Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 35700

 1                           Wednesday, 21 January 2009

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

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

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Would you please call the case.

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

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

 8     the Prosecutor versus Prlic et al.

 9             Thank you, Your Honours.

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Thank you very

11     much.  Today is Wednesday, 21st of January, 2009.  I'd like to say good

12     morning to all.  The representatives of the Defence, the Office of the

13     Prosecution, and all of the people who work in the courtroom day after

14     day with great devotion.

15             I believe Mr. Scott has a question.  Mr. Scott, go ahead.

16             MR. SCOTT:  Good morning, Your Honours, Mr. President, each of

17     Your Honours.  Judge Prandler, I apologise for the location of the pole

18     in the courtroom.  Please forgive me.  To counsel and all those in and

19     around the courtroom thank you very much.

20             Your Honour, I need to raise -- I need to take a bit of the

21     Chamber's time this morning I'm afraid to raise with the Chamber an issue

22     that needs -- because of the time it needs to be dealt with further, we

23     submit, Your Honour, and that has to do with the request -- the

24     Prosecution's pending request for a fully adequate summary for Mr. Bozic,

25     who comes next week.

Page 35701

 1             Excuse me, Your Honour.  I apologise.

 2             Your Honour, let me just say that this is not an issue that's new

 3     to the Chamber.  The matter has been raised going all the way back, in

 4     fact, to some of the Pre-Defence Conferences in April last year in which

 5     the Chamber made its views quite clear as to what was required for these

 6     summaries.  And then there are a number of instances throughout the Prlic

 7     case where the Prosecution raise its concerns, and on a number of

 8     occasions, not every occasion, but on a number of occasions the Chamber

 9     saw fit to order additional summaries to be provided.

10             Let me just stop and say briefly about the law, Your Honour.

11     There may be a number of areas of Tribunal law that for one reason or

12     another may remain not entirely clear.  This is not one of them.  The

13     Tribunal law on this topic has been well established, and it is -- I

14     think I can accurately summarise it as this:  Rule 65 ter requires an

15     advance meaningful summary of what the evidence of the witness will

16     actually be.  That is not simply a biographical background, he held these

17     positions through the years.  It is not simply a list of topics.  It is

18     meant to be a summary that both the Trial Chamber, the Judges, and the

19     Prosecution, and for that matter, the other parties, I should add, not

20     just the Prosecution but including the co-accused, can have a

21     meaningful -- can be on meaningful notice in order to meaningfully

22     prepare to meet the evidence of that witness.

23             It's very, very clear.  Background and topics are not sufficient.

24     And I submit to the Chamber that when reading these summaries, one of the

25     ways -- frankly one of the buzzwords, if you will, or key words that

Page 35702

 1     gives away the nature of the summary provided is when it repeatedly says:

 2     "The witness will testify about."  "The witness will testify about."

 3     "The witness will testify about."  What the summary -- what the law

 4     requires is not what they will talk about the topic, in other words, the

 5     subject matter, but what they will say.  Topic A, the witness will say

 6     that; topic B, the witness will say that.  Not topics.  The law is

 7     absolutely clear on that from both other Trial Chambers and from the

 8     Appeals Chamber, and this Chamber has had that law before on a number of

 9     times between now and last spring, and I'm sure perhaps before.

10             Now, with that background in mind, Your Honour, with that

11     background in mind, Your Honour, let me just review a bit of procedural

12     history so the Chamber knows -- understands hopefully a bit more where

13     the Prosecution is coming from in this particular instance.

14             First of all, Your Honour, I start from my last comment.  The law

15     is clear and if there is any question of the Defence being on notice as

16     to what is required of them, the law is clear; and it's been repeatedly

17     briefed and addressed in this courtroom on a number of occasions.

18     Nothing new.

19             Number two, the obligation to provide fully adequate summaries

20     was required and in complete force when the Defence filings were made on

21     the 31st of March, 2008.  We're coming up not quite there but we're

22     coming up on that being a year ago.  On the 31st of March, 2008, each of

23     the Defence teams were required to meet the obligations up Rule 65 ter.

24     This is not an obligation that sprung into existence last week, a few

25     days ago, or two months ago.  The obligation has been on the books.  The

Page 35703

 1     Tribunal law has been clear for years and since the first obligation on

 2     the 31st of March, 2008, when the filings were made.

 3             Further than that, Your Honour, we have -- this Chamber again as

 4     I mentioned a moment ago, including Judge Antonetti, Your Honour, on the

 5     21st of April, 2008, specifically said in reviewing the Defence filings

 6     on the 31st of March, 2008, that a number of the summaries were deficient

 7     and I can change the Chamber to those citations if necessary, but I can

 8     tell the Court, Judge Antonetti, you were very clear; and, in fact, you

 9     specifically said that a number of the Praljak summaries in particular

10     were deficient.

11             Further, trying to raise these issues in an ongoing way, the

12     Prosecution anticipating the beginning of the Stojic Defence case,

13     corresponded with counsel on several occasions, first on the 1st of

14     October, 2008, again on 23 October, 2008, asking again and reminding them

15     of the need to provide fully adequate summaries as required by Rule 65

16     ter.

17             On the 5th of January of this year, we sent another -- yet

18     another letter, at least the third letter, to the Stojic counsel again

19     raising the issue and specifically as to the witnesses, Bozic and Buljan

20     who are coming up in the near future.  We afforded at that time, Your

21     Honour, if -- well, let me put it this way.  We reminded the Defence of

22     the law's requirements and invited them to please provide an additional

23     fully adequate summary not later than the 12th of January.  Why the 12th

24     of January?  Because we need the time to prepare, number one.  Number

25     two, to provide the opportunity to bring the matter before the Chamber if

Page 35704

 1     the parties could not resolve it.  So we were trying to find a creative

 2     situation which could be resolved without bringing it before the Chamber.

 3             Unfortunately, we did not receive any additional summary by the

 4     12th of January, and as we indicated we would because of the pressure of

 5     the timing of the trial, the next day we file our motion requesting the

 6     fully adequate summary as required by Rule 65.

 7             That's a brief history of that aspect of the -- or -- of the

 8     procedure concerning this motion, Your Honour.  We did receive, we did

 9     receive, I want to be clear, in the last few days a filing by the

10     Defence, by the Stojic Defence, and a -- what is called an additional

11     summary.  With great respect, Your Honour, I have to say that while we

12     appreciate in some sense the effort, it continues in the same

13     deficiencies.  It's again a list of topics.  In fact, what they've done

14     is add topics.  They've expanded the number of topics that the witness

15     will talk about but have not said anything about what his evidence will

16     actually be.

17             So, Your Honour, we feel that this matter's been fully -- fully

18     ventilated.  This is a matter that's not new to any of the parties in

19     this case.  The Prosecution has raised the issue a number of times as has

20     the Chamber in general, as has the Chamber; and so we're back, Your

21     Honour, to once more being on the Wednesday before the appearance of a

22     witness without an adequate summary, and I would ask the Chamber before I

23     give the floor over or answer any questions Your Honours might have.  It

24     is not adequate, and it is not what Rule 65 ter contemplates or requires

25     that what happens at the end of the day is that on the eve of the

Page 35705

 1     witness's appearance, on the eve of the witness's appearance, the

 2     Prosecution and the Judges get an additional late summary which in its

 3     content may or may not be helpful.  The Prosecution should have had these

 4     fully adequate summaries not later than 31st of March.  Of course we

 5     understand the difficulties and the burdens involved in litigation.  We

 6     know that, and that's why we haven't pressed harder up until now, but

 7     that's March 31st we're now in January 2009.  We've raised the issue

 8     through last fall.  We raised the issue again in early January of this

 9     year.

10             So, Your Honour, that brings us to the point that since the

11     witness is scheduled and we were also hoping to take notice of the

12     timing - excuse me - to avoid unnecessary travel by the witness if

13     possible, and our position, Your Honour, and what the Prosecution

14     requests at this point, and I think there's just simply no other way than

15     to finally get the attention that these things have to be done, we ask

16     that the witness Bozic be postponed and not rescheduled unless and until

17     fully adequate summary is provided.  It's only when I think, Your Honour,

18     with great respect when this message is clear and enforced that we can

19     all then look forward hopefully to fully adequate summaries in the

20     future.  The Prosecution wants to raise this issue now at the very given,

21     if you will, of the Stojic case, so we can hopefully get off on the right

22     foot.  So we raise it now, and I will have to say, Your Honour, if need

23     be, we will continue to raise it as the Chamber's seen in the past.  The

24     Prosecution submits that we've been reasonable in this position.  We've

25     tried to address it without bringing it before the Chamber, but now we

Page 35706

 1     are where we are.  I thank you for the Chamber's time.

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Nozica, I will be giving

 3     you the floor in a moment.  Indeed we are aware of this motion dated the

 4     13th of January.  When we met on the 19th, we thought that this had been

 5     solved between the Defence and the Office of the Prosecutor, and

 6     therefore we did not think we had to mention it again because we thought

 7     it had been solved; and I hear now that as of Monday the 19th of January

 8     you sent a supplementary document but apparently this summary is not

 9     satisfactory for the OTP.  The OTP has now formally requested that we

10     postpone the appearance of that witness and you understand I'm sure the

11     risk involved.

12             What do you have to say here?

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

14     morning to everybody in the courtroom.  I would like to briefly say

15     something.  This topic has taken the most time in the court in the

16     procedural sense.

17             I would like to say that we submitted our 65 ter list.  The

18     Prosecutor today twice mentioned the date of March 2008.  The OTP had no

19     objection to our list of summaries.  So they didn't have objections.

20             We submitted, as Mr. Scott correctly said, a list of topics the

21     witness will be testifying about.  We would like to remind the Chamber

22     that we also submitted the documents so that it may be clear which

23     documents would be shown to the witness.

24             Talking about Witness Bozic, I would like to remind the Chamber

25     that the witness gave a statement to the OTP as a -- as a suspect.  Most

Page 35707

 1     of these topics will be the subject of interrogation here in the

 2     courtroom.

 3             I understand the OTP to say, "Give us the statement."  We are not

 4     obliged to submit the statement.  We are obliged to give information

 5     about what the witness will be speaking and what the witness will

 6     specifically say about any topic is in fact a statement.

 7             As this issue will obviously be reappearing during the defence of

 8     Mr. Stojic, I ask that the Chamber to give me instructions.  Apart from

 9     the summaries the Defence has submit and apart from the amendments we

10     will submit for every witness if the witness should, in testifying, go

11     beyond the topics mentioned in the summary, Mr. Bozic will come on Friday

12     so that on Saturday at the latest, we will give additional details when

13     this witness comes to be proofed, but what -- what was said about Mr. --

14     Witness Bozic, I repeat that Mr. Bozic was heard as a suspect is really

15     inappropriate.  So we will provide additional information as instructed

16     by the Chamber.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Nozica, the Chamber will

18     discuss this, and we will re-examine the 65 ter documents.  We will look

19     at the January 19th document, and we will inform you of our position.

20     Either we decide that the January 19th document is satisfactory or we

21     decide it isn't, but since I do not have it before me I cannot make that

22     decision just now.  But you have just said that you want the Chamber to

23     give instructions as to how to proceed.  Well, I cannot make a decision

24     on behalf of the Chamber at this point, but the Chamber has been very

25     clear thus far in the various decisions that we have handed down.  We

Page 35708

 1     have requested that the parties provide a maximum amount of information,

 2     and I believe in fact in my opinion that it's in your very own interest

 3     to prepare long detailed summaries in such a way that you inform the

 4     Prosecution of the items, the points, the subjects you are going to be

 5     discussing with the witness in order to deal with certain facts in order

 6     to enable the Prosecution to prepare its cross-examination, and in that

 7     way the Judges are inform of your strategy and will better understand

 8     exactly what you are endeavouring to prove.

 9             I must say that sometimes when a witness comes to testify, on the

10     basis of the resume, I really don't understand what you're trying to

11     prove.  If you were to provide fuller, more detailed resumes where you

12     explain point by point exactly what you are trying to prove it would be

13     far easier for us to understand.

14             Now, I can understand from a strategic point of view that you

15     don't want to show all your cards, but at this stage in the presentation

16     of the evidence on the part of the Defence you do have to show your

17     cards.  You can't keep them in hiding, so to speak, till the very end.

18     When you're calling a witness, when it's your own witness, you have to

19     show your hand, and in presenting a full resume you would be doing just

20     that.  You can understand that the Prosecutor prepares his cases in

21     advance as well.  When you have 15 binders, he's going to have 20, and

22     therefore that's the case because he has to counter what you're -- what

23     you're stating.  And we can understand, therefore, that he has a real

24     need to have a detailed resume.

25             This is an issue that we've discussed in the past.  We have now

Page 35709

 1     heard an oral request on the part of the Prosecutor, accompanied with a

 2     written submission that we have just received this very moment, and we

 3     will decide on the basis of the January 19th resume, and we will inform

 4     you later in the day.

 5             That's what I can say at this point.  If the Chamber decides to

 6     postpone the witness, we will tell you immediately to avoid that the

 7     witness have to travel for no purpose.  So we will give you the response

 8     later.  I will ask the legal counsel of the Chamber to inform you very

 9     rapidly regarding the January 19th statement.

10             Can we call the witness, please.

11             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, that is exactly why

12     I -- I wanted to hear the position of the Chamber because it is obvious

13     that these demands will be repeated, and we know before the first -- or

14     the following witness the position of the OTP, and we don't want things

15     like this to be repeated.

16             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I see that Mr. Karnavas is

17     ready and has been ready for several moments.  His file is open.

18             Mr. Karnavas, I believe each of you has 30 minutes for your

19     examination.  There are three of you who are speaking.  That makes an

20     hour and a half for the three.  So maybe you've shared out the time

21     differently.  I don't know exactly.

22             MR. KARNAVAS:  I believe you're correct, Mr. President.  Good

23     morning, Mr. President; good morning, Your Honours.  I hope to be 30

24     minutes or less.

25                           [The witness entered court]

Page 35710

 1                           WITNESS:  DAVOR MARIJAN [Resumed]

 2                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Marijan.

 4     Sorry for keeping you waiting.  We had a procedural matter to settle, and

 5     therefore you have just come into the courtroom, and I'm going to call

 6     upon Mr. Karnavas, who is going to proceed with the cross-examination.

 7             MR. KARNAVAS:  Thank you, Mr. President.  Again good morning to

 8     everyone in and around the courtroom.

 9                           Cross-examination by Mr. Karnavas:

10        Q.   And good morning, Mr. Marijan.

11        A.   Good morning, Mr. Karnavas.

12        Q.   Now, we have your report here.  We heard your testimony, and I

13     want to pick up where we left off yesterday where you indicated to

14     counsel for Mr. Stojic that you stand by your report having made one

15     correction, and I thought that perhaps we could clarify a few matters.

16             If you could look at your report.

17             MR. KARNAVAS:  Usher, do we have -- Mr. Usher, does the gentleman

18     have all the documents?

19        Q.   I'm going to be referring to your report somewhat, only a few

20     topics.

21             MR. KARNAVAS:  We'll begin by looking at paragraph number 13,

22     Your Honours.  If you could get your report out.

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, could you be a

24     bit closer to your microphone.  It's a little difficult for the

25     interpreters to hear.

Page 35711

 1             MR. KARNAVAS:  Very well.  I don't want to be shouting, Your

 2     Honour.

 3        Q.   Okay.  Do you have your report, sir?  At paragraph 13, in here

 4     you state at the beginning of the paragraph that the heads of

 5     departments -- the head of the Department of Defence was accountable for

 6     his work to the HVO of the HZ HB, and further down in the same paragraph

 7     you indicate that -- the HVO adopted reports and proposals of the

 8     Department of Defence and gave instructions and guide-lines to the

 9     Department of Defence, and I take it you stand by that -- that part of

10     your report; correct?

11        A.   That is correct, sir.

12        Q.   And just by way of an example just so we can show everyone, if we

13     were to look at -- you have my binder there.  We're going to look at

14     P 03796.  It should be towards -- towards the back.  Okay.  P 03796.

15     These are minutes of a meeting dated 29 July 1993.

16             If we look at the very first page in English at least where we

17     have the agenda, under number 14 it says "Other matters."  And if we go

18     to the end of the report, almost at the very end, here we have, for

19     instance -- we see that:

20              "It is recommended that in the future the Department of Defence

21     should issue timely reports about the situation at the front line to the

22     public and to the members of leading bodies of the HVO HZ HB."

