artillery started shelling on the 9th and only stopped shelling four

24     hours later.

25             We have heard a lot of witnesses in this court stating that the

Page 34053

 1     JNA was one of the most powerful armies in the world with extremely

 2     well-trained officers, well-versed in the laws of war and humanitarian

 3     aid.

 4             THE INTERPRETER:  Humanitarian law issues, interpreter's

 5     correction.

 6             JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] If I understand correctly, the JNA

 7     had essentially targeted civilian, medical, religious and cultural

 8     buildings, amongst others, the Old Bridge.

 9             The problem I have here is the terms used, "essentially

10     targeted."  Do you agree with this?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Whatever was destroyed was

12     designated the key target, because if something was targeted -- if

13     something was hit and destroyed, then obviously it was a target, and

14     since practically all the public buildings were hit, then that was the

15     conclusion, that they were indeed the main target.

16             JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Because during a war there is what

17     is called collateral damage.  Would the civilian buildings be considered

18     part of this collateral damage?

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I know there were no

20     military operations launched from the town itself.  There were no major

21     gun emplacements, artillery pieces that were fired, no resistance was

22     offered from those buildings by, for instance, firing those cannon.  And

23     then the JNA -- then you could say that the JNA's returning fire and

24     destroying those gun emplacements.  That was not the case.

25             They were firing on the civilian targets in order to exert

Page 34054

 1     pressure on the civilian population to make them flee the city in as

 2     large numbers as possible.

 3             JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] There it is.  That was my

 4     question, what was the purpose of this operation, but you have already

 5     answered this question.  Thank you very much.

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It seems, looking at the

 7     document, this is -- is in the part of the document which mentioned the

 8     9th and the 10th of May.  It seems that the Serbs lost three of their

 9     tanks.  Does this mean that there was fighting between the Serbs and the

10     forces opposing the Serbs since I see here that three tanks are

11     mentioned?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that it involves the attack

13     that I mentioned that I know happen at that time when they set off with

14     armoured vehicles from the south along the Bulevar, that is to say the

15     street going through the middle of town.  On the south they were stopped

16     by the members of the HVO.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  My last question

18     and we will have the break afterwards and Mr. Praljak can take the floor

19     after the break.  He will have ample time to put his questions.

20             The question I would like to put to you has to do with the media.

21     We can see that there were no journalists there.  This is what this

22     document states.

23             In the following months, apart from the radio stations were the

24     media able to cover any of these events, and if that was the case, who

25     was writing about this?

Page 34055

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, in the later stage, except

 2     for Radio Mostar, another radio station started operating in the eastern

 3     part of town, that is to say after the conflict between the Bosniaks and

 4     the Croats.  For the most part it involved bulletins, if I can put it

 5     that way, of individual units.  That is to say there weren't any printed

 6     newspapers or periodicals from the area of the HZ HB.

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Thank you.  We

 8     shall have a 20-minute break.

 9                           --- Recess taken at 12.25 p.m.

10                           --- On resuming at 12.46 p.m.

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The court is back in session.

12     The Court will give the floor to Mr. Praljak, and we will like to say

13     that Mr. Praljak is allowed to ask questions along as they relate to his

14     area of expertise.

15             THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your

16     Honours.

17                           Cross-examination by the Accused Praljak:

18        Q.   [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Tomic.  Do you know me from

19     earlier on?  Yes?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   Please look at 3D 03096.  This is the "Mostar Diary" of

22     Mr. Radoslav Zovko.  I'll try move on as fast as possible without

23     overlapping, though, because I have to refer to individual pages.  And

24     the diary has to do with the first half of 1992 in Herzegovina and

25     Mostar.  At that time you were in Mostar; right?

Page 34056

 1        A.   Right.

 2        Q.   In order to be as brief as possible, I'm going to make a

 3     reference in Croatian to the page number.  Please look at page 36.

 4     Friday, the 10th of January, 1992, the attack on the train in Mostar.  It

 5     says:  "Two railway workers were wounded, one Muslim, one Croat, because

 6     reservists opened fire at a freight train."

 7             As you were there day in, day out, did you know about this?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   Let's look at the next page, that is page 39 of the Croatian

10     book.

11             On the 24th of January, 1992, a referendum was voted for in

12     Bosnia and Herzegovina.  The Assembly was in session, and the main

13     problem was to have a referendum for an independent Bosnia-Herzegovina,

14     it says the Serbs blocked the work of the Assembly by leaving it and

15     today they're doing it by filibustering.

