Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 38069

 1                           Tuesday, 17 March, 2009

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The accused Prlic not present]

 5                           [The accused Pusic not present]

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

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, could you call

 8     the case, please.

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

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

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

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

13     this Tuesday, 17th of March, 2009, I greet the counsels, particularly

14     Ms. Nozica.  I greet Mr. Stringer and his colleagues.  And I do not

15     forget to greet all of those who have -- who are assisting us,

16     Mr. Registrar, Mr. Usher, and as soon as the witness has his headphones

17     on, Your Excellency, I greet you, for the ordnance of today.  First of

18     all, I'll give the floor to the Registrar who has two IC numbers to give

19     us.

20             THE REGISTRAR:  Thank you, Your Honours.  2D has submitted its

21     objections to Prosecution's list of documents tendered through witness

22     Hamid Bahto.  It has also submitted its response to Prosecution's

23     objections to its documents tendered through Tihomir Majic.  These lists

24     shall be given number IC952 and IC953 respectively.  Thank you, Your

25     Honours.

Page 38070

 1                           [The witness takes the stand]

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, thank you

 3     Mr. Registrar.

 4             The Trial Chamber is going to hand out an oral decision.  As you

 5     know, the Defence team for General Petkovic requested additional time.

 6     The Trial Chamber invited General Petkovic's Defence team to send us,

 7     during the night, its written submission, which we have received this

 8     morning.

 9             The request is entitled "confidential and ex parte."  The Trial

10     Chamber deliberated this morning before coming into court and feels that

11     there is no need to listen to the position of other Defence teams or that

12     of the Prosecution regarding the allocation of time which was indicated

13     in the guide-lines.  The Trial Chamber feels that given the guide-lines

14     in practice, the Chamber gives 50 per cent of the time to the other

15     Defence teams when a witness via the request of the Prosecution.  It is

16     possible that under very exceptional circumstances, the Trial Chamber

17     proves flexible and changes this allocation of time.  The Trial Chamber

18     wants to remind everyone that it is up to every single party to put the

19     matter before us long in advance when it has been given the summaries for

20     the requests for additional time so that the Trial Chamber can scrutinize

21     the requests and hand out decisions in the matter.

22             The Trial Chamber indicates that in this particular case, the

23     matter was put before it belatedly, first of all orally yesterday and

24     this was confirmed by a written submission yesterday.  Exceptionally, the

25     Trial Chamber has decided to examine the merits of this request and to

Page 38071

 1     make a decision on this request.

 2             Having scrutinized the request and having looked at the arguments

 3     presented, the Trial Chamber feels that it is reasonable to allocate two

 4     hours to General Petkovic's Defence team.  This same Defence team having

 5     requested two and a half hours.  The Trial Chamber also allocates other

 6     Defence teams with a general time of one hour.  So we had allocated one

 7     and a half hours, we have now moved on to three hours.

 8             Ms. Nozica, you have the floor and you can carry on with your

 9     examination-in-chief.

10             MR. KHAN:  Mr. President, Your Honours, before we move to my

11     learned leader, I will for the record say that I am of course respecting

12     the decision of the Trial Chamber, somewhat perplexed on the face of it

13     that whilst this matter was raised yesterday, there was no indication

14     whatsoever that an ex parte confidential motion was going to be filed by

15     my learned friend.  And in fact, she had told me that -- my understanding

16     was that we were going to receive this document at 5.00.  Now, we've been

17     waiting for that motion and been looking for this motion, and it would

18     have been very helpful if we had been informed, as a matter of courtesy

19     if nothing else, that an ex parte confidential motion was being filed so

20     we didn't have to waste our time and wait in vein for a motion that we

21     are not going to receive.  That's the first point of.