23             Do you have that, sir?  3796.  It's at the very last page.  This

24     is just as an example of where, for instance, instructions or guide-lines

25     in this instance they're recommending to the Department of Defence to

Page 35712

 1     provide timely reports about the front line.  This would be one example

 2     where you state, for instance, that the Department of Defence is being

 3     given instructions by the HVO HZ HB; correct?

 4        A.   Yes, sir.

 5        Q.   All right.  Now, the reason I want to point that out is because

 6     if we go now to your report on paragraph 12, here you state:

 7             "The deputy head and assistant head of the Department of Defence

 8     were appointed by the president of the HVO, Jadranko Prlic."

 9             And you mention Slobodan Bozic.  Then again if we were to turn to

10     paragraph 19 of your report, we see again where you make reference that

11     Mr. Bozic was appointed by Jadranko Prlic, the president of the HVO.  Do

12     you see that, sir?

13        A.   Yes, I do.

14        Q.   All right.  These are not trick questions.  We're very easy to

15     answer.

16             Now, is it your position, sir, and I want to be -- I guess I want

17     to lock you into a position; is it your position that it was Dr. Prlic

18     who actually made these appointments or that these appointments were made

19     by the HVO HZ HB as a collective body?  Which of the two?

20        A.   Mr. Karnavas, Your Honours, I would like to see those

21     appointments, but I believe that Mr. Prlic signed all these appointments.

22     Of course he signed on behalf of the HVO but also in his own name.  I

23     actually don't quite understand what you want to ask.

24        Q.   All right.  Let me help you out here.  P 01137, P 01137.

25             MR. KARNAVAS:  And if we look at, Your Honours, item number 7 on

Page 35713

 1     the first page which says "Personal matters" -- "Personnel matters," I'm

 2     sorry, and if we go to -- it would be page number 5, Your Honours, in the

 3     English version.

 4        Q.   And if you go to -- find that document, sir, and go to addendum

 5     number 7.  It would be page 3 for you, sir.  And is says here --

 6        A.   I've found it, Mr. Karnavas.

 7        Q.   Great.  Great.  Super.

 8             "At the proposal of the head of the Defence Department the HVO

 9     HZ HB Slobodan Bozic is appointed deputy head of the Defence department

10     of the HVO HZ HB."

11             Do you see that sir?

12        A.   I do.

13        Q.   And I take it a member of the HVO HZ HB was none other than

14     Mr. Stojic.  In other words, he was not only proposing, but one can also

15     assume that he would have voted had he been there, or someone would have

16     voted in his stead if somebody was there on behalf of the Department of

17     Defence?

18        A.   There's no doubt that Mr. Stojic was a member of the HVO because

19     he was head of department.

20        Q.   All right.  And we see that it's the HVO, do we not, that

21     actually makes the decision base on the proposal of Mr. Stojic; right?

22        A.   You can draw that conclusion from this item.

23        Q.   Okay.  When you say "you," are you saying me personally, or

24     should we use the word "we," that we can draw that conclusion?  Which of

25     the two?  Because I've already drawn that conclusion, but I want you to

Page 35714

 1     draw it as well.

 2        A.   My conclusion as I said in this specific case is the follows:

 3     That the head of the Defence, Mr. Bozic was appoint as deputy head, and

 4     that the HVO agreed to that, gave its agreement.

 5        Q.   All right.  Then one more just to make sure that we finish with

 6     this topic, at least with Mr. Bozic.  If we look at P 006 --

 7             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Excuse me, Mr. Karnavas.

 8             MR. KARNAVAS:  Yes.

 9             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Mr. Marijan, I am a bit surprised.  Perhaps

10     there was a problem in translation.  You said that the HVO approved the

11     decision.  The document, rather, suggests that the HVO takes the

12     decision, not someone else took actually the decision and made the

13     appointment, and the HVO just sort of rubber stamped or approved, nihil

14     obstat, but they took the decision.  It's their decision.  That's how I

15     read the document.  Do you have a different opinion?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, well, I have the

17     impression that that's what I said too.

18             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  It may be a problem of translation.  It would

19     not be the first one.  Thank you.

20             MR. KARNAVAS:

21        Q.   Okay.  And if we can go to now P 00615.  And there are several

22     decisions that we see in there.  You will find if you -- if you page

23     through it.

24             MR. KARNAVAS:  And it would be on page 19, Your Honours in the

25     English version, one that refers to Mr. Slobodan Bozic, law graduate from

Page 35715

 1     Siroki Brijeg.

 2        Q.   If you could find it.  Towards the middle of the document -- or

 3     towards the end of it, I should say.

 4             Do you have it, sir?

 5        A.   Mr. Karnavas -- Mr. Karnavas, I know something similar to what

 6     you've been saying, but I can't find it.  You said 615, did you?  Was

 7     that the number?

 8        Q.   P 00615.  Page number 19 in the English version.

 9        A.   I only have the English version but I've found it, yes.

10        Q.   All right.  Well, let me just read out part of the English

11     version.  It says here:

12             "Pursuant to Article 18 of the statutory decision," and it goes

13     on and on.

14             It then goes on.  It refers to Article 31, paragraph 2 of the

15     degree on the organisation and competence of the department and

16     commissions of the HVO HZ HB as proposed by the head of the HVO HZ HB

17     Defence Department, the HVO HZ HB at the session held 15 January 1993,

18     and we have a decision.  Article 1 we see Slobodan Bozic's name.  Do you

19     see that, sir?

20        A.   Yes, I do.

21        Q.   Okay.  Now, going back to your report, your report does not state

22     that it's the HVO HZ HB that actually takes the decision as a collective

23     body, but what you have, sir, is that it is Jadranko Prlic who actually

24     makes the appointment.

25             Now, my question to you is:  Is your report accurate when we look

Page 35716

 1     at these documents, or would you like an opportunity to correct your

 2     report here and now?

 3        A.   Mr. Karnavas, I stand by my findings, and that's why I asked you

 4     the question whether there's any things you wish to clarify.  Is what

 5     you're saying this:  Do you mean to say that Mr. Prlic was on the same

 6     level with all the members of the HVO?  Is that what you're saying?

 7        Q.   Let me put it to you this way, sir --

 8        A.   Did I understand it correctly?

 9        Q.   Let me put it to you this way, sir:  We heard from Mr. Buntic.

10     We heard from Mr. Petkovic.  We heard from Martin Raguz.  We also heard

11     from Mr. Tomic, and with Mr. Tomic in particular it was none other than

12     Ms. Senka Nozica that cross-examined to establish that decisions are

13     taken by the collective body.  And now I put to you, sir, are these not

14     the decisions of the collective body and not, as you suggest in your

15     report, the decisions of Dr. Jadranko Prlic?

16        A.   Your Honours, on the one hand these are collective decisions of

17     the HVO as the executive body, but in its name that executive body has a

18     person at its head, and whenever we refer to the HVO here, and I think

19     Judge Trechsel said on one occasion, in inverted commas, he put this

20     under quotation marks when he said "government," but put it in quotation

21     marks, as I say, because it's called the way it was called, anyway, from

22     the documents we can see that the body made the decisions collectively,

23     but the body did have a person at the head who signed on behalf of that

24     collective body.  And I look at -- I looked at the statutory Decision on

25     the Temporary Organisation of the Executive Authority.  I think that's

Page 35717

 1     what the title was.  That's what it was called, of the 3rd of July, 1992,

 2     and I refer to it in one place, I believe, and that's how I understood

 3     it, that all the members of the HVO were accountable for their work to

 4     Mr. Prlic, were responsible to him.

 5        Q.   Okay.  All right.  Let's look at --

 6             MR. STEWART:  Excuse me, Your Honours.  I wonder if I might make

 7     a small practical observation to tie Mr. Karnavas's examination to the

 8     report.  The document Mr. Karnavas has been referring to which is P 00615

 9     appears to be for practical purposes the same as the one referred to in

10     footnote 48 of the witness's report which is P 01136; and I think if one

11     appreciates that they are the same item it's going to be much easier to

12     tie Mr. Karnavas's cross-examination together with the report.

13             MR. KARNAVAS:  Thank you, Mr. Stewart.

14        Q.   If we look at paragraph 25 of your report, here you -- you say:

15             "The HVO president appointed chiefs of Defence administration at

16     the recommendation of the head of the Department of Defence."

17        A.   Yes, correct, Mr. Karnavas.

18        Q.   And then you go on to say:

19              "The president of the HVO established," established, "the

20     internal organisation."

21             And of course we can see your footnote number 68, document 988?

22             Now, when you say it is Dr. Jadranko Prlic here that appointed,

23     are you not suggesting that it was his appointment and not the

24     appointment of the collective body?  Are you not suggesting that, sir?

25        A.   Mr. Karnavas --

Page 35718

 1        Q.   Yes or no.  It's a yes or no, sir.  Are you suggesting that or

 2     not?  You're an educated man.  You know how to read.  Are you making that

 3     suggestion that he made the appointment?  Yes, no, I don't know, which of

 4     the three?

 5        A.   Yes.  Yes, he --

 6        Q.   Thank you.

 7        A.   Yes, he --

 8        Q.   Now let's look at number 31, paragraph 31.

 9             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I do apologise to my

10     colleague Mr. Karnavas.  However, I can't catch up.  I can't follow.

11     Now, Mr. Karnavas referred to paragraph 25 of the report.  Would he allow

12     the witness time to find that paragraph and the circumstances surrounding

13     it, because it says the Defence ministry -- internal organisation of the

14     Defence administrations signed by the president of the HVO,

15     Jadranko Prlic in 1993 I see nothing to be challenged there but if the

16     witness isn't given time to read the whole text then he can't answer.  So

17     there's no need to go that fast.  So could he please allow time for the

18     witness to read through the whole paragraph and see the circumstances to

19     which he refers.

20             MR. KARNAVAS:

21        Q.   Let's look at paragraph number 31.  Here you say:

22             "On October 1992, the president of the HVO, J. Prlic, appointed

23     Ivica Lucic to the position of assistant head of Defence department for

24     security."

25             Same question.  You have the paragraph in front of you, do you

Page 35719

 1     not I sir?

 2        A.   Yes, I do --

 3        Q.   Okay.  Thank you.

 4        A.   -- the paragraph and the document.

 5        Q.   Now, are you not suggesting here, sir that it is

 6     Dr. Jadranko Prlic who appoints Ivica Lucic, that it's his appointment?

 7     Isn't that what you're trying to suggest here?

 8        A.   Yes.  This is a decision by Mr. Prlic.

 9        Q.   Now let's look at P 00578.  P 00578.

10             MR. KARNAVAS:  Your Honours, you will find it on -- we're looking

11     at item 6, paragraph -- on page 5.

12        Q.   Do you have it, sir?

13        A.   Yes, Mr. Karnavas, I do.

14        Q.   Now, it says here, and I'll read, and if I read anything wrong

15     you correct me:

16             "Head of the Defence department Mr. Bruno Stojic proposed

17     adopting a decision to appoint Mr. Ivica Lucic lawyer from Ljubuski,

18     assistant head of the Defence Department for security.

19             "The draft decision to appoint Mr. I. Lucic was unanimously

20     adopted."

21             Do you see that, sir?

22        A.   I read the item, and I do see that, yes.

23        Q.   Okay.  Now, is it Mr. Prlic who unanimously adopts it by himself

24     or is it the collective body of the HVO HZ HB that takes a vote and makes

25     a decision, a collective decision, a decision which belongs to the

Page 35720

 1     HVO HZ HB?

 2        A.   Mr. Karnavas, I can see that there was a vote on this decision

 3     and they all voted in favour.

 4        Q.   And whose decision is it, sir?  Because earlier you told us that

 5     the appointment -- the appointment was Dr. Prlic's.  So whose appointment

 6     was it, the HVO's or Dr. Prlic's?  Which of the two, sir?

 7        A.   That appointment -- Mr. Karnavas, the appointment was carried out

 8     by the president of the HVO, Dr. Prlic.

 9        Q.   Sir, don't be simple with me.  You have a Ph.D.  For a living you

10     read documents.  My question is very simple.  Whose -- who made the

11     decision for the appointment, Mr. Prlic or the HVO HZ HB?  Which of the

12     two?  Come clean, sir.

13        A.   Mr. Karnavas, I really do have a Ph.D., yes, and I know what an

14     executive body means; and I know that an executive body is the only

15     collective body that I know of in the region of the former Yugoslavia

16     that was made up of equal members.  There was the Presidency of the SFRY,

17     but this did not function in that way.

18             Therefore, the members, all the members of the HVO as an

19     executive body was not a conglomerate or a collection or a body in which

20     everybody was equal, had an equal footing.  With the exception of one

21     person all the others were equal, but as far as I understand it, that

22     body had its head who was not equal to all the other members but above

23     them, and he was the sole individual, as far as I understand it, who

24     could have sign this decision, and it was Mr. Prlic, if I understood

25     correctly.

Page 35721

 1        Q.   Do you recall testifying before the Tuta-Stela case and informing

 2     the Trial Chamber at the time that you were not a lawyer?  Do you recall

 3     that?

 4        A.   Well, it's common knowledge from my CV that I'm not a lawyer.  So

 5     there's nothing to add there.

 6        Q.   And were questions put to you about the -- about the government

 7     authorities, at which point in Tuta-Stela you indicated that you are an

 8     historian and could give an opinion as an historian and not a lawyer?  Do

 9     you recall saying that?  You were being questioned, I believe, by

10     Mr. Scott.

11        A.   Well, that was -- it was seven years, ago, was it?  I don't

12     remember that.  Most probably that's the case if you found it in the

13     transcript.  However, I didn't write this as a lawyer.  I wrote it as an

14     historian.  So I'm not interpreting the law here --

15        Q.   Thank you.

16        A.   -- that was not my intention.

17        Q.   Let's look at P 00615, sir.

18             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, just a clarification.

19     You're not a lawyer.  We all know that.  Still, in your report as it

20     stands, it can appear that Mr. Prlic appointed a person X to such and

21     such position.  One can conclude from this that Mr. Prlic has the power

22     to make appointments.  With this document on the screen, we find out that

23     in the actuality, Mr. Ivica Lucic was appointed after unanimous

24     deliberation and decision.  So the procedure would be as follows:

25     Mr. Stojic makes proposals, submits proposals, and everyone agrees to the

Page 35722

 1     appointment, after which Mr. Prlic signs the document.  And in listening

 2     to both of you, I was trying to place myself in the shoes of a Judge

 3     signing a decision.  As a Presiding Judge, when I sign a decision, I sign

 4     a decision on which it was deliberated, sometimes after a vote, and I put

 5     my signature.  And sometimes I even sign a decision when I disagree with

 6     the decision.  So I sign.  I have a power.  I have to sign, must sign,

 7     even though I have not made the decision.

 8             In the light of this, of the procedure, three stages:  One,

 9     proposal of draft decision; second, deliberation; and third, somebody

10     who's got the competence to sign, would that change what you stated in

11     your report or does it remain the same?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I understood it --

13     well, it's clear to me that the HVO made decisions.  I assume had most of

14     the body been against the decision it would not have been passed.  I

15     understand that, but -- well ...

16             MR. KARNAVAS:  I believe it's a non-answer answer, Your Honour.

17     And I am pressing the witness because now, at this point, I'm calling him

18     incompetent or a liar, either two.

19             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Don't go that far.

20             Witness, there was the deliberation that decided to it appoint

21     Mr. Lucic, but let's imagine Mr. Prlic disagreed, but all the others

22     agreed with the draft decision.  Lucic was appointed, and Mr. Prlic had

23     to sign even though he may have disagreed.  In such a case, in the

24     decision, there would be a note that the proposal was carried with

25     majority, et cetera.  But does that mean, according to you, Mr. Prlic, it

Page 35723

 1     is -- the appointment was Mr. Prlic's responsibility?  This is the issue.

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In that case, I think that

 3     Mr. Prlic wouldn't bear the responsibility for that appointment.

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, you -- you may

 5     proceed.

 6             MR. KARNAVAS:

 7        Q.   So whose appointment is it?  Is it the HVO in that instance or

 8     Dr. Prlic, which of the two and are you suggesting that when he votes for

 9     it, it's his appointment and when he votes against it it's not his

10     appointment?  Is that what you're suggesting, sir?

