Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 35799

 1                           Thursday, 22 January 2009

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness entered court]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, could you please

 7     call the case.

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

 9     everyone in and around the courtroom.

10             This is case number IT-04-74-T, the Prosecutor versus Prlic

11     et al.

12             Thank you, Your Honours.

13             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Registrar.

14             This is Thursday, January the 29th [as interpreted], 2009.  I

15     would like to welcome the witness, to greet the accused, the counsels,

16     and all the members of the OTP, as well as all those assisting us in the

17     courtroom.

18             Yesterday, I told you that in the afternoon, the Chamber would

19     file its decision on the Prosecution's motion to obtain an adequate

20     summary of Slobodan Bozic's statement.  This is statement -- the decision

21     could not be recorded.  I'm going to read it out to you, at least the

22     operative part.

23             In the light of this in compliance with Articles 64 and 65 ter

24     (G) of the Rules, grants the motion, partially grants the supplementary

25     motion, orders the Stojic Defence to complement the 65 ter summary of

Page 35800

 1     Witness Slobodan Bozic, as explained here above, at the latest by January

 2     23rd, 2009; stays its decision on the part of the motion pertaining to

 3     the 65 ter summary of Stijepo Buljon [phoen], of the witness Stijepo

 4     Buljon and rejects for the remainder the supplementary motion.  So, in a

 5     word, in a nutshell, the Stojic Defence is asked to complement the

 6     summary in the way described in the recitals, but you will see this

 7     because this decision will be filed very shortly.  So, anyhow, the

 8     witness is going to come next week.

 9             Let us move on, and I now give the floor to Ms. Alaburic, who has

10     only a few minutes left.  I do not know exactly how many, but you have

11     very few minutes left.  The Registrar is going to tell me how many

12     minutes you have left.

13             The floor is yours, Ms. Alaburic.

14             MR. KHAN:  Mr. President, with your indulgence, just one moment.

15     It's not clear from the transcript, and I didn't catch it in the

16     translation, the date by which the Defence for Mr. Stojic is ordered to

17     supplement, in accordance with your oral decision, the statement.

18             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] 23rd of January, at the latest.

19             Yes, sorry, I failed to notice that it hadn't been written in the

20     transcript.

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

22     and good morning to you, Mr. Marijan and everybody else in the courtroom.

23             According to our records and as far as we have been told by the

24     Registry, I have 26 more minutes to go.

25                           WITNESS:  DAVOR MARIJAN [Resumed]

Page 35801

 1                           [The witness answered through interpreter]

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

 3        Q.   So, Mr. Marijan, we're going to start with some clarifications

 4     about what you said in examination-in-chief.  The first --

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Alaburic, let's check this,

 6     because there was -- the legal officer was a bit puzzled, but let's move

 7     on.

 8             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   [Previous translation continued] ... that I'd like to question

10     you about is the transcript of the conversation between President Tudjman

11     and the representatives of Herceg-Bosna, held on the 10th of November,

12     1993, and it is document P 6581.

13             The Defence of Bruno Stojic, Mr. Marijan, asked you about a

14     portion of that transcript which is to be found on pages, in the Croatian

15     version, 0132-3063 -- I apologise, I gave the wrong page.  Let me repeat

16     the correct page.  0132-3073, and in the English version, it is

17     page 1D 570071 -- 570071.

18             Mr. Marijan, you needn't bother to look for the document.  You

19     can find it on the screen, and I'm going to talk to you about just one --

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Alaburic, according to the

21     Registrar, you have another six minutes and not twenty-six, unless you

22     have received some time from Mr. Coric's Defence.

23             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we said yesterday and

24     the day before that General Praljak will cede some of his time to me.

25     General Praljak used 12 minutes, so the 18 minutes that belonged to the

Page 35802

 1     Praljak Defence has now been placed at the disposal of the Petkovic

 2     Defence, which makes 26 minutes altogether.

 3        Q.   So if we can go back to the document, the document is otherwise

 4     to be found in the Stojic Defence binder.  The Stojic Defence asked you a

 5     question about a statement made by President Tudjman, and I'm going to

 6     quote your words recorded on transcript page 74 on Tuesday, line 9, to

 7     the effect that the minister of the defence will not be in command of the

 8     army -- will not command the army.  You can look at that on the screen,

 9     and you'll see what was said.  And your comment was that President

10     Tudjman was aware of the authorities of the minister of defence in

11     Herceg-Bosna and that the statement made was correct.

12             Have I understood you correctly?

13        A.   Well, good morning, Your Honours.  Yes, you did understand me

14     correctly, Madam.

15        Q.   Now I'd like you to read out the beginning of that statement made

16     by President Tudjman, word by word.

17        A.   "Army, he will not command the army directly ..."

18        Q.   Very well.  Now, tell me, if we were to compare what you say and

19     what you said during the examination-in-chief, it follows that in-chief,

20     you left out the word "directly" and that you didn't comment the

21     statement made by President Tudjman to the effect that he will not

22     command the army directly, and from which it would be logical to conclude

23     that he can command indirectly.

24             Now, tell me, the fact that you left out the word "directly," may

25     we have your comments on that?  How do you comment that?

Page 35803

 1        A.   Well, Your Honours, I'm not quite sure -- are you quite sure that

 2     I quoted this?  Because I was asked to comment, and that's what I did, I

 3     commented.

 4        Q.   But you didn't comment on the word "directly."  In your comment,

 5     you left out the word "directly," so I'm asking you now, why did you

 6     leave the word "directly" out?

 7        A.   What you read out, you said that I said "minister," so it wasn't

 8     an actual quotation.  You said that I said that the minister would not,

 9     but -- so it's not a quotation, it's my comment.

10        Q.   All right.  Now I'm asking you why, in your comment, you left out

11     the word "directly."

12        A.   Well, I don't know why I left it out.  All I can say is, well,

13     command of the army becomes -- is direct, so I don't see why -- what you

14     mean when you say "indirect," "indirectly."

15        Q.   I'm just interested in your understanding of certain statements,

16     and whether you leave out a concept or word or not, we're going to be

17     able to weigh out -- or, rather, Their Honours will be able to weigh the

18     worth of your statements.  So I'd like to clear this up.

19             This word "directly," you, as an expert witness of the Stojic

20     Defence, do you consider this word "directly" to be relevant or not?

21        A.   I think that it is just irrelevant here in this context,

22     completely irrelevant.

23        Q.   All right, fine.  I'd like to ask you to explain, because I

24     consider it's relevant for the full understanding of your testimony if

25     you were to do so, and it has to do with the following:  Your report ends

Page 35804

 1     by looking at a meeting of the political leadership of the HZ-HB of the

 2     29th of April, 1993 at which Bruno Stojic asked that a political decision

 3     be made about sending military units to Central Bosnia; is that right?

 4        A.   That is right, yes.

 5        Q.   And then you ended with the topic of political decision-making

 6     about sending military units to Central Bosnia; do I remember that

 7     correctly?

 8        A.   I think I said what he called for, what he was asking.

 9        Q.   All right.  Now, tell me, do you happen to remember whether at

10     that particular meeting of the 29th of April, 1993, somebody was present

11     from the Main Staff of the HVO, perhaps?

12        A.   I don't remember.

13        Q.   In your report, you claim that Bruno Stojic performed

14     administrative work, administrative business, within the sphere of

15     defence; is that right?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   Can you explain how come Bruno Stojic, at that meeting of the

18     29th of April, 1993, asked that a political decision be taken about

19     sending military units to Central Bosnia if his remit was administrative

20     business within the frameworks of defence?

21        A.   Well, if you looked -- well, you insisted upon item 9 yesterday.

22     You insisted upon that a great deal, so -- of the decision on the basis

23     of or the organisational structure of the Defence Department, then you

24     would have seen there that it says that Mr. Stojic, along with his

25     administrative work, that administrative work includes parts related to

Page 35805

 1     the armed forces, things related to the armed forces.

 2        Q.   Does that mean that those administrative affairs include affairs

 3     like sending the army to a certain part of Herceg-Bosna in order to

 4     engage in combat?

 5        A.   No, it doesn't, it doesn't include that.  That does not come

 6     within his remit.

 7        Q.   Can you explain how, then, Bruno Stojic, at this meeting, raised

 8     that question and asked that a political decision be made in that regard?

 9        A.   Well, the question of a political decision regarding the army

10     ultimately raises the question of organisation and reinforcement to that

11     army, which means that Mr. Stojic could, when it came to material,

12     security, and a series of other affairs, he could weigh up the situation

13     and then could raise a question of that nature.

14        Q.   Tell us, please, with respect to carrying out these

15     administrative affairs, would it be necessary to seek for a political

16     decision or does doing that work, does it imply all this when the army

17     moves to Central Bosnia?

18        A.   Well, if the army moves, advances, then that would imply what you

19     just said.

20        Q.   All right.  But that doesn't call for a political decision, if

21     all this is implied, so do you consider that this request at this

22     political meeting by Bruno Stojic merits additional comment to what you

23     said or not?

24        A.   No, I don't think so.

25        Q.   All right, fine.  Now, can we go back to where we left off

Page 35806

 1     yesterday, and we left off looking at the diagrams of the military

 2     police.  And on the subject of the military police, a brief question.

 3     Now, military affairs came under the remit of the head of the Defence

 4     Department; isn't that right?

 5        A.   Yes, that's precisely it.

 6        Q.   All right, fine.  Now, tell me, please, if a unit of the military

 7     police were to be resubordinated to the commander of some HVO unit in

 8     order to engage in combat, then during the time for which it was

 9     resubordinated, that military police unit would be responsible to the

10     commander of the HVO; isn't that right?

11        A.   Yes, the unit would be responsible to the commander to whom it

12     was resubordinated.

13        Q.   And that lasts for as long as the resubordination time lasts;

14     right?

15        A.   Yes, that's the how it should be.

16        Q.   All right.  Fine.  Now, Mr. Marijan, tell me this:  What we saw

17     about the areas of responsibilities, this line, this chain of

18     responsibility, can we see it in all the reports on the work of the

19     Defence Department and in the programmes or proposals for programmes of

20     work of the Defence Department; would that be true?

21        A.   Could you be a bit clearer?  I'm not sure I understand you.

22        Q.   I'll refer you back to your report, where you say that the report

23     on the work of the Main Staff included combat operations and that that is

24     why it was set apart from the Defence Department report and was

25     accessible to the office of the HZ-HB.  Is that what you noted in your

Page 35807

 1     report?

 2        A.   Quite certainly, I did not.

 3        Q.   I'm sure you did.

 4        A.   No, I didn't, and I'm sure I didn't, Madam.  Would you like to

 5     read that portion out?

 6        Q.   I will read it out, but I'll do that in due course.  But now I'd

 7     like to go on with this:  The report on the work of the Defence

 8     Department included reports on the work of each of the mentioned sectors;

 9     isn't that right?

10        A.   Yes, that is right, so that is what I said.  It's not a matter of

11     the fact that the Main Staff reported on combat, but that the fact that

12     the Main Staff is a component part of the Defence Department, and

13     Mr. Stojic didn't have full authority over that.  So that's where the

14     problem lies.  And you said it a little differently.

15        Q.   It's not a problem.  It's all very simple.

16        A.   Well, it seems that you think it's very simple.

17        Q.   Would you explain what you mean, that it's simple for me, that

18     things are going quite simply for me?

19        A.   Well, you confused me yesterday at one point.

20        Q.   Just one moment, Mr. Marijan.  Before we move on, with Their

21     Honours' permission, because I don't have much time, would you tell us

22     here and now whether during the yesterday's day you discussed yesterday's

23     testimony in this courtroom with anyone, with anybody whatsoever,

24     including telephone conversations?

25        A.   I just talked to my wife about my child.

Page 35808

 1        Q.   And your wife, did she discuss this with anyone, the contents of

 2     your testimony in this courtroom with anybody else?

 3        A.   My conversation with my wife was as follows:  I said I had a

 4     difficult day, and that was it.  And, of course, I was interested in how

 5     my family was doing.  And I can tell you very frankly and sincerely that

 6     I didn't discuss it with anyone, but I assume I had the right to think

 7     about these things.

 8        Q.   Yes, you do have the right to think about things, but we're not

 9     going to take my time up with you presenting what you were thinking

10     about.  You can do that on some other occasion.

11             And now I'd like to ask you to continue my cross-examination, and

12     I'd like you to clear up the following:  In your report, you noted --

13     well, I owe you an explanation, in actual fact.  The portion of your

14     report in which you mention a definition of the Defence Department in the

15     broadest sense, which would include the HVO units and the operative

16     zones, and you weren't able to remember that that was contained in your

17     report, so I'd like to ask you now and remind you now that it is --

18             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Alaburic, Ms. Alaburic, I'd

19     like to dwell on the military police issue.  I'd like to ask specific

20     questions.

21             Witness, when you were a member of this brigade, the name of

22     which has already been mentioned, did you ever, in combat activities,

23     happen to be present in the field with members of the military police?

24     Did that happen to you or not?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was in the field, Your Honour,

Page 35809

 1     only with the members of the military police of our brigade, which was

 2     part of our brigade by establishment.  There were no outside units.

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.  So you were with members

 4     of the brigade.  In those military operations, did the members of the

 5     military police of the brigade also fight the enemy?  Did they fire-fight

 6     back, did they actually participate in the military activity?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I am not aware of any

 8     involvement of the military police in any specific case.  It was a small

 9     unit in Livno that went out into the field, and that smaller unit -- that

10     smaller detail was providing security to the commander or, rather, to the

11     command post to the brigade.

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.  I have no further

13     questions.

14             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]

15        Q.   Mr. Marijan, you did not write that the report on the work of the

16     Main Staff included a report on combat activity and that it was available

17     to the members of the Cabinet of the President of HZ-HB.  It was in

18     paragraph 13 of your report, and since you are not aware of the contents

19     of your report, I have to ask you if you really authored this report.

20        A.   Of course I did.

21        Q.   I don't want any further comments, Mr. Marijan.  I'd like to deal

22     with item 87 now in your report.

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, remain calm.  One

24     needs to be cool in life, especially here.  So please answer the

25     questions and everything will be fine.

Page 35810

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.  I have

 2     certain problems at home, and it's taking its toll.

 3             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]

 4        Q.   Mr. Marijan, I think I was very delicate in my approach, and if I

 5     could have learned a bit more from Mr. Karnavas, I think it would have

 6     helped me.

 7        A.   I don't think Mr. Karnavas was very delicate.

 8        Q.   Let's talk about the point in your report when you talk about the

 9     signing of documents.  It's P745, paragraph 87, where you present the

10     conclusion based on the enactment and the signing of documents, that all

11     chiefs of units, brigades, and other professional units were not within

12     the jurisdiction of the head of the Defence Department.

13        A.   This document demonstrates relationships within the Defence

14     Department.

15        Q.   Mr. Marijan, I'm sorry, I am asking questions here.  I'm just

16     asking you, is it true that you noted this in paragraph 87?

17        A.   Yes, yes, that's true.  It's a general indicator of

18     relationships.

19        Q.   Tell me, have you ever in your life seen a decision of the

20     civilian HVO pursuant to which this decision on signing the documents of

21     the Defence Department was taken?

22        A.   No, I have not.

23        Q.   Look now at document 4D 1279.  It's in the third section, third

24     batch of my documents.  It's marked "Other Documents."

25             While you are searching, I'll say that it was a decision taken by

Page 35811

 1     the HVO at its session of the 14th of October, 1992.  It's called "The

 2     Decision on the Signing of Documents of the HVO of HZ-HB."  In this

 3     decision, which was signed by Jadranko Prlic, as you can see, but the

 4     decision was taken by the collective body of the HVO, and that's

 5     something that Mr. Karnavas asked you about, in Article 2 of this

 6     decision it says that the Defence Department got the number 02?