16             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Mr. Praljak, we have a little problem.  We are

17     also a little delayed because you only give the number of the Croatian

18     version, which means that then we must look at what date you speak about

19     and then we must try to find this in the English version, and the first

20     entry you have mentioned, 9th of January, does not figure in the

21     translation, so we are a bit lost.  The second, neither.  Ours starts

22     with the 25th of January.  Well, it says "Attack on train," but we don't

23     have the date.  And then 24 January, we don't have.

24             THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] [Microphone not activated].

25             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

Page 34057

 1             THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation]  I'm going to read the

 2     date, although you don't have it, but also read the heading like

 3     "Referendum voted for in Bosnia-Herzegovina" so then you will know what

 4     I'm referring to.

 5        Q.   And it says further on:  "Nevertheless, after midnight the Serb

 6     delegates withdrew and the Assembly continued working normally.  Decision

 7     on having a referendum was made."

 8             Are you aware of this fact, these endless sessions of the

 9     Assembly, the obstruction by the Serbs and so on?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   "Hunger knocking at the door," right underneath.  The 25th of

12     January, 1992.  It says here that the Yugo dinar was depreciated again by

13     400 per cent.  And then there is a reference to salaries, and finally it

14     says:  "Many of our young men joined the Croatian army or the police for

15     patriotic reasons but also for the money, because life here is hard."

16             Did you know that?

17        A.   Yes, I did.

18        Q.   We'll see later on what Mr. Zovko says in terms of what the value

19     of these different currencies are.  For example, these salaries of about

20     5.000 Yugo dinars, was that approximately about 50 Deutschmark?  Can you

21     remember?

22        A.   I think that was it roughly in that period.  One Deutschmark, 65

23     Yugo dinars.  That would be it approximately.

24        Q.   Thank you.  Page 41.  "Caritas in action."  That is the 28th of

25     January, 1992.  It says the diocese and Caritas in Mostar is working at

Page 34058

 1     full steam.  There are a lot of paupers and people on the brink of

 2     poverty."  Further on Zovko says:  "Quite honestly perhaps there may be

 3     among them some who are feigning or maybe smuggling, but it's difficult

 4     to sort it out all the time."  It also says there is problems in the

 5     distribution of food because some friars are running their own separate

 6     charities, they don't want to join the central one because it wouldn't be

 7     right if everything were all right.  And then he makes a reference here

 8     to Mr. Zovko and then also that there was quite a bit of hunger in Mostar

 9     right then and also that there was this problem of these private

10     Caritases run by individuals.

11        A.   Yes.  There were queues, people queueing up for food.

12        Q.   The next document is right down here, that is the 31st of

13     January, 1992.  It says:  "Who is guarding what?"  And it says that the

14     reservists are holding both barracks, both airports and that they took

15     control of the Austrian bunkers and fortresses on Velez and its slopes,

16     Hum Orlovac and they're roaming the hill around Miljkovici and Krivodol.

17     Did you know that, that already then actually the reservists had taken

18     all the hills around Mostar?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   Page 42, let's have a look at that.  Cannons at Hum, the 3rd of

21     February 1992, it says the reservists have rolled out tanks onto Hum and

22     the surrounding hills.  Their intention is obvious on the basis of what

23     happened to Ravno.  Can you confirm that?

24        A.   Yes, the tanks -- or rather the tanks and cannons were on Hum and

25     in Podvelezje and so on.

Page 34059

 1        Q.   Let's move on --

 2             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Mr. Praljak, I'm sorry, it seems that we are

 3     hearing the testimony of Mr. Zovko.  If fact, we have a witness here who

 4     is a special in finance matters and you put to him a diary of someone of

 5     whom we know not much.  He may have an acute memory or not.  He may be

 6     putting down what happens.  It may all be true, but I do not quite see

 7     what the Chamber gains by the witness saying yes to what you read to us.

 8             Mr. Kovacic.

 9             THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Please, please, please.

10     Your Honour Judge Trechsel, first of all this man here is a man who lived

11     through the experience and destiny of Mostar.  The fact that you want him

12     to be a financial expert only, that may be your wish, but my wish is to

13     ask this man some questions.  He had to take his family out of Mostar

14     because of the terror that reigned there.  He also buried a family member

15     at the cemetery there, and he is not just an expert witness in finance.

16     He is first and foremost a man who took part in all of this, and he is

17     familiar with what is being avoided for months now in this court, and

18     that is where all of this is taking place, all of this that we are

19     discussing in the field of finance.  What is happening is a brutal

20     aggression which is clearly depicted here in an all-embracing and

21     comprehensive way.

22             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  [Previous translation continues] ...

23             THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Please, please allow me,

24     Judge Trechsel.

25             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  The bench regulates --

Page 34060

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No.