11        A.   If I understood it correctly -- well, they were always unanimous

12     decisions as far as I understood it, but, yes, the HVO did make

13     collective decisions.  I can see that from this.

14        Q.   Sir, my question is -- is rather precise picking up on what the

15     president asked you.  Based on your answer, so if Prlic votes against an

16     appointment, then it's not his appointment but it would be the HVO's

17     appointment in your opinion.  Is that what you're trying to tell us, sir?

18        A.   That is correct.

19        Q.   If he votes for the decision, if he votes for the appointment

20     then it's his appointment, not the HVO's.

21        A.   Mr. Karnavas, well, it's difficult for me -- becoming difficult

22     for me to follow, but what I can tell you is this:  The HVO did make

23     collective decisions, that's true, whether Mr. Prlic agreed or not.  If

24     he was out-voted, he would sign.  Is that what you want to hear?

25        Q.   No, it's not what I want to hear.  I want to know what you are

Page 35724

 1     thinking.  With Mr. Lucic you claim, you claim that this is his

 2     appointment, his decision.  That's what you're claiming.  Had Mr. Prlic

 3     voted against Mr. Lucic's appointment, would that be the HVO's

 4     appointment and not Mr. Prlic's, in your point of view?  It's a yes or

 5     no.

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   Okay.  Now --

 8        A.   Well, the decision would --

 9        Q.   Yes.  Go ahead.  Continue.  You don't need to look at the

10     transcript.  You can just answer the question.

11        A.   Well, I said yes.

12        Q.   Okay.  So -- but now if Mr. Prlic had voted for Lucic to be

13     appointed, then it would be Prlic's appointment, not the HVO's then?

14        A.   I must admit I am not following.

15        Q.   Okay.  Well, that's why -- that's why I'm trying to clarify, sir,

16     because on Article 31 -- paragraph 31 you make the insinuation that Lucic

17     was appointed by Prlic.  Now, do you make that decision to put that in

18     because you see it was a unanimous vote and, therefore, you attribute the

19     decision to Prlic and not to the HVO?

20        A.   It's like this, Mr. Karnavas:  Item 80, the appointment of

21     Mr. Prlic, well, it was published in the Narodni List of the HZ HB, which

22     makes it a public document, and from that public document it emerges, it

23     follows -- or, rather, at least that part of the public documents that

24     the appointment of the president of the HVO -- of course these minutes

25     are not a public document and here we see the technology of it, for

Page 35725

 1     example.

 2        Q.   Excuse me, we can look at P 00615, go back to that document.  And

 3     we see in that document on page 10, Your Honours, a decision on

 4     Mr. Lucic, and I apologise for having to spend so much time on a rather

 5     simple issue, but here on page 10 in the English version, and if you

 6     can't find it I'll give you the B/C/S version, sir.

 7             MR. KARNAVAS:  Mr. Usher, if you can come and we can assist this

 8     gentleman.

 9        Q.   Here again --

10        A.   Yes, well, all right, I found the document.  I found it.

11        Q.   Okay, again you see pursuant to Article 18 of the statutory

12     decision there was a session held on 14th October 1992.  We see that a

13     decision is taken.  Do you see that, sir?

14        A.   Yes, yes, I do.

15        Q.   Okay.  To appoint a security assistant to the president of the

16     HVO HZ HB, and we see it's Mr. Lucic.  Do you see that?

17        A.   I do.

18        Q.   Okay.  And so we see that this decision is as a result of a

19     session that was held on the 14th of October; correct?

20        A.   Correct.

21        Q.   And if we look at the earlier document we saw that at that

22     particular session all the members that were present of the HVO HZ HB

23     voted for and made the decision to appoint Mr. Lucic; correct?

24        A.   Correct.

25        Q.   And so from that, does it not follow, sir, that that decision and

Page 35726

 1     that appointment was of or by the HVO HZ HB and not, as you stated on

 2     paragraph 31, that it was Dr. Jadranko Prlic's appointment?

 3             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honour -- Your Honours, I have

 4     to intervene.  Mr. Marijan, on several occasions, has been repeating that

 5     the appointment was conducted by Mr. Jadranko Prlic, was carried out by

 6     him, and that's a logical term, because an appointment is made by one

 7     person and the selection can be made by a whole body, or the decision to

 8     select may be made by a body; and Mr.  Marijan has been saying several

 9     times, has been referring to appointment, and there's no -- that's quite

10     clear.

11             MR. KARNAVAS:  Your Honours.

12             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] But it's such a decision which is

13     proposed.

14             MR. KARNAVAS:  Your Honours, I will interrupt because

15     [Overlapping speakers] ... dishonest.

16             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I have to protect -- no, no, I'm

17     being quite frank, and I have to protect my witness because several times

18     now, he's been repeating the term "appointment."  Whether it's a problem

19     with the English interpretation, I really don't know, so I wish to be of

20     assistance because an appointment is signed in this case by

21     Jadranko Prlic; and now I'm confused because he doesn't know what's being

22     asked at this point.

23             MR. KARNAVAS:  Your Honour, Your Honour, let me be very clear.

24     My colleague and I having worked in the region know that what we have

25     just heard from Nozica is false.  This is not an appointment by Prlic,

Page 35727

 1     and it's nonsense what we just heard.  That objection is utter nonsense.

 2     It's gobbledegook.  The gentleman is very clear and the insinuation is

 3     very clear that he wishes to make it the appointment by -- but by doing

 4     so we can show there's some kind of chain of command.  That's the essence

 5     of all of this.  And there's no issue with the translation.  And unlike

 6     Ms. Nozica, Ms. Tomanovic knows English very, very well and can track

 7     both languages.

 8             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, first of all --

 9     Mr. Karnavas, you have used up your 30 minutes.

10             Witness, this is an issue of appointment.  It needs to be looked

11     at from a legal point of view because behind this appointment there is

12     the power, the competence to make appointments who exercises the actual

13     power or competence to a point and this is the underlying issue.  Is it

14     Mr. Prlic who decides thoroughly to appoint Mr. X to such and such

15     position because he has this sovereign discretionary competence or power,

16     or will Mr. Prlic appoint the witness but he has a limited competence,

17     that is -- that is a prior procedure and which is not involved that is

18     proposal by Mr. Stojic, then deliberation, then vote, if necessary, and a

19     signature.

20             So this is how things stand.  Of course this can give rise to

21     submissions by the counsels because they have their own point of views,

22     but we need to be above this as Judges, but I'm putting the problem to

23     you as it is presented to us.  But reading your paragraph 31, according

24     to you, it was Mr. Prlic's competence to make appointments, but maybe

25     this is not what you meant.  Maybe you meant something else.  So what did

Page 35728

 1     you actually mean?

 2             Do you understand the difference between having the power or

 3     having limited competence?  Are these concepts familiar to you, or do you

 4     not understand them?  If that's the case, then we might as well call a

 5     halt to the discussion.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if this calls --

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I see the term "limited

 8     competence" or "qualified competence."  We have very different legal

 9     concepts here, and perhaps translation can lead to misunderstandings, but

10     since your legal system is very similar to mine, I think that when I say

11     something you should perhaps understand it perhaps more easily than if I

12     belonged to a different legal system.

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If necessary, well, I'm looking at

14     this text in front of me, and if necessary I may clarify this one

15     sentence, and I may say that Mr. Jadranko Prlic, on behalf of the HVO,

16     appointed Mr. Lucic to the position of the assistant head.  But this is

17     what I meant even before I said this.

18             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, I think we need

19     to put an end to this discussion.  This is a complex legal issue.  The

20     witness maintains his statement and --

21             MR. KARNAVAS:  Very well, Your Honour.  I need about 15 more

22     minutes.  I have a couple of more topics to go.

23             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Mr. Karnavas, the record, on page 27, line 16,

24     it's gone now, but maybe you have the possibility to look back, quotes

25     you as mentioning or addressing Mr. Tomljanovich.  It says Tomanovic.

Page 35729

 1             MR. KARNAVAS:  Tomanovic.  It is Tomanovic.

 2             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  You wanted to say Tomanovic.

 3             MR. KARNAVAS:  Ms. Tomanovic, this is my co-counsel.

 4             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Okay, thank you.  I know, I know.  Okay.  It was

 5     surprising because --

 6             MR. KARNAVAS:  Not Mr. Tomljanovich, Ms. Tomanovic, my

 7     co-counsel.

 8             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You just said you need another

 9     15 minutes.  Does that mean that one of your colleagues will be giving

10     you 15 minutes?

11             MR. KARNAVAS:  Your Honour, in light of -- in light of the

12     abstinence of this particular witness, I'm going to need for time.  And

13     yesterday the Trial Chamber was rather generous having, you know, given

14     the -- the Stojic Defence additional time.  So I do need to cover a

15     couple of points because I do believe that it will assist the Trial

16     Chamber in clarifying certain matters, and if not, I will -- I will at

17     least want three minutes to make my offer of proof of the record of the

18     topics that I would be going into in the event I'm not given the time.

19     Okay.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Go ahead.

21             MR. KARNAVAS:  Thank you very much, Mr. President and

22     Your Honours.

23        Q.   If you look at paragraph 95 of your report, yesterday you made

24     reference to a document which is P 00646.  It's referenced in footnote

25     217 of your report where you claim, you know, if we look at the bottom

Page 35730

 1     part of page 44, Your Honours, you say:

 2             "The HVO Main Staff was responsible to the work to the president

 3     of the HZ HB as the supreme commander of the armed forces of the HZ HB

 4     and the Security Sector, in addition to the president of the HZ HB also

 5     to the president of the HVO."

 6             And you quote that document.  And I noticed yesterday you and

 7     counsel for Stojic were referring to the document as a work plan.  That

 8     document, sir, is it not -- does it not say "Proposal"?

 9     Document P 00646.  Is that not a proposal, sir, and not something that

10     has been adopted?

11        A.   That is correct, Mr. Karnavas.  This was a proposal, but I

12     believe I explained yesterday why I wrote what I did.

13        Q.   All right.  Now, can you point anywhere, sir, because I've looked

14     high, low, wide, and repeatedly, to find where at any of the sessions

15     this proposal was adopted?  Can you please point where, sir?  In which

16     session, at what time, this proposal was actually adopted?

17        A.   I did not see any session at which this proposal would have been

18     adopted, but I'm not sure that I saw all the documents from all the

19     sessions.

20        Q.   All right.

21        A.   And some minutes -- minutes from some of the sessions that I did

22     see were completely illegible.

23        Q.   All right.  Let's look at document P 04211.  And I believe you

24     make reference to this in paragraph 38 of your report.  And let's see

25     because now we're into who's responsible for SIS.  And when you're

Page 35731

 1     looking for the document, did you by any chance meet with Mr. Lucic?  Did

 2     you make an attempt to meet with him, he's also an historian, as I

 3     understand, to discuss under who -- under who he was reporting to?

 4        A.   You mean whether we meet concerning this particular topic?

 5        Q.   Yes.

 6        A.   There was no need to meet up --

 7        Q.   Okay.

 8        A.   -- he reported to the head.

 9        Q.   All right.  To -- you mean Mr. Stojic; right?

10        A.   Yes, to Mr. Stojic.

11        Q.   Okay.  So there's no doubt that SIS was under Mr. Stojic,

12     reported to Mr. Stojic, and Mr. Stojic was responsible for all their

13     work; correct?

14        A.   There is no doubt about that, Mr. Karnavas.

15        Q.   And of course if we look at Article 42, I won't go through all of

16     the articles, but 42 might be of an interest so we can actually see

17     who's -- who's on top of him.  Article 42, it talks about taping:

18              "In order to prevent illegal activity by a individual, group,

19     organisation, and foreign institutions, the service has resources to

20     covert taping in order to uncover, monitor, and document this activity."

21             If we go further down, we see that permission has to be obtained

22     by the head, that is Mr. Stojic; correct?  Not by the HVO, not by the

23     president of the HVO HZ HB, but by Mr. Stojic himself; correct?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   And if we look at Article 43 [Realtime transcript read in error,

Page 35732

 1     "17"] we see the same thing.  We see secret taping of telephones and

 2     other means of communications.  We see the same thing.

 3        A.   Approved by the president, yes.

 4        Q.   And --

 5             THE INTERPRETER:  Leave a pause between question and answer

 6     you're overlapping with the witness.

 7             MR. KARNAVAS:  My apologies.  My apologies.

 8        Q.   It says shall be approved by the head, not the president, by the

 9     head.  That means Mr. Stojic; correct?

10        A.   [No interpretation]

11        Q.   Beg your pardon?  You're going to speak louder so we can make a

12     record.  I want to make sure the interpreters can hear you.  So we're

13     talking about Mr. Stojic makes that decision; correct?

14        A.   Yes.  He was approving such taping.

15        Q.   And of course the same thing would go under Article 44 where it

16     talks about covert photographic and video recording; correct?

17        A.   That's correct.

18        Q.   Now, of course --

19             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Correct -- correct -- sorry, it's my time, not

20     your time.  Don't worry.  Correction to the transcript.  On page 32, line

21     3, reference is here written to Article 17.  I think it should be 43.

22             MR. KARNAVAS:  Yes, 43.

23             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you.

24             MR. KARNAVAS:

25        Q.   So if Mr. Stojic -- if SIS, for instance, decided that they

Page 35733

 1     wanted to tape record or photograph or videotape the president of the HVO

 2     or any member of the HVO, Mr. Stojic would be the one to make that

 3     authorisation; correct?

 4        A.   Maybe you could have mentioned a better example.  I'm not sure

 5     that he was in charge of approving it at that level, although from what

 6     it says here he could have decided even to tape President Boban.

 7        Q.   All right.  Now, if we look at P 00098.  P 00098.  And when you

 8     look at -- and while you're looking at that -- once you have it, let me

 9     know.  I have a couple of questions before I to ask you about the

10     document.

11        A.   [No interpretation]

12        Q.   Do you have it, sir?

13        A.   I have it, yes.

14        Q.   Was this document shown to you by Mr. Stojic?

15        A.   I saw several requests.  I'm not sure that this was one of them.

16     I saw several similar requests.

17        Q.   And when you --

18        A.   I cannot be 100 per cent sure that this is one.

19        Q.   And when you met with him to discuss your expertise did he by any

20     chance talk to you about his involvement in the financing of these sorts

21     of matters?  Financing of the military.

22             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise.  This

23     claim by my honourable colleague is just completely senseless.

24     Mr. Karnavas is asking did the counsel for Mr. Stojic show you any

25     documents showing -- indicating his participation in the financing.  This

Page 35734

 1     aggressive attitude by Mr. Karnavas shows -- first of all, wastes too

 2     much time, and now he's even starting to accuse.  So first of all, I need

 3     to protect Mr. Stojic because what Mr. Karnavas just said, I believe, is

 4     totally inappropriate:

 5             "Did Mr. Stojic's counsel show you the documents showing

 6     Mr. Stojic's activities regarding the financing of the HVO?"

 7             I'm only asking that we should all be correct.  So if

 8     Mr. Karnavas is trying to indicate that what Mr. Prlic signed was part of

 9     a collective decision that he might be as professional to make the same

10     claim for Mr. Stojic because Mr. Stojic was also the head of a collective

11     body.  So we cannot have two different attitudes here.  That's why I need

12     to object to this particular method of questioning, and I also need to

13     object to the additional time approved because then I will need to have

14     additional time in the future because just as you said, if I have two

15     binders, the Prosecution will have four.  So I will also need additional

16     time.

17             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] I would just need to make a

18     correction in the transcript.  I believe this is necessary for

19     Mr. Karnavas behalf and also for Your Honours.

20             On page 33, line 25, it is stated that Madam Nozica said that

21     Mr. Karnavas wastes too much time.  She, however, put it in different

22     phrase.  She said that with his aggressive attitude Mr. Karnavas is

23     trying to get more time from the Chambers for his cross-examination.  And

24     given that this particular remark regards also the attitude of the

25     Chambers, I would kindly ask you to take this into consideration.

Page 35735

 1             MR. KARNAVAS:  Your Honours, if I may briefly respond --

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] First of all, if there is a

 3     translation, let me say -- let me say the reason the Chamber granted time

 4     to Mr. Karnavas has nothing to do with whether or not he's being

 5     aggressive.