 7        A.   Correct.

 8        Q.   Look at Article 4, where it says that officials of the Defence

 9     Department -- can we -- by their respective decisions, the heads of

10     departments shall determine the members to be assigned to the departments

11     on the internal divisions?

12        A.   Correct.

13        Q.   What are these heads of departments?

14        A.   It's the security sector that gets a number, parts of the

15     civilian sector which are not divided into administrations, the

16     healthcare sector, and the sector for replenishment and supply, and the

17     main sector.

18        Q.   Tell me about brigades and operation zones and units.  These are

19     not sub-units of the Defence Department?

20        A.   No.

21        Q.   Would it be logical, then, for the these operation zones,

22     brigades and professional and other units, do not get a signature number,

23     according to this decision?

24        A.   Yes, that's logical concerning these units.

25        Q.   Let's go back to your conclusion from paragraph 87.  Based on

Page 35812

 1     this decision made by Bruno Stojic, according to which the signature

 2     numbers are given only to sub-departments, not brigades and zones,

 3     et cetera, you conclude that only the head of the department was under

 4     the jurisdiction of the head of the Defence Department.  Would you now

 5     change this conclusion?

 6        A.   Yes, but only the final part, because the upper part is still

 7     justified.

 8        Q.   You mean everyone below the chief?

 9        A.   Yes.  In fact, I made a conclusion that doesn't hold water.

10        Q.   My colleague tells me that my question was not correctly

11     recorded, so I'll repeat it.

12             Would you now, after seeing this decision of the HVO, this

13     fundamental decision, would you change now your paragraph 87 conclusion,

14     where it says that everything below the chief was not in the jurisdiction

15     of the head of the Defence Department because operation zones, brigades

16     and other units did not get their signature numbers as sub-units of the

17     Defence Department?

18        A.   This article was written to show the level up to which the head

19     of department communicates in the Main Staff.  Generally speaking, these

20     units were not within his jurisdiction.

21        Q.   They were not in his jurisdiction or they were not parts of the

22     organisation of the Defence Department?

23        A.   Along their own line, which we haven't clarified yet, Stojic has

24     the right to communicate with them, and you have shown me a lot of

25     documents to that effect.  But he did not --

Page 35813

 1        Q.   But, look, even administrative affairs between Bruno Stojic and

 2     some brigade, let's say, include communication that would call for the

 3     signing of documents?

 4        A.   That's true, but that's something that the Main Staff decides.

 5        Q.   I'm not going to waste any more time on this.  I think things are

 6     very clear.  Since I do not have much time and I want to go through a

 7     number of other topics with you, let us move on.

 8             In your report, in several places you claim that the Defence

 9     Department was established on the 3rd of July, 1992, by virtue of a

10     Decree on the Armed Forces.

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You have three minutes

12     remaining.

13             Witness, you spoke quickly, and in the translation that received,

14     that I saw and heard, you said that the Main Staff had the codes.  At

15     least I heard that.  What did you mean?  What did you mean by that?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In fact, it's the transmission

17     number, a reference number.  In this correspondence, in the registers of

18     correspondence, every institution has its own number, its reference

19     number.  The Main Staff assigns number to lower units.  They start with

20     00 -- I can't remember exactly, but in the reference number of the

21     document, you can find one part of the number which tells you exactly who

22     created it, regardless of who signed it.  So it can contain several

23     numbers.

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please give an example.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Specifically, let's take an example

Page 35814

 1     that I came across in my unit.  The first part of the reference number is

 2     the number of the military post box where I was, 1736.  Then it goes

 3     dash, then the number of the sector to which I belonged.  That's

 4     political affairs.  Let's say it was 08.  And if I drafted the document,

 5     "08" would be followed by a stroke or a slash, and then would follow my

 6     number, "03," and then the general sequential number in our register,

 7     including the year the document was created.

 8             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So all of the documents should

 9     have these references?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, if the records were kept

11     properly, yes.  I did not look at the keeping of files and documents

12     elsewhere, but I did look at the HVO, and I found very few units that

13     strictly applied the instruction on the keeping of records.

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

15             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]

16        Q.   Was the situation in Herceg-Bosna so well ordered and peaceful

17     that there was no chance for a document to come into or leave an

18     institution without being properly recorded?

19        A.   The possibility that some things were not recorded always exists.

20        Q.   And you would say that otherwise there was total order, office

21     management was perfect, registers of correspondence were kept perfectly?

22        A.   I told you I did not supervise the archiving performed by the

23     HVO.  I looked at the archives of the HVO after the war.

24        Q.   I'm asking about your general knowledge, as a historian, about

25     the situation in Herceg-Bosna, because some believe that chaos was so

Page 35815

 1     complete that it's absolutely out of the question that office management

 2     and record-keeping was proper.

 3        A.   It certainly wasn't.

 4             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] I wanted the witness to clarify

 5     why he insists repeatedly that the Defence Department was established in

 6     July and that the system of defence was established when Bruno Stojic was

 7     appointed to his position.  I need five minutes for that, Your Honours,

 8     and I kindly ask you to grant me these five minutes to deal with this.

 9             Let me recall that my colleague Ms. Nozica did get additional

10     time, and so did my learned friend Mr. Karnavas.

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'm going to consult with my

12     colleagues.

13                           [Trial Chamber confers]

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You have used all of your time,

15     the allotted time, and since the Chamber can grant additional time, we

16     give you an additional five minutes.  In five minutes, you can have a lot

17     of things said by the witness.  Take example from myself.

18             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

19        Q.   Sir, Mr. Marijan, in several places you claim that the Defence

20     Department was established on the 3rd of July, 1992, according to the

21     Decree on the Armed Forces; is that correct?

22        A.   Yes.  I think -- let me not look for the specific reference

23     now -- it was established based on the statutory decision on the basics

24     of the organisation on the 3rd of -- taken in May.

25        Q.   So it's true that it was established along with other organs on

Page 35816

 1     the 15th of May, 1992?

 2        A.   Yes, it is mentioned in the decision.

 3        Q.   If I understood correctly, it was only in July with the

 4     appointment of the head of the Defence Department that the organisation

 5     of the Defence Department really begins, people are being appointed, and

 6     certain conclusions are made?

 7        A.   Yes.  After the 3rd of July, the Defence Department gradually

 8     gets organised.

 9        Q.   Was the system of the Defence Department already defined in July,

10     and Bruno Stojic was appointed to an already-defined organ or body, or

11     was it just in the process of getting organised?

12        A.   It was in April, with the start of the war in Bosnia, that the

13     defence system started to get organised.

14        Q.   Well, if I understand you correctly, the contours did exist, but

15     the system was still being built up.

16        A.   Yes, the system was still being built up.

17        Q.   All right.  Now, in my set of documents, and I know you're

18     familiar with them also - we needn't waste time on them - but, anyway, in

19     the proposal for the programme of the Defence Department, which is

20     document P 646, dated the 24th of October, 1992, that document speaks

21     about the fact that the activities of the Main Staff, as part of the

22     Defence Department, will be geared towards the constitution of brigades,

23     the setting up of brigades, and their commands, and that is borne out,

24     Mr. Marijan -- or that bears out your theory that the system was still a

25     burgeoning one, under construction?

Page 35817

 1        A.   Yes.  Perhaps they were on to the second phase.

 2        Q.   Now, in document P 128, which is a report on the work -- on work

 3     for 1992, at the end of the fifth page and the beginning of page 6, it

 4     says, in both versions, Croatian and B/C/S, that -- and English, that

 5     after the decision of the 17th of October, 1992, on joining all the

 6     Croatian communities in BH into the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna,

 7     that all the armed units of the HVO came under the united command of the

 8     Main Staff.  That assertion on the establishment of a united command in

 9     mid-October 1992, does that confirm this theory that the system of

10     defence in 1992 was just beginning to be built up?

11        A.   Well, the system was being built up, and this relates to the

12     Operative Zone of Bosanska Posavina, and only then did it come within the

13     composition of the Main Staff or, rather, the HVO.

14        Q.   All right.  Now, document P 661, which is a decision by

15     Mate Boban on the appointment of commanders of the operative zones, dated

16     the 28th of October, 1992.  Can we conclude, therefore, that it was in

17     October and during 1992 that the appointments of commanders was an

18     ongoing process to the operative zones and other units of the HVO; is

19     that right?

20        A.   Yes, that is right.  The three men, gentlemen, were appointed

21     because two operative zones had been functioning previously without

22     commanders having been appointed.

23             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Do I still have one more minute at

24     my disposal, with your indulgence, Your Honours?  No, I don't?  Okay.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You have one minute left.

Page 35818

 1             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] I have to complete my

 2     cross-examination, Mr. Marijan, unfortunately.  Ah, I have been given a

 3     minute, right.  I have one extra minute.

 4        Q.   Now, in item 8 of your report, that is to say, at the very

 5     beginning, you speak about an introductory presentation by my client,

 6     Mr. Petkovic.  The document is P 279, an introductory speech by my

 7     client, Mr. Petkovic.  We handed this out to everybody this morning.

 8     And, Mr. Marijan, you say that with that speech, the defence priorities

 9     of Herceg-Bosna were defined, do you remember that, in paragraph 8 of

10     your report?

11        A.   Yes, it sets out the defence priorities.  They weren't defined,

12     however.

13        Q.   All right.  Now, this introductory speech, was it actually

14     delivered?  Was this speech uttered and delivered?

15        A.   I can't claim that.

16        Q.   All right.  Now, you say that it was a meeting in Grude; right?

17     How do you know that the meeting was held in Grude?

18        A.   Well, I assume that on the basis of the title, the heading.

19        Q.   And what does the heading mean, "The Command of the Battle-Field"

20     and so on?  It was a forward command post.

21        A.   It was a forward command post.  And the command of the southern

22     front at Grude.  The southern front was -- there was a unit of the

23     Croatian army, but Mr. Petkovic signed it as a -- the commander of the of

24     this area of Grude and of the Main Staff.

25        Q.   As commander of the Main Staff, as chief of the Main Staff?

Page 35819

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   Did you see documents to the effect that as he was brigadier at

 3     the time, Brigadier Petkovic signed himself as chief of the Main Staff of

 4     the HVO; are you quite sure about that?

 5        A.   I think there are documents, I have documents as commander, not

 6     chief.

 7        Q.   Now, this definition of Grude here, does it mean that in Grude,

 8     it was this, the Command of the southern front was there?

 9        A.   Yes, it was the Forward Command Post.

10        Q.   So this definition of Grude doesn't actually mean that the

11     meeting was held in Grude, does it?

12        A.   Well, possibly the meeting was not held in Grude.

13        Q.   Let us assume that the speech was delivered and he is addressing

14     the heads of the municipalities.  Tell us which municipalities.

15        A.   Well, there's several municipalities listed here, probably the

16     municipalities of Western Herzegovina.

17        Q.   All right, fine.  Now, tell me, please, what happened at the end

18     of June 1992 in Western Herzegovina, on that -- in that area there?

19        A.   Well, at the end of June, that is to say, the second half of June

20     1992, in Western Herzegovina what was happening was this:  The HVO had

21     crossed the Neretva River and set up a line on the east bank of the

22     Neretva River; that is to say, Mostar, Capljina, and Stolac

23     municipalities.

24        Q.   Tell us, and is that when Stolac was liberated?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 35820

 1        Q.   Now, at that same time, the army of Croats and Muslims in

 2     Bosnia-Herzegovina --

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam, you really must

 4     conclude, because you really have gone beyond the allotted time.

 5             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]

 6        Q.   In view of the fact that mention is made of the enemy in this

 7     document, let's try and define it.  Were the enemies the army of the

 8     Serbs in Bosnia-Herzegovina?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   In May 1992?

11        A.   Yes, in May --

12             THE INTERPRETER:  In June 1992, interpreter's correction.

13        A.   Those were the Serbs.

14        Q.   Here it says:  "South-east Herzegovina, the Muslims and Croats

15     collaborated"; right?

16        A.   Yes, right.

17        Q.   Now, from the priorities defined here, and they are --

18             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please, Madam, this will be

19     your last question.  You really have overstepped the limits.

20             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   [Previous translation continues]... it was the

22     professionalisation, as it says -- yes, my last question, here it comes.

23     Defining defence priorities, the professionalisation of the army as being

24     one, the status of HVO members, records kept for everybody participating

25     in the war, and care and attention to the wounded and the families of

Page 35821

 1     killed persons, housing -- et cetera.  Now -- or, rather, not

 2     "et cetera."  Are those the defence priorities if you considered that the

 3     war had already ended, that war had ended in a given territory; would

 4     that be right?

 5        A.   I think that Mr. Petkovic says that there are soldiers who

 6     consider that the war was already over.

 7        Q.   But I'm asking you about defence priorities here, just your

 8     comments on defence priorities, which was my question.

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please, Madam Alaburic.  The

10     Chamber has been flexible.  We gave you an additional five minutes.

11     Really, you must keep to the five minutes, because otherwise there's a

12     boomerang effect.  When someone else asks for additional time, the Judges

13     are reticent to grant additional time.  So you do understand, I'm sure,

14     the risks involved in our granting additional time, because there's

15     always a risk of slippage.  And, frankly, I don't think there's any need

16     to continue.  The Chamber therefore decides that this will be the end of

17     your examination.

18             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] [Previous translation

19     continues]... well, if you will, that's fine, if that would be all right

20     with the Trial Chamber.  If not --

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I will allow the witness to

22     answer, but you will ask no further questions, please.

23             Go ahead, Witness.

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, they are and they're not.

25     Now, professionalisation, if you're going to talk about the

Page 35822

 1     professionalisation of the army, it means the war isn't over yet.

 2             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Mr. Marijan, thank you for your

 3     answers.  I have no more time left, and therefore I have to complete my

 4     cross-examination.

 5             I would like to thank the honourable Trial Chamber, and I ask

 6     that the Petkovic Defence should be treated equally, just like the

 7     Defences of Bruno Stojic and some other Defence teams, when Mr. Karnavas

 8     presented his evidence.  So thank you.

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, there is a question

10     that should have been asked to you, based on the document we have before

11     us, where there is a breakdown of the military personnel, Mostar,

12     Capljina, Grude, Stolac, et cetera.  When I add up the numbers, it comes

13     to about 10.000 soldiers.  And a few days ago, I saw another document

14     where I did a similar addition.  And when I was doing that, I wondered

15     what the HVO represented on the ground in terms of military force.  Just

16     a few thousand soldiers, whereas we know that on the other side -- well,

17     I'm not going to speak about the Serb side, but -- because we're

18     essentially interested here in the Muslim side.  They were far more

19     numerous.

20             You, yourself, were on the ground.  You were in the field, and

21     you said that you fought.  Did you have the impression that you were

22     out-numbered, that there was an imbalance in terms of military personnel,

23     weaponry, and military force?  Did you have the impression that you were

24     on equal footing with the other side or were you in a situation of

25     inferiority, number-wise?

Page 35823

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Bosnian Serbian

 2     army, or rather the Serbian army in Bosnia-Herzegovina, took over all the

 3     capacities of the Yugoslav People's Army, all their facilities, so in

 4     this specific case on the opposite bank of the Neretva River, there was a

 5     corps that was pulled out of Croatia from the area of Istria and Rijeka,

 6     and so the corps was an establishment corps with three brigades, an

 7     anti-aircraft team, an artillery regiment, and all the elements that a

 8     corps has.  Now, the overall HVO did not have the necessary resources to

 9     amount to one corps, and then there was the human problem as well.

10             The Serbs during this period were facing a lot of confusion.  In

11     the summer of 1992 itself, they managed to consolidate themselves in July

12     with additional mobilisations, so their supremacy, both in manpower and

13     technical equipment, was constant; whereas with the Muslims, they had

14     superiority in manpower, and this could be seen on the ground, they had

15     more men, the Muslims were more numerous; although, just like the HVO,

16     they didn't have support which would correspond to the number of

17     manpower.