22             Your Honour, the second issue is that it seems, again on the face

23     it, somewhat unusual that an ex parte confidential motion for an

24     extension of time has been filed, and Your Honours have considered that

25     without the benefit of any submissions.  Your Honours, of course I'm not

Page 38072

 1     privy to the actual contents.  I'm sure that Your Honours in reviewing

 2     the motion would have given the most anxious scrutiny as to whether or

 3     not that motion merited being withheld from the other parties to

 4     litigation and to allow us a chance to respond to that motion.  Your

 5     Honours, I can't go behind a motion which has been denied us -- that we

 6     have been denied sight of.  So all I can say for the record is that I do

 7     trust that Your Honours will have given the anxious scrutiny to whether

 8     or not it merited an ex parte confidential filing.

 9             MR. KARNAVAS:  If I may be heard very briefly, Your Honour,

10     because I would depart with my learned friend's comments.  I don't think,

11     when it comes to cross-examination because that's what we are speaking

12     of, whether it's the Prosecution or another Defence team, that one has to

13     show and share their hand in advance.  This is a common technique and I

14     commend my colleague for having the foresight of doing that.  I would

15     have done the same thing, so I don't think that anybody is disadvantaged

16     at that.  And I think that that would be the better practice in the

17     future.  Thank you.

18             MS. ALABURIC:  [Interpretation] Your Honour, with your leave, may

19     I just thank you for the time allocated to me and my -- thank my

20     colleague, Mr. Karnavas, who is well known in this courtroom as a person

21     who teaches others as to how witnesses should be examined, so he gave a

22     professional explanation of how all this should be dealt with.  Thank

23     you.

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stringer.

25             MR. STRINGER:  Good morning, Mr. President and Your Honours.

Page 38073

 1     Ms. Alaburic did give me the courtesy of informing me before trial that

 2     before the proceedings began this morning than an ex parte filing had

 3     been made.  I accepted the fact that it was made ex parte because she

 4     didn't have an obligation to disclose to other parties the reasons behind

 5     why she needed more time.  So in that respect, I tend to align myself

 6     more with the position advanced by Mr. Karnavas, that it was appropriate

 7     under the circumstances.  Having said that, can I just propose that we

 8     get on with the examination of the witness.  Thank you.

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Ms. Nozica, we are

10     not going to waste any time on this because I hope that everyone will be

11     in a position to ask questions to the witness.  So Ms. Nozica, you have

12     one hour and 30 minutes left, so please go ahead.

13             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.  I wish to

14     greet everyone in the courtroom.

15                           WITNESS:  IVAN BANDIC [Resumed]

16                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

17                           Examination by Ms. Nozica:  [Continued]

18        Q.   Good morning, Mr. Bandic.  I would like to ask you to look at the

19     second binder.  I don't know if you have the documents there with you.

20     The second binder, please.  We have come to document P5226.

21             Have you found the document?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   Mr. Bandic, this is a document dated the 20th of September, 1993.

24     It was submitted by the assistant head to Mate Boban, the president of

25     the HZ-HB, and in this letter he writes about an incident that was caused

Page 38074

 1     by members of the Convicts Battalion on the 17th of September, 1993, in

 2     Ljubuski.  Unfortunately, we don't have the document that is mentioned in

 3     the letter, but I would like to ask you whether you remember what kind of

 4     incident this was and why it was necessary to send this kind of request

 5     to Mr. Boban?

 6        A.   Good morning, Your Honours.

 7             Yes, I am quite familiar with this incident.  It was a very

 8     serious one.  The members of the Convicts Battalion in a way took justice

 9     in their own hands, and they took away a member of the HVO who was killed

10     then, as was later established.  This was an incident that threatened to

11     bring about an escalation of the conflict in the HVO, so that's why

12     Mr. Lucic wrote directly to Mr. Boban.

13        Q.   Tell me, as far as the Convicts Battalion is concerned, and

14     Mr. Mate Boban, did you have any knowledge about the relations between

15     the Convicts Battalion and Mate Boban and can you give us your comments,

16     were those the reasons why Mr. Lucic directly addressed Mate Boban?

17        A.   Well, it was basically a generally known thing that the top

18     authority over these units, in this case the Convicts Battalion, was

19     exercised by Mr. Mate Boban.