 6             Given Madam Nozica's objection, the witness had access to all of

 7     the documents in the archives that he consulted.  Perhaps he saw certain

 8     documents relating to financial matters proving that certain individuals

 9     were involved in the financing, and perhaps in the archives was to be

10     found the document that we have before us here; and therefore

11     Mr. Karnavas has found it in asking the question have you seen this

12     document, and if you've seen it, what can you say about it.

13             MR. KARNAVAS:  Thank you.

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas.

15             MR. KARNAVAS:

16        Q.   Did you go over this document with Mr. Stojic himself, sir, or

17     any other document, for that matter?

18        A.   I saw Mr. Stojic for 15 minutes altogether in my entire life, so

19     I did not go through any documents with him.

20        Q.   All right.  Now -- and is this the first time you see this

21     document?  If we look at it, sir, this is a --

22        A.   Most probably.

23        Q.   Okay.  This is a request for opening a non-residential account.

24     We see Mr. Stojic's name and signature.  We see Mr. Jelavic's signature.

25     Mr. Jelavic was -- held at some point the position that Mr. Stojic held,

Page 35736

 1     when Mr. Stojic was in Grude, when he was in logistics; correct?  That's

 2     the position that Ante Jelavic held?

 3        A.   Yes.  Ante Jelavic was in charge of the logistics at the Main

 4     Staff.

 5        Q.   And that's what Mr. Bruno Stojic was in charge of too when he was

 6     located in Grude, the same place that Mate Boban had his headquarters;

 7     correct?

 8        A.   Could you please explain that?

 9        Q.   Okay.

10        A.   Could you explain that question.

11        Q.   Well, the question is this and you make reference to it in your

12     report at that Mr. Stojic was head of the logistics of the HVO before he

13     became the head of the Department of Defence; correct?

14        A.   That's correct.

15        Q.   And that -- in the logistics centre, in the logistics centre was

16     located in Grude; correct?

17        A.   That's correct.

18        Q.   And Mate Boban is from Grude and his offices were in Grude;

19     correct?

20        A.   Yes.  He was born in Grude, and I believe his office was there.

21        Q.   Right.  Now -- we see one other signature under number 5, and

22     then we see somebody has sign for Mate Boban.  Do you see that where it

23     says, "za"?  It means for.  Do you see it?  And if you look at that

24     signature and look at number 1, Bruno Stojic's signature, do we not see

25     that Mr. Stojic has signed for Mr. Mate Boban?

Page 35737

 1        A.   This signature is rather similar to the signature in line 1 that

 2     was signed by Mr. Stojic.

 3        Q.   But we don't see signatures for the head of the finance

 4     department or the president of the HVO HZ HB for this non-residential

 5     account; correct?  For the opening of this non-residential account.

 6        A.   That's correct.

 7        Q.   Finally, if we go to a couple of documents, P 00586.  This is

 8     dated 17 October 1992.  We see this document is on principles of

 9     organisation of the Defence Department.  Have you had a chance to look at

10     this, sir?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   And would it be fair to say that when you look at it there is no

13     mentioning of the HVO HZ HB?

14        A.   In this document -- just a second, and I will be able to confirm

15     that.  No.

16        Q.   Right.  And did you have a chance to look at it beforehand, to

17     make a determination whether this was actually being applied?

18        A.   This is the decision on the basic principles of the organisation,

19     and on the basis of this decision Mr. Stojic signed a Decision on the

20     Organisation of the Department of Defence.  This document was dated the

21     15th of September, although we can see here the 17th of October is the

22     date, possibly that was the delivery date.  I can say that the document

23     that followed that was made on the basis of this document regulates

24     certain issues differently.

25        Q.   And if we look at P 02477.  This is the Decision on the Internal

Page 35738

 1     Organisation of the Defence Department dated 20 May 1993.  Surely you

 2     must have been given this document and shown this document; correct?  Do

 3     you have it, sir?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   If we look at the last page we see again the same signature that

 6     we saw on that non-residential account, very similar to both what was for

 7     Mr. Boban and what was for Mr. Stojic.  We also see a signature by

 8     Mate Boban.  Here we see his actual signature.

 9             If we look at this document again, sir, there is no mentioning of

10     the HVO HZ HB, is there?

11        A.   2477?  I should have it here.  In this document HVO HZ HB is

12     mentioned in item 8.

13        Q.   All right.  And how are they mentioned?

14        A.   This item refers to the defence administrations, and in paragraph

15     II it says that chiefs of defence administration are appointed by the HVO

16     of the HZ HB following the proposal by the head of defence.  I believe

17     this is the only time that the HVO HZ HB is mentioned in this document.

18             MR. BOS:  Your Honours, I may say that also in the preamble the

19     HZ HB is maybe mentioned.

20             MR. KARNAVAS:  It talks about the president of the HVO, and it

21     talks about the Croatian Community as opposed to the HVO HZ HB.

22             Very well.  All right.  Your Honours, I appreciate the extra time

23     being given to me.  I have no further questions for this particular

24     witness.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, in that case, it is time

Page 35739

 1     for the break.  It's 10.30.  We will have a 20-minute break.

 2                           --- Recess taken at 10.27 a.m.

 3                           --- On resuming at 10.57 a.m.

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Next counsel.

 5             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  On the concept use by

 6     Judge Antonetti earlier on "competence qualifiees [phoen]," the closest

 7     equivalent we've come up with is "qualified powers."  Or sometimes

 8     mandatory duty.  It means a decision which taken by somebody which has to

 9     be taken because certain conditions are met.

10             MR. KHAN:  Mr. President, Your Honours, just one very brief

11     matter for the record.  This morning we were handed by my learned friend

12     Mr. Scott a further Prosecution motion regarding the Bozic issue.  Just

13     on the record, on the bench are -- is the Defence response to that.  It's

14     just been filed and my learned friends have been served with a hard copy

15     of it just before Your Honours came in.

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

17             I think Mr. Praljak will be doing the questioning.

18     General Praljak, the floor is yours.

19             THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

20                           Cross-examination by the Accused Praljak:

21        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Marijan.

22        A.   Good morning, Mr. Praljak.

23        Q.   Due to the shortness of time, I formulated some questions that

24     will be very easy to answer, so for the mentioned reasons of time, please

25     are as concise as possible in your answers.  Could we see Exhibit P 00502

Page 35740

 1     on the screens, please.

 2             While we're waiting, let me ask you the following question:  The

 3     assistant brigade commander for SIS, did he report the brigade commander

 4     about his work as well as the SIS headquarters?

 5        A.   It was his duty to do so, both.

 6        Q.   Thank you.  Did you find any document stating that he would send

 7     a document about that to the Main Staff?

 8        A.   The assistant brigade commander was not in a position to do so.

 9        Q.   Did the assistant commander of the zone of operation for SIS also

10     collect these reports from the brigades and report to the commander of

11     the zone of operation as well as the SIS headquarters?

12        A.   That's what it should have been like.

13        Q.   Did you find any report submitted by the assistant for SIS in a

14     zone of operation that was submitted to the Main Staff?

15        A.   I cannot tell for sure.  I'm not sure.

16        Q.   Thank you.  That is sufficient.  Did you find any report made by

17     the SIS headquarters reporting to the Main Staff?

18        A.   The same question.  I'm not sure I saw anything of the kind.

19        Q.   Thank you.  Do -- does the same apply to the military police?

20     Did you find any documents stating or would show that the military police

21     reports to Main Staff about its activities?

22        A.   I believe not.

23        Q.   Let us look at the document.  The first two pages matter, namely

24     the structure of the Main Staff.  You may have seen them before.  So let

25     me ask you whether according to the organisational structure of the

Page 35741

 1     Main Staff there were any position forces or the military police,

 2     respectively?

 3        A.   This document from 1992, I believe, does not contain what you

 4     said.

 5        Q.   Do take a look at the first two pages, please.

 6             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Mr. Praljak, it seems that we have not been

 7     given these documents.  Am I correct, or something has gone wrong on the

 8     way?

 9             THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Since this document already

10     has an exhibit number, I --

11             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Mr. Praljak, you're sure aware that we cannot

12     work on the basis of sheer numbers.  We have decided that we want the

13     paper, and maybe it is in some other -- in one of the files that we have

14     already, but we have requested this, and we would like also to obtain it.

15             Ms. Alaburic.

16             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it is customary that

17     documents are not repeated if some documents were submitted to the

18     Chamber in the direct examination.  So this document should be in the set

19     of documents submitted by the Stojic Defence.

20             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Ms. Nozica, can you indicate where it is if it

21     is with your documents, and if so, where we can find it.

22             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I believe it is there, but I didn't

23     show it, as far as I remember.  I believe it is there.  I will make an

24     effort to find it.  I believe that our expert has found it because we had

25     it in the binder in the proofing.

Page 35742

 1             I'm sorry, this is -- I don't have the right to address you now,

 2     but could you tell the Chamber which document this is in the binder so as

 3     to enable the Judges to find it?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe it is the tenth document

 5     in binder 2.

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kovacic, I suppose you had

 7     a talk with General Praljak before he does the questioning.  I think that

 8     you knew he had the intent of referring to some documents.  You should

 9     have before the hearing have made copies of the documents because look at

10     all the papers I have behind me.  Look at this.  So that means that we

11     have to go fishing for documents.

12             Of course Mr. Praljak could say this document is in binder

13     number 2, et cetera, but we have an issue with this.  But let's move on.

14             THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] This is my mistake,

15     Your Honours.

16        Q.   Mr. Marijan, in the document -- in this document that you surely

17     know, mentions a position in the organisation of the Main Staff for SIS

18     or the police.

19        A.   The document dated 18 September 1992, does not have such

20     positions in the establishment.

21        Q.   In possible -- after possible changes of the organisational

22     structure of the Main Staff did you find any positions for the SIS or the

23     military police?

24        A.   I have not seen the second document about the organisational

25     structure of the Main Staff.  I know for sure that there was no position

Page 35743

 1     for the military police.  A few days after you were relieved from your

 2     duty, I know that there were two SIS officers there.

 3        Q.   Do you know that the headquarters of the military police daily

 4     issued a bulletin about their work and distributed it to about 15

 5     addresses in Herceg-Bosna?

 6        A.   I haven't seen that bulletin.

 7        Q.   Thank you.  Now about the document you saw yesterday.  We don't

 8     have to put it on the screen.  This is 2D 00944, dated 19/11/93, in which

 9     mention is made of a certain Mr. Bandic in the Main Staff.  We saw that

10     document yesterday, didn't we?

11        A.   I believe that there was another desk officer, but there was also

12     Mr. Bandic.

13        Q.   Let's stick to Mr. Bandic.  Based on that document, obviously, in

14     your report, in paragraph 39, toward the end of the paragraph, you state

15     the following:

16             "At the -- in the HVO Main Staff an assistant for SIS was no

17     longer envisaged by establishment in 1992."

18        A.   Correct.

19        Q.   "In the latter half of 1993, such a position must have exist."

20             I'm interested in this phrase "must have existed."  What is the

21     likelihood with which you can claim, based on the document dated 19/11/93

22     that there was a position in the latter half of 1992?  Or to put it

23     differently was he appointed two days earlier, five days earlier, a year

24     earlier, and what does this "must have" mean?  Is that certain or

25     probable?

Page 35744

 1        A.   I refer here to a document dated 2nd of September, 1993.  I don't

 2     know whether it is here, and that is the approval of the appointment of

 3     some officers.  I cannot say off the top of my head who it was, but there

 4     were several names.  And then there is this later document that you

 5     mentioned which can be interpreted either way, as you correctly say.

 6        Q.   Mr. Marijan, have you ever seen the appointment of that person to

 7     the Main Staff, the appointment, a document of appointment?

 8        A.   I do not remember having seen it.

 9        Q.   So can we draw the conclusion by which I will finish that since

10     you have not seen the appointment and since the position is not -- does

11     not exist in the organisational structure, which need not be particularly

12     significant, though, that you cannot state or claim with certainty that

13     he was there in the latter half of 1993?  You can suppose with some

14     degree of probability that he was there, but you could not claim,

15     certainly not for certain, that that was actually the case.  Do you agree

16     with me that this would be a logical conclusion?

17        A.   You are right to a great extent.  I do not remember this

18     document.  I refer to the document dated 2 September.

19        Q.   It's a document about -- which is a proposal, and there is no

20     document showing the appointment, so we cannot be sure that, at least

21     during the time while Praljak was there at the Main Staff, there was a

22     person in charge of SIS.  Do you agree?

23        A.   I would reformulate the sentence to say that in the latter half

24     of 1993, such a person was there.

25        Q.   Do you think so, or do you know that?

Page 35745

 1        A.   I know based on that document.

 2        Q.   Which document?

 3        A.   The documents dated 19/11/93.  In the Main Staff there is a SIS

 4     officer.

 5        Q.   That is a sort of weird logic.  He may have been appointed on the

 6     16th of November.  Please read the -- through the entire document.  What

 7     makes you draw the conclusion that the person was not there half a year

 8     earlier or a year earlier?  And even if a document says that he was

 9     there, which doesn't necessarily mean that it's indeed the case?

10             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Excuse me, Mr. Praljak.  That is not a bad will

11     of mine, but now you are asking the witness to read a document which is

12     not on the screen, which is -- I have not found anywhere, and this really

13     is not the way to work here.  Perhaps you can help me out.  I would be

14     grateful.  Thank you.

15             THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] 2D 00944, 2D 00944.

16        Q.   Mr. Marijan, please, where it says as of which time that person

17     should have been there in this document.  Show meet sentence from which

18     you draw the conclusion that the person was there in the latter half of

19     1993?

20        A.   Just a minute.

21             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] If I may help.  That document is in

22     my binder, in the middle -- in the middle of binder 1.  So if I can -- if

23     this is helpful for the witness or the Chamber.  It may be the 15th

24     document or so.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, the sentence you read

Page 35746

 1     out to me a minute ago, I refer to the document dated the 2nd of

 2     September about the appointment to the Main Staff.  I don't have that

 3     document here, but it isn't by chance that I refer to this document.  I

 4     don't know what it says by heart, but it mentioned eight or nine names.

 5     That can be easily found out.  And you are now confronting me with a

 6     document dated 19/11.

 7             THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   That document was shown yesterday, and based on that document you

 9     said that he was there in the latter half of 1993.  Even that document

10     from September is not the latter half of 1993.  And that document is not

11     an appointment but possibly a proposal, but we don't have that document

12     here so we can't discuss it.  So you see, I don't want to dwell on this

13     topic any longer.  My answer is completely satisfactory -- or your answer

14     is completely satisfactory to me, and I thank you for it.

15             This concludes my questions.

16             MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] For the sake of the accuracy of the

17     transcript, the witness in his report refers to a document dated 2/9/93,

18     and that document 2D 00928.  That document is -- is admitted as evidence.

19             THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] That document is -- does

20     not contain the same names.  Some people were there, then they went away,

21     and then some other people came, and this -- that's from where you draw

22     the conclusion of that person being there in the latter half of 1993.

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If I got it right, all the

24     Defence counsels have taken the floor.  So it is now Ms. Alaburic's turn.

25             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Not all the Defence teams have

Page 35747

 1     cross-examined yet, such as the Coric Defence, and they will be coming

 2     after me.

 3             Your Honours, I'd like to say good morning to everyone in the

 4     courtroom, to my learned friends and to Mr. Marijan.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning, Ms. Alaburic.

 6                           Cross-examination by Ms. Alaburic:

 7        Q.   In these proceedings, I'm going to cross-examine you on behalf of

 8     General Petkovic, who is my client and also on behalf of General Praljak

 9     who ceded part of his time to the Petkovic Defence.

10             I'd like to inform the Trial Chamber and also you, Mr. Marijan

11     that for the most part I'm going to deal with the topic of the

12     relationship between the head of the Defence Department and the armed

13     forces of the HZ HB, and the relationship between the head of -- I'm

14     repeating for the transcript the head of the Defence Department and the

15     armed forces of the HZ HB.  And if I have time left over, I'm going to

16     ask you some questions in order to clarify some of your answers.  For

17     example, the questions raised by Judge Trechsel because I consider that

18     those were important questions and that we owe a fuller explanation in

19     response to them.