 2             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  -- the proceedings here and neither the

 3     Prosecution nor the Defence nor the accused nor the witness.  It is only

 4     the Bench who is in charge.  I mean, you are just reading a book and the

 5     witness says yes, yes, yes.  We've had that before, and we have said many

 6     times, not only me, that we do not gain much.  If you want to ask him

 7     questions, ask him questions and prompt him to speak of his experience

 8     and not just to -- to nod to an experience someone else has put down in a

 9     diary.

10             MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, you asked Mr. Praljak

11     about the reasons why he is referring to that and he has stated those

12     reasons.  I just want to add a procedural --

13             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I have not asked --

14             MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Very well, I will go back to that.

15     I wish to refer to a procedural reason.  According to the instructions

16     issued by this Trial Chamber, there is a mechanism in place for adducing

17     evidence.  The Defence believes that this book is a relevant piece of

18     evidence, proof of the situation in Mostar in 1992.  The witness knows

19     about this because he was there at the time.  We are checking this

20     document.  We are trying to establish its authenticity.  Tomorrow through

21     the so-called IC list we are going to tender this document into evidence.

22     Why?  Because the Defence can present its arguments in the final brief

23     that -- to the effect that what this witness has been speaking about and

24     other witnesses, too, all of that happened within a particular context.

25     To put it in simple terms, the HZ HB tried to establish civilian order at

Page 34061

 1     the time when chaos prevailed in town.  You don't know that.  You haven't

 2     seen that.  You have only heard parts and pieces of that.  We are trying

 3     to make a synthesis there.  There is no better evidence than this kind of

 4     book like a diary.  It is a live person who wrote this and now we have a

 5     live witness, a man who was there and who can confirm whether this

 6     corresponds to his knowledge.  If it does correspond to his knowledge,

 7     then obviously this is authentic evidence.  That's the core of the

 8     matter, and I believe that it is relevant to establish whether the

 9     HZ HB -- or, rather, the HVO HZ HB functioned in lab conditions, in a

10     septic atmosphere, or in a real-life situation or, rather, the chaos of

11     war.

12             In conclusion, I have to say please look at the conclusion.  Look

13     at the incriminations in the indictment, the conduct of the so-called

14     members of the JCE, specifically the HVO HZ HB from the 1st of September,

15     1991, and already by now we have seen through the evidence that in 1992

16     nothing happened in relation to the Muslims who are depicted as victims

17     in the indictment.  So that was not there.  We have to show that 1992 is

18     not a relevant year in the indictment in respect of the way it has been

19     portrayed in the indictment.  It is for you to assess the evidence, the

20     Trial Chamber, but we are duty-bound as the Defence to present this kind

21     of evidence.  Thank you.

22             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, please continue,

23     but you're not going to review every single entry in the document, I

24     hope.  Just take a few examples and then ask brief questions to the

25     witness and that will help to provide the witness longer answers maybe.

Page 34062

 1             THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I understand

 2     that procedure is an essential part of the legal system, but at least ten

 3     times so far, I have tried to show what Mostar was like after the

 4     destruction inflicted by the Yugoslav People's Army and the reservists --

 5     reservists.  When I tried to introduce as evidence a book, you refused

 6     that.  And I am now trying to hear from the witness whether he has read

 7     these pages and whether to the best of his knowledge by virtue of his

 8     having lived there he can corroborate that this is true.  And I will be

 9     contented if this is admitted as evidence, because this is about the most

10     essential things in the whole war, what is being avoided here in this

11     court, namely desperation, fear, hunger, exhaustion, chaos, misery, et

12     cetera.  These were the conditions under which I and everybody else

13     sitting with me here functioned, and this is an essential element which

14     is currently being swept aside, and a case is built upon the assumption

15     that there was a state in place, that there was peacetime, et cetera.

16             If you let me, I will be -- I'll finish in four minutes.  I was

17     down there, and I can testify, but you give me 54 hours and the war

18     lasted two and a half years.  I cannot -- without witnesses I cannot

19     explain the truth based on facts.  So please allow me either to ask for

20     four or five questions from here or globally to ask the witness how many

21     aeroplanes flew over those areas, how many women and children they

22     killed.  I'm asking for instructions, Your Honours.

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] On the basis of the book you

24     can say the following to the witness:  This diary describes a series of

25     events on specific dates.  I will take four or five examples of such

Page 34063

 1     events, and then you can talk about what happened on the 8th of April,

 2     1992, or what happened on another day.  Then he can confirm whether the

 3     events actually took place, and when he has then you can ask him another

 4     question and say, "Do you share such-and-such point of view?"

 5             THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] I will obey.

 6        Q.   So, Witness, a book has been presented to you, I hope that you

 7     have seen it before, from which I submitted to you some excerpts up until

 8     the 19th of June, 1992, which is on page 94, the last page, and I'm going

 9     to ask you a few more questions, something that has nothing to do with

10     the facts that are only on paper.