18             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One last question, and then I

19     will call upon the Stojic Defence.

20             Given the number of soldiers and presence that you've just

21     described, how can it be that the HVO and its military component was not

22     simply wiped away?  Why weren't they just swept away very rapidly?  I

23     mean in military terms, of course.

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, Your Honour, that is indeed a

25     question, and the same question can be asked of Croatia, because it took

Page 35824

 1     one of the JNA's corps, the 17th corps, but it did manage to resist an

 2     attack.  And I suppose that it came down to the human factor, especially

 3     on the Serb side.  The human factor was not on a par with the weapons, on

 4     the same level as their level of armament.  That's the only explanation,

 5     I think, because morale was the decisive factor, and the will to fight.

 6     That was the decisive factor in all these conflicts, and it was the

 7     source of all the successes and failures of any one of those armies.

 8             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Perhaps we'll have an

 9     opportunity to come back to that.

10             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Mr. Marijan, your previous answer, towards the

11     end, features your assessment that while the Muslims were in a majority

12     as far as people, men, are concerned, they lacked support.  If one has a

13     minimum knowledge of military and war, one knows that it's mainly fire

14     that is important, more than legs, so wouldn't that be an explanation?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, no.  I can quote a

16     specific example, if you would like me to do that, so that I back up what

17     would otherwise just be my story, a tale told by me.

18             On the 13th of April, 1992, for example - this is a specific

19     case, and I can quote that - I was along a sector that was 13 kilometres

20     long, a line defended by 350 men.  We had -- of heavy weaponry, we had

21     one non-recoilless gun - it's a small one - 80 millimetres, two mortars

22     of 120 millimetres, and apart from those of us who were outside the local

23     structures, there was a group of volunteers from the Croatian Army, some

24     30 men in all, and they also had two mortars of 120 millimetres, and

25     there was another group of 20 or 30 men of the Croatian Party of Rights,

Page 35825

 1     the HOS group.  I think you've already heard about the HOS.

 2             Anyway, on that particular day, after intense preparations where

 3     our lines were -- artillery preparations, we were attacked by an armoured

 4     battalion, about 20 armoured vehicles, mostly tanks, and they didn't

 5     manage to break through.  So if you look at that and look at some

 6     examples -- call examples that would be taught, to all intents and

 7     purposes, they would have had to break down our lines, but they didn't,

 8     they didn't break down our defence.  Although there was a lot of panic

 9     and fear, but nonetheless we managed to stick to our guns and hold our

10     positions, so that I think that morale is all important and a basic

11     feature in a war.

12             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you.

13             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you very much for that

14     example.

15             I would like to call upon Mr. Coric's Defence.  You have 30

16     minutes, in order to avoid any difficulties, 30 minutes.

17             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Good morning,

18     Your Honour.  Good morning, Mr. Marijan.  Good morning to everyone in the

19     courtroom.

20             My questions will refer to certain paragraphs in your report

21     under the heading "Military police."

22                           Cross-examination by Ms. Tomasegovic Tomic:

23        Q.   You have the report before you?  You must have my documents plus

24     your own report.

25        A.   I do.

Page 35826

 1        Q.   In paragraph 44 of your report, you refer to two documents, and

 2     one of them reads that the Military Police Administration leads and

 3     commands all military police units, and in the other document it says it

 4     commands military police units in units, operation zones, and the light

 5     assault brigade.

 6             Now, in the follow-up, not because I always want clarifications

 7     but because I have very little time, please answer me with a "yes" or

 8     "no."  Tell me, do you -- have you found this parts of your report and do

 9     you remember these documents?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   Yesterday and in the previous days of your testimony, you pointed

12     out a problem, or what you see as a problem, in the documents in general

13     enactments of the HVO, and the question was raised in the courtroom

14     whether you were a lawyer, whether you were qualified to comment on these

15     documents, and I took all that into account when I prepared for my

16     cross-examination.  And I will follow the example of the Presiding Judge,

17     Mr. Antonetti, and try to focus my examination on very specific issues

18     and what happened in practice.  That's why I would like us to look

19     together at a few documents, starting with the last one in your binder,

20     5D 0 --

21             THE INTERPRETER:  Could counsel please repeat the number.

22             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] While this document is

23     coming up -- 5D 00440.

24        Q.   I'll remind you that in paragraph 43 of your report, quoting the

25     Decree on the Armed Forces, you said that the military police was charged

Page 35827

 1     with security and military traffic, military order and discipline, and

 2     elimination of criminal elements in the armed forces.  Now, these things

 3     that I quoted from your paragraph 3, is this in fact the basic job

 4     description of the military police, what they are supposed to do on a

 5     daily basis; yes or no?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   Now we have the document on the screen.  It's a document signed

 8     by the commander, Tihomir Blaskic.  Let's see what it says.  It's a

 9     warning to one of the brigade commanders of the HVO, where he says that

10     the overall status of the military police of the HVO is the

11     responsibility of the brigade commander, and he says further below that

12     the brigade commander is under obligation to prevent all incidents of

13     robbery, crime, and seizure of motor vehicles.  Does this fall within the

14     daily tasks of the military police; for instance, the elimination of

15     criminal elements in the armed forces?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   Look at the next --

18             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, I would like to take --

19     I'd like to take advantage of your looking at this document.  I'll ask a

20     question.

21             We have this document signed by Mr. Blaskic.  Could you comment

22     on the codes 01-1-425/93?  Could you tell us what it means, so we have a

23     specific example.

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think you could

25     explain it this way.  "01" should be the code of the Operation Zone

Page 35828

 1     Central Bosnia.  "-1," it means it was signed by the commander of the

 2     operation zone, because if it had been the head of the Main Staff, it

 3     would have been "02," and other assistants would follow.  "425/93" would

 4     mean that it is the 425th document written in 1993, which means that in

 5     the first nine days of the year, the operations zone had already had 425

 6     different documents developed in its General Affairs Department.

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Summarising "01," operational

 8     area?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "01" is commander.

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.  "1" means Colonel

11     Blaskic is in command, and "45" is the 425th document in 1993, date and

12     time.  Fine.

13             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I have a small rather linguistic question.  The

14     document, in the English translation, mentions "seizure of motor

15     vehicles."  Now, "seizure" is a technical/legal term and it doesn't make

16     sense in this context.  Isn't car theft or taking cars for joy-riding

17     rather what was meant here?

18             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] In the original

19     documents, it says "otimanje," [phoen] that is appropriation, illegal,

20     unlawful appropriation, something that is a crime.

21        Q.   Now, let us move on to document 5D 04384.  It's the next one in

22     line, again from Mr. Blaskic, addressed to the 4th Battalion of the

23     Military Police of Vitez.  It's a command that is -- it's an order, where

24     it says, "Immediately distribute or deploy confiscated vehicles."

25             Does this fall within the normal job description of the military

Page 35829

 1     police?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   5D 03046 will be our next document.  Now, we are moving to the

 4     South-East Herzegovina Operational Zone.  This document was signed by

 5     Commander Bozo Pavlovic.  He issues orders to the military police in this

 6     document.  And if we look at paragraph 1, he stipulates passage through

 7     check-points.  5D 03046.  Check-points in traffic.  Check-points, is that

 8     a normal job of the military police?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   Let's move on to the next document, 5D 04380, again from Mr. Bozo

11     Pavlovic, again an order to the military police of Stolac, and it

12     concerns the taking into custody and disarmament of those who leave their

13     positions without official leave.  Is that one of the jobs of the

14     military police?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   Let's move on to the next document.  In fact, we can skip it,

17     because we have enough from Operation Zone South-East Herzegovina.  We're

18     skipping one.  And let's move to 5D 04392.  That's another order from

19     Mr. Bozo Pavlovic, addressed to both the civilian and the military

20     police, and again he deals with check-points, orders a ban on the

21     misappropriation of property.  Is that another job of the military

22     police?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   Next document, 5D 02009.  This is an order from the commander of

25     the Sector South, Nedeljko Obradovic.  We see down below that it was

Page 35830

 1     addressed to the chief of the active police, Dretelj.  It's entitled:

 2     "Order concerning check-points"; is that correct?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   501548, Operation Zone West Herzegovina.  It's from commander

 5     Zeljko Siljeg, and the title is "Engaging Forces to Execute Military

 6     Police Tasks in Gornji Vakuf."  Now, in the introductory paragraph of

 7     this order, somewhere towards the middle, there is a sentence that reads:

 8             "Since the military police, since some time ago, has been

 9     subordinated in the command sense to the commands of brigades and

10     operations zones, and with a view to appropriate engagement and

11     establishing order in Gornji Vakuf ...," we need not read the rest,

12     "... he orders brigades Kvaternik and Ante Starcevic to proceed with

13     performing their daily regular tasks."

14             It's document P 01548.  Is this correct?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   Now, put your finger on this passage.  In fact, we can move on

17     with the documents.

18             We'll skip one, and we'll skip the next one.  5D 0201.  Leave

19     your finger on 5D 02001.

20             In your report, you said that the military police had been

21     engaged from the very beginning in combat operations; am I right?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   Now, with regard to these combat activities, I'd like to look at

24     certain documents.  Let's look at document 5D 04371.  Can you see it?

25     It's the first one after the one where you left your finger.  Have you

Page 35831

 1     found it?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   We see that this is an order from Commander Zvonko Vukovic.  He's

 4     the commander of the 4th Battalion of the Military Police in Vitez, and

 5     he addresses this order to all military police units in the Central

 6     Bosnia Operation Zone.  He says:

 7             "Pursuant to the order of the HVO Main Staff," number such and

 8     such, "and further to the order of the Operations Zone Central Bosnia,"

 9     and he gives an order to raise command readiness in all the military

10     police units.  Is this the chain of command in the combat operations

11     involving military police?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   5D 04382 is the next document I need.  It's an order from the

14     commander of the Operations Zone South-East Herzegovina,

15     Mr. Milenko Lazic, sent to the military police, among others, and in

16     para 3 it says that an anti-aircraft machine-gun should be mounted on the

17     military police vehicle.  Does this order relate to the supply of a

18     certain weapon to the military police in connection with an operation?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   The next document, P 03117, again from the commander of the

21     Operation Zone South-East Herzegovina, Brigadier Milenko Lazic, addressed

22     to the 3rd Battalion of the Military Police, and it says:  "Pursuant to

23     the order from the Main Staff, specifying the responsibilities of the

24     operation zone in stabilising the situation," and he goes on.  And I'd

25     like to look at item 2 -- paragraph 2, the point that begins with the

Page 35832

 1     second zone of responsibility.  He describes the location and he says:

 2     "I appoint Mr. Mijo Jelic, sector commander," and in brackets "commander

 3     of the military police."

 4             Now let's look at item 4.  It says daily reports in writing,

 5     describing the situation as of 1800 hours, to be submitted by sector

 6     commanders and telephone reports to be submitted, et cetera, et cetera.

 7     Does this reflect the chain of command over the military police in combat

 8     operations?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   Now, one document we'll skip.  5D 04385 is the next document I

11     need.  It's an order from Colonel Zeljko Siljeg, sent to the 2nd

12     Battalion of the Military Police in Livno, among others, entitled:

13     "Reporting to the Command of the Operation Zone North-East Herzegovina."

14             In para 1, Mr. Siljeg [Livenote read in error "Zilic"] says:

15             "The 2nd Military Police Battalion ..."  and he enumerates other

16     units that are not of interest to me, "... shall be required to submit

17     regular combat reports on the situation as of 1800 hours by 1900 hours

18     every day, and interim reports as needed.  Send reports in writing using

19     a courier or pact communications."

20             I have just been warned by my colleague that we have "Zilic"

21     instead of "Siljeg" in the transcript.  It's Commander Siljeg.

22             Is this the structure of orders received by the military police?

23        A.   Yes, we could conclude that this unit is involved in combat.

24        Q.   5D 04387 is the next document.  I think it's a combat order again

25     signed by Zeljko Siljeg, and it's called "Order for Active Combat

Page 35833

 1     Activity."  Look at para 2.  In para 2 of the order, it says "Tactical

 2     Group 2."  Now, look at its composition, please.  Among others, we see

 3     the military police.  Do you see that?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   And it says, Tactical Group 2 has the mission to launch an attack

 6     on enemy forces from line such and such.  Now, let us look at para 8 of

 7     the same order, where it says the 2nd Military Police Battalion, and he

 8     lists others, shall move on the axis of operation of Tactical Group 2,

 9     and describes that mission in that operation.  Remember that we have the

10     2nd Battalion of Military Police in para 8, and let's see to whom this

11     order was addressed.  Addressees, units from para 8.

12             Tell me, is this a combat order sent to the military police?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   Now, I'd like to go back to the document I told you to put a

15     finger on, P -- 5D 02001.  Look at point 3 of that document.  It's once

16     again a Zeljko Siljeg document.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, you said something on

18     the evaluation, the assessment of the forces in presence, and I can see

19     here from this document that there are T-55 tanks.

20             Have you heard what I said?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, T-55.  I did hear that,

22     Your Honour.

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] No comment on this?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, a tank platoon is mentioned

25     there, which means two or three tanks at the most.  To be quite honest, I

Page 35834

 1     didn't understand.  Did you say something before?  I just heard you say

 2     "T-55 tanks," but I didn't hear what you said before that.

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What I said, we had a

 4     discussion earlier on, on the assessment of forces in presence, and after

 5     what you said, I just point out to you that the paragraph in question

 6     states that there were some tanks available to the HVO.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, without a doubt the

 8     HVO had tanks, but the overall HVO in all three zones, well, I think the

 9     figures exist, but I don't think that the Operative Zone had more than 10

10     or 12 tanks, the whole of the Operative Zone.  So just two or three are

11     used to reinforce the infantry.

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.  It was a minor issue.

13             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation]

14        Q.   And to conclude this area with respect to the combat operations,

15     let's look at the documents P 02001 [as interpreted] and item 3 of that.

16     It is a Siljeg document in which he says that the general principle was

17     that the unit, who was the strongest establishment-wise and is to be

18     found in a given territory, at a given time, should command all the other

19     units in that territory, and this is regulated by an order from the

20     superior commander.  5D 02001 is the document number, 5D.  So it commands

21     all the units on the territories, and this is regulated by the order

22     issued by the superior commander.

23             Now, do you agree with what Colonel Siljeg writes there, yes or

24     no?

25        A.   Yes, that is the general principle of a commander on the ground.

Page 35835

 1        Q.   All right, fine.  Let's move on to the first document in my

 2     binder now.  And we can go to the last page of that document or, rather,

 3     paragraph.

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Hold on.  There may be legal

 5     consequences for that principle in paragraph 3.

 6             You're not a lawyer - we know that - but I'm asking you this

 7     question because you were in the field.  According to this document, it

 8     would seem that when, in the field, automatically a stronger unit

 9     subordinates all the other units present in the field, is it how this

10     paragraph is to be understood?  Because then I would have another

11     question ensuing from your answer.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour --

13             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I apologise,

14     but I think there was a mistake in the interpretation, because it says

15     that you said that that strongest one was subordinated to all the rest,

16     whereas I think you meant to say that it was superior to all the others.

17     There was a mistake in the translation of your words into Croatian and

18     English.

19             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I have understood, but since

20     the French interpreters are excellent, there's never any problem.  I have

21     understood that it is the stronger unit which has authority over all the

22     other units on the ground.  Is this what this text means?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The principle is that the largest

24     unit or, rather, the commander of the largest unit commands the forces

25     attached to him on the ground, because that is how to avoid multiple

Page 35836

 1     chains of command.

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Assuming that, let us imagine

 3     the following hypothesis.  Well, it's actually not a hypothesis; it was

 4     the reality.  We have seen this.  But for you, it would be a hypothesis.