20             Now, the provisions that I'm going to use and regulations are to

21     be found in the Defence binder, the Stojic Defence binder, which my

22     learned friend Ms. Nozica put an X to.  It was binder X.  And those will

23     be documents P 586, the Decision on the Establishment of the Defence

24     Department [Realtime transcript read in error, "company"], and I'm going

25     to deal with item 9 first and foremost which His Honour Judge Antonetti

Page 35748

 1     quite rightly qualified as the most important provision.  Let me repeat,

 2     the title was -- because it wasn't properly recorded in the transcript,

 3     it is the Decision to Establish the Organisational Structure of the

 4     Defence Department.

 5             It's not Defence company, it's Defence department.  Yes, Defence

 6     Department.  That's right.  And the following regulations will be the

 7     regulations governing the armed forces, number P 289 from May 1992 --

 8     July 1992, and P 588, dated October 1992.

 9             Now, my binder has been ordered in the following way:  The

10     documents are in the order in which I'll be showing them.

11             Mr. Marijan, it is not my aim, at least not in this first set of

12     documents, to discuss the contents of those documents with you, but what

13     I'm interested in is whether you were familiar with those documents.

14             Now, to begin with let me just check my understanding of your

15     report.  If I understood you correctly and understood your report

16     correctly, you compiled it on the basis of analysing provisions and an

17     analysis of certain orders, decisions, minutes, records, and similar

18     documents.  Have I understood that correctly?

19        A.   Yes, you have understood it correctly.

20        Q.   Now, before I start asking you my questions, I'd like an

21     explanation.  In paragraphs 119 and 120 of your report, you speak about

22     the responsibilities and authority of the Defence Department with respect

23     to military prison and detention centres, and those paragraphs you place

24     in the section which is titled "Military -- compulsory military service,

25     compulsory military service."

Page 35749

 1             Now, I'd like to ask you to explain to us whether this is a

 2     mistake, or did you do this intentionally in order for this to escape the

 3     reader?

 4        A.   This was a mistake.  It should be employee relationships.

 5        Q.   I have to ask you to explain that term.  Do you mean it has to do

 6     with employee relations?

 7             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.  Microphone.

 8             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] My microphone seems to be on.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I don't know where else I

10     would place that.

11             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]

12        Q.   I have to repeat my question.  You mentioned employee

13     relationships.  Now my question is that under that term do you imply the

14     authority of the head of the Defence Department over prisoners of war,

15     military prisons, military detention centres?  Just give me a yes or no

16     answer.  We don't have much time to go into explanations.  Just yes or

17     no, please.  Have I understood you correctly?  Is that what you think?

18        A.   Well, yes, that would be the closest.

19        Q.   Very well.  Now, in view of the fact that my colleague Ms. Nozica

20     emphasised that you're not a lawyer and you're not qualified to interpret

21     provisions and regulations, I'm not going to ask you about regulations

22     for the time being, but I am going to ask you about individual decisions.

23     Now, yesterday and this is reported on page 75 of the transcript, said

24     that the head of the Defence Department was not in the chain of command;

25     is that right?

Page 35750

 1        A.   That was my conclusion, yes, having conducted an analysis of the

 2     documents.

 3        Q.   And on that same page you said that you hadn't seen a single

 4     document on the basis of which one would be able to conclude that the

 5     Defence Department was in the chain of command of armed forces.  Is that

 6     what you said?

 7        A.   I think that's what I said, yes.

 8        Q.   Very well.  Now I'd like us to go on to the next set of

 9     documents, and please just tell me whether you knew about the document,

10     were familiar with them, or not.  And the first document is P 600.  The

11     contents of the document is not what interests us now.  P 00600 is the

12     document number.

13             So take a look at that document in my binder.  We'll take the

14     documents in the order they've been put into the binder.  Keep it in

15     front of you because we're going to need the ELMO.

16             So this then is a document dated the 18th of October, 1992,

17     Bruno Stojic, and he is calling upon the commander of the Central Bosnia

18     operative zone to a meeting.  Now, tell me, did you know that

19     Bruno Stojic had direct communication with the commanders of the

20     operative zones and that he called them to attend meetings and quite

21     obviously talked to them?

22        A.   I am familiar with the document.  You said we weren't to go into

23     the contents, but, yes, those are the contents.

24        Q.   The next document is P 00619.  It's a report by the military

25     police administration for the 22nd of October, 1992, and at the beginning

Page 35751

 1     of the second paragraph it says, and I quote:

 2             "Pursuant to an order from the [as interpreted] Defence

 3     Department and based on a decision by the Presidency of the HVO, during

 4     the day we took the following facilities in town:  The post office

 5     building, the MUP centre, the police station, and we stopped the work of

 6     Radio Mostar."

 7             I'd like to make a correction in line 19.  The word "head" was

 8     left out.  So the sentence reads:

 9             "Pursuant to an order from the head of the Defence Department."

10             Now, I'd like to know whether the head of the Defence Department

11     issued such orders.

12        A.   This document is familiar to me.  That's what I can tell you.

13        Q.   All right.  Fine.  Now, the third document I'd like to look at is

14     P 00799.  The document is dated the 25th of November, 1992.  Bruno Stojic

15     is issuing an order to the commander of the Rama Brigade and to the

16     commander of the Military Police Platoon in Prozor as well as to the

17     commander of the Military Police Battalion to report to the offers of the

18     head of the Defence Department.  Now, do you know that Bruno Stojic

19     issued such orders and had direct communication with the commanders of

20     the brigades and also the commanders of certain military police units?

21        A.   Yes, I'm familiar with that document.

22        Q.   The next document is P 00804.  The document is dated the 25th

23     November, 1993.  Once again Bruno Stojic is issuing an order to the Bruno

24     Busic Regiment to redeploy, to be transferred.  Now, do you know that

25     Bruno Stojic issued certain units of the HVO orders of this kind?

Page 35752

 1        A.   I am familiar with this document, yes.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  Now, the next document is P 01098.  It is an order

 3     from Bruno Stojic, date the 11th of January, 1993.  And in the lower half

 4     we see that the order was sent to the commanders of the operative zones,

 5     the commanders of the brigades, and the military police administration.

 6     And this order prohibits persons to -- in uniform and bearing arms to

 7     move around.

 8             Now, do you know that Bruno Stojic issued orders of this kind

 9     directly to the commanders of the armed forces?

10        A.   Yes, I am familiar with that document.

11        Q.   Now, the next document is P 1140.  It is Bruno Stojic's order of

12     the 15th of January, 1993, and here -- well, the document -- this is a

13     document we've seen in this courtroom quite frequently.  It is a document

14     by which Bruno Stojic orders the main -- certain activities to the

15     Main Staff and orders the resubordination of certain units to the army of

16     Bosnia-Herzegovina.

17             I don't want to go into this document in detail.  We're all very

18     familiar with it, but are you familiar with the document.  Have you ever

19     seen it before?

20        A.   Yes, I have seen this document.

21        Q.   The next document is 4D 348.  It is a report from

22     Colonel Miro Andric, and we'll see what post he held, what position he

23     held.  It is directly addressed to Bruno Stojic, and in the first

24     paragraph it says as follows:

25             "Following a verbal order from the head of the Defence Department

Page 35753

 1     of the HZ HB, Mr. Bruno Stojic, on the 12th of January, 1993, I went to

 2     carry out a mission in Prozor with the objective of calming the situation

 3     in the Gornji Vakuf municipality."

 4             Tell us, please, Mr. Marijan, did you know that Bruno Stojic

 5     issued oral orders of this type and have you seen the document?

 6        A.   Yes.  Well, I've seen several reports from Mr. Andric.  He was

 7     deputy head of the Main Staff at the time, but I cannot say with

 8     certainty that I have actually seen this document; but I have seen some

 9     of his documents whether I've seen this one I'm not quite sure.

10        Q.   Now, in view of the fact that in the transcript not -- your

11     answer hasn't been translated.  He was the deputy head of the Main Staff;

12     is that right?

13        A.   Yes, I think that's right.

14        Q.   Let's look at the next document, P 1316.  And it's an order from

15     Bruno Stojic to all the operative zones and military police

16     administrations to let through the vehicles of -- carrying humanitarian

17     aid and their convoys.  Now, did you see this -- have you seen this order

18     ever and similar ones sent to the armed forces?

19        A.   I think we looked at this document yesterday because it's

20     included in my report.

21        Q.   Fine.  Now look at the next document which is 2D 00984.  I think

22     that you have already seen the document and it -- that it's mentioned in

23     your report, but let's check it out.

24        A.   I think so, yes.

25        Q.   Now take a look at document 2D 00439.  It is a document dated the

Page 35754

 1     20th of May, 1993, Bruno Stojic, first of all, is seeking complete data

 2     on the situation in Tuzla and Brcko, a complete report on the situation

 3     there; and then from the Zrinjski 115th Brigade, he receives an answer

 4     from the commander.  Have you seen this document before?

 5        A.   I'm not quite sure, but I would rather say yes than no.

 6             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the Judge's microphone be switched off,

 7     please.  Thank you.

 8             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   Now, P 3146 is the next document.  The document is one from

10     Bruno Stojic.  It is dated the 3rd of July 1993.  It is sent to the

11     Petar Kresimir Brigade in Livno or, rather, Livno.  It is the brigade

12     that you were in too; right?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   So Bruno Stojic here says or, rather, orders that the military

15     police from -- that the Livno military police be relocated to Mostar.

16     Did you know that Bruno Stojic issued such orders on the relocation of

17     certain units of the armed forces depending on the situation on the

18     ground?

19        A.   Well, that question would merit a longer comment but you're

20     asking me whether I've seen the document or not, so, yes, I have.

21        Q.   Now look at the next document which is P 05232, 05232 is the

22     correct number.  The document has the status of exhibit.  It is an order

23     from Bruno Stojic dated the 20th of September, 1993, and it says due to

24     these newly arisen situation in Mostar, Buna, Zitomislic, and Capljina,

25     Bruno Stojic orders that all human and material resources be engaged in

Page 35755

 1     all free military and civilian police forces, hunting associations and

 2     other free forces in these areas and be placed under the command of the

 3     commander of the 1st Brigade or at the time sector of the South-eastern

 4     Herzegovina operation zone that is to say Colonel Obradovic.

 5             Tell us, have you ever seen this order before?

 6        A.   Yes, I have.

 7             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreters note there is a lot of

 8     interference in the courtroom and it is difficult to hear the speaker.

 9     Thank you.  It's been put right.

10             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   The next document is 41183 a document in which Bruno Stojic

12     directly sends the commander of the -- is sent to the commander of the

13     brigade in Zepce.  Do you know that Bruno Stojic had direct

14     communication -- let me repeat the number of the document 4D -- 4D, D as

15     in Dubrovnik, 1183.

16        A.   Yes, I have seen this document.

17        Q.   Does that mean that you knew that Bruno Stojic had direct

18     communication with the brigade commanders?

19        A.   Yes, I did know that.

20        Q.   All right, fine.  Now let us look at one more document.  These

21     were taken at random as examples.  The document is P 06364.  And it is a

22     report from the Commander Ivica Rajic directly to Bruno Stojic.  You say

23     you knew about this?  Have you seen this document before?

24        A.   I think I have.

25        Q.   All right.  Fine.  Now, if I can conclude on the basis of all

Page 35756

 1     that, Mr. Marijan, most of these documents, almost all of them, in fact,

 2     are familiar.  You have seen them before; right?

 3        A.   With the exception of that one report from Mr. Andric which I'm

 4     not sure about, I can say that I've seen all the others.

 5        Q.   Now tell me, please, documents have you seen other similar

 6     documents?

 7        A.   I think there's some more, yes.

 8        Q.   I'd now like to ask you to go back to a statement you made

 9     yesterday and recorded on page 75 of the transcript when you said that

10     you hadn't seen a single document on the basis of which you would be able

11     to conclude that the Defence Department was in the chain of command over

12     the armed forces.

13             Now, tell us, Mr. Marijan, whether you stand by that position and

14     that conclusion of yours or on the basis of all the documents I've put to

15     you and the others that you mentioned, you could perhaps revise your

16     conclusion?

17        A.   Well, it's like this:  I can't remember with absolute certainty

18     what came before that statement of mine, those words of mine, but when I

19     say chain of command, I mean --

20        Q.   I'll go into that later.  Don't tell me what you mean and imply

21     by the chain of command.  Just tell me whether you stand by the statement

22     you made yesterday or rather the conclusion that you made yesterday, and

23     in due course we'll go into your understanding of the chain of command.

24        A.   Well, can we first analyse what I mean when I say chain of

25     command, what I imply by that.

Page 35757

 1        Q.   Well we're not going to analyse what you mean by chain of

 2     command.  We're going to analyse what the chain of command, in fact, is.

 3     Very well.  Now, in the second portion of my documents or binder

 4     beginning with the sectors in the Defence Department, look at

 5     document 4D 12 --

 6             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise but the

 7     witness has just been shown a sequence of documents, a set of documents,

 8     and I'm afraid that any comment is lacking about this series of

 9     documents; and I think the witness said at one point that one of the

10     documents would deserve further comment so either I -- I suggest he

11     either be asked questions on this sequence of documents, or we're going

12     to go through documents and not come to a question because this way on

13     the record we just have the witness saying he was familiar with the

14     documents.

15             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Might I respond to my learned

16     friend Ms. Nozica.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Alaburic, you have

18     presented to a series of witnesses and you said well, Witness I'm

19     presenting a number of documents that indicate such and such, et cetera

20     and do you agree with the following conclusion that can be drawn from

21     examining these documents; and then you go on and explain, and then the

22     witness says, "I agree," or, "I don't agree."  Well, I think it might

23     have been useful to do so.

24             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I only wanted to

25     evaluate the statement that the witness made that he had not seen any

Page 35758

 1     document which would include the head of the Department of Defence into

 2     the chain of command.  I believe that on the basis of these documents we

 3     can make a different conclusion, and I simply wanted to check whether the

 4     witness was familiar with these documents or not.

 5             We now know that the witness did see these documents, so the

 6     question is simply whether he stands by his conclusion that the head of

 7     department, Bruno Stojic, was still not within the chain of command or

 8     not; and the witness said that first of all we should discuss what the

 9     witness -- what the chain of command actually means.  So given that this

10     is my cross-examination, please allow me now in the continuation to talk

11     about that chain of command, and I would kindly ask my learned colleague

12     Ms. Nozica to stick to the procedure, rules of procedure, and if she has

13     any objection to any question to object in appropriate time nobody

14     interfered with her questioning, so I would kindly ask her not to

15     interfere with her colleague's.

16             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, there is no need to be

17     nervous.  I am not interfering with anybody.  I understood very well what

18     Madam Alaburic just said.  She showed a range of documents to see whether

19     the witness will stand by his statement that Mr. Stojic was within the

20     chain of command or not.  I simply lacked that question.  And just as

21     Madam Alaburic said it is her conclusion that he was within the chain of

22     command, but I believe that neither her nor my conclusion are relevant

23     for this Court but, rather, the conclusions made by the witness, and this

24     is why I interfered; but I will try to keep my interferes as least as

25     possible.

Page 35759

 1             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please continue.

 2             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honour,

 3     we will come back to this conclusion after the next set of documents.

 4        Q.   Could you please now look at the scheme 4D 128, and I would

 5     kindly ask the usher to put this on the ELMO.  I would like to thank our

 6     law assistant, Mr. Lazic, who prepared this one and a range of other

 7     schemes that we prepared for you, Mr. Marijan.  So this -- the

 8     document 4D 1280.

 9             Mr. Marijan, this is something that we prepared for you in order

10     to be able to go very quickly through certain issues without losing too

11     much time on reading the documents, interpreting them and so on.  Could

12     you please take a look at the schematic.  It should show various bodies

13     of Herceg-Bosna at the level of the entire Herceg-Bosna which had certain

14     powers over the defence.  This document was prepared on the basis of the

15     Decree on the Armed Forces, and the structure, the organisational

16     structure of the Defence Department was made on the basis of the

17     document P 586, and I believe that everything that you testified about in

18     the past two days, and that is included into your report, is included

19     into the schematic as well.  If you, however, can find any mistakes,

20     please take a pen and cross out whatever you believe needs to be cross

21     out.

22        A.   Your Honours, I believe that this organisational structure has

23     been presented very well.

24        Q.   The copy that you have on the ELMO, could you please put your

25     signature and today's date on it, and I would kindly ask an IC number for

Page 35760

 1     this document.

 2        A.   [Marks] I can sign it anywhere?

 3        Q.   Yes.

 4        A.   [Marks]

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation]  Can we have a number?