11             Page 42, "Roadblock at Balinovac."  The --

12             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreters cannot find the relevant

13     passage.

14             THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] [No interpretation].

15             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I'm sorry, the interpreters have lost track.

16     The interpreters do not know where you are reading from and they stopped

17     translating.

18             THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] I'm referring to page 42.

19     The date is 4th of February, 1992.  "Blockade at Balinovac."

20        Q.   Zovko says the following:  "People have grown so sick and tired

21     of this tension with the reservists.  They almost don't care any more if

22     a war starts.  They just want this tension and uncertainty to come to an

23     end."

24             Witness, tell the Bench about the psychological situation

25     prevailing in Mostar with regards to the activities of the reservists of

Page 34064

 1     the JNA.

 2        A.   The situation was chaotic.  The people were under pressure

 3     because on the surrounding hills heavy armaments were deployed.

 4     Reservists were roaming the town in their vehicles, and they were -- they

 5     went to inns and pubs and initiated conflict.  They were firing from

 6     their weapons.  People were coming out of their houses and buildings,

 7     gathered on the streets, and it was highly charged, the situation was

 8     highly charged.

 9             Prices rose at a breathtaking pace.  There was ever-less

10     merchandise and the prospect of people being paid for their work were

11     getting slim.  On the other hand, the reservists were receiving their

12     salaries from the JNA and with freshly printed money they would buy the

13     last goods available in Mostar, and the merchants could not renew their

14     stock with Yugoslav dinars.

15             The overall atmosphere was full of uncertainty and depressing.

16             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

17             THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   Page 43 in the Croatian text.  "No petrol again.  Another petrol

19     crisis, none to be had by ordinary people while some are getting it due

20     to their connections."  And then it reads that 1 Deutschmark corresponds

21     to 85 Yugoslav dinars.  Was that really so?

22        A.   Yes.  The exchange rate deteriorated all the time and there was

23     daily inflation.

24        Q.   Please go to page 50 of the Croatian version.  The 5th of March,

25     a Thursday.  It reads:  "Situation calmer."  This now reads 1

Page 34065

 1     Deutschmarks corresponds to 150 Yugo dinars.  We can see inflation isn't

 2     it?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   Below that, the next heading "Bozo Lasta killed in Tasovcici.  At

 5     2200 hours at the Capljina bridge one Bozo Lasta was killed

 6     gratuitously."  Do you know there have been some incidents where people

 7     were killed by paramilitary forces without any reason, so drunken,

 8     reservists would kill someone?

 9        A.   Yes.  I have already said that there was much shooting and there

10     were victims.  And an even greater problem was inadequate information,

11     and for that reason a snowball effect was created.  So -- which resulted

12     in much psychological tension among the citizens.

13        Q.   Please go to page 53.  It says:  "Friday, 20th of March."  The

14     heading is:  "The Chetniks are surprised.  The Chetniks seem to have

15     learned that in Croatia they just need to open fire a little and the

16     people will flee.  However, no one is fleeing from Jasenica, Rodoc and

17     Krivodol."  Is it true that the people were not so easily frightened and

18     that they resisted the aggression by using weapons they had mostly

19     procured themselves?

20        A.   Yes, I'm familiar with that.

21        Q.   The next heading reads "Provocations."  In the night of the 20th

22     of March -- of the 20th and 21st of March, the JNA strafed the little

23     chapel at the Miljkovici cemetery and et cetera.  I believe that you know

24     these details?

25        A.   Yes, I'm familiar with the incident at Miljkovici which is in the

Page 34066

 1     Mostar municipality and I heard the rest from the information that was

 2     around at the time.

 3        Q.   And it says further on that the -- under the next heading the

 4     Serbs have continued to shell Hrasno and environs, people are feeling

 5     from -- towards Stolac and Capljina, as it was.  Is that correct?

 6        A.   Yes, that is correct.

 7        Q.   Chapter -- or, rather, page 57.  We're talking about the 4th of

 8     April, 1992.  Near Tepa in Mostar a Muslim baker was killed yesterday,

 9     shot dead with five bullets for no reason at all.  You witnessed that; is

10     that correct?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   Then there is the 7th of April.

13             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  If I may add a question.  What does it mean,

14     Mr. Tomic, that you witnessed this killing of a baker?

15             MR. KOVACIC:  [Interpretation] [No interpretation].

16             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Are you forbidding me to ask questions?

17             MR. KOVACIC:  No.  No.  [Interpretation] I would just like to

18     suggest that the transcript did not accurately record -- record the

19     answer of the witness.  The witness said yes, I witnessed such incidents

20     and not that incident, and therefore it is logical that you asked your

21     question.