 5             Imagine the military police unit, who's not from the brigade but

 6     from other brigades, i.e., it comes from elsewhere, imagine that unit is

 7     in the field.  Is it automatically subordinated to the unit which in the

 8     field is the strongest one, and is that military police unit subordinated

 9     to the commander of that stronger unit?  So it's a very specific point.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Its very entry, entry of that unit,

11     into the zone of a bigger unit, brings it into that position, and in most

12     cases there should be an additional document from the commander who sent

13     the unit there to avoid any possible queries in that sense.

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So this outside unit is placed

15     under the authority of the commander exercising the main authority?  Are

16     we in agreement?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, precisely, Your Honour, quite

18     right.

19             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, Counsel, please.

20             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   Well, let's take the first document in my binder now.  It is

22     about the military police and its establishment.  You've referred to that

23     many times, and so have we all in the court.  So let's move to the last

24     page, and you can recall the documents we showed a moment ago related to

25     daily assignments.  And let's read the penultimate paragraph of that

Page 35837

 1     document, in which it says that the commanders of the military police

 2     battalions in operation zones, in performing their daily duties, are

 3     directly subordinated to the operation zone commander and carry out all

 4     orders relating to military police work and assignments, in accordance

 5     with the powers and responsibilities of the military police.  That is

 6     document, let me repeat again, P 00957.

 7             Now, what I've just read out, is that in keeping with the orders

 8     we looked at a moment ago about check-points, law and order, the

 9     documents I showed you a moment ago; yes or no?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   All right.  Now I'd like to read out a sentence.  This is a bit

12     confusing, and then another document, so that we can clear up what that

13     actually means, because I would like to draw a conclusion about what it

14     is, in actual fact, that the military police does.  And in this same

15     document, one sentence before the part I read out, says, "The Military

16     Police Administration leads and commands all military police units."

17     Remember that sentence, please.

18             Now, in the binder, find P 00143 now, P 00143 is the document you

19     should be looking at now.  It's a document to which you refer in

20     paragraph 24.  Have you found it?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   And after that, there's a later document, a subsequent document,

23     P 00837 by another author, and it comes next in my binder.  I'm just

24     going to read out the P 00143 document because they are identical in the

25     portion that interests me.  So let's look at general provisions,

Page 35838

 1     Chapter 1 in that document.

 2             Let me help out Your Honours and tell you where it is in the

 3     English.  It is on page 4, page 4 of the English.

 4             Have you found Chapter 1, Witness?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   Now, in Chapter 1, we have something under number 1, and what you

 7     said is quoted there; that the Military Police Administration shall lead

 8     all the military police units.  And I showed you a document linked to

 9     daily operations, combat operations.  Now, in that same document, under

10     item 9 -- let's look at paragraphs 9 and 11 and see what the author of

11     the document tells us there.  9 and 11, please.

12             In point 9, the author of the document says as follows:

13             "The Military Police Administration of the HVO is responsible for

14     the general situation, professional training, and combat readiness of the

15     military police units.

16             "It shall monitor and study the organisation and formation of

17     military police units and control and evaluate the level of training and

18     combat readiness of military police units, and the HVO shall propose

19     measures for their improvement and replenishment.

20             "The Military Police Administration shall also draw conclusions

21     from experiences gained in the work of the military police units and

22     incorporate them into the training of the military police units."

23             Let's look at paragraph 11 now, please.  11 paragraph, which says

24     the following:

25             "The Military Police Administration is responsible for equipping

Page 35839

 1     the military police units with military police equipment and insignia

 2     showing that they belong to military police units, while for the armament

 3     and providing other materiel and technical equipment, it is the command

 4     of the basic unit that is responsible for that, attached to which the

 5     military police unit has been formed."

 6             Paragraph 11.

 7             Now, I have two questions, in conclusion.  What I've just read

 8     out, paragraphs 9 and 11, that is, do they explain the way in which and

 9     the sense in which all the military police units are commanded by the

10     Military Police Administration and what the Military Police

11     Administration is responsible for; yes or no?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   Now, my last question, and I will conclude my cross-examination

14     with that question:  Can I therefore conclude that when, in paragraph 37

15     of your report, in the last sentence there, you state - take a look at

16     paragraph 37 now, please - that the military police was treated as part

17     of the armed forces.  When you say that, do you mean the military police

18     units, in fact, and not the Military Police Administration, which is the

19     administrative part of the Defence department; am I right there?  And

20     that's my last question.

21        A.   Yes.

22             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, that

23     completes my cross-examination.

24             I would just like to mention, I don't know whether this was clear

25     enough yesterday, but Ms. Alaburic showed schematics yesterday.  Well,

Page 35840

 1     they weren't schematics that were compiled during the war; they were

 2     schematics drawn up during these proceedings, during this trial, and

 3     there are some which are not contradictory to those dating back to the

 4     war.  So when we present our evidence during the Coric Defence case, we

 5     shall be showing those, too.

 6             Thank you, Your Honours, and thank you, Mr. Marijan.

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.  That comment is, of

 8     course, included in the transcript, and the Chamber will take account of

 9     it.

10             Thank you very much for having concluded your examination.  You

11     used up your 30 minutes, more or less, and that will enable us,

12     therefore, to have a 20-minute break now.  And then the Prosecution can

13     begin its cross-examination.

14             Twenty minutes' break.

15                           --- Recess taken at 10.36 a.m.

16                           --- On resuming at 11.03 a.m.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before I call upon the

18     Prosecution, I would like to read out a brief decision on the part of the

19     Chamber regarding the appearance of Slobodan Bozic.

20             The appearance of Slobodan Bozic, a witness for the Stojic

21     Defence, is planned January 26 to February 3rd, 2009.  In keeping with

22     the schedule presented by the Stojic Defence, they have asked for five

23     hours in order to carry out the direct examination.

24             On December 16th, 2008, the Praljak Defence had requested the

25     time of 15 to 20 minutes during the appearance of Slobodan Bozic in order

Page 35841

 1     to carry out a direct examination of this same witness under

 2     Article 92 ter of the Rules.

 3             On January 12th, 2009, the Praljak Defence indicated to the

 4     Chamber and to the parties -- or, rather, disclosed to the Chamber and to

 5     the parties the English translation of the written statement made by

 6     Slobodan Bozic which they intend to present in keeping with

 7     Article 92 ter of the Rules.

 8             On January 16th, 2009, the Prosecution responded that they were

 9     not opposed to the request made by the Praljak Defence to carry out

10     direct examination of this witness, while requesting to have additional

11     time for its own cross-examination.

12             The Chamber grants the request made by the Praljak Defence to

13     carry out a direct examination of Slobodan Bozic under Article 92 ter of

14     the Rules, and decides, in keeping with the practice of the Chamber, to

15     grant the following amount of time:

16             First of all, the Stojic Defence shall have five hours in order

17     to carry out the direct examination of the witness Slobodan Bozic.  The

18     other Defence teams will have an overall amount of time of two and a half

19     hours, two hours and thirty minutes, for their cross-examination, and the

20     Prosecution will then be able to cross-examine the witness for a duration

21     of five hours.

22             Secondly, the Praljak Defence will have 20 minutes for the direct

23     examination of the witness, in keeping with Article 92 ter of the Rules.

24     The other Defence teams will have an overall amount of time of 15

25     minutes, and the Prosecution 30 minutes for cross-examination of the

Page 35842

 1     witness in relationship to the direct examination carried out by the

 2     Praljak Defence and on the basis of the written statement of the witness.

 3             So to summarise, we will have five hours for the Stojic Defence

 4     team.  All the other teams will have two and a half hours, and then the

 5     Prosecutor will have five hours.  Then Mr. Praljak will have 20 minutes,

 6     the other Defence teams 15 minutes, and the Prosecutor 30 minutes.

 7             I therefore have summarised the situation in just a few seconds.

 8             Mr. Karnavas.

 9             MR. KARNAVAS:  Just a point of clarification, Mr. President and

10     Your Honours.

11             Are we to understand, then, that there will be no

12     cross-examination on the part of the Praljak team?  Because it seems that

13     they're both doing direct and cross under this -- as the way the order is

14     stated.  First they cross and then they do direct?  Because I understand

15     initially they had requested both direct and cross-examination time.

16             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] No.  Based on what Mr. Praljak

17     requested in his submission, he will have the opportunity to

18     cross-examine within the overall time of two and a half hours.  And once

19     we've completed all of that, he will then come back, under

20     Article 92 ter, to deal with the issues in that statement.

21             Have you understood?

22             MR. KARNAVAS:  I do understand.  I just find it rather

23     interesting.

24             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  If I may, it's not the first time that we have

25     this.  We've had it with your witnesses, too.  And we have developed

Page 35843

 1     that.  No one objected to the system and --

 2             MR. KARNAVAS:  I did believe -- I did note that I found it rather

 3     curious.  I didn't -- it's not my position to object to somebody else's

 4     demands at this point in time with respect to cross and direct, although

 5     I do find it interesting.  On the one moment, he's hostile or being

 6     treated as a hostile witness, and the next moment you're embracing him as

 7     your own witness.  But be that as it may, I accept Trial Chamber's

 8     decision, Your Honours.

 9             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  We will not discuss now all the curiosities that

10     are associated to this trial because that might take some time.

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Indeed, it would take numerous

12     days.

13             Mr. Bos, you have the floor now.  Thank you very much, because we

14     do have a file.

15             MR. BOS:  Thank you, Mr. President.

16             Good morning, Mr. President, Your Honours, and everybody else in

17     the courtroom.

18                           Cross-examination by Mr. Bos:

19        Q.   Good morning, Mr. Marijan.  Yes, you have a lot of binders around

20     you piled up.  All the binders from the Defence, I think, you can leave

21     now.  Please keep them on the ground.  What's important is your report,

22     which I think you have in front of you, your expert report, and those two

23     binders that are actually right here.

24             Mr. Marijan, I will deal with a number of topics, but before I

25     do, I'd like to make -- ask you for a couple of clarifications on your

Page 35844

 1     report.  And for that, I would ask you to go to your introductory remarks

 2     on page 4 of your report, the introductory remarks.

 3             Do you have that?  In those introductory remarks, you make

 4     reference -- well, you talk in the plural, you say:

 5             "Our intention was to present the organisation and volume of work

 6     and task carried out by the Department of Defence."

 7             And in the third paragraph, again, you say:

 8             "A major obstacle in our work was a lack of clear

 9     information ..."

10             Et cetera.  Now, who do you refer to besides yourself when you

11     say "our"?

12        A.   Your Honours, it's a normal usage in my profession, shared by

13     most of my colleagues, to say "we," "our."  You can find it in all of my

14     books.  Some people say "I," but I always wrote "we."  I don't think

15     I can explain.  I simply took it over from others.  It's regular usage.

16        Q.   Does it in any way imply that other people were involved in the

17     preparation of this report besides you?

18        A.   It is my report, Mr. Bos.  I signed it.

19        Q.   And you signed it, and whatever is written in the report has been

20     written by you?

21        A.   I stand by it, yes.  Yes, I wrote it.

22        Q.   Did you read everything in the report?

23        A.   I wrote all of it.

24        Q.   Mr. Marijan, did you get compensated for writing this report?

25        A.   No.

Page 35845

 1        Q.   You didn't get any compensation.  And did you write this report

 2     in your free time or did you prepare it --

 3        A.   Yes, it was done in my spare time.

 4        Q.   Now, from the cross by other counsel, it appears that you

 5     reviewed a substantial number of documents, and I would like to clarify

 6     the documents that you actually reviewed.

 7             Did you review -- let me first ask you this:  Did you review more

 8     documents than the documents you've been [sic] footnoted in your report?

 9        A.   Yes, certainly.

10        Q.   And when you say "certainly," can you give an estimate on the

11     number of documents that you actually reviewed?  Are we talking about

12     hundreds of more documents or --

13        A.   I'm sure you know that I used to work as the archivist who laid

14     the foundations for this.  A lot of documents passed through my hands.

15     And when I say "a lot," that's what I mean, a great, great deal.

16        Q.   But when -- when you start preparing for this report, were all

17     the documents that you reviewed, were they all given to you by the Stojic

18     Defence or did they give part of the documents and you also referred to

19     documents that you had already written before or that you already had in

20     your possession, yourself?

21        A.   Your Honours, I used the documents I received from the Stojic

22     Defence team and your documents, I believe, because they bear a

23     Prosecution reference number.  And in my research, I had access to

24     material, additional material that I used.  I don't know if their exhibit

25     number was given them later or was already there when I reviewed them.  I

Page 35846

 1     didn't pay attention.

 2        Q.   What I would like to find out is -- so you say that you were also

 3     given Prosecution exhibits.  Do you know what kind of selection the

 4     Stojic Defence made in providing you these documents?  Did they give you

 5     the complete Prosecution exhibit list or additional documents as well?

 6     Do you know what kind of selection they made for you -- for the documents

 7     for you to review?

 8        A.   Your Honours, the Stojic Defence gave me access to the documents

 9     they had, and I was given a topic, a subject.  And according to that

10     subject, I reviewed documents.

11        Q.   When you say "they had," well, let's be concrete, for example.

12     Did you get the full Prosecution exhibit list with all the documents from

13     the Prosecution exhibits list, or a number of the Prosecution exhibits?

14        A.   I couldn't tell you if that was all or some of them.  I must say

15     I wasn't particularly interested.  It was a great number of documents.

16        Q.   Okay, very well.  Let's move to paragraph 17 of your report, and

17     that's on page 13 of at least the English version.  This paragraph 17

18     talks about the role of the Department of Defence, and there I'll pick

19     out one line from this paragraph.  You quote it, you said:

20             "The Department of Defence of the HVO was based on a Western

21     European model, with practice of civilian supervision of the army."

22             Now, sir, in most -- and you've touched upon this issue already

23     in cross-examination by Ms. Alaburic, but so in most Western countries,

24     the defence minister is charged with both formulating the defence policy

25     and executing this policy by providing the necessary direction and

Page 35847

 1     support to the armed forces.  Is it not true did Mr. Stojic had a similar

 2     de jure role in the HVO Department of Defence?

 3        A.   Your Honour, this evaluation I made is based on the practice that

 4     I know.  I can't say that I dealt with and studied in detail with Western

 5     practices.  I studied them only through the bulletins published by the

 6     army.  I don't know if that was the custom in the past or even now.

 7        Q.   [Previous translation continues]... because you yourself are

 8     quoting the Western European model, so I would think that you have an

 9     idea of what the Western European model entails.  And isn't it true, sir,

10     that it, in fact, means that the defence minister is actually formulating

11     defence policy and is executing this policy by providing direction and

12     support to the armed forces?  That's usually how it works in Western --

13     in Western countries.

14             MR. KARNAVAS:  I will object to the testifying.  I mean, I don't

15     know if the gentleman is an expert or has served as a minister of defence

16     in the West, whatever "Western" means.

17             MR. BOS:  Well, I'm just asking him his interpretation of the

18     Western European model, and that's what he's referring to --

19             MR. KARNAVAS:  The gentleman is testifying, and there's a vast

20     difference between how the Secretary of Defence in the United States

21     conducts himself versus somebody, say, in France or England or elsewhere,

22     so I would object to any testifying.

23             MR. BOS:

24        Q.   Sir, what is your interpretation of -- when you refer to the

25     Western European model, what -- how did you consider the role of the

Page 35848

 1     defence minister?

 2        A.   Your Honours, I understand the role of minister in that model as

 3     a person who is not in the chain of command and who is a civilian.  And

 4     the army, the Main Staff, is directly looking to the Supreme Commander.

 5     I believe I said that already.  And the fundamental call for a civilian

 6     society that arose in the 1980s in the former Yugoslavia, primarily in

 7     Slovenia, resulted in a call for the defence minister to be a civilian.

 8     I believe that was the case.

 9        Q.   If the minister of defence was a civilian, then the next question

10     is:  Would he have, as a civilian, control over the HVO defence army?

11             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, Mr. Bos.