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honour, the document will shall be given

 7     Exhibit IC 00904.  Thank you, Your Honours.

 8             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   Before we go into any further details, Mr. Marijan, can we just

10     repeat some things which I believe are very important.  Yesterday you

11     stated that --

12             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I'm sorry if I intervened.  There's something I

13     don't quite understand.  In your binder, Ms. Alaburic, this document

14     figures under 4D 01280, and now you are asking an IC number for it.

15     Which of the two?  Normally there should not be two numbers for the same

16     document.

17             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, is there a

18     possibility that the witness will intervene with some of these

19     schematics.  This is why we wanted to have a 4D number for the schematics

20     prepared by us and an IC number for the schematic on which the witness

21     made some corrections or if he -- even if he did not make any corrections

22     with his signature he shows that he approves with such a schematic.

23             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I can -- I can follow.  One doesn't do it with

24     documents.  One could with the same logic one could say every document

25     the witness says, "I've seen it," ask him to put a signature.  Isn't it a

Page 35761

 1     bit of loss of time and an unnecessary formality which also may lead to

 2     confusion with having two numbers for the same document?  I would suggest

 3     that we do not proceed in this way.

 4             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] All right, Your Honour.  I fully

 5     accept your suggestion, and this is why I shall continue as follows:  If

 6     the witness believes that a schematic is incorrect and he makes an

 7     intervention, then I will ask for an IC number for that particular

 8     schematic.  So I will give up on my request for an IC number for this

 9     particular schematic and once again I'm very grateful for this useful

10     comment by Judge Trechsel.

11             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you.  And I -- I appreciate you --

12             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

13             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Yes.  Thank you.  I appreciate your cooperation.

14             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]

15        Q.   Mr. Marijan, you told us yesterday that a sector assistants were

16     directly responsible to the head of Department of Defence; is that

17     correct?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   Yesterday, you explained what were the tasks of particular

20     sectors belonging to the Department of Defence.  So we can conclude that

21     this fell under the remit of the assistants.

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   We could see that apart from the tasks mentioned here from your

24     report it results that the Department of Defence also had certain other

25     powers, for example, when it comes to military prisoners and prisoners of

Page 35762

 1     war; is that correct?

 2        A.   I believe that none of these provisions mentioned the position of

 3     the POWs, but certain -- given that there are certain characteristic

 4     documents by Mr. Stojic, there is also the Decision on the Establishment

 5     of Military Prisons.

 6        Q.   So apart from the Decision on the Organisational Structure of the

 7     Sectors, there are some other regulations regulating different tasks of

 8     the Department of Defence; is that correct?

 9        A.   Yes.  There are several other regulations.

10        Q.   Can you tell us, does this mean that there are certain issues

11     falling under the military law area that have also been included into the

12     remit of the Department of Defence?

13        A.   I can't remember having seen any regulations including that

14     particular area.

15        Q.   Given that Their Honours are very familiar with this, I would not

16     like to waste any time on this.  Let us now try to analyse the decision

17     on basic principles of the Department of Defence.  This is binder X and

18     the document is P 586, and point 9, which just as

19     His Honour Judge Antonetti said is crucial for the topic of your report.

20             You have this decision in front of you?

21        A.   Yes, I do.

22        Q.   I'm particularly interested, and I would kindly ask you to give

23     us your understanding, because your understanding, regardless of whether

24     you are qualified to provide a legal interpretation or not, your answer

25     will enable us to evaluate properly your report.  So please give us your

Page 35763

 1     understanding of the last two paragraphs of the item 9.  I will quote the

 2     first of these paragraph:

 3              "Within the remit of the specific authorities of the president

 4     of the HZ HB, the head of the Department of Defence is subordinated

 5     to" --

 6             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreters apologise, but we do not see

 7     this document, so if the counsel could kindly read again.

 8             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   So:

10             "Within the remit of the concrete and specific tasks of the

11     president of the HZ HB the chief of Main Staff is superior to the command

12     of the HVO."

13             Could you kindly give us your interpretation of this provision.

14        A.   Well, I believe -- first of all, I would like to determine the

15     time when this was made.

16        Q.   Please do not.  Please give us your understanding of this

17     provision.  So the Chief of the Main Staff, in which parts is he superior

18     to the command of the HVO?

19        A.   Well, the Chief of the Main Staff is superior to the command of

20     the HVO when it comes to some specific and concrete powers.

21        Q.   Given to him by whom?

22        A.   Given to him by the president of the Croatian Community of

23     Herceg-Bosna.  That is Mr. Boban.

24        Q.   Tell us, the Chief of the Main Staff, could he do anything else

25     apart from this general and specific powers given by the president of the

Page 35764

 1     HZ HB?

 2        A.   Generally speaking, he shouldn't.

 3        Q.   Please take a look at the beginning of this provision.  Can the

 4     Chief of the Main Staff do any things for which he would respond to the

 5     head of the Department of Defence?

 6             JUDGE PRANDLER:  [Microphone not activated]

 7             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   Could you see -- take a look at the beginning of item 9.

 9        A.   I thought this is what you had in mind.  Well, here in this

10     item 9 we have a list of issues for which the Chief of the Main Staff

11     responds to the head of the Department of Defence.  We can see it in the

12     third paragraph.  So my understanding is this is what it refers to.

13        Q.   So I will repeat my question:  Can the Chief of the Main Staff

14     carry out any tasks for which he's not authorised by the president of the

15     HZ HB but for which he would be authorised by, for example, the head of

16     Department of Defence?

17        A.   Well, from what you've just read to me, I can conclude that the

18     Chief of the Main Staff only carries out the tasks that he's authorised

19     to carry out by the president of the HZ HB.

20        Q.   Mr. Marijan, there is no word "only "anywhere here.  It only says

21     that in these issues the Chief of the Main Staff will be superior to the

22     command of the Croatian Defence Council.  So one of the techniques for

23     interpretation of legal texts is that in all other issues, the Chief of

24     the Main Staff is not superior to the command of the HVO.

25             Although you're not qualified to interpret the law, could you

Page 35765

 1     tell us whether you've heard of such a possibility and whether such an

 2     interpretation would be agreeable to you?

 3        A.   I cannot remember that I've heard of it.

 4        Q.   Can we take a look at the following paragraph, which is directly

 5     linked to the previous one, and it says:

 6             "The brigade commanders shall be subordinated and responsible to

 7     the president of the HZ HB as the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces

 8     and to the head of the Defence Department and Chief of the Main Staff

 9     within the scope of their responsibilities in accordance with the powers

10     described above."

11             Mr. Marijan, let us see what is your interpretation of this

12     provision.  Does it follow from this provision that the brigade

13     commanders always and in everything are subordinated and responsible to

14     the president of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna as the

15     Commander-in-Chief?

16        A.   Yes, we could conclude that.

17        Q.   Can we conclude that at lower levels, the responsible people are

18     either the head of the Defence Department or the Chief of the Main Staff

19     depending on the issue at hand or, rather, whether a question comes

20     within the remit of the head of the Defence department or whether it

21     comes within the remit of the Chief of the Main Staff?

22        A.   Well, looking at all -- the whole of this item, the upper part of

23     the paragraph, they are -- and from this, it does not follow that they

24     are responsible to the head of the Defence Department.

25        Q.   Mr. Marijan, I'm asking you this at the level of literacy,

Page 35766

 1     general literacy without any legal interpretation.  The sentence begins:

 2             "The brigade commanders shall be subordinate and responsible to

 3     the president of the HZ HB," and then it says, "and to the head and chief

 4     of the main -- head of the Defence Department, Chief of the Main Staff

 5     within the scope of their responsibilities."

 6             Now my concrete question is are the brigade commanders

 7     subordinate and responsible to the head of the Defence Department

 8     according to his remit?

 9        A.   Of course they are, yes.  So my answer is yes.  Yes, they are.

10        Q.   All right fine now we're going to try and look -- see that

11     together to see what actually happened in practice, to take a look at

12     that together.  And look at the next schematic which relates to the

13     Health Sector the document is 4D 1285.  And I'd like the document to be

14     placed on the ELMO as well, please.  The schematic was compiled on the

15     basis of the Stojic Defence, which you -- on their documents.  We just

16     added the operative zones because in that document they have been left

17     out.  So would you now take a look at that document and either confirm

18     this structure for the health centre or make any corrections if you feel

19     that is necessary.

20        A.   The only thing that I can say here, my only comment as far as the

21     Health Sector is concerned, is that what is lacking here is the

22     assistant, assistant head of the health department.  So I think the

23     chiefs of the Medical Corps and so on would come under him.

24        Q.   Can you write that in?  Put "Assistant," and then draw the

25     connecting lines that you think apply?

Page 35767

 1        A.   [Marks]

 2        Q.   You now linked one of the services to him, the care service.

 3        A.   What do you mean?

 4        Q.   The care service to the assistant.

 5        A.   No, I didn't do that.  I linked the Medical Corps and the units

 6     in the brigades.

 7        Q.   So you mean the blue part?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   Then link that blue section directly to the assistant.

10        A.   [Marks]

11        Q.   Thank you.  Now, in keeping with our agreement, may we have an IC

12     number for this document, please.

13             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I'm not going to interrupt my

14     colleague, but there's been a request from my client.  We have this

15     schematic only in English on our screens, and I think it would be a

16     better idea --

17             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Yes, the ELMO is in Croatian.

18     It's in Croatian on the ELMO.

19             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] All right.  Fine.  I apologise, but

20     that request came in from my client.

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Nozica [as interpreted],

22     I'm a bit lost, because earlier on you requested the document be given an

23     IC number and the Chamber asked the registrar to give that number.  I

24     think it was 904.  My colleague took the floor to point out to you that

25     there was an issue because this number had already been given, and there

Page 35768

 1     could be a confusion regarding these two numbers.  So the Chamber decided

 2     to withdraw that number.  Now there's 4D 1285, 4D 1285.  So there is

 3     already a number, but now you want an IC number, so I no longer

 4     understand.

 5             Fine.  Since there is a change, a new number is provided.  But

 6     when -- or during the deliberations on the judgement, we'll have to

 7     juggle with all the documents, so we'll give an IC number, but, registrar

 8     you have to remove the first number 904, if I'm not mistaken and give 904

 9     to that particular document and we have to juggle all the time between

10     the two.

11             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honour, in line with your decision, this

12     current document shall now be assigned Exhibit IC 00904.  Thank you, Your

13     Honours.

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.

15             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]

16        Q.   Mr. Marijan, you made this intervention just now because, if I

17     understood you correctly, what you wanted to say is this:  That the parts

18     of the Defence Department in the Health Sector which were within the

19     armed forces -- I apologise.  Let me repeat the question.  I didn't

20     formulate it properly.  That parts of the Medical Corps, the Medical

21     Corps service in the armed forces, had direct communication with the

22     assistant head of the Defence Department for health; is that right?

23        A.   My intervention was as follows and should be understood in the

24     following way:  I didn't deal with the Health Sector in any great detail

25     because as far as I understood it the then-assistant will be coming in,

Page 35769

 1     but it's not logical judging on all similar solutions, that is to say the

 2     security service, how that is set up, or morale or moral guidance to

 3     link -- we're dealing with the head of the Medical Corps of the operative

 4     zone, I mean it's logical that he is linked to the assistant.

 5        Q.   What is important for me now, Mr. Marijan, is for us to try and

 6     see the direct communication between the Health Sector and the armed

 7     forces, that line.  So look at document P 4145, the next document now,

 8     please.

 9             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Excuse me, Ms. Alaburic.  I would like to have

10     something clarified.

11             Witness, Mr. Marijan, you have also struck out the line that

12     connected the care service for the wounded and it's chief to the -- what

13     I will call blue zone, for simplification.  Have I understood at that

14     correctly?  According to you, it's not the case that this chief of care

15     service was responsible for the blue sector, but it was the deputy from

16     Ocnic [phoen] of the assistant for the health, the chief assistant for

17     health?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, well, we're dealing

19     with logic here and looking at the logics in the security service in the

20     Political Activities Department and so on that where the commanders or

21     assistant chiefs in the operative zones from the Defence Department who

22     have their headquarters or something like that, that they are responsible

23     to the assistant head for that particular sector and not some other

24     service.

25             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Excuse me, Witness.  I must strictly and

Page 35770

 1     strongly contradict.  We are not dealing nor interested in logic.  We

 2     want to know what was actually the case, and if you make a guess based on

 3     a logical conclusion, then it is a guess, and it is not testimony on a

 4     fact.  I hope that the distinction is clear.  So what are the facts, not

 5     what would logically be the case.

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, my colleague is quite

 7     right.  We're here to ascertain facts and not theories and precisely

 8     since you wear two hats:  You're an expert and you're in the field.  So

 9     you're best placed to understand the question I'm about to ask.  I can

10     see that according to this document in operation areas brigades had their

11     own physicians, and you will tell us in your brigade there was a

12     physician?  Yes or no?

13        A.   Well, the brigade had a number of doctors within the Medical

14     Corps.

15             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.  The brigade has several

16     physicians.  Imagine perhaps you were involved in combat activities.

17     Imagine that you need to make arrangements in case soldiers get wounded

18     to provide treatment to soldiers who are wounded during combatting

19     activities.  If the brigade commander realises that the number of doctors

20     available is not sufficient, I presume that in the traditional chain of

21     command, he will ask the operational area commander for support so that

22     other areas, possibly present in the area, provide their doctors.

23             But imagine that there is a shortage of either doctors or

24     ambulances.  Will the commander of the operational area call the deputy

25     of the ministry of defence in charge of health to tell him that there

Page 35771

 1     will be an operation in three days' time, We're going to deploy 3.000

 2     men.  It's like that we will have casualties, wounded or dead, and we

 3     lack medical logistical resources.  Could you make sure that some support

 4     is provided to us?

 5             And in such a case is it the deputy in the yellow square here

 6     making that decision?  It is a specific example I'm putting to you.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, Your Honour, that's how

 8     things should be and that's how things must be.  So in this case of a

 9     brigade not having enough men or the Medical Corps not having the

10     resources needed to tackle the situation on the battleground, then the

11     chief of the Medical Corps asks assistance and reinforcement from his

12     superior, the head of the Medical Corps in the operative zone.  But if he

13     can't respond, then it goes further and assistance is sought from the

14     Medical Corps Sector -- or, rather, the Health Sector because they have

15     these services.

16             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.  I agree with what you

17     say.  This is sheer military logic, but have you seen documents showing

18     that such situations actually arose which would substantiate the diagram

19     we have in front of us between the blue and the yellow, or is this just a

20     theoretical diagram and you have not seen yourself an instance of this?

21             Please allow the witness to answer.

22             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with your permission

23     I have a document here --

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Hold on, Mrs. Alaburic.  I'm

25     asking a question which has to do with credibility which is very

Page 35772

 1     important, so don't disturb him and let him answer.  My question is very

 2     straight forward.  What we have this flow chart, you have the schematic

 3     of the chain of command, and I'm asking him if he's seen documents

 4     demonstrating that at some stage the commander of the operational area

 5     asked the deputy of the Department of Defence for logistical support.

 6     The answer would be yes.

 7             What is your answer, Witness?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Mrs. Alaburic, before

 9     we started this discussion, opened a document which is the reverse of the

10     situation.  It doesn't go from the operative zone up to the sector but

11     the other way round, from the sector down.  It's this feedback mechanism.

12             So this was an example which can illustrate the point and support

13     it.  And I have to say that I didn't deal with the Medical Corps much.

14     Military matters were what I focus on, but I know this from my own

15     experience, although at the time I was within the operative zone and I

16     know that that's how we function, that hierarchy was respected.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.  Mrs. Alaburic, I give

18     you the floor, and you could perhaps complement this.

19             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I didn't want to

20     interfere in the witness's answer to your question.  I just wanted to

21     draw your attention to the fact that we are going to look at a number of

22     documents to deal with this, but before we go into them just tell me,

23     Mr. Marijan, the diagram that we just looked at, does it correspond to

24     the diagram 2D 00752 which you used in compiling your report and to which

25     you refer in the footnotes?  It looks different in graphical terms, but

Page 35773

 1     organisationally speaking is what I'm asking you about.  If you don't

 2     know what I mean and can't see the diagram in your mind now -- you don't

 3     remember it?  2D, do you, that particular one?