22             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Okay.  Can you then tell a killing that you

23     actually witnessed, where you saw someone being killed?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not say that I saw that

25     killing, but -- but that such things were happening at the time.  I was

Page 34067

 1     informed of that, because I lived in Mostar at the time.  My office was

 2     200 metres away from the spot where that baker was killed, and that's why

 3     I remember that there was such an incident, but I was not present when --

 4     when the man was killed, and I never testified about that.

 5             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you.  That -- that's a bit technical, you

 6     see, that we use the word witness, hearsay witness, things like that.

 7     Thank you.

 8             Please continue, Mr. Praljak.

 9             THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   Below that you will find that Alija Izetbegovic proclaimed a

11     general mobilisation at Herceg-Bosna, did that this morning.  Did you

12     know that general mobilisation was declared and that the aggressor was

13     named?

14        A.   Yes.  I think that -- that happened in this period.

15        Q.   Please go to page 58, the 7th of April, 1992.  The night of the

16     6th to the 7th of April was a real night of war in Mostar.  From the

17     north and south camps, the VJ kept Orlovac and Jasenica under barrage of

18     fire.  Croatia recognised BiH and granted double citizenship to the

19     Croats in BiH.  Early this morning at 6 hours 22, VJ MiGs attacked

20     Listica.  Six persons were killed.  Citluk was also attacked from the air

21     but I don't know if there were casualties.  Listica is Siroki Brijeg,

22     isn't it?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   Do you know -- there is a series of such things in these texts?

25     But do you know that the VJ MiGs regularly bombed Siroki Brijeg, Citluk,

Page 34068

 1     Livno, and Grude, in such a manner as to kill women, children, elderly

 2     people in areas where there were no armed forces and no resistance?

 3        A.   Yes.  At the time the aviation of the Yugoslav People's Army was

 4     active at the time.  When we drove to Herzegovina via Makarska we drove

 5     without headlights so as not to attract their attention.  We were advised

 6     not to put on our -- our headlights.

 7        Q.   Now we are moving to the 9th of April on page 60.  This is very

 8     important.  "Last night in Mostar was filled with gunfire.  From the

 9     airport the VJ fired at Ljuti Dolac, Slipcici, and Krusevo with a

10     multiple rocket launcher."  And then the underlined part.  "Our commander

11     Perko ordered a retreat of our troops via Goranci.  The troops saw that

12     as treason, refused to obey the order and stayed in town, resisting the

13     VJ."

14             THE INTERPRETER:  Please slow down for the sake of the

15     interpreters.

16             THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   Do you know that Mr. Perak [as interpreted] was a former officer

18     of the Yugoslav People's Army who later on fled to Serbia and obviously

19     he was placed there to issue the order to abandon Mostar and thus

20     abandoning both the military and the civilians?  Do you know of that?

21        A.   Yes, I do know that, especially after this refusal to obey the

22     order and after they left the town I can confirm that this was indeed

23     correct.

24        Q.   Thank you very much.  Let us now move on to the 13th of April,

25     1992.  That's at page 62.  "Capljina and Livno under attack.  The

Page 34069

 1     Yugoslav army is attacking Slipcici, Citluk, and in Bosnia Visegrad.  And

 2     then it says from -- starting at 1525 hours the VJ attacked Capljina with

 3     a barrage of fierce artillery fire.  The town is ablaze.  Mogorjelo

 4     Hotel, the church, the mosque and many other buildings have been damaged.

 5     Jasenica is on fire.  The army is either arresting or killing our people

 6     around town and the surrounding villages.  Pavo Gagro was found at Buna

 7     with his throat slit."  This tallies with the information that you

 8     provided earlier; is that correct?

 9        A.   Yes.  Pavo Gagro was the father of some well-known businessman in

10     Mostar.  I knew them through my work in the revenues department, and I

11     remember this when he was found with his throat slit.  Allegedly it was

12     determined later that his neighbour, a Serb, actually murdered him.

13        Q.   Fine.  Let's see what else we'll find.  Easter, 19th of April,

14     1992.  That's at page 66.  "Perisic is destroying Mostar."

15             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note, Mr. Praljak is kindly asked

16     to give the interpreters some time to find the actual reference and then

17     read slowly for the purpose of correct interpretation.

18             THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   "A pilot called and said that he had been abducted but then he

20     went back --"

21             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreters note, we really did cannot find

22     this text.