20        Q.   Please let us look at the next document, 2D925.  Could we please

21     have a look at that now.  This is a document signed by Mladen Naletilic

22     Tuta.  He sends this to President Boban, and he says, "Two of our

23     captains are working at the SIS," the mentioned persons there, and then

24     he is asking Mr. Boban to sign the ranks for these persons.

25             What is important is that Mr. Naletilic is signing this letter as

Page 38075

 1     the personal advisor to Mr. Boban.  Did you know that that is the way he

 2     introduced himself and that he was that in a way?  Do you have any

 3     knowledge about that?

 4        A.   Madam Lawyer, this is, of course, an unusual relationship between

 5     Mr. Boban and Mr. Naletilic.  Of course, I know that he introduced

 6     himself as the personal advisor or as the General or simply as Tuta.

 7     However, it is an interesting document because I know both of the persons

 8     on this list.  I know that they were sent from the Convicts Battalion to

 9     be SIS officers in the administration or at the Mostar centre of SIS.

10        Q.   Yesterday we started discussing reports and communication between

11     the administration of the SIS, the centres of the SIS, and SIS officers

12     in units, so I'd like to ask you to look at the next document, is P5614.

13     This is a request, if we can put it that way.  It was sent to Mr. Lucic,

14     it was sent by Mr. Petkovic to check some information, some incidents

15     that had happened.  First of all, I'd like to ask you whether you knew of

16     the existence of this request, and did you know what this was all about?

17        A.   Yes, I was aware of this request.  In this case, Mr. Petkovic is

18     asking for information from the SIS administration.  There were several

19     such cases.

20        Q.   Could we please look at the next document, that is 2D940.  This

21     is Mr. Lucic's response to the previous request.  Mr. Lucic is providing

22     information about each and every point made in this request, and finally

23     I'd like to draw your attention to this, perhaps it has to do with you.

24     The last sentence in this document --

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] There's one tiny little problem

Page 38076

 1     I have about victims.  I see on this document that the rape of a lady is

 2     mentioned.  Shouldn't this document be in closed session?  You know, I'm

 3     just stepping in the victim's shoes here who possibly wouldn't want to

 4     know.

 5             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I do agree with you.  I

 6     would just like to mention that the document is an Exhibit, so it has

 7     been used in this courtroom, but of course I don't mind.  On the

 8     contrary, this document and the next document, the next document also

 9     contains names, and I don't mind both documents being handled in this

10     way, and I think this is fully in accordance with the rule that no

11     victims should be exposed to any kind of unpleasantness.

12             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Could I be shown the name of the woman?  Where

13     is the name of the victim mentioned in the document?  I'm looking at

14     P05614.  Is that --

15             MR. STRINGER:  It's in the next document --

16             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Oh, I'm awfully sorry.

17             MR. STRINGER: -- Your Honour, 940.

18             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I'm awfully sorry, I was mistaken.  I withdraw

19     everything, apologise, and shut up.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, the most important

21     thing here is for this document not to be shown outside the courtroom,

22     but of course you can refer to the document.  Please carry on.

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

24        Q.   The last sentence of this document could pertain to you.  It

25     says:

Page 38077

 1             "More detailed information can be obtained from our officers who

 2     are operating within the GS, the Main Staff."

 3             Did that pertain to you, Mr. Bandic?  The 8th of October, 1993 is

 4     the date of this document.  By then were you an officer at the Main

 5     Staff?

 6        A.   Yes.  It was a compiled report, and the second part I think it

 7     was me, physically.  Perhaps it was another gentleman.  If necessary I

 8     can give you his name, Predrag Covic.  I'm not sure if it was him or me,

 9     but I think that I was up there then.

10        Q.   When you say "up there" what do you mean, Mr. Bandic?

11        A.   Well, usually I mean that physically, the Main Staff.  I think

12     that at that moment it was in Citluk.