12             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

13             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Excuse me.  I did not intervene

14     several times yesterday, but I only noticed it by reviewing the

15     transcript.  The full answer of the witness is not recorded.  The witness

16     said, in his answer on page 49, line 20 -- he added:  "But Yugoslavia was

17     peculiar and the JNA was peculiar, idiosyncratic," and that was not

18     recorded, whereas it qualifies his answer.  He said it was a peculiar,

19     idiosyncratic model, and that was not recorded.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I did say that.  And when I'm

21     speaking about this, Mr. Prosecutor, this entire paragraph reflects the

22     ambition, the striving.  That's how they perceived, from their

23     perspective, not only of the Croats of Herceg-Bosna; they perceived that

24     the minister of defence is not a military man and is not part of the

25     chain of command, and that was the great novelty compared to the JNA.

Page 35849

 1     The JNA, I believe, was against --

 2             MR. BOS:

 3        Q.   But what I'm now asking is you -- to you is:  Was there civilian

 4     control over the military?

 5        A.   I think there has been discussion about that in the past days.

 6     We have this problem of the political organisation in Herceg-Bosna, which

 7     I admit is very difficult for me to understand.  On the one hand, we have

 8     this Presidency of the HZ-HB consisting of presidents of municipalities,

 9     and they are on the third step.  And based on that, we have my conclusion

10     from what I saw in the documents that their influence and supervision

11     over the army was great at that lower level.  Now, you can ask the

12     question whether such influence was desirable at a higher level, but the

13     HVO overall was not a problematic army in that sense.  Of course, you

14     have the war, which is always a peculiar situation, leading to

15     militarisation and less civilian control.

16        Q.   I understand what you said.  You said that also yesterday.  And

17     let me repeat to you again, because you're now talking about on a lower

18     level, there was civilian control, rather than on a higher level.  But

19     yesterday, when you were asked by Ms. Alaburic the following question,

20     and I'll quote from page 93 of yesterday's transcript, the question was:

21             "So, in principle, what are the instruments of the civilian

22     control over the military?"

23             And then you answered:

24             "Well, when we are talking about the HZ-HB, the civilian control

25     was meant to be in the hands of the HVO, and it was meant to be in the

Page 35850

 1     hands of Mr. Stojic.  This is what I talked about yesterday or the day

 2     before."

 3             Isn't that what you said, Mr. Marijan?

 4        A.   If it's on the record, then I probably did say that.

 5        Q.   Yes or no would suffice, Mr. Marijan.  I'm asking you whether you

 6     said it, and you actually did say it.

 7             Now, let me ask you -- and this morning again we went back to

 8     this transcript for Mr. Tudjman.  What I'm interested in is:  Why did you

 9     quote Mr. Tudjman as an authority for interpreting what the role of the

10     minister of defence was in the Herceg-Bosna government?  What made you

11     choose Mr. Tudjman as an authority?

12        A.   Well, I am rather familiar with the biography of Mr. Tudjman, and

13     this is perhaps a curious digression in the former Yugoslavia.  There was

14     a 30-year-long discussion, debate, about command and control that we are

15     discussing here, and he was the first person who started it back in 1953.

16     I believe he is extremely qualified, militarily speaking.  And regardless

17     of the fact that he left active military service early in the 1960s, he

18     kept thinking as a military man, as a soldier, and he was very well

19     acquainted with the arrangements within the JNA, and he was obviously

20     trying to depart from that in creating the Croatian system.

21        Q.   But did it maybe have anything to do with the fact that Tudjman

22     had some sort of control over what was happening in Herceg-Bosna?  Would

23     that maybe have been a reason also for you to quote Mr. Tudjman?

24        A.   Well, the influence of Mr. Tudjman on Herceg-Bosna is

25     indisputable.  It cannot be questioned.  We can see that from the large

Page 35851

 1     number of transcripts that I had the occasion to read.  I cannot be

 2     certain about the degree of his supervision, though.

 3        Q.   Well, sir, having reviewed all these documents and these various

 4     transcripts, isn't it true that that -- actually, that the Herceg-Bosna

 5     government took directions from Mr. Tudjman?

 6        A.   In some sessions, yes, this was discussed.  I would rather say

 7     that it was Tudjman's relationship with Mr. Boban, first of all.  Then

 8     there were other members of Herceg-Bosna attending these sessions.

 9     Whether you can view this as directions or not, I think you have among

10     your exhibits the transcript of his conversation with Boban, where

11     Tudjman and Susak suggest to him that he should withdraw from his

12     position, and from the same transcript you can conclude that this

13     supervision is not really that great.  In fact, it's difficult to

14     evaluate it.  In my opinion, if there had been full supervision, we

15     wouldn't be discussing -- they would not be discussing it at all.  They

16     would just tell Boban, "It's time for you to go."  From this

17     conversation, you can see that Herceg-Bosna enjoyed great independence,

18     but of course that's my opinion.

19        Q.   Okay.  Well, we'll leave that topic and --

20                           [French on English channel]

21             MR. BOS:

22        Q.   -- let me know ask you -- I'm getting the French translation in

23     my earphones here.  Again on the civilian supervision, Mr. Marijan,

24     yesterday when you were cross-examined by Madam Alaburic, you agreed with

25     her that the HVO civil authorities had instruments such an finance,

Page 35852

 1     procurement, and security control at their disposal to control the

 2     military, but then you also claimed that such control was much more

 3     obvious at the local municipal level than rather at the higher level; is

 4     that correct?  Is that what you were saying?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   It just requires a yes-or-no answer.  And is it correct that as

 7     an example of this more local municipal control, you testified on Monday

 8     that municipalities in Herceg-Bosna often financed their own defence?

 9        A.   I saw that in some documents, and I know a specific case that I

10     saw myself.

11        Q.   Yeah, you gave the specific example of Livno, where you claimed

12     that the Livno Brigade, which is the Kresimir 4th Brigade, was actually

13     paid by the Livno municipalities until at least, you say,

14     October/November 1993; is that correct?

15        A.   Yes, yes, the Livno Brigade.

16        Q.   I'm going to show you two exhibits now.  The first one is

17     P 09551, and it's not in the binder, but it's in the bundle that's on top

18     of the binder, the separate bundle.  Could you please look at that?  Yes,

19     it's that bundle, right, yes, and it's the -- it has two exhibits, and

20     I'm interested in the second one, P 09551.  And this is an activity

21     report of the HVO of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna.  And what

22     I'm particularly interested in, in this document, is it contains a budget

23     for the year 1993, and it's -- in the B/C/S version, there's numbers on

24     the bottom of the pages, and you have to go to page 0040-5235.

25             And for the English, it's on page 42 and 43, Your Honours.

Page 35853

 1             So, Mr. Marijan, what we have here is a budget of the HVO,

 2     Herceg-Bosna, for the year 1993, and you first see the budget revenue,

 3     and that budget revenue totals an amount which is -- I think it's

 4     billion, 2.17 billion Croatian dinar.  Can you see that?  It's the total

 5     of the revenue, and it's an amount of 217.772.972.774 [sic] billion, or

 6     trillion.  Page 40?  Yes, for the e-court, it's page 40, the B/C/S

 7     version.

 8             Do you see that, Mr. Marijan?

 9        A.   Yes, yes.  Yes, Mr. Prosecutor.

10        Q.   And then so what follows is the budget expenditure, and what I

11     would like to focus your attention to is the expenditure -- the money

12     that actually goes to the Ministry of Defence.  It's -- if you compare it

13     with the other ministries, it's an amount of 169 billion Croatian dinars,

14     and would you agree with me, sir, that it's -- that if you look at what

15     is going to the other departments, that the Ministry of Defence is

16     getting the main chunk of money?  Would you agree with me on that?

17        A.   Yes, this figure is obviously the biggest.

18        Q.   In fact, it's -- I've made a calculation, and it's almost

19     78 per cent of the total budget that goes actually to the Ministry of

20     Defence.

21             Now, if you would put this amount of money against the financial

22     resources that the municipalities had at their disposal, would you agree

23     that whatever the municipalities had at their disposal was peanuts

24     against what the HVO Defence Department had at their disposal for

25     finance?

Page 35854

 1        A.   I have to admit that, well, I'm not really well-versed in this

 2     subject.  It is a large number, and why isn't it in -- if it were in

 3     German marks, I would be better able to respond, but it's difficult for

 4     me to say since it's in Croatian dinars.  But I'm not an expert in this

 5     matter.  To the best of my recollections is this:  that we were paid by

 6     the municipalities, the salaries, that is, without going into other

 7     matters, and this caused a hullabaloo, if I can put it that way.  Well,

 8     they weren't large salaries.  When I was a student, it would have been

 9     like pocket money, decent pocket money.  So how a family with two

10     children could live on that, I don't know.  But the fact remains that it

11     is a lot of money.

12        Q.   But -- and would you agree with me, you agree that it's --

13             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

14             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I apologise, but I have to intervene

15     here.

16             My learned friend Mr. Bos is asking the expert whether it's a

17     large sum in relation to what the municipalities have.  Now, let him show

18     us where, in the budget, we have stated how much the municipalities have.

19     The municipalities have their own budget.  This is just for the HZ-HB,

20     HVO HZ-HB.  There's no budget for the municipalities here at all.  And as

21     the witness says that he's not a financial expert, I think that this is

22     just adding confusion.

23             MR. BOS:

24        Q.   Well, let me just make this point, and regardless of what kind of

25     budget the municipalities had.  Would you agree that if the HVO Defence

Page 35855

 1     Department had such large amounts of money at their disposal, that it

 2     would make them powerful towards the local municipalities?

 3             MR. KARNAVAS:  I'm going to object.  I'm going to object to the

 4     form of the question, Your Honour.  Again, and I was about to object

 5     earlier, we don't know what the municipalities have and have not, and

 6     there are various municipalities.  It all depends on where they're

 7     located and whether they have a large number of people in the diaspora.

 8     So that question cannot be answered, not by this particular gentleman,

 9     but --

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Bos, in order to avoid

11     constant objections from the Defence, which may use up time, and since

12     we're all seeking the truth, and since we are all trying to know what

13     happened within the chain of command, when you ask your questions, please

14     lay first the foundations and say, for example, "In the municipalities of

15     Bosnia-Herzegovina, there were such and such situations," and then you

16     follow on, in order to avoid any objection on the time scope, the

17     geographical scope, because your question may not fall into the scope.

18     So by your question, please start setting the scope, time, time-wise, and

19     space-wise, so that the Defence will not be entitled to raising

20     objections.

21             You see, when I ask questions of the witness, I said, "You were

22     in that unit at that," et cetera, et cetera, so I set the question in a

23     particular background so that there is no possible objection.

24             MR. KARNAVAS:  And, Your Honour, just to follow up on your

25     observations, if we had looked at P 00588, which is a document cited by

Page 35856

 1     the gentleman, which was covered on both direct and cross, it's the

 2     Decree on the Armed Forces, and it is dated 17 October 1992, Article 170,

 3     which apparently was omitted to be commented on in full, it says here:

 4             "Funding of the Armed Forces of the Croatian Community of

 5     Herceg-Bosna shall be carried out according to the budget of the Defence

 6     Department, adopted by member municipalities of the Croatian Community of

 7     Herceg-Bosna."

 8             And then it goes on about the contributions.  And my point is

 9     this:  If the gentleman wishes to pursue this line of questioning, and

10     perhaps this should have been done in the expertise, at a minimum there

11     should be some proof of what the municipalities' budget was pursuant to

12     Article 170, assuming that they did comply with this particular decision

13     or decree.

14             Thank you.

15             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You can move on.

16             MR. BOS:  I'll move on to the next exhibit, and that's

17     Exhibit P 10674, and for that you'll need the binder, Mr. Marijan.  You

18     can put that aside.

19        Q.   Now, while you are finding this exhibit, it's P 10674, I'll tell

20     you what the document is.  This document is a compilation of various

21     documents relating to the financial support of the Croatian Ministry of

22     Defence to the HVO.

23             And, Your Honours, I think I've seen this document before.  It's

24     been also shown to another witness.  It's P 10674.  It's the yellow tab.

25             As I said, Mr. Marijan, it's a compilation of various orders,

Page 35857

 1     and, for example, if I take you first maybe to the second order, the

 2     order dated the 29th of October, 1992, this is from Mr. Susak to the

 3     Financial Administration, and it says:

 4             "I order 83 million Croatian dinars from the funds of the

 5     Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Croatia to be loaned to the HVO.

 6     The money is strictly intended for the 2nd Stolac Battalion and the

 7     Neum Battalion."

 8             And then it continues:  "The money order should be immediately

 9     paid into the account number ... in Zagreb."

10             And it's signed by Mr. Susak.  And so we have a number of those

11     orders, and the one I'd like you now to look at is the order dated the

12     10th of January, 1993, and it's the fifth order, I think.  This, in fact,

13     is not from Mr. Susak, but this is a document from Mr. Stojic addressed

14     to the Defence Ministry in Croatia, and it's a list of salaries for the

15     officers of soldiers in Herceg-Bosna for the period December 1992.

16             Do you see that?

17        A.   Yes, I do.

18        Q.   Now, so we see a whole list of units and brigades being mentioned

19     there, and please look at, under number 30, there it says:  "The Kresimir

20     4th Brigade Command," and then there's an amount of 2.971.450 dinar being

21     requested by Mr. Stojic for this particular command unit for salaries.

22             Now, sir, doesn't this contradict what you said in your

23     testimony, that the Livno Brigade, to your knowledge, never -- that the

24     Municipality of Livno actually paid the salaries of this brigade up 'til

25     November 1993?

Page 35858

 1        A.   Your Honour, I know for sure that the municipality -- no -- well,

 2     did pay out, during the period of time I was there, that is to say, from

 3     1992, the summer of 1992, until September 1992, while I was there, and

 4     from July or several months in 1993.  I do know that the municipality did

 5     provide this.  Whether anybody else took part, I don't know.  And to be

 6     quite honest, it's difficult for me to find my way here, because there

 7     are a lot of -- big differences in the sums.  The 1st Herzegovina Brigade

 8     in 1992, for example, which is a little larger than the Kresimir 4th

 9     Brigade, has almost 12 times more money.  So translated into -- according

10     to the German mark exchange rate, it's not a lot of money; that is to

11     say, there are big differences particularly between that particular

12     brigade and, as I say, the Livno Brigade, and they had a similar number

13     of men.  So I don't know -- but I can't say whether that was enough for a

14     salary or whether the salaries were sufficient.

15             Just look at how much the professional units were paid on the

16     next page.  Companies received far more money than some brigades, for

17     example --

18        Q.   But, Mr. Marijan --

19        A.   -- so it's a very small sum.

20        Q.   -- that's not the point I'm trying to make here.  Regardless of

21     what kind of money was given to whom, isn't it true that money was being

22     also given to the --

23             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I apologise for getting to my feet

24     again, but I'd like to ask that the entire witness answer be recorded.

25     He said that it is a very small sum of money, so may we have the whole

Page 35859

 1     answer recorded, which means, Mr. Marijan, could you speak up, please.

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, Ms. Nozica has made an

 3     important point.  It is difficult to record what you say perhaps because

 4     you do not speak loudly enough, and so please speak loudly.  And when you

 5     feel that what you say is important, please stress it so that it's

 6     properly and duly recorded.  Thank you.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'll do my best, Your Honour.

 8             Mr. Bos, without a doubt, looking at this, part of the money did

 9     reach the Defence Ministry.  That's what you wanted to hear; right?

10             MR. BOS:

11        Q.   Okay, let's move on, Mr. Marijan.  Let me refer back to your

12     report, to paragraph 6 of your report.  I'm going to put to you a couple

13     of quotes from your report concerning the role of the Ministry of

14     Defence, where it concerns logistics.

15             And in paragraph 6 of your report, you state:

16             "Article 41," and you're referring to the Decree on the Armed

17     Forces, "stipulates that the Department of Defence will be in charge of

18     supplying the armed forces with combat equipment (weapons, artillery

19     pieces, ammunition) while the supply of the armed forces with material,

20     equipment, food, funds, medical, veterinarian and other supplies will be

21     carried out by the Department of Defence in cooperation with other

22     departments of the HVO, as well as other institutions and bodies."