 4        A.   No.  You mean the previous diagram?

 5        Q.   From the Stojic Defence, the diagram that you used in preparing

 6     your report.  But let's move on as we haven't got much time,

 7     unfortunately, document P 4145 is the next one I'd like us to look at,

 8     and it speaks of direct communication between the assistant head of the

 9     Defence Department and the armed forces.  I'm not interested for the

10     moment in the contents of the document.  All I'm interested in is whether

11     you can confirm that the Health Sector had direct communication with the

12     services -- the health services in the operative zones and other units.

13        A.   I think that that is evident from this document, especially to

14     whom it is addressed.

15        Q.   Now, the next document is P 1417, and it is an order from

16     Bruno Stojic, dated February 1993, and it relates to missing persons and

17     captured persons sent to the operative zone commanders and chief of the

18     Medical Corps in the brigades and operative zones, and apart from

19     Bruno Stojic it was signed by his assistant, Bagaric.

20             Now, does this document confirm direct communication between the

21     Defence Department and the brigades when it comes to the Medical Corps,

22     Medical Corps issues?

23        A.   Yes, it does.

24        Q.   Next document, P 1428.  Again Bagaric and Stojic direct

25     communication within the zones of operation and brigades.  This document

Page 35774

 1     also confirms the existence of their communication.  Isn't that the case?

 2        A.   Yes, it is.

 3        Q.   If we were to try and define the chain of command in the area of

 4     health in accordance with paragraph 9 of the Decree on the Internal

 5     Organisation of the Department of Defence, would we be right to say that

 6     the health service is within the remit of the Department of Defence and

 7     that brigade commanders with respect to that were accountable to the head

 8     of the Department of Defence?

 9        A.   Could you please repeat the latter part of your question?

10        Q.   Can we agree that health is within the remit of the head of the

11     Department of Defence?

12        A.   There's a -- no doubt about that.

13        Q.   Do we agree that health is not within the remit of the

14     Main Staff?

15        A.   Well, you know --

16        Q.   In terms of the establishment, the organisational structure.

17        A.   Well, in -- in those terms, I believe no.

18        Q.   If we look at paragraph 9 about the Decree on the Internal

19     Organisation Structure of the Department of Defence --

20             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Excuse me, Mrs. Alaburic.  I find at least in

21     the translation I heard the last answer a bit ambivalous, because you

22     say, "In those terms I believe no."  What do you mean exactly in those

23     terms?  In other terms, yes, and in which other terms yes then?  I would

24     be grateful if you could clarify.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would have to take a

Page 35775

 1     look at the diagram showing the structure of the Main Staff, but I don't

 2     remember at the time the chief of Main Staff does have an establishment

 3     position of a head of Medical Corps, but Ms. Alaburic was asking about

 4     health, and health falls within the remit of the Department of Defence,

 5     because it is actually a sector of the department.  The question was

 6     about the Main Staff, and I was thinking about the armed forces, hence

 7     the doubt, but I believe Ms. Alaburic will arrive at that.

 8             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I have the document

 9     before me.  I have another question.  Did you yourself participate in

10     combat where your comrades were killed?  Did it occur?  And the only

11     point of my question -- my following question is if you answer that one.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Unfortunately, yes, I did,

13     Your Honours.

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I understood that you said yes.

15     When that occurred, when your comrades were killed during combat, did you

16     see a doctor come in to examine the individual and determine that they

17     had indeed died?  Were you familiar with that?  Did you have knowledge of

18     that?

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, one of the better

20     organise components of the HVO was the Medical Corps.  I believe that

21     they received awards and were considered extraordinary in global terms

22     when it comes to their efficiency.  During any instance of combat, there

23     was a medical man or a paramedic in every platoon.  But to return to your

24     question directly, the head of the Medical Corps of any brigade had to

25     confirm death, whichever way inflicted, in combat or any other way, and

Page 35776

 1     then a report would be drafted, et cetera.

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.  Thank you.  I was asking

 3     that question because the document which is quite clear and which comes

 4     from the Department of Defence signed by Mr. Stojic instructs all

 5     operational personnel that if there is any suspicion of criminal

 6     activity, that they must do an autopsy on the body, et cetera.  So that

 7     is the meaning of the document as I read it, and, therefore, you have

 8     confirmed to me that when combat occurred without there necessarily being

 9     any criminal activity, in any case, when combat occurred the doctor would

10     examine the bodies.

11             Fine.  This is -- this is clear.

12             Madam, we're going to have a break in five minutes.

13             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

14        Q.   Mr. Marijan, let us try to sum up what we said about the health

15     service.  We said that health service issues were within the remit of the

16     Department of Defence; is that right?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   To the extent that you can remember now, in terms of

19     establishment, the Main Staff didn't have a representative of the health

20     service?

21        A.   That's easy to verify, but I don't remember it did.

22        Q.   Let -- let us suppose that the Main Staff didn't have the medical

23     service, and if we go back to paragraph 9 to -- of the decree on the

24     basic principles of the organisation of the Department of Defence, can we

25     say that the brigade commander in -- for health-related issues was

Page 35777

 1     accountable to the head of the Department of Defence because health

 2     services were within his remit?

 3        A.   I believe we can say as much.

 4        Q.   Let us continue with the Morale Sector.  Take a look at the

 5     diagram of document 4D 1284.

 6             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Let us have this on the ELMO,

 7     please.

 8        Q.   Mr. Marijan, take a look, and I believe that this is an accurate

 9     representation in accordance with the documents mentioned below.  First

10     and foremost, the documents of the Defence of Bruno Stojic.  But if you

11     should find any inaccuracies, please point them out.

12        A.   I've never been very happy with most diagrams I've seen.  In this

13     blue block there is an issue with subordination and hierarchy.

14        Q.   What do you mean?

15        A.   This is unclear.  This may be a mistake.

16        Q.   I can clarify.  There is a direct link from the left side

17     entering the brigade from the vertical lines and to the zone of operation

18     because in accordance with the documents that you used and read out to us

19     here the assistant commanders for morale in the brigades and zones of

20     operation were appointed in the Department of Defence.

21        A.   Yes, they were appointed.

22        Q.   And lower-rank commanders in battalions and companies were

23     appointed differently, and therefore there is no direct link between the

24     lower rank units with the Morale Sector.  Instead, the link is

25     established vertically through the brigades and the zones of operation.

Page 35778

 1             Mr. Marijan, if you cannot comment on this diagram, we can

 2     proceed.

 3        A.   I would have drawn this differently, but okay.

 4        Q.   You can look at this it during the break and cross out everything

 5     you think needs to be and then we'll get back to it.  Let's now take a

 6     look at --

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I think the best thing is that

 8     we have the break now.  It's now 12.30.  We shall have 20 minutes' break.

 9                           --- Recess taken at 12.30 p.m.

10                           --- On resuming at 12.53 p.m.

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Two pieces of information.  As

12     to the summaries, the Chamber will file a written decision this

13     afternoon, so you will here about this decision this afternoon.  As to

14     time, Mrs. Alaburic, you have used 51 minutes, meaning that you have

15     another 39 minutes, and you should be able to complete your questioning.

16             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I may remind you

17     that General Praljak has not used 30 minutes.  He used 12 minutes, which

18     means that I can take his 18 minutes, and together with my 39 that makes

19     the -- a total, whichever it is, 57.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I think that by the end of this

21     trial we'll all have very strong maths, that is for sure.

22             If Mr. Praljak gives you these unused minutes, you have another

23     57 minutes, which means that you will not finish today.

24             But, Mr. Kovacic, do you confirm that you have given your time to

25     Ms. Alaburic?

Page 35779

 1             MR. KOVACIC:  Yes, Your Honour, and I believe I mentioned that

 2     before Praljak started, that what he would not use, it belongs to

 3     Ms. Alaburic.  Thank you.

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Okay.  It's in the transcript.

 5     Thank you.

 6             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Perhaps it is judicious to recall that this will

 7     be quite exceptional, because the Chamber has decided not to accept more

 8     dealings between Defence teams; but for today, in view of the fact that

 9     you had a great demand and were cut brutally to what you have got, the

10     Chamber decided has decided the present, but I should just warn that this

11     should not become a rule again.  Thank you.

12             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the colleague took

13     the floor probably because he thinks that the guide-lines are different

14     on this, but anyway, thank you, Your Honours, for letting me use

15     General Praljak's time.  And as I'm in favour of the proverb, "Hope lives

16     as long as I live," I will -- I hope to get a few minutes additionally if

17     I should need it then.

18             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It's a bit of a mystery.

19     Mr. Karnavas had used 15 minutes extra.  I do not know where they come

20     from.  I thought I understood that they had been given to him by

21     Mr. Praljak.  So it must be the Holy Ghost.  I don't know where these 15

22     minutes come from.  And I asked Mr. Karnavas.  You said yes, these 15

23     minutes were given to you, but I forgot to ask who had given you these 15

24     minutes, but let's proceed.

25             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I may remind you

Page 35780

 1     of the intervention of my learned friend Ms. Nozica who, like I,

 2     understood that you allotted additional time to Mr. Karnavas, and he was

 3     allotted due to his aggressive approach.  I do not have an aggressive

 4     approach, but I hope that you will be lenient to me also.

 5        Q.   Mr. Marijan, you wanted to say something.

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] As a rule the Chamber only

 7     grants time taken away from others, because we ourselves do not have a

 8     time capital to give away.  You can proceed.

 9             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   Mr. Marijan, I saw that you raised your hand to say something.

11        A.   I did wanted -- want to ask the Chamber about a problem.  It's

12     been repeatedly said to me that I'm not a lawyer, which is a fact; but I

13     do know something about the army, and for a long time I dealt with an

14     army for things were clear, where terminology was clear.

15        Q.   Mr. Marijan, just a minute, please.

16             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I ask for permission

17     for that what the witness is saying now is not counted against my time.

18             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It will not be counted against

19     you, but please move on.

20             What did you want to say?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm sure that in the

22     continuation of this trial there will be a lot of misunderstanding, which

23     stems from the organisation of the HVO and the way they drew up their

24     regulatory acts and documents.  There are very few of them, I must point

25     out, and in comparison to other armies, they are the worst in

Page 35781

 1     Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia.  And in the HVO did not have its own

 2     military terminology at all.  I would like to point out one example.

 3             In the Decree on the Armed Forces of Herceg-Bosna, there is

 4     paragraph 29.  We don't have to look at it at all.  I will tell you what

 5     it says.  It deals with the powers of the president of the HZ HB, and for

 6     command the term "leadership" is used, and this term, "leadership," has

 7     never been defined, and if it had been maybe now I wouldn't have a

 8     problem with this story of the chain of command.  Because if we take this

 9     to the extreme, I could say that I've never seen the definition a zone of

10     operation.  I can only suppose what it is.  I have never seen the

11     definition of an HVO brigade.  I can suppose what it is based on my

12     knowledge of other things.  But I know the former Yugoslav army, and

13     from -- there is a term which was banned from Croatian glossaries and

14     probably also from glossaries of Herceg-Bosna because the term was deemed

15     Serbian although it certainly isn't.

16             Each and every document that was shown to me these days that read

17     order and Yugoslav terminology not only that of the federal army but also

18     in the terminology of the republics, it would be something else.  It

19     would be another word, "naredba."  That can also be translated as

20     "order."

21             And what -- so the word "zapovijed," that was used, and I always

22     link with combat activity.  This has to do with my background.  And some

23     of the these terminological issues seem to undermine my credibility.

24             It isn't only about terminology though, yesterday, I mentioned

25     some things that -- even today I can see that Mr. Scott is absent because

Page 35782

 1     he's been working on these trials longest.  We still don't know who

 2     appoints the chief of General Staff, and some other things are unclear.

 3     So I with like to make clear to the Chamber that I'm dealing with an area

 4     here that is poorly defined.

 5             And another example that was shown to me yesterday, and I

 6     understood what Mr. Karnavas wanted, in the decree of the president of

 7     the HZ HB, date the 15th of September, where there is no HVO, you will

 8     find a completely different definition of some concepts.  I have never

 9     had the impression reading the documents that never anybody asked

10     themselves the question why there is lack of consistency, why things have

11     been skip.  Some things were, rather, left out.  The HVO never really had

12     a military lawyer.  I'm not sure whether the Chamber understands what I

13     mean.

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I've perfectly understood.

15     Thank you for sharing this with us and pointing our attention to the

16     terms used in all the documents from the HVO.  According to you, those

17     who drafted those documents are not highly qualified lawyers, and there

18     were former Yugoslavia attacks and on account of terms used, someone

19     wanted to change this using the Croatian language, for it is possible

20     that some terms may be inaccurate.  This is what I understand from what

21     you said.  And as far as I know, you were lucky or unlucky to have to

22     give evidence in trials.

23             And since you must already have realised that beforehand, why did

24     you not say that in the previous trial in which you were a witness?  And

25     in your conclusion, you should have said, These are the important terms,

Page 35783

 1     and you provide examples.  Why did you not do that?

 2             This is not criticism.  What I'm saying is that what you just

 3     said is important.  Why have you not written this down?  Now it's in the

 4     transcript, but it would have been better had it been in the report.

 5             We got the point.  At least I got the point.  We'll take that

 6     into account when reviewing documents, but whenever you come across such

 7     problems please point it out -- point them out to us.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will, Your Honour, but when I was

 9     here for the first time the topic was different.

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.  Ms. Alaburic, taking

11     into account what has just been said, you may proceed.

12             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]

13        Q.   Your Honours, Mr. Marijan, thank you for these observations, and

14     do point it out to us if you think that terminology is wrong or something

15     is badly phrased.  Were you able to look at the diagram of the Morale

16     Sector during the break and do you have comments?

17        A.   Frankly, think it would be best to draw this anew.  There are too

18     many lines, I believe, in principle, although I do not suppose there was

19     ill-will involved.  So it would have been better if the line did not go

20     through the administration because this way, you can get the impression

21     that these three administrations of the Morale Sector are superior to the

22     assistant commanders in the units; and we can go back to the appointment

23     and then you know who was accountable to who.  So this -- the assistant

24     commanders down there are clearly not accountable to these here.

25        Q.   So what you are referring to is drawn the way it is because

Page 35784

 1     that's exactly how it was depicted in document 2D 685.  It's a document

 2     from the Stojic Defence, and you referred to this document in your

 3     report.  That's why we didn't change it.  But everybody will be able to

 4     compare the two.

 5             Mr. Marijan, let us now look at the direct communication between

 6     the Department of Defence with the military commanders as regards morale.

 7     Let us look at document P 1198.  This is a report from the

 8     Ante Starcevic Brigade from Gornji Vakuf dated 18 January 1993, sent

 9     directly to the Defence Department and it's IDP Sector.  That sector is

10     actually the Morale Sector, isn't it?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   Tell me, have you seen this document or similar documents showing

13     direct communication between military commanders and the IPD Sector?

14        A.   Especially from this brigade and this period there are a number

15     of similar documents where the assistant for IPD skips his direct

16     superior and turns directly to the sector.

17        Q.   Let us move on to document 4D 1156.  It's the following document.

18     It's dated 19 April 1993.  The assistant commander for IPD in the

19     Rama Brigade is sending a report directly to the Department of Defence

20     and its IPD Sector.

21             Does this document confirm that direct communication?

22        A.   Yes, it does.

23        Q.   A document that is outside the time-period of your report, but do

24     look at it anyway, 4D 1554.  The assistant minister of defence, it's

25     called the political administration in January 1994, directly

Page 35785

 1     communicates with assistant commanders for political business.

 2             So can we say that the Assistant minister of defence directly

 3     communicated with the brigades on the ground?

 4        A.   Yes, although it is not completely clear, but as it says to the

 5     "Assistant commanders for political business."  We can suppose that it

 6     was sent to everybody.

 7        Q.   Can we then conclude that issues that have to do with morale are

 8     within the remit of the Department of Defence?

 9        A.   Yes.  That's why there is a sector for morale there.

10        Q.   According to your knowledge or memory, did the Main Staff and its

11     establishment have a service that would deal with morale?

12        A.   Well, honestly, I knew a person who called himself assistant, but

13     I have never seen that position in the establishment -- or, rather, I

14     looked at it a short while ago, the establishment from 1992.  It isn't

15     there.

16        Q.   If we wanted to find out to who the brigade commander is

17     accountable to as regards morale, and if we were to apply paragraph 9 of

18     the Decision on the Basic Principles of Organisation of the Department of

19     Defence, would it be right to say that the brigade commander is

20     accountable to Bruno Stojic?

21        A.   It can be interpreted that way, but if you let me, I would like

22     to add something.