13        Q.   I'd now like us to look at document 2D1495.  This is a report.

14     2D1495, yes, we have the right number.  It is a report from the Stjepan

15     Tomasevic Brigade.  We see that it's signed by the assistant commander of

16     the Stjepan Tomasevic Brigade, and he is submitting this to the assistant

17     of the commander for security of central Bosnia, Ante Sliskovic.  I would

18     just like this to show what the mode of communication was as far as his

19     officers in the units were concerned and who they sent these reports to.

20             Now, this way of communication where the assistant commander of

21     the brigade for SIS sends his report.  As we can see, he is sending it

22     the assistant commander for security of the OZ.  We are talking about

23     central Bosnia, right?  Could you clarify the matter by using this

24     document?  Can you explain what the communication was?

25        A.   Madam lawyer, Your Honours, this document should be the pattern

Page 38078

 1     that demonstrates how communication functioned between the SIS in units

 2     all the way up to the operative zone because this operative zone was the

 3     top operative body as far as the security service was concerned, and this

 4     military security aspect.

 5             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Could we please look at the next

 6     document, P2597.  It's an exhibit, so we don't have to give any comments

 7     on the content.  We are just dealing with the form.

 8        Q.   The date is the 1st of June, 1993.  Rama Prozor Brigade, the

 9     Security Information Service.  Down here it says SIS officer where the

10     signature is, and it's submitted to the SIS of the operative zone and the

11     commander of the Rama Brigade.

12             Can you give us your comments.  Was this the right way to

13     proceed, to send these reports by these desk officers?  We have a desk

14     officer here.  We do not have an assistant commander.  Is this the right

15     way to proceed and to communicate?

16        A.   Yes, I am personally -- I know Mr. Krizanac personally, yes.

17        Q.   For the transcript, what did you say about the way the

18     communication?  Here it says, "Yes, I know the gentleman personally."  Is

19     this the desirable way to communicate, if I can put it that way, as

20     envisaged by the rules?

21        A.   Yes.  Precisely.  That is what I wished to confirm.  This is the

22     way in which there was communication at the desired level and on the

23     basis of the regulations.  This is what was aspired for and that is what

24     the rules say.

25        Q.   Could you please look at the next document, that is P3260.

Page 38079

 1             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I didn't want to ask

 2     you these questions because we have little time, but I must ask you the

 3     question.  We see a report from the Rama Brigade SIS, and we see that it

 4     relates to an event which they were made aware of by the observers of the

 5     European community, so the report has been written.  And I assume - could

 6     you please confirm this - I assume that this report will then be sent to

 7     the commander of the Rama Brigade, who in turn having received the report

 8     probably will request from the military police to investigate and will

 9     then put the matter before the Prosecutor in order for proceedings to be

10     introduced.  Is that the way it should occur?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that is the right way

12     to proceed.  I'm sure of that.  In this specific case, I don't know what

13     was done after this, but the SIS of the brigade familiarized the

14     commander of the brigade, and that is their basic task, and also then the

15     SIS of the operative zone.  That is the right way to proceed.

16             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   Thank you, can we continue.  The next document is P3260.  This is

18     a report.  It says SIS division.  It's signed by the commander --

19     assistant commander of the operative zone, and it has to do with the

20     security of eastern Herzegovina.  It's submitted to the commander of the

21     operative zone, and the assistant head for security.  Is that the third

22     link when a report is compiled by security assistants in the operative

23     zone?

24        A.   Yes, precisely.  Once again, I confirm that that is from an

25     operative and military point of view, that was the chain.  The assistant

Page 38080

 1     commander of the operative zone for SIS was the last link in this chain

 2     of the military operative chain, and the activity of SIS through units.

 3     And then that part goes towards the centre that is professionally in

 4     charge.

 5             If you allow me, in this particular case it has to do with the

 6     Mostar centre.  Out of all the centres, it was the one that was at the

 7     level that we really desired, or rather, wanted to have envisaged.

 8        Q.   This report is sent at the same time to the commander of the

 9     operative zone; isn't that right?  We see that down here as in cc'd?