23             And then moving to paragraph 86 of your report, there you say the

24     following about the logistics:

25             "The HVO Main Staff sought from the Department of Defence the

Page 35860

 1     realisation of those obligations and tasks set forth by the Decree on the

 2     Armed Forces of the HZ-HB.  Its demands were primarily oriented around

 3     logistics.  It sought the replenishment of weapons, ammunition, fuel,

 4     food, clothing, lubricants...," et cetera.

 5             That's page 86 of your report.  And then finally in your

 6     testimony on Tuesday, you actually -- you said the following:

 7             "There's no doubt that the chief of Main Staff reported to the

 8     head of the Department of Defence with regard to the supply of material,

 9     that is, supply of weapons, ammunition, fuel ...," et cetera.

10             Sir, can we agree from these quotes that the HVO Defence

11     Department was the primary department for providing the logistics of the

12     HVO armed forces?

13        A.   Do you mean the HVO as an executive body?  I'm not sure I

14     understood you correctly.  Do you mean the HVO as an executive body?

15        Q.   I'm talking about the HVO Defence Department.  Was the HVO

16     Defence Department not the primary department for providing logistics to

17     the HVO armed forces?

18        A.   In the department, in the Defence Department within the HVO, yes,

19     it was the main body.

20        Q.   And can we agree that where it concerns the supply of combat

21     equipment, that the Defence Department was, in fact, the only responsible

22     department?

23        A.   That's what would follow from this provision.  That would be its

24     task.

25        Q.   And would you agree that in actual practice, it actually worked

Page 35861

 1     that way?

 2        A.   Well, if you show me another document -- well, that should have

 3     been what it was like, in practice, but I have to admit that the

 4     logistics, or logistics generally speaking, through the Defence document,

 5     et cetera, I have actually have seen very few documents about that, so it

 6     wouldn't be right if I were to say or give a position that I cannot

 7     confirm and bear out with documents.  This is how it should have been.

 8        Q.   Very well.  But -- and would you agree that Mr. Stojic, as the

 9     head of the Defence Department, was responsible for the organisation of

10     the logistics?

11        A.   In recording the tasks, that would have been one of the tasks of

12     Mr. Stojic.  And we were talking about establishment.  We know the

13     sectors that existed, and the sector that was in charge of logistics, for

14     example, although the main logistics base was within the Main Staff.  But

15     in both cases, I have to say that I have seen very few documents on the

16     subject, compared to other sectors.  So as far as the functioning of

17     logistics within the HVO is something I'm not quite clear about.  It's

18     very murky, not clear at all.

19        Q.   Well, Mr. Marijan, are you saying that Mr. Stojic was not

20     responsible for logistics?

21        A.   No.  What I want to say is --

22             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, there's really no need.

23     The first answer of the witness was, yes, within the frameworks of the

24     department and sectors under Mr. Stojic.  There's no need to attack the

25     witness with something he didn't say.  Mr. Bos can read the transcript on

Page 35862

 1     line 17 to 19 on page 62.  He said quite clearly where he thought

 2     logistics belonged.

 3             MR. BOS:

 4        Q.   Okay.  So -- well, you're saying that from your point of view,

 5     yes, the minister of defence was responsible, but you haven't seen a lot

 6     of documents as far as it concerned logistics; is that your testimony?

 7        A.   Well, yes, and if I compare it to other sectors, on the basis of

 8     what I saw, the percentage of logistics, well, is negligible, it's a

 9     negligible percentage, which I admit seems a little strange.  As far as

10     other sectors are concerned, I can speak of the practical implementation.

11     Here we have the theoretical part through the provisions.  So as far as

12     logistics is concerned, the Logistics Department, there are very few

13     documents on the subject, and even those that existed, general documents

14     from which I cannot draw conclusions, but the HVO did have logistics

15     which did function, more or less.  That is not something that I

16     challenge.

17        Q.   Well, let me read out another part of paragraph 86 in your

18     report.  You say that:

19             "The commanders of the HVO brigades and often" --

20             No.

21             "Commanders of the HVO brigades and other officers often appealed

22     directly to the head of the Department of Defence in the matter of supply

23     and manpower, disregarding subordination, and thus going over the heads

24     of the Command of the zones of operation and HVO Main Staff."

25             Would you agree with me, when you state this, Mr. Marijan, that

Page 35863

 1     based on this that there can be doubt that Bruno Stojic was the man to

 2     approach when it concerned to matters of military supply and manpower?

 3        A.   Well, that's how Mr. Stojic is conceived here, quite obviously,

 4     within the system.  I don't say that Mr. Stojic wasn't in charge of

 5     logistics.  There were a great number of requests that went to him,

 6     appealing to him.  Now, the problem is the quantity, how much.  But that

 7     the logistics existed within the HVO, nobody can challenge that.  Nor do

 8     I contest it.

 9        Q.   Now, on the importance of logistics, I want to put a quote to you

10     from General Eisenhower.  He said the following:

11             "You will not find it difficult to prove that battles, campaigns,

12     and even wars have been won or lost primarily because of logistics."

13             Would you agree with General Eisenhower that logistic plays a

14     crucial role in a war?

15        A.   I read the general's memoir.  It's this American vision of the

16     war.  And while we're speaking of Americans, you remember how they

17     entered Bosnia in 1998 with that first armoured division and got stuck in

18     the River Sava.  I can tell you, as far as logistics are concerned, that

19     as an HVO soldier, I wasn't hungry, I was well dressed.

20        Q.   Let's focus on logistics.

21        A.   I told you, your investigators have a better and more

22     comprehensive access to that archive, and obviously some things are

23     missing.  I can't believe they had never been written, but obviously --

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I have been listening

25     to every word you pronounce, and I have tried to connect your words to

Page 35864

 1     other information we have heard from other witnesses and things we have

 2     read in the documents, and there's something you just said that makes me

 3     react.  You said, "I was never hungry."  Could you confirm that as an HVO

 4     soldier, you did not witness any problems related to food supply thanks

 5     to HVO logistics?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, what I can say for

 7     sure about my participation in the war, as a reserve soldier in the Petar

 8     Kresimir, the 4th Brigade in this period, I did not notice that we had

 9     any problems with logistics, but you probably know that we were a

10     municipality that was leaning on Croatia.  I had relatives in the HVO

11     Jajce, and they did not have the same experience, so there were great

12     differences between regions and between municipalities.  The Operation

13     Zone Central Bosnia had a very different experience from the operation

14     zones that were based in Mostar and Tomislavgrad.  But I, as a soldier,

15     did not experience any shortages, except for a certain period where we

16     did not have enough ammunition of a certain calibre.  So the logistics

17     did function for us.

18             MR. BOS:

19        Q.   Okay.  Mr Marijan, let's move to another topic --

20                           [French on English channel]

21             MR. BOS:  And I'm hearing the French again.  Yes, I think it's --

22     I was hearing the French translation.

23        Q.   Mr. Marijan, let's move on to another topic, which is Mr. Boban.

24     We've heard some evidence about the role of Mr. Boban, and I'm going to

25     ask you a few questions about this as well.

Page 35865

 1             And let me direct your attention to article of -- paragraph 2 of

 2     your report, and this is -- and I'll quote from this paragraph.  You say

 3     the following:

 4             "According to the Decree on the Armed Forces of the HZ-HB from

 5     1992, the rights and duties of the HZ-HB President, Mate Boban, are

 6     clearly defined in the section 'Feeding the armed forces.'  His duties

 7     were as follows:

 8             1.  Command and control of the armed forces (Article 29);

 9             2.  Appointing brigades, commanders, and high-ranking officers

10     (Article 34);

11             3.  Issuing mobilisation orders for the armed forces

12     (Article 37)."

13             Sir, is it your position that Mr. Boban personally and actively

14     performed these three duties throughout the period 1992-1994?

15        A.   Your Honour, these three powers, these three responsibilities of

16     Mr. Boban, that were within his remit, first of all, we can say without

17     any doubt that under paragraph 2, we have a large number -- the largest

18     number of documents we have about this.  He signed appointments of

19     commanders of brigades and higher up.  There's no question about that.

20     It's the basic staffing policy of the highest military echelons of the

21     HVO, that was under his supervision.

22             As of item 3, the issuing mobilisation orders, I know about one

23     case, and we had I think one or two documents about that.  In July, I

24     believe, was one.  He gave such orders on at least one -- two occasions

25     in 1992.  There were not that many, although I believe I expressed some

Page 35866

 1     of my doubts a few days ago about that very term, "mobilisation," and the

 2     way it was understood by the HVO.  And then item 1, which I left aside on

 3     purpose as the most important one, it's the command and control of the

 4     armed forces.  There is a series of documents or perhaps a dozen

 5     documents from Mr. Boban which go to this, but they are very early

 6     documents.  A command and control of the armed forces again brings us to

 7     this problem.

 8             I know that this Tribunal, although perhaps not this case, had a

 9     big problem defining these two things.  The very terms tell us that they

10     are not the same.  The word "command" is often used alone.  I will limit

11     myself to "command" and say that practically from the summer of 1992, we

12     have no evidence that Mr. Boban commanded the armed forces, which means

13     he had delegated his powers.

14             The army functions here, Mr. Bos, the same way a brigade does.

15     The unit is commanded by the commander and, in his absence, the Chief of

16     Staff, because powers are assigned to him.

17        Q.   Let me stop you there.  Now --

18             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What you're saying is

19     important, but I wonder if we don't have a problem with the

20     interpretation here.  In order to avoid that there might be a mistake in

21     the interpretation, what exactly did you mean when you said that there is

22     no proof indicating that Mr. Boban no longer commanded the armed forces

23     or that he no longer commanded?  What exactly did you mean there?  I

24     don't really understand that.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is perhaps an interpretation

Page 35867

 1     problem, Your Honour.  His function, as Supreme Commander, was never

 2     called into question.  I think we discussed this the first day, the issue

 3     of his signature on a series of combat documents that were expected.

 4     It's a fact, and at least I didn't see it, that we have very few

 5     documents from Mr. Boban in 1993.  I wonder if there are any, in fact.

 6     There was a document about the establishment of a military district, but

 7     not appointments.  So obviously some powers have been transferred from

 8     him, which doesn't mean that he did not remain the Supreme Commander.  He

 9     remains the Supreme Commander and everything should be under his

10     supervision.  There's no question about that.

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] A question for the archivist.

12     You said that you looked at HVO documents.  Did you examine all of the

13     documents?  I don't know exactly what the conditions were.  Were they all

14     transferred to Zagreb, where you were working as an archivist or did you

15     only have access to the documents that were limited to the restricted

16     circle of the Presidency of HZ-HB of Mate Boban?  I'm not -- and only

17     that.  I'm not talking about the documents related to Mr. Prlic or the

18     other heads of departments, but only the close guards, so to speak, of

19     Mr. Boban, where he actually carried out -- where he actually carried out

20     his power.  Did you have only those documents or did you have other

21     documents?  What would you say to that?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I did have access to

23     the archive, at least the largest part of the archive; I cannot guarantee

24     that it was all.  That's the Croatian State Archive, with more than a

25     thousand binders.  I know that I went through most of the documents of

Page 35868

 1     the Main Staff, the operational documents at the higher level, at least.

 2     I even organised them.  And we could not separate a certain part

 3     concerning Mr. Boban and say that this is the archive material on

 4     Mr. Boban, but the bulk of that material, if not all, refers to the

 5     Defence Department and the armed forces, to that part concerning the

 6     Defence defence.  That's exclusively material of that nature.

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If the Chamber had enough time,

 8     we would gladly take a look at the archive collection to see how it's

 9     classified.  It might be very interesting, indeed, and we could probably

10     find some very interesting things.

11             But I'm speaking to you as a professional archivist.  In the

12     classification of these various documents, was there a special

13     classification that referred to the Presidency of the HZ-HB?  Was there a

14     special shelf or several shelves which contained all of the files dealing

15     with Boban and the inner circle of Boban or is it all mixed up with other

16     documents in various places?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, there was a minor

18     part in the archives of the intelligence community, and I believe I

19     singled out 56 or 57 collections that were a basis for later.  There's no

20     collection for Mr. Boban, per se.  We have documents of his only through

21     the units with which he had communicated.  But as for the existence of

22     something that in archival terms would be called the archival collection

23     of the HZ-HB Presidency, there is no such thing.  These documents are

24     scattered through the archives.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The reason I asked these

Page 35869

 1     preliminary questions was because I had the following question in mind:

 2     Did you see documents, such as the agenda of the personal secretary of

 3     Mr. Boban, which might have stated, for example, at a certain day, at a

 4     certain time, meeting with Boban, Petkovic, Praljak, Stojic, or whoever,

 5     followed by, I don't know, subject, military affairs, something like

 6     that?  Did you see that kind of document?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour, I did not see such

 8     documents.

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine, thank you.

10             MR. BOS:

11        Q.   I have a couple of follow-up questions from what you've been

12     saying in the last five, six minutes.

13             One of the things you said before Judge Antonetti asked you a

14     question was that, and I'm quoting now from page 67 of the transcript,

15     you said:

16             "Practically from the summer of 1992, we have no evidence that

17     Mr. Boban commanded the armed forces, which means he had delegated his

18     powers."

19             If that's the case, who would he have delegated his powers to?

20        A.   The powers to command the armed forces were transferred from

21     Mr. Boban to the commander, later called chief of the Main Staff, and

22     that is as envisaged by the decree, and that's the statutory decision of

23     the 15th of September, 1992, that we discussed yesterday.

24             MS. ALABURIC:  [No interpretation]

25             MR. BOS:  I'm so sorry, we're not getting a --

Page 35870

 1             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Sorry, I'm sorry, there is no such

 2     provision in the decree.

 3             I will repeat what I believe is relevant for a good understanding

 4     of the text we're talking about.  The decree does not contain a single

 5     provision enabling the Supreme Commander to transfer his powers to

 6     command and control to the --

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But witness, what you're saying

 8     is a hypothesis that you're expressing or is it based on objective

 9     knowledge?  Can we imagine that in any given structure, that the Supreme

10     Commander delegate his essential responsibility, his essential power,

11     which is to be the number-one military commander?  Does this exist around

12     the world?  Do you have other examples?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We have the same example in

14     Croatia.  The Supreme Commander, before, now, and always, has been the

15     president of the republic.  He holds the position of the Supreme Command,

16     but operative control is in the hands of the chief of the Main Staff, and

17     he has --

18             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I believe it would

19     be useful, to facilitate your understanding -- perhaps it's inappropriate

20     for me to interrupt, but it's good for your better understanding to see

21     what exactly is written on the Decree on the Armed Forces.  There is a

22     very similar provision in the Croatian law, in order to distinguish the

23     transfer of powers to command at the highest level.

24             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] It is really unusual for me to

25     intervene at this moment, and it's unusual for me to support the

Page 35871

 1     Prosecutor.  It's a very rare occurrence.  But let us allow him to

 2     continue with his examination, because it is inappropriate to continue

 3     presenting one's own case on the Prosecution time.  The witness will tell

 4     us what he knows and what he doesn't.

 5             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Let me just respond to this

 6     insinuation.

 7             If a Defence team, in its theory, charges a certain accused more

 8     than the Prosecution does, that leads us to Article 30 of the Decree on

 9     the Armed Forces.  It says that the Supreme Commander --

10             THE INTERPRETER:  Can Ms. Alaburic stop reading so fast and just

11     repeat slowly what she wanted to say?