23             THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   "At 1700 hours a pilot who had been abducted called from Sarajevo

25     saying that he had deserted the Yugoslav People's Army, but Perisic

Page 34070

 1     continues with fierce artillery fire against Mostar, because this is not

 2     about the abducted pilots, his aim is to take control of Mostar.  From

 3     Juzni Logor they fired at the bridge, the Hasan Brkica bridge.  There

 4     were dead and wounded passers-by.  Perisic completed his crime against

 5     Mostar at 2020 hours.  We did not celebrate the whole evening mass and

 6     Easter because nobody had come on account of the shooting."

 7             Sir, was this the situation in Mostar throughout those months?

 8     And we will go through some other entries so throughout those months.

 9        A.   I do recall this Easter, because as I said in my previous

10     testimony when the tank truck exploded I organised for my parents to take

11     my sister's children and my daughter to Makarska.  Two weeks later my

12     wife who remained in Mostar, and myself, we went there to visit them

13     because it was Easter, for Easter holidays, and we went taking the only

14     route that was still usable, the Gorancik route through Goranci.  It was

15     constantly exposed to fire from the artillery piece on the Hum hill.

16             After Easter we wanted to go back to Mostar because my wife also

17     wanted to go back to town.  We came to Goranci, the village above Mostar,

18     and at that time the last entry point where one could get into Mostar and

19     out of Mostar was closed because of the shelling.  We remained there

20     almost a whole night waiting, and that's when I took my wife back to

21     Makarska and she remain there with the children while I went back to

22     Mostar again at night using the Goranci road during a lull in the

23     shooting.

24             So this was the atmosphere that prevailed in Mostar at that time.

25             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

Page 34071

 1             THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation]

 2        Q.   At page 66 again, the 21st of April, "Eight hours of fighting.

 3     Hum was hit.  He says in Mostar they are mopping up snipers and rumour

 4     has it that they include Muslims and Croats who are committing these

 5     crimes for money."

 6             Do you know that in the chaos and fear that reigned there were

 7     snipers operating and that it took a lot of work to catch some of them,

 8     and some of them were killed?  There was looting, robbery, and Fra Zovko,

 9     Friar Zovko lists all that.  Do you know that?

10        A.   Yes, I do.  I know that in particular in Centar 2 that

11     neighbourhood, it's a residential neighbourhood with a lot of apartment

12     buildings, that snipers were active there as is described here.

13        Q.   As regards this road, the only one that was still in use and what

14     it looked like, at page 67 Friar Zovko left town and he says:  "I got out

15     of Mostar."  That's the entry.  And he says:  "I drove along the Goranac

16     road, I was on top of Cim and nobody was shooting.  I said the prayer of

17     contrition several times."

18             He talks about fence -- fences broken down, damage to the road,

19     and he says, "I'm driving.  I step on the gas."  And he says, "I hope for

20     a death more than for life."

21             Coming from a priest, does that tell you what kind of a

22     psycho-social situation the people were in in Mostar?

23        A.   Well, that road, I mentioned it, I said that I used it too.  The

24     well-known Goranac dog leg is a very well-known place.  It's such a sharp

25     curve that you have to slow down to 20 kilometres per hour in order to

Page 34072

 1     get through it and this dog leg bend was constantly exposed to an

 2     anti-aircraft gun firing from Mount Hum.  And this was really Russian

 3     Roulette.  You didn't know whether you'd be able to get out of there.

 4     And the people who used the road drove too fast and accidents happened.

 5     People got killed either in accidents or because of shells.  So taking

 6     that road was a gamble.  And I understand what he means when he says that

 7     he's hoping for death more than for life.

 8        Q.   Well, we will we have a major point at page 69, the 27th of April

 9     1992, "a new so-called Yugoslavia."  It says:  "At 1300 hours the town of

10     Mostar, Ilici and Cim came under heavy gunfire.  At 1400 hours VBR fired

11     at Krusevo, Biograci and Jare."  And then at the end of this passage

12     Friar Zovko says this and I'm going to ask you this:  "There is a lot of

13     hustle about mobilisation.  Some people fled to Germany, some people fled

14     to Croatia, some do their own private business and nobody's forcing them

15     to be mobilised and they will not volunteer to be mobilised.  It seems

16     that the HVO military authorities are still very weak."  Is this true,

17     and how could any authority, any government be strong given the

18     circumstances?

19        A.   Well, this is the period where for all intents and purposes the

20     Crisis Staff lost any touch with reality and could not manage anything

21     any more and on the other hand the municipal HVO staff operated in the

22     circumstances that prevailed in the town and it is quite logical that

23     issue -- that the issue of mobilisation was not dealt with in accordance

24     with any regulations at that time.

25        Q.   Let us look at the 1st of May, 1992.  That's page 72.  "Two

Page 34073

 1     defenders were killed in last night's attacks on Capljina.  The Chetniks

 2     blew up the bridge on the Neretva in Capljina.  At 1700 hours all hell

 3     broke loose again in Mostar.  The cathedral and the Franciscan monastery

 4     were hit.  Two persons were killed."