10        A.   Yes, that's right.  That is a primary matter.

11        Q.   P6555.  It is signed by Mladen Zovko Kuhar.  Could you please

12     explain to the Trial Chamber whether you know this person, and did he

13     have a post in the Stepjan Turija Battalion?

14        A.   Your Honours, I know this person, Mladen Zovko, he was a man in

15     from the SIS in the independent battalion Herceg-Stepjan.  But in

16     addition to that, this is a document that is interesting in terms of who

17     Mr. Zovko is addressing.  These were very delicate developments in the

18     area at the time.

19        Q.   As we can see from this document, it is proposed here -- as

20     Mr. Zovko says, what is proposed is an exchange of territories or,

21     rather, a handover of territories for money.  Fahrudin Fazlic,

22     Mr. Seljdic [phoen], those are the names that are mentioned.

23             Mr. Bandic, was that the reason, that's what I wanted to ask you,

24     why this kind of report from the SIS is being submitted to Mr. Stojic,

25     Mr. Petkovic, Mr. Lucic, and Mr. Keza.  That was an exception from the

Page 38081

 1     rule, wasn't it, in terms of the hierarchy, how reports were being sent.

 2     Is that because of the content of the document?

 3        A.   Yes.  This is what I mentioned, that this situation was an

 4     exceptional one.  Although, there are going to be other situations where

 5     this chain would not be observed as appropriate, but indeed this was an

 6     exceptionally delicate situation.  And that is why Mr. Zovko, as I've

 7     already said, acted this way.  He was the SIS officer in the battalion.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  Now we are going to change subjects.  I just need a

 9     brief explanation.  Please look at document P7035.

10             This document is an exhibit.  We've used it more than once in the

11     courtroom.  It is a compilation of information concerning events of

12     crimes on the territory of the HZ-HB.  It covers a rather long period and

13     almost the entire territory.

14             The crimes are listed both by kind of crime, type of crime, and

15     the area where it was committed.  But, please, could you clarify to the

16     Chamber why Mr. Lucic was submitting this report to the attention of

17     Mr. Miroslav Tudjman and to the HIS, so why was this sent to another

18     state, another service, and could you please explain to the Court what

19     this service was and what it dealt with, if you know, at that time?

20        A.   Your Honours, I am familiar with this information.  I know that

21     this is a compilation which was made in late 1993.  My explanation of

22     this document is the following:  Many crimes were committed, as is

23     evident from this document, there were many perpetrators who practically

24     moved back and forth across the border which was quite porous.  This was

25     away of attempting to establish cooperation on both sides of the border

Page 38082

 1     in order to attempt to prevent such crimes.  That is my interpretation of

 2     this document.

 3             Another interpretation, in my view, because this was a time when

 4     negotiations were already beginning, the negotiations which culminated in

 5     the Washington Agreement, and the end of the war between the army of BH

 6     and the HVO, so it seems logical it to me that -- an overview, a summary

 7     should be made of crimes which had taken place in order to clearly define

 8     things.  So this was an attempt to communicate and establish cooperation.

 9             As for your third question, counsel, as regards the work of the

10     Croatian intelligence service, the HIS, if it's relevant for this case I

11     would ask the Court to speak about this in closed session or private

12     session because I'm not authorised to discuss this.

13        Q.   Mr. Bandic, there's no need.  I just wanted to ask whether one

14     could say in general that this service dealt in such matters.  I don't

15     want to delve into it any further.

16        A.   Yes, I can confirm that.

17        Q.   All right.

18             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Excuse me, Ms. Nozica.  Mr. Bandic, I would be

19     grateful if you would elaborate and explain a bit the answer you have

20     given.  I have, of course, not been able in the short time to read this

21     lengthy, lengthy document which has 24 pages.  I have not found anything

22     in it, by looking through it, which indicates that it has anything to do

23     with cooperation.  There's no reference to that.  There's no frame about

24     it.  And I also do not see the logic which would link this to the

25     negotiations for the Washington Agreement.  Maybe you could explain it

Page 38083

 1     and clarify this for me.  Thank you.