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] First of all, Madam Alaburic,

13     you are not testifying.  You can recall that the text exists, indeed, but

14     you can't go any further.  I remember that the witness is referring to

15     Croatian positive law, and I don't have the text of the Croatian

16     Constitution before me, but it does define the various levels of

17     competency.  And from what I understand, it is the head of the armed

18     forces who, under the control of the president, exercises his power.

19     This is the Croatian system.  This is not what we are judging here.  We

20     are discussing and judging what happened in Herceg-Bosna.  It's perhaps

21     the same system, but it could be a different system.

22             So for the time being, this is not terribly clear.  I think we

23     should let Mr. Bos continue.

24             MR. KARNAVAS:  Your Honour, I would just ask that when Mr. Bos is

25     conducting his cross-examination on this particular issue, to just put --

Page 35872

 1     to just make a reference to the particular article.  We do have two

 2     different exhibits, P 00289, which was the earlier version, followed by P

 3     00588, and of course it would be very helpful -- Article 30 is the

 4     controlling article in both of those instances, and perhaps if he could

 5     lead the witness in that fashion.  Well, not lead him, but cross-examine

 6     him, by pointing him -- and then asking him, you know, to give an opinion

 7     as to how he interprets.

 8             MR. BOS:  Your Honours, in fact, I can.  We spoke, Ms. Alaburic

 9     and Mr. Karnavas, that I had intend to go to Article 30 and --

10             MR. KARNAVAS:  Just do it.

11             MR. BOS:  Well, I've been interrupted, so that's why I haven't

12     gone to it yet.

13             And in fact, let's move to Article 30, and it's of P 00588, it's

14     the second version, the amended Decree on the Armed Forces.

15        Q.   Mr. Marijan, could you look at P 00588 in the Prosecution bundle.

16     So please -- I don't think you have the Prosecution bundle there.

17        A.   I have the document here as well.

18        Q.   So it's P 00588, Article 30.  Let me just read out what it says.

19     It says:

20             "The Supreme Commander of the armed forces may delegate certain

21     tasks of leading and commanding the armed forces to the head of the

22     Defence Department."

23             So Boban -- Mate Boban could actually delegate some of his

24     command authority to the head of the Defence Department.  And isn't it

25     correct, sir, that this is, in fact, the only decree -- this is the only

Page 35873

 1     article in the Decree on the Armed Forces which regulates the delegation

 2     of command authority, and so therefore that Mr. Boban, in fact, could

 3     only delegate this authority to the minister of defence, being

 4     Mr. Stojic?

 5        A.   We can conclude from this that he was able to transfer his powers

 6     to head of department Stojic, but if you look at these four paragraphs

 7     that are very, very important, this section is called:  "Leading and

 8     commanding the armed forces."  We have Article 31 that says:

 9             "The leading and commanding of the armed forces shall be carried

10     out through commanders of the armed forces, in accordance with the

11     authorisations given them."

12             Now, that begs the question --

13        Q.   But that doesn't say anything about delegation.  We're talking

14     about delegation of his authority.

15             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] But, Mr. Bos, it would be fair,

16     then, to tell the witness "transferring some -- some powers."  That's

17     what Article 30 says, "may delegate certain tasks," not all.

18             MR. BOS:  That's correct, that's what the article says.

19        Q.   Sir, would you agree with me that based on Article 30, that the

20     Supreme Commander of the armed forces could only delegate certain tasks

21     to the Ministry -- to the minister of defence or to the head of the

22     Defence Department?

23        A.   Your Honour, indubitably, he had that possibility, but there's

24     another problem.  Did he actually do it?  In my opinion, first of all, I

25     didn't see any document on the transfer of powers.  That should have been

Page 35874

 1     published either in the Official Gazette or somewhere, because it's a

 2     public matter.  It can be done under the table or it can be done at a

 3     general higher level and then brought down the chain of command.  So we

 4     don't know whether any powers had been transferred and which part of

 5     these powers may or may have not been transferred to the area of the

 6     Defence Department.  So it's a possibility for which we have no proof

 7     that it was ever used.

 8        Q.   So you're saying, well, we haven't seen any official documents on

 9     this, but isn't it true, sir, that just looking at the practice and the

10     number of documents that you have reviewed that Mr. Bruno Stojic indeed

11     had a much more active role in the command structure of the HVO armed

12     forces than Mr. Mate Boban?  Could you agree to that, just in the actual

13     practice?

14        A.   Your Honours, there's no question that Mr. Stojic, within the

15     framework of leading and commanding, as we see in this article, and we

16     have many documents speaking of his contact with the armed forces, but in

17     view of his powers, he has a very large span of communication with units.

18     But there is a problem, I understood yesterday, and I did draw your

19     attention, Your Honours, to this problem.  We have two terms here,

20     "leading" and "commanding."  I don't think anyone has ever clarified it.

21     "Commanding" is a term that doesn't cause doubts in anyone's minds, but

22     it's a specific term used only in the army.  It's a practice that is

23     governed by laws and decrees which gives somebody the right to command

24     and give others the responsibility to obey commands, but it was always

25     said that it was a commander, a soldier, whereas head of department

Page 35875

 1     Stojic is head of department.  The Supreme Commander is the only one who

 2     has the right to command, and he's defined as Supreme Commander alongside

 3     being the president of the Presidency.

 4             MR. BOS:  Mr. President, this is a good time for the break.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We're going to have our second

 6     break of the morning, because it's now 12.30, so I think it's preferable

 7     to have the break at this point, 20 minutes'.

 8                           --- Recess taken at break 12.30 p.m.

 9                           --- On resuming at 12.54 p.m.

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So let's resume the hearing.

11             I think Mr. Stringer wanted to take the floor.

12             MR. STRINGER:  Thank you, Mr. President.

13             Good morning to you and Your Honours and to everyone else.

14             One very brief request, Mr. President.  The Trial Chamber has

15     issued its ruling on the supplemental witness summary for the next

16     witness, directing that the summary be filed, at the latest, by tomorrow,

17     the 23rd of January.  We'd request that the Trial Chamber direct that the

18     summary be actually filed by 2.00 p.m. tomorrow afternoon.  Tomorrow,

19     being Friday, if it's filed late electronically, it won't be processed by

20     Registry or received by the Prosecution until Monday, which defeats the

21     purpose, and so we'd like to ask that it be filed by 2.00 p.m.  And if

22     counsel could send a courtesy copy of it directly to us, that would be

23     much appreciated as well.

24             MR. KHAN:  Your Honour, there's no need for an order.  We will

25     endeavour to do it by 2.00, and in any event we will send a courtesy copy

Page 35876

 1     to my learned friend.

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I was sure of it, Mr. Khan,

 3     that you would do your utmost.

 4             Let's proceed now.

 5             MR. BOS:  Thank you, Your Honours.

 6        Q.   Mr. Marijan, I would like to move now to the topic of

 7     appointments of brigade commanders and high-ranking officers, which was

 8     one of the three duties of Mr. Boban.  And you've stated that -- and it's

 9     correct that we've seen a lot of orders from Mr. Boban assigning high

10     positions in the HVO command, but isn't it correct also that a number of

11     these high-ranking military positions were actually -- actually had to be

12     approved by Bruno Stojic, as the head of the Defence Department, before

13     they were actually being appointed by Mr. Boban?

14        A.   Mr. Stojic?  Well, I don't think I understood you properly.

15        Q.   Maybe things will become more clear if we look at the exhibits,

16     which is P 02477.  It's in the binder, and it's one of the exhibits that

17     was shown to you before, I think, in-chief.  It's the 20 May 1993

18     decision on the internal organisation of the Defence Department.  It's

19     P 02477.

20             Mr. Marijan, can I advise you to just to use the Prosecution

21     binder and not any other binder, because otherwise we're getting really

22     confused.  The document is actually in the Prosecution binder.  It's

23     P 02477.  There you go.

24             So do you recognise this document?

25        A.   I do recognise the document, Mr. Prosecutor, yes.

Page 35877

 1        Q.   Let me direct your attention to Roman number III, "Special

 2     organisations envisaged for the Main Staff," and forms part of this

 3     decision, and then under B, that concerns the appointment of several

 4     positions, and let me just read out the first paragraph:

 5             "Chief of the Main Staff as a deputy, deputy Chief Of Staff is

 6     appointed by the president of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna at

 7     the proposal of the chief of the Main Staff and with the approval of the

 8     head of the Defence Department."

 9             And then if we continue, we see it's similar for the chief of the

10     operative sections, operative centre of military intelligence, again

11     assigned by the president and approved by the head of the Defence

12     Department; likewise, for the assistant chiefs for the home guard, and

13     the assistant chief for organisation, personnel, and legal affairs

14     appointed by the president at the proposal of the Chief of Staff and with

15     the approval of the Defence Department.

16             Now, in-chief you agreed that these were all high-level positions

17     and that's why they had to be appointed by Mr. Boban, but isn't is it

18     true that these positions also needed approval from the head of the

19     Defence Department?

20        A.   That is correct.  From this, we can see that he gave his approval

21     to these posts.

22        Q.   That's the only thing I wanted to raise with regard to the

23     appointments.

24             Let's now move to that third duty of Mr. Boban, which was

25     mobilisation, issuing mobilisation orders for the armed forces.  I think

Page 35878

 1     you've -- before the break, you said that you had seen a couple of

 2     mobilisation orders by Mr. Boban, but not too many, and that they all

 3     related to 1992.  Is that correct?

 4        A.   Yes.  Well, I know of two of them dating to 1992.

 5        Q.   But is it correct that you didn't come across any mobilisation

 6     order by Boban issued in 1993?

 7        A.   I don't remember having come across any.

 8        Q.   And, sir, and a couple of these orders you've been reviewing

 9     in-chief, isn't it correct that the mobilisations -- all the mobilisation

10     orders issued in 1993 were, in fact, mobilisation orders which were

11     signed by Mr. Bruno Stojic?

12        A.   1990 -- well, I'm just reading it.  1993, there are several,

13     several documents relating to mobilisation.  I think they date to June

14     1993, in fact, and I think they were based on an order by the HVO -- a

15     decision by the HVO dated the 10th of June, 1993, I think the date was.

16     Now, I'm not quite sure whether that might be a mistake, whether it was

17     the 18th of June, 1993 --

18        Q.   Well, I'll help you, Mr. Marijan, but we'll go through all these

19     documents.  Let's move first to Exhibit P 01409, and that's an order

20     dated the 3rd of February, 1993; P 01409.

21             Have you seen this document before, Mr. Marijan?

22        A.   I think so.

23        Q.   And isn't it correct that this is an order by Mr. Bruno Stojic to

24     conduct a mobilisation in all municipalities of the territory of the

25     Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna in accordance with the adopted

Page 35879

 1     mobilisation plans?

 2        A.   Yes, that's what it says, although it's not quite clear.  It's

 3     not a very clear order.

 4        Q.   Why is it not a clear order?

 5        A.   Well, this could be interpreted as an order for general

 6     mobilisation, and Mr. Andabak, as chief, I think he was in the armed

 7     forces as well, that he was in one of the battalions, Convicts Battalion,

 8     but I don't know that he did anything pursuant to this order, so I can't

 9     say whether this order was actually carried out.

10        Q.   But have you seen this order before or is this the first time

11     you're seeing this order?

12        A.   I think I saw the order before, because I was looking for

13     something in it.  But it was a long time ago, and I saw no link to this

14     document.

15        Q.   Well, let's move to the next exhibit, then, and I think you've

16     been referring to that.  It's 2D 01485, and this is a mobilisation order

17     of 18 June 1993.  So, sir, what we have here is again an order from

18     Mr. Bruno Stojic, based on a decision by the government of the Croatian

19     Community from 18 June 1993, and it relates to the mobilisation of

20     military conscripts in the municipalities Mostar, Siroki Brijeg, Citluk,

21     Grude, Ljubuski, and Posusje.  And so he commands, under item number 1:

22             "In all above-mentioned municipalities to preform additional

23     mobilisation of all military conscripts up to 40 years of age and send

24     them to the operative formation deployed in the mentioned

25     municipalities."

Page 35880

 1             You've seen this document before, have you?

 2        A.   Yes, I have, Your Honours, I have seen this order previously, and

 3     I think I commented on it over the past few days for this additional

 4     mobilisation.

 5             Now, I'd just like to draw your attention to a problem here, and

 6     I also raised that problem earlier on, that we don't have -- the concept

 7     of mobilisation hasn't been strictly defined, as it is in Bosnia and the

 8     HVO, so it's not clear to me whether general mobilisation, prescribed by

 9     Mr. Boban, was an ongoing process, and this is additional mobilisation,

10     or is this a new mobilisation call-up?  So it's difficult for me to say.

11             In former JNA terminology, there was the term "dom mobilizatzi

12     [phoen]," which is a sort of additional mobilisation, when the units were

13     already formed, were replenished.  And here from point 3, we see that

14     even the older age group is being called to mobilise and replenish the

15     ranks.

16        Q.   So you're saying this may be an additional mobilisation rather

17     than a general mobilisation; is that your evidence ?

18        A.   Well, from the order itself, it would follow that it was

19     additional mobilisation, because general mobilisation, by definition,

20     must relate to the whole of Herceg-Bosna, whereas these are

21     municipalities in Herzegovina and they are municipalities, and I've

22     already said this before, which, from June and July, new brigades were

23     established and set up to make things clear in those municipalities.

24     They were made up of -- well, two or more municipalities had a common --

25     a joint brigade.  So this is linked up to that.  When all these

Page 35881

 1     municipalities withdraw their recruits or the decision was made whether

 2     from -- on pressure from municipalities or whatever, but, anyway, each of

 3     these municipalities formed a new brigade.

 4        Q.   But so if you think that this is an additional mobilisation, the

 5     document that we just saw before, the one of 3rd February 1993, that was

 6     a mobilisation for all municipalities, would you consider that a general

 7     mobilisation, compared to this one?

 8        A.   Well, you could understand it that way.

 9        Q.   All right.  Let's look at P 03024.  We're now moving from 18 June

10     to 30 June, P 03024.

11             Have you seen this document before, Mr. Marijan?

12        A.   Yes, I have seen this document before.  The document can be

13     linked to the previous document, the one you showed me, and it relates to

14     Posusje, and from this you can conclude that the order on mobilisation

15     was progressing slowly and was never put into effect.

16             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Excuse me.  Witness, could you be a bit more

17     clearly?  Either it never came about or it progressed slowly, but there

18     is an inherent contradiction in your last answer.

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, on the basis of this

20     document and the previous document, dated the 18th of June, 1993, it

21     states "Posusje," it mentions Posusje, so on the basis of this, without a

22     doubt, that mobilisation of the 5th HVO Brigade, which was what it was

23     called, that it wasn't being mobilised sufficiently quickly.  So this is

24     a warning, among other things, because of the explanation given in the

25     introduction to this text.  So it became an urgent matter.

Page 35882

 1             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you.  So that it did not proceed at all,

 2     you cannot say and you do not say.  You just say, There must have been

 3     problems, and that, I think, is borne out.  Does one have to order -- is

 4     it then possible to conclude on the contrary, that the mobilisation in

 5     the other municipalities mentioned in the previous document worked, well,

 6     satisfactorily, for Bruno Stojic?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, on the basis of this

 8     order, one could conclude that, yes, except if another order were in

 9     existence.  But as far as I know, this is the one -- the document I know

10     which wants to speed it up and says that it's urgent with respect to

11     those municipalities.

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, this short document

13     raises three problems:  The causes, the consequences and the means used

14     to solve the situation.  I think that the causes are that there is an

15     attack against Mostar and Bijelo Polje by Muslim forces on the 3rd of

16     June, 1993, at 3.00 a.m., so there is an attack.  These are the causes.

17     The consequences seem to be the mobilisation of all available human

18     resources, equipment, and material.  This is paragraph 1 of the order.

19     And the means used to achieve the objective are in number 2, in which it

20     is asked to carry out -- to engage all political factors, police forces,

21     and the media.