23        Q.   Mr. Marijan, as I have very little time, do make a note of your

24     additional comment, and if I should have enough time I will deal with it

25     at the end.

Page 35786

 1        A.   But this is very important.

 2        Q.   But then Ms. Nozica can ask you that question in redirect.

 3             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm not opposed to

 4     the witness saying something, but it shouldn't count against my time.

 5             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Okay.  Then we will deal with it in

 6     the redirect, but this witness has said that this is very important.  It

 7     is obvious he wants to clarify something additionally.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I just wanted to say

 9     that the decision dated 15 September and 15 days earlier the zones of

10     operation had been established.  I don't know why they are not contain in

11     the decision because the decision was made on August the 31st, if I

12     remember well.  According to me it would be right if the assistant

13     brigade commanders through the assistant commanders for morale were

14     accountable to Mr. Stojic as the head in the operative zone, but whoever

15     is in the establishment of the brigade is also accountable to their

16     commander because you could -- one could conclude that the brigade

17     commander is not in a position to issue orders to assistants -- to his

18     assistants for morale or something, although he could.  I was in that

19     position for a while and received orders from the brigade commander.

20             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   As this part did not count against my time, I would like to make

22     clear to the witness that now we're not talking about the communication

23     between the brigade commander and his assistants, but, rather, that we

24     are establishing to who the brigade commander is accountable with regard

25     to certain issues.

Page 35787

 1             It is clear that the brigade commander could issue orders through

 2     his assistant for morale, but the question is to who the brigade

 3     commander was accountable for such orders.  So we're now interested in

 4     the chain of command above brigade level in accordance with our

 5     paragraph 9 of the decision on the internal organisation of the Defence

 6     Department.

 7             Let us now take a look at the Security and Information Service,

 8     SIS.  As General Praljak has already asked you questions about it, we'll

 9     be very fast.

10             Please look at diagram 4D 1281.  Let us show it to the witness so

11     that he can comment on it.  It is -- the diagram is a somewhat altered

12     diagram that you have already seen, but it also now includes the armed

13     forces.  The part in blue has been added when we compare it to the one

14     that you used.  Please say if this is an accurate depiction.

15        A.   Yes, this is the best so far.

16        Q.   So I conclude that you have no other -- no objections?

17        A.   Yes, but in accordance with the decision on the basic principles

18     of the internal organisation, probably you singled out the military

19     police -- military police on purpose.

20        Q.   Yes.  In answering the question -- questions of Mr. Karnavas and

21     General Praljak, you said that the SIS was within the remit of the head

22     of the Department of Defence, didn't you?

23        A.   Yes, I did.  The Security Sector.

24        Q.   You also commented some provisions of the rules governing the

25     work of the SIS.  I have also included document P 4211.  Please take a

Page 35788

 1     look at it.  I would like -- I'll focus on something you mentioned in

 2     your report, namely in paragraph 9, definition of the Department of

 3     Defence in the wider sense.

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Nozica [as interpreted],

 5     you have asked for the admission of this document?  This document, the

 6     one dated the 6th.

 7             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I did not say

 8     anything about the adoption of these documents.  I would just like to

 9     have us look at it.  I know that this already is an exhibit.

10        Q.   So Article 9 of this document, here you have a definition of the

11     Defence Department in a broader sense, and you also included this into

12     your report.

13             Pursuant to this decision, the Defence Department consists of all

14     sectors or sectors of the departments, the Main Staff military districts,

15     units, assembly points, training centres, companies for the production of

16     military equipment and so on.

17             Is there anything you would like to comment on regarding this

18     provision.

19        A.   I believe that when we are talking about the Defence Department

20     in a broader sense here, the armed forces are also included, whereas I

21     believe that we should say that we are talking about the Defence

22     Department and the armed forces, otherwise it would follow that

23     everything falls under the Defence Department because here even the

24     Assembly points are mentioned which did not exist in the HVO so obviously

25     this was copied from somewhere.

Page 35789

 1        Q.   This is something that you copied in your report but you did not

 2     comment?

 3        A.   Yes, I believe I just mentioned that this was adopted.

 4        Q.   I'm most interested in Article 63 of this document which says

 5     that the assistant commanders for the Information and Security Service

 6     should be required to perform the tasks of commanders of the units within

 7     whose structure they belong which pertain to the scope of the work of the

 8     service, and the next one says with respect to the implementation of the

 9     tasks with the scope of SIS the employees shall be responsible to the

10     superior centre of administration.

11             Is this what you confirmed to Mr. Karnavas, that the head of the

12     Department of Defence, Mr. Stojic, was in charge of SIS rather than HVO

13     government or any other body?

14        A.   Is that what I said?  The assistant head was indeed in charge of

15     the security matters, and obviously within the HVO this was his remit.

16        Q.   Can we now try to clarify the dilemma which we used to have and

17     this will also serve us to assess the quality of your report.  So the

18     part that regards your paragraph in which you talk about the assistant

19     chief for SIS within the Main Staff.  We said that this is document

20     2D 002 -- 928.  We have this document now in both the Croatian and the

21     English language.  I would kindly ask the usher to take several copies

22     and provide Their Honours, the witness, and Mr. Stojic's counsels as well

23     as the OTP with this.  So once again the document is 2D 928.

24             At the end of your -- can have your article 39, you say:

25             "At the Main Staff of the HVO the assistant for SIS was not

Page 35790

 1     provided after the end of 1992.  In later half of the 1993, such a

 2     position must have existed."

 3             As we can see from the footnote 102, this claim is based on the

 4     document 2D 00928.  Now, if we look at this document, 2D 00928,

 5     Article 10 or item 10, we can see that a this was the proposal for

 6     Mate Knezovic to be appointed as the SIS office -- as the official for

 7     SIS at the Main Staff.  Can you see this?

 8        A.   Yes, I can.

 9        Q.   So this is the proposal for the employment of a SIS employee to

10     the Main Staff.  Your conclusion regards the function of the assistant

11     for SIS at the Main Staff.

12             Can we conclude that the document 2D 928 has nothing to do with

13     the position of the assistant for SIS at the Main Staff and that the

14     statement or conclusion you drew in your report has no factual base?

15        A.   Yes, you are right.  Mr. Knezovic was not appointed an assistant

16     but he was, rather, assign to the position of an employee for -- of SIS.

17        Q.   Mr. Marijan, we tried to use the same methodology to draw some

18     conclusions, so we said that the activities related to SIS were within

19     the remit of the head of the Department of Defence, that at the

20     Main Staff until the later part of 1993 in its formation or establishment

21     had no service that would be dealing with SIS.

22             Can we now by applying the item 9 of the decision on the basic

23     principles of the internal organisation of the Defence Department

24     conclude that the tasks related to -- that when it comes to the task

25     related to SIS the brigade commander was responsible to the head of the

Page 35791

 1     Department of Defence?

 2        A.   [No interpretation]

 3        Q.   You only have two alternatives.  He was either responsible to the

 4     Chief of the Main Staff or to the head of the Defence Department.  So who

 5     was he responsible to?

 6        A.   This is an interesting question.  Look --

 7        Q.   If you cannot answer, Mr. Marijan, we shall proceed.  If you

 8     cannot make that choice for any reason, we shall proceed.

 9        A.   On the basis of all of this, it would follow that the assistant

10     commander was responsible to the head of the Defence Department.

11        Q.   My question relates to the brigade commander.  So who did the

12     brigade commander respond to in relation to the topics related to SIS?

13        A.   I'm not sure that I would dare say that the brigade commander was

14     responsible to him.

15        Q.   Please bear in mind all the time item 9 of the decision on the

16     basic principles of the internal organisation of the Defence Department.

17     Here it is stated that defence commander is subordinated and responsible

18     to the head of the Department of Defence for the topics that fall under

19     his remit.  So isn't it the only possible conclusion that for this

20     particular topic, the brigade commander was responsible to the head of

21     the Department for Defence?

22        A.   Well, on the basis of this, we could draw such a conclusion.

23        Q.   Now that we are --

24             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Excuse me, Ms. Alaburic.  I tried to get your

25     attention but you were concentrated elsewhere, which is correct.

Page 35792

 1             I still have a question.  Mr. Marijan, on the previous document

 2     where Mr. Knezovic is assigned to the position of quote, "worker,"

 3     unquote, in SIS - Main HQ, what does this mean, SIS - Main HQ?  If I look

 4     at the diagram I do not fine any reference to the HQ so how come?  What

 5     does this mean?  Is there an omission in the organigramme in the sense

 6     that there also ought to be one reference to a SIS section placed with

 7     the main headquarters?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm not sure that this

 9     translation "worker" is a good one.  Article 10 or item 10 stipulates

10     that an employee of the SIS - so this is a rather broad term - will be

11     put or assigned to the Main Staff of the HVO.  So his precise title or

12     position is not defined.

13             Madam Alaburic, on the basis of the internal structure which was

14     one year old, and I need to add that we do not know whether it may have

15     been amended in the meantime, because now that you went back to this I

16     might add that it is rather illogical that a person would be appointed to

17     the Main Staff even if this was not in the formation or in the

18     establishment.  So we are not sure whether this kind of a formation

19     existed or not.  But anyway, this was an employee who was assigned to the

20     Main Staff, but his precise position or title was not defined.

21             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Could it be a position like a liaison officer,

22     something like that?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] According to this, all the options

24     are open.  It is an extremely imprecise formulation.

25             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you.  I think we'll have to live for some

Page 35793

 1     time with insecurity, uncertainty.

 2             Please, Ms. Alaburic.  Sorry for the interruption.

 3             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] That is quite all right,

 4     Your Honour.  We shall have a witness who was a part of the SIS, so we

 5     will be able to clarify this.

 6        Q.   Witness, you said that this formulation, "an employee of SIS," is

 7     a broad one.  Have you come across this term when you were reading the

 8     regulations on the work of the SIS service?

 9        A.    "An employee" is used for anybody, so this was certainly a

10     person working on the expert tasks related to the security.  This is

11     certain.

12        Q.   When we are talking about the security, I will ask something else

13     as a follow-up to Judge Trechsel's question, and I don't believe that

14     you've answered this.  Judge Trechsel asked about the civilian control

15     over the military, and in answering this question, you said that HZ HB

16     was totalitarian and not democratic - I will give you the specifics of

17     the transcript - and that all the power was in the hands of Mate Boban

18     and that the local authorities also had certain influence over the

19     military.  This is on pages 15 and 16 of yesterday's transcript.

20             I start from the assumption that you will know what civilian

21     control over the military actually means.

22        A.   Yes, I do know that, and that's why I can't believe that I said

23     this.

24        Q.   Well, this is why I would kindly like -- ask you to clarify this,

25     not only to Judge Trechsel but to all of us.  So what are the mechanisms?

Page 35794

 1     In which way does civilian authority exercise control over the military?

 2        A.   The way in which the civilian authority exercises its control

 3     over the military, well, first of all please allow me to correct this,

 4     because even if I said this then this is rather outrageous.  I believe I

 5     may have been talking about Yugoslavia at the time because I probably

 6     said that Yugoslavia was a totalitarian state.  Otherwise, I assumed that

 7     there is a recording from the proceedings, and it could be checked.

 8        Q.   Could you tell us what it was like in the HZ HB?  So in

 9     principle, what are the instruments of the civilian control over the

10     military?

11        A.   Well, when we are talking about the HZ HB, the civilian control

12     was meant to be in the hands of HVO, and it was meant to be in the hands

13     of Mr. Stojic.  This is what I talked about yesterday or the day before.

14     I can't remember exactly.  But this is what was different in comparison

15     to the previous system where the minister of defence was a military

16     officer, whereas here in the HVO, I -- the only person who could exercise

17     civilian control over the military was Mr. Stojic.

18        Q.   I'm not asking who did this.  I'm just asking how.  So I'll try

19     to help you.

20             When it comes to the civilian authority's control over the

21     finances used for the military, is this one of the instruments of the

22     civilian authority's control over the military?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   The topics related to the procurement and supplies for the

25     military, is this yet another mechanism of the civilian control over the

Page 35795

 1     military?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   The personnel policy and the entitlement to appoint and dismiss

 4     military commanders, is this yet another mechanism of civilian control

 5     over the military?

 6        A.   No as much as the previous two examples you gave.

 7        Q.   Is the security control over the military, if in hands of the

 8     civil authorities, is this yet another mechanism of the civil control

 9     over the military?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   Can you then tell us all these elements of the civil control over

12     the military?  Did they exist in Herceg-Bosna?

13        A.   No.

14        Q.   Which one did not exist?

15        A.   The financial one.

16        Q.   Who was in charge of the finances for the military?

17        A.   The arm forces of -- it's better to say the armed forces than the

18     HVO.  They were supposed to be financed through the Department for

19     Economy and Department for Defence.  So these two departments were

20     supposed to be allocating the money.  I believe we already mentioned that

21     this was a problem.

22        Q.   But as far as I remember, you were mentioning civilian -- civil

23     authorities at the local level.

24        A.   I did not understand what's your point.

25        Q.   You were talking about the local level, but as far as I

Page 35796

 1     understood, you also mentioned the civil authorities.  So my question

 2     does not regard bodies and persons but just the difference between civil

 3     authorities and military authorities.  So the finances in Herceg-Bosna,

 4     was this yet another way for the civil authorities to exercise their

 5     control over the military regardless of the level?

 6        A.   Well, I believe I mentioned that yesterday or the day before.  I

 7     said that the elements of the civil control were much more obvious at the

 8     local municipal control than at the higher level.

 9        Q.   Can we then agree that regardless of the level, the civil

10     authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina had these instruments, the

11     previously mentioned instruments, of the civil control over the military?

12        A.   Well, if we accept what you said regardless of the level, then we

13     can say yes.  We can say that they did have these instruments.

14        Q.   I hope that Mr. -- Judge Trechsel is now more satisfied with the

15     answer to his question?

16             Now I would like to proceed with the next organisational unit

17     within the Department of Defence and this is the military police.  We

18     will do this very quickly.  There are two diagrams.  The first one is

19     4D 01282.  This diagram is based on the document P 59 --

20             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's apology, P 957.

21             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]

22        Q.   These are addresses by Mr. Coric and Stojic.  So the document

23     is P 957.  This document can also be found in the binders.

24             Could you please take a look at this diagram.  It is based on the

25     documents that you used when you were preparing your report so that you

Page 35797

 1     are familiar with them.  Could you confirm whether this diagram was drawn

 2     in line with the letter sent by Mr. Stojic and Coric.  If there are any

 3     problems, then the Defence of Mr. Coric can intervene in this -- in this

 4     diagram, if necessary.

 5        A.   Can you tell me just where I can find this document?  Can you

 6     tell me which is the number of the footnote mentioned in my report?

 7        Q.   I am not sure what -- which footnote it was, and I wouldn't like

 8     to lose too much time now.

 9        A.   Well, the first correction I can say is this January, June.  I

10     believe that this is the proposed organisational structure from

11     December 1992.

12        Q.   Well, the document that we based this diagram on was dated

13     26th of December, 1992.  So this was in effect in the quoted period of

14     time.

15        A.   Well, I believe that this is the structure of the military

16     police, if I remember the document well, and this is a rather strange

17     organisational structure.  Particularly on page 3 there are several

18     provisions which are contradictory in themselves.  So this is what I

19     wanted to point out.  A good military lawyer would have rejected such a

20     document, but I believe that at the period that you mentioned this was

21     indeed in effect so that this diagram is correct.

22        Q.   Could you please now look at the -- at the -- at the diagram

23     1D 1283, based on the document P 300 [as interpreted], and prepared by

24     the Defence of Mr. Coric.  So P 3000, 3000.

25             If you could just take a look at this.

Page 35798

 1        A.   I believe that this is from August.

 2        Q.   This is based on a letter from June.  It was supposed to come

 3     into effect in July but we know there was a reorganisation during the

 4     summer, but this is something that Ms. Tomasegovic will ask if necessary.

 5        A.   Yes, this is what it looked like in the second half of 1993,

 6     although later we also had the light assault brigade.

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I believe we should stop there

 8     because it's quarter to 2.00, and don't forget that it takes time to

 9     change the tapes, et cetera.  So we will resume tomorrow.

10             Witness, we will see you tomorrow and again at 9.00.

11             Thank you to all.

12                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m.

13                           to be reconvened on Thursday, the 22nd day of

14                           January, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.