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, Your Honour, I'll do

 3     my best.  I wish to mention that crossing the border between

 4     Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia at that time, was something

 5     that was difficult to control, something that happened very frequently,

 6     and it was quite possible for perpetrators of various crimes to cross the

 7     border very easily.  That, I believe, is the basis for this

 8     correspondence.  You will have observed that there are very many people

 9     mentioned here.  At the time those people had dual nationality.  It was

10     very simple for them to cross the border.  Also, Your Honour, there were

11     persons who were able to continue their activities within the military or

12     the political arena.  That is my own perception.  I believe it was very

13     important to have information which was as detailed as possible about

14     everything that had been happening, especially all things that had the

15     characteristics of a crime or an illegal activity.

16             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I will not insist on further.  Ms. Nozica.

17             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   In connection with His Honour's question, could you please look

19     at the front page of this document, the last name there, it says against

20     Daris Kapovic Klokan, a member of the HV from Zadar.  A warrant has been

21     issued for his arrest because there are grounds to suspect that he

22     committed theft.  That he stole personal property and weapons of HVO

23     officers who had been killed.  Is this something that corroborates your

24     opinion that that was an important reason to establish cooperation in

25     view of the fact that members of both the HV and the HVO could move about

Page 38084

 1     freely on both territories so that appropriate action could be taken?

 2        A.   Your Honours, I didn't go into details, although I'm quite

 3     familiar with many of these details, and this is an illustrative example.

 4     Let me add the following hypothetical situation:  If a brigade commander

 5     was duty-bound to act on this information, then he would not -- he should

 6     not have been allowed to continue his activities after the war ended.

 7        Q.   Mr. Bandic, I'll move on to a topic now which we might describe

 8     as the information and actions of the SIS having to do with military

 9     prisons and places where prisoners were kept.  Please look at the first

10     document having to do with this topic, that's P4756.  What I wish to show

11     you is on page 3 in the Croatian text and on page 4 in the English text.

12     Yesterday, I asked you whether you had attended this meeting of the

13     collegium and you said you hadn't, but I wished to ask you whether you

14     are familiar with some of the activities that the SIS undertook in

15     connection with the conclusions reached by this collegium.

16             It says what military prisons existed in the HZ-HB, and after a

17     discussion, the decision was made to visit all places where prisoners of

18     war were kept and to establish precisely, as Mr. Lucic said, who was

19     behind these prisons, who was doing these things, and to what extent

20     certain measures could be taken.  That's exactly what was said.  A

21     conclusion was reached.

22             Mr. Bandic, are you aware that members of the SIS administration

23     or SIS centre acted on this conclusion and compiled information on

24     Heliodrom, Ljubuski, Gabela, and Dretelj as listed here?

25        A.   I'm not familiar with this document in detail.  I never attended

Page 38085

 1     meetings of the collegium, but I do know that attempts were made - as can

 2     be seen from this document also - to draw up a definite list of these

 3     prisons, to record them, to make a sort of inventory, and to find out

 4     what legal grounds there were for further detention because evidently

 5     there was chaos prevailing in all this.

 6        Q.   Please look at P5133.  Have you found it?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   This is a request dated the 16th of September, after this

 9     collegium as we can see, and it was addressed to the military prisons in

10     Dretelj and Gabela to the attention of Mr. Tomo Sakota, and operatives of

11     the SIS in Mostar, Mr. Predrag Covic and Mr. Dragan-Zdenko Maric, are to

12     be given full access to the prison.  Was it the practice for SIS

13     operatives to enter any prison, whether military prison or prison where

14     prisoners of war were kept, only pursuant to a request such as this one?

15     Was this the practice?

16        A.   Yes, that was how things were done.

17        Q.   Please tell me, are you familiar with the name of Tomo Sakota,

18     and did you know who this person was at the time when this request was

19     sent?