22             I'm interested in the police forces.  What does it mean, when

23     engaging the political forces [as interpreted]?  Does it mean that you

24     have to ask [indiscernible] to join the army and bring them by force to

25     the HVO units?  Is this the way you understand this order?

Page 35883

 1             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Sorry, there's a mistake in the

 2     transcript.  I don't know how it was interpreted to the witness, but in

 3     line 6, 83rd page, it says "3rd June," whereas you said "30th"; right?

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I quoted from the document.

 5     There is a date on the document.

 6             Witness, the police forces were used to arrest those who resisted

 7     mobilisation.  Why are the police forces present, or does that mean that

 8     they also have to engage in combat activities?  This is the question I

 9     have.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this is a bit

11     unclearly formulated, but at the end of the day, from the name of the

12     document, because it's an order, it was obviously implied that all forces

13     should be employed.  It's a bit illogical for me that the police should

14     be taking someone into custody.  I don't know how else to interpret this.

15     And from this text, it's also not quite clear.  It associates, in my

16     mind, more with the civilian police, not the military police.  It says,

17     "order that all resources be used to carry out the mobilisation."

18             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Could you clarify the number

19     02?  Does this mean that the Defence Department?  In the various

20     departments, does that mean that this number 2 relates to the Defence

21     Department?  A moment ago, we saw a number which related to an

22     operational zone, and here we have this number 02.  Does this relate to

23     the Defence Department?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, 02 is the number of

25     the Defence Department in the structure of the HVO.  That's the number it

Page 35884

 1     was assigned.  Number 1 should be the head of department.

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, yes.  And the head,

 3     indeed, you can see that the stamp bears the number 1, which is the head

 4     of department.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's number 1, yes, and it is also

 6     indicated that this is the 763rd document in 1993.

 7             THE COURT:  Please continue, Mr. Bos.

 8             MR. BOS:  Mr. Marijan, in relation to what Judge Antonetti just

 9     asked you, I think Judge Antonetti is right when he says that this

10     mobilisation order relating to Posusje is much more related to the events

11     happening on 30 June 1993 than, as you assume, that this is a follow-up

12     on the 18 June mobilisation of -- which you have seen before.

13             Maybe things will be more clear if we look at P 03038.  You can

14     have a look at that in the binder, P 03038.

15        Q.   Now, this is a very important document, and I presume that you --

16     that you have seen this document before, Mr. Marijan.

17        A.   Yes, I've seen it.

18        Q.   What this is is a joint proclamation from Mr. Prlic and

19     Mr. Stojic, sending a message to the Croatian people who live in

20     Herceg-Bosna, and, well, I won't go through the whole text - people can

21     read it and probably have already read it before - but if we look then

22     starting at the end of the proclamation, it says:

23             "The new Muslim aggression on Mostar causes the changes of life

24     circumstances, behaviour, and activities of the military and civil

25     organisation in these territories.  Pursuant to the authorisation and the

Page 35885

 1     new situation, the head of the HVO HZ-HB Defence Department,

 2     Mr. Bruno Stojic, issues the following order:  All conscripts from the

 3     territory of Herceg-Bosna, no matter where they are at the moment, have

 4     to report to the defence offices in their districts or residence or to

 5     their units within the next 24 hours."

 6             Sir, is this not again, you know, a very good example of

 7     Mr. Bruno Stojic, and Mr. Jadranko Prlic in this case as well, taking the

 8     lead into mobilising the Bosnian Croats in a defence?

 9        A.   It's not clearly emphasised as mobilisation.  It's a call, an

10     appeal.  It's obviously following on the previous one, and it is a fact

11     that it was signed by Mr. Prlic and Mr. Stojic.  It's not clearly defined

12     as mobilisation.  I don't know if we could treat it as mobilisation or,

13     rather, a request to everyone to return to their units.

14        Q.   Well, regardless of whether we can call it mobilisation or not,

15     and we'll come back to this document to see whether any follow-up was

16     given in response to this proclamation, but -- we'll leave that for now.

17     I mean, clearly it is a call-up to the Bosnian Croats.  Would you agree

18     with me on that one?

19        A.   It is a call-up.

20             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would only like to

21     kindly ask Mr. Bos not to suggest what is not in the document.  It is a

22     call, but it says on page 2 "In keeping with the authorisation and the

23     newly-arisen situation, the head of department, Mr. Bruno Stojic, issues

24     the following order:  All conscripts from the territory," et cetera, "no

25     matter where they are at the moment."  I'm sure that Croats are not

Page 35886

 1     mentioned anywhere.

 2             If the previous one was a call to Croats, it was because it was

 3     the Croats who were attacked.  But with regard to mobilisation, there is

 4     no reference to Croats.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You're really anticipating on

 6     the question I wanted to put to the witness.

 7             Witness, this document is quite astonishing for one main reason.

 8     There are two individuals who sign this document, both Mr. Prlic and

 9     Mr. Stojic.  Now, Mr. Prlic is the president of the HVO HZ-HB, the head

10     of the department.  I don't know why the head of the department would

11     sign as well, but -- I can imagine an answer, but I would like to check

12     it with you.  Don't you think this document has two elements, two

13     components; a political component that comes under the authority of

14     Mr. Prlic, which is to develop the awareness of his compatriots regarding

15     the attacks by the Muslim forces, and that political element is expressed

16     through the media?  In fact, you can see that this is to be sent to the

17     media, this text.  The second component is related clearly to the

18     mobilisation, because under paragraph 1(5), the fact that the conscripts

19     must return to their domicile, that there is curfew, and that certain

20     sales are prohibited between certain hours, et cetera, and that the --

21     then there's mention of the legal situation of individuals.

22             You're a historian and you have seen many different documents,

23     thousands of documents, thousands of binders in the archives.  What do

24     you think?  Do you agree that this document can have two purposes, a

25     political purpose but also an administrative purpose, because these

Page 35887

 1     measures are being taken because of the circumstances?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if we treat this as

 3     mobilisation, we know that Mr. -- the head of the department had the duty

 4     to carry out this mobilisation, so he's not doing anything that is

 5     outside of his authority, and the signature of Mr. Prlic is here, if we

 6     look at the addressees.  He is the representative of the executive

 7     branch.  A body that belongs to the executive branch is sending a

 8     communication that falls within his remit.  It's not the only document

 9     we'll see that bears two signatures, and in most cases such documents

10     were created if the matter fell into the purview of more than one person.

11     I must say I did not deal with the purview of the power of the president

12     of the HZ-HB, but it does fall within the remit of Mr. Stojic.  He did

13     have responsibilities regarding mobilisation, he was carrying out

14     mobilisation.  And as for these other matters, they are probably -- it's

15     possible that they are probably the responsibility of the president of

16     the HVO.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One last question.

18             Clearly, this document was established within the Department of

19     Defence, because the number 02-1-675, shows that it comes after the 673

20     that we saw a few moments ago.  So this document was produced in the

21     Department of Defence.  What is more surprising is that at that time

22     Mr. Stojic was also involved in politics, because it was he, himself, or

23     his team members who drafted the political aspects of the first few

24     paragraphs, 1, 2, et cetera, and then they took it, it would seem, to the

25     office of Mr. Prlic to have him sign and stamp the document, to

Page 35888

 1     authenticate it, to prove that indeed he had seen it and approved it.

 2             What do you think about that?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This document did result after a

 4     very hard day for the HVO.  I believe you know what it was about, Your

 5     Honours.  It was the betrayal of another part of another brigade of the

 6     HVO in the area of Northern Mostar, Northern Camp, where Muslim members

 7     of the HVO betrayed their comrades and crossed over to the Army of Bosnia

 8     and Herzegovina.  It was an extraordinary moment when this document, this

 9     order, was created.

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But you have no explanation

11     about the fact that the document would have been prepared by Mr. Stojic

12     and then counter-signed by Mr. Prlic?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There's no question that this is a

14     document from the Defence Department.  We can see that not only from the

15     number, but also from the heading.  But regardless of the preamble, it

16     boils down to a call to prepare for defence.  If you call it

17     mobilisation, then it's an order for mobilisation with a very long

18     preamble stating the reasons, and we can link that to the example of

19     Posusje, for instance, where people did not really rush to respond to

20     such events, although the introduction of that document --

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Bos, please proceed.

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [Previous translation continues]...

23     the same event.

24             MR. BOS:

25        Q.   We'll come back to this document a little later on, Mr. Marijan,

Page 35889

 1     but for now you can leave that document aside.

 2             Let me move to another topic which I would like to refer to, and

 3     it's -- for you, it's paragraph 131 in your report.  It's, in fact, the

 4     concluding paragraph.  And let me quote some sentences from that

 5     concluding paragraph.  This is what you say:

 6             "Stojic was a member of HVO with executive powers, and he did not

 7     adopt any kind of political decisions."

 8             And then a few sentences later:

 9             "As a member of HVO, on multiple occasions he was involved in the

10     activities of this body, when it was requested from the Presidency of the

11     Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna to adopt political decisions or to

12     create bodies to help them in adoption of such decisions."

13             In relation to this quote, Mr. Marijan, what I'm curious about

14     is:  How do you define a political decision?  What, in your view, is a

15     political decision?

16        A.   Well, in that specific case, and here it was the session held on

17     the 29th of April, 1993, first of all, it's without any doubt the result

18     of the relationship between Croats and Bosniaks, that is, Muslims.

19             I understand a political decision to be a clearly-defined

20     position towards the BH Army and the Muslims.  With a clearly-defined

21     position, one can make a political decision and also a military decision,

22     based on which you can start thinking militarily how to do something and

23     what to do.  And in Mr. Stojic's case, it defines his task.  That's the

24     problem we mentioned a moment ago, the lack of a clear strategy towards

25     the Muslims, in fact the lack of any strategy at all.

Page 35890

 1        Q.   In your view, is there a difference between a political decision

 2     and an executive government decision?

 3        A.   Well, I don't think it was by accident that Mr. Stojic said this,

 4     because that session was attended by the top representatives of political

 5     parties, the HDZ and the Presidency of the Croatian Community of

 6     Herceg-Bosna.  I believe that was their first meeting in 1993, and it was

 7     the right forum to elicit from the Presidency of the HZ-HB a clear

 8     position that could help define a long-term and elements of long-term

 9     conduct.

10        Q.   Is it your position that a political decision could only be made

11     with the involvement of the Presidency of the Croatian Community?

12        A.   Well, it is my view that the party that had won the elections,

13     and from whose ranks these members of the Presidency were elected, was

14     important in making this political decision.  The party's position was

15     important to the political decision.  However, the political decision

16     could be taken only by the Presidency of the HZ-HB.  However, the opinion

17     of the party must have weighed in a great deal.

18        Q.   So understanding your last answer, so you're saying that a

19     political decision could be taken only by the Presidency?  That was my

20     question, and you seem to be agreeing with that; is that correct?

21        A.   I think that the Presidency of the HZ-HB should have taken a

22     political decision.  In fact, it was their job, their authority.

23        Q.   Now, sir, in your answer a while ago, you said that, in relation

24     to that, that late April 1993 meeting, that you thought that this was the

25     first time the Presidency was meeting since -- in fact, since their

Page 35891

 1     existence; is that correct?  Is that what you testified?

 2        A.   I think I said -- perhaps it's a mistake in the text, but as far

 3     as I know, although I might be mistaken, that it was -- I think I said

 4     the Presidency of the HZ-HB met rarely, but after the date when they

 5     adopted a number of decisions and decrees, I think it was their first

 6     meeting in 1993.  I may be wrong, but I believe it was.

 7        Q.   We've heard evidence here from members of the Croatian -- of the

 8     Herceg-Bosna government, and in fact the Presidency stopped meeting after

 9     17 October 1992 and then never met until the establishment of the

10     Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna on the 28th of August, 1993.  Were you

11     aware of that?

12        A.   No.  But if I remember that document correctly, in its

13     introduction they are listed, and I believe the Presidency was there.

14     Maybe the Presidency of the HZ-HB did not meet in some legislative sense,

15     did not pass any decrees, but if you have the document here, we can check

16     easily.

17        Q.   That's exactly what you said, they didn't meet in some

18     legislative sense.  And we've heard evidence to that effect, so I think

19     you can take that the president didn't meet in his capacity as the

20     Presidency -- the Presidency member in April 1993.

21             So taking that into consideration, isn't it true that a number of

22     important decisions, in 1992 and 1993, were in fact rendered by the HVO

23     government, without the involvement of the Presidency?

24        A.   I don't know which decisions you mean.  I know the HVO passed

25     decisions.

Page 35892

 1        Q.   Let's look at a decision which -- which I'm referring to.

 2             If you could look at P 01146.

 3             Now, sir, this is a document which the Court has seen on numerous

 4     occasions, and I presume that you have seen this document before as well.

 5     Have you?

 6        A.   I think I saw it in a previous trial.  Yes, it's a document I

 7     know.

 8        Q.   It's a document signed by Mr. Jadranko Prlic, as president of the

 9     HVO HZ-HB, on the 15th of January, 1993.  And let me just read out the

10     preamble:

11             "In accordance with the agreements so far reached and signed at

12     the international conference on the former Yugoslavia, and the agreement

13     on peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Geneva Accords, the HVO Croatian

14     Defence Council of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, at its

15     extraordinary session held on 15 January 1993 in Mostar, adopted the

16     following decision:"

17             And then, Your Honour, I won't go into the content of what

18     actually was decided upon, but isn't it true, sir, that this was a

19     decision rendered by the government of the Croatian Community, of which

20     Bruno Stojic was also a member, and that this was, in fact, a very

21     important political decision?

22        A.   Undoubtedly, this is an HVO decision, and there's no doubt that

23     Mr. Stojic was there.  And this is a political decision.

24        Q.   And then let's move, then, to Exhibit P 01140, which is related

25     to this decision.  It's P 01140.  It's a document which must be close to

Page 35893

 1     that other document in the binder.  It's a document signed by

 2     Mr. Bruno Stojic, dated the same date as the other order; 15 January

 3     1993.

 4             Now, have you seen this document before, Mr. Marijan?

 5        A.   Yes, I have seen it before.

 6        Q.   As you can see in the first paragraph, there's a reference to the

 7     decision of the HVO HZ-HB number 1, be it says "001-32/93," which is, in

 8     fact, the decision that we just looked at P 01146, and let me just go

 9     through the document, and let me just read out, for example, item

10     number 8:

11             "The chief of the Main Staff of the armed forces of the HVO and

12     the chief of the HVO Military Police Administration shall be responsible

13     to me for the implementation of this order, and I order written reports

14     to be delivered to me every eight hours regarding the implementation of

15     this order."

16             Would you agree with me, Mr. Marijan, that Bruno Stojic here, in

17     fact, implements the earlier political decision that we just saw through

18     this -- through this decision?

19        A.   Yes, this decision is based on the previous decision, the

20     government decision of the same date, but as far as I know this decision

21     was not implemented.  I believe the HVO annulled it after a few days.  It

22     appears as much more vocal than it really was.

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Bos, I'm going to have to

24     interrupt at this point, because it is now quarter to 2:00, and as you

25     know, there is another case afterwards.

Page 35894

 1             Witness, we need you to stay.  I know you have a programme

 2     scheduled for the weekend.  I hope you have a pleasant stay, and we'll

 3     have the pleasure to have you back in the courtroom on Monday morning.  I

 4     would like to inform you that we will resume on Monday at 2.30 in the

 5     afternoon.

 6             Mr. Bos, you will have another two and a half hours remaining,

 7     approximately.  That is the schedule.

 8             MR. BOS:  Did you say "2.30," Your Honours, 45 minutes later --

 9     15 minutes later than normal?

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It's two -- about two and a

11     half hours remaining, two and a half hours remaining, but it's more or

12     less two and a half hours remaining for your cross-examination.

13                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m.,

14                           to be reconvened on Monday, the 26th day of

15                           January, 2009, at 2.15 p.m.