 5             Let us look at the 2nd of May 1992.  This is a topic that has

 6     been discussed at length in this trial.  Friar Zovko here talks about his

 7     view of international interference and he's talking about fierce fighting

 8     in Sarajevo.  "European Monitors are warning the Yugoslav army that they

 9     will report everything to the European Community in Portugal but the

10     Yugoslav army is not afraid of anyone.  The Chetniks are trying to take

11     control of the TV transmitter at Vlasic.  Three defenders have been

12     killed and a number of them have been wounded.  The Sarajevo TV now

13     covers only Sarajevo because all transmitters in Bosnia are turned

14     towards Belgrade.  All PTT links with the world are severed in Bosnia and

15     Herzegovina."  Is that true?

16        A.   Yes.  The repeater at Mount Velez that made it possible for

17     Mostar to receive the signal from BH TV was switched off and now faced

18     the other way by the JNA.

19        Q.   Let's look at what Friar Zovko has to say further down.  This

20     evening having just returned from Lisbon Alija Izetbegovic was taken

21     prisoner by the Yugoslav People's Army in Sarajevo.  And he goes on to

22     say:  "A foreign army in a foreign country has taken the country's

23     president prisoner.  This is unprecedented.  The USA, Germany and Austria

24     responded with mild notes, but Serbs are not afraid of notes.  The

25     reaction to the death of the Belgian observer near Cule, that's near

Page 34074

 1     Mostar, is far below expectations.  Europe and the USA are either totally

 2     powerless or do not want to do anything."

 3             To your knowledge was this the prevailing feeling among the

 4     people regarding all those negotiations, promises that were made,

 5     interference, that in fact nobody didn't want to do anything, couldn't do

 6     anything against everything that the JNA did?  Well, you know yourself,

 7     from Vukovar, Dubrovnik, and so on, could you please tell me that.

 8        A.   Well, the question of impotence, unease, pressure, but first of

 9     all powerlessness, this is something that was present and it appeared

10     that no help was forthcoming and all the talks at that time, all the

11     agreements that were reached starting with those that were reached while

12     Yugoslavia was still in existence did not yield any results and the

13     people did not expect any help to come from any quarters because it

14     didn't -- nothing, no effort resulted in any protection for the people to

15     give them their homes, jobs, food.

16        Q.   Let us look at page 73.  The 3rd of May, 1992.  "European

17     Monitors are leaving Mostar."  It says, "One person was killed and 13

18     were wounded in the fighting in Mostar last night," and then it goes on

19     to speak about Slavonski Brod which was suffering at the hands of the

20     same aggressors.  And then it says that, "Chemical agents were thrown on

21     Siroki Brijeg and the bishop's palace and the hospital in Mostar was

22     fired upon."  Did you know that the bishop's palace was almost completely

23     razed to the ground and that hospital was targeted?

24        A.   Yes, I do.

25        Q.   And then the 4th of May, 1992 just further down, "Aircraft attack

Page 34075

 1     Ljubuski yesterday, killing two and wounding five persons."

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, you have 10

 3     minutes left.

 4             THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Well, everything here is

 5     really the most important, because we would go on -- we should go on day

 6     from day to see how the situation developed and then we could talk about

 7     reconstructing the events in their entirety.

 8        Q.   Could you please look at the 6th of May, 1992, and that's just

 9     one thing I want you to look at.  "Bishop's palace set on fire."  Do you

10     know that at that time bishop's palace was burnt to the ground and then

11     it says here that, "General Perisic requested that the Mostar HVO and the

12     Territorial Defence withdraw to the right bank of the Neretva River or

13     else he would send aircraft to attack Mostar."  Do you know that he was

14     actually blackmailing people into negotiations in this manner?

15        A.   Yes, I do know that.

16        Q.   The 9th of May, 1992.  That's at page 77.  "St. Peter and Paul

17     church set on fire."  Do you know that this church was burnt to the

18     ground?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   "Ten buses full of women and children left Mostar today as

21     refugees."  Is that true that refugees, women and children, were leaving

22     Mostar every day, especially women were desperate to keep their children

23     safe?

24        A.   Well, according to me that was one of the reasons why Mostar was

25     targeted with shells and gunfire to make people leave.  And this

Page 34076

 1     escalated in particular after the bishop's palace and the St. Peter and

 2     Paul church were set on fire and they burnt to the ground.

 3        Q.   Could you please look at page 80.  Well, it says, "The Chetniks

 4     are firing at Krusevo and Sretnice again and then it says it is peaceful

 5     in Mostar.  They're hunting for snipers and they have already killed

 6     three of them."

 7             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note we cannot follow at this

 8     speed.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  I said already that in

10     Centar -- Centar 2 there were such examples and they were hunting snipers

11     down in the buildings.

12             THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation]

13        Q.   Were those usually snipers that we found in apartments that were

14     own by the military?

15        A.   According to the rumours that circulated at the time, most of

16     those snipers were operating from apartments that were military -- owned

17     by the military.  They would find weapons in the blind boxes, where the

18     blinds were pulled up above the windows.  That's according to rumours.

19        Q.   Let me now read for the 19th of May, 1992, to complete.

20             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's correction, the 19th of June,

21     1992.

22             THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   "Bijelo Polje is liberated, the conflict between the HOS and the

24     HVO."  Do you know that by that time not only Mostar but also Bijelo

25     Polje were liberated?

Page 34077

 1        A.   Yes, I do know that.

 2        Q.   It says here, "There are mostly Muslims in the HOS in

 3     Herzegovina, although Croats are Supreme Commanders."  It says that,

 4     "Muslims are settling their accounts.  They say that the Muslims are

 5     settling their accounts under the Croatian name, torching Orthodox

 6     churches and looting and torching Serbian houses."  And he says, quite

 7     fairly, "This information about the HOS should be checked whether this is

 8     the truth or just rumours circulated among people."  Do you know that at

 9     that time the HOS was already chock full of Muslims and it was for all

10     intents and purposes out of HVO control and was operating on its own?

11        A.   Yes, I know that there were many Muslims in the HOS and that the

12     HOS was a formation that everybody was afraid of.  They engendered a lot

13     of fear and unrest in the town.

14        Q.   Mr. Tomic, do you know just one more thing, that's my last

15     question, do you know that on the night of the 12th to the 13th of June

16     the Serb forces, whatever that might mean, killed 114 Croats and Muslims

17     in two locations at Uborak and Sutina.  88 victims fell at Uborak and 26

18     at Sutina?

19        A.   Yes, I do know about those crimes.

20        Q.   Do you know whether at that time or one year later anyone wrote

21     anything or told the world public about that, wrote any reports anywhere

22     in the world?

23        A.   I don't know that.

24        Q.   Do you know that in June it was first the right bank of the

25     Neretva River in Mostar was liberated from the south and the north and

Page 34078

 1     then the left bank and that in this manner the town was liberated from

 2     the hands of the reservists?

 3        A.   Yes.  That's what it's called, the June dawns.  That's how this

 4     is celebrated.

 5        Q.   Do you know that from the positions that Serbs held facing

 6     Nevesinje could shell Mostar whenever they felt like, whenever they got

 7     drunk enough to do that?

 8        A.   Yes.  Well, there was sporadic shelling from those positions, and

 9     when we could no longer see them in Podvelezje, the Podvelezje area that

10     had been liberated in those actions, they continued doing so.

11        Q.   Do you know that at that time I commanded this zone of the

12     Croatian Defence Council, and do you know that I commanded -- I was in

13     command of the operations to liberate the right and the left bank of the

14     Neretva River?

15        A.   Yes, I do know that.

16        Q.   Thank you very much.

17             THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.  I

18     hope that this will be admitted into evidence.  If you don't, then I will

19     use it in my own testimony to --

20             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note, could we please finish the

21     interpretation.

22             MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] At page 66 of the record today --

23     Your Honour, Mr. President, at page 68 of the transcript you asked the

24     witness about the mosques that were torn down in Mostar, and he gave his

25     answer, but right at the beginning of this answer he mentioned the book

Page 34079

 1     "Urbicide."  I would just like to note for the reference that we had this

 2     document here.  Witness Puljic spoke about that.  That's 3D 00785 and/or

 3     1D 02951.  And you refused to admit this into evidence because we were

 4     unable to provide page references.  That was through Witness Puljic.  And

 5     we in the meantime tendered it into evidence again with the pages.  We

 6     want to do that because Witness Puljic explained how the book was put

 7     together.  So it's not about pages, it's about the whole book.  And here

 8     the witness again mentioned this book "Urbicide," and he said that he

 9     took part in drafting this book.  So I hereby supplement my motion that

10     is still pending.

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Kovacic.

12             It is now past the time we should stop.  We shall meet again next

13     week on Monday at a quarter past 2.00.

14             Witness, you will be staying here for a few days.  I hope you'll

15     make the most of these few days in Holland so that you can visit this

16     country.

17             We shall meet again on Monday at a quarter past 2.00.

18                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.47 p.m.,

19                           to be reconvened on Monday, the 3rd day

20                           of November, 2008, at 2.15 p.m.