20        A.   Yes.  I know Mr. Sakota personally, unfortunately he is deceased.

21        Q.   Do you know what duty he performed at that time when this request

22     was submitted for his visit to the Dretelj and Gabela camps or prisons?

23        A.   I'm not sure what his title was.  I think he was either the

24     warden or the coordinator of both prisons.

25        Q.   Please look at P7 --

Page 38086

 1             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I'm trying to

 2     understand all of this, the prisons of a military nature or of a civilian

 3     nature.  This seems very confusing according to all the documents we

 4     have.  Let's get back to the previous document.  Clearly, Mr. Stojic

 5     states that there are two military prisons, Ljubuski and the Heliodrom,

 6     and that there are other prisons, Gabela and Dretelj, in which detainees

 7     are held, but he adds, I don't feel that these are military prisons, and

 8     he will not take on the work carried out in these prisons.  This is the

 9     last document which stems from SIS and is addressed to Gabela and Dretelj

10     that are qualified as military prisons.  So I don't understand anything

11     at all.

12             According to you, Gabela and Dretelj, are these prisons military

13     prisons or prisons for civilians?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, to the best of my

15     knowledge, Dretelj and Gabela were for a while military prisons also in

16     one period of time.  But I do know that later on there were also

17     civilians there.  As far as I know, there was never a clear distinction

18     made as to what were prison, what were collection centres, and it was

19     never fully clear to me either.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you for your answer.

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

22        Q.   Mr. Bandic, let's go back a little bit.  Regardless of what

23     Mr. Lucic called these two prison, let's go back to this document which

24     is from the collegium, and it's a number 4756.  Is it clear from these

25     minutes, does it follow from these minutes, where the head of the

Page 38087

 1     department said, We have two military prisons, the Heliodrom and the

 2     military prison in Ljubuski.  Was this beyond doubt the position in the

 3     Defence Department as regards those two prisons?

 4        A.   Yes, that's correct.

 5             MR. STRINGER:  Objection, Mr. President to the leading question.

 6     Counsel is trying to take the witness to a specific place that the

 7     witness has not indicated is correct.

 8             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, Ms. Nozica, please

 9     rephrase your question.  Your question was extremely leading.

10             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] No problem, Your Honour.  I was only

11     relying on what you read out to the witness.  I put the same question to

12     the witness, does this follow from these minutes, but now I'll put my

13     question very precisely.

14        Q.   What was the position of the Defence Department and the SIS as

15     regards the existence of military prisons?

16        A.   Your Honour, as for the Heliodrom prison and the Ljubuski prison,

17     they were considered to be military prisons.  What I was saying here was

18     that it was never fully clear to me what the status of the prisons in

19     Dretelj and Gabela was and, once again, Grabovina, where I was personally

20     when the Neum case took place.  I don't know what the status of that

21     prison was either, and the persons connected to the Neum case were

22     brought there, the one we talked about yesterday.

23        Q.   When you mention that prison, were those persons we talked about

24     yesterday brought in there and were they civilians?

25        A.   Counsel, what prison are you referring to?

Page 38088

 1        Q.   The one in Grabovina that you just mentioned?

 2        A.   Yes, yes.

 3        Q.   Could we now take a look at document P7341.

 4             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Ms. Nozica, if I may come back to the document.

 5     Mr. Bandic, I would invite you to go one page further, the next page, at

 6     least it's the next page in the English version.  There is a passage at

 7     the end of item 3 which is underlined.  In English it starts reading:

 8             "The SIS, the military police administration, and the Health

 9     Sector shall draft separate reports on the work of the Dretelj and Gabela

10     prisons..." and so forth.

11             Do you attribute any significance to that passage with regard of

12     the question previously addressed; namely, that these two prisons are

13     completely outside of the field and of the area of competence of the

14     Defence Department?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, my understanding was

16     the following:  An attempt was made to register this, to record it as

17     regards health simply to assess the situation of the people who were

18     there as regards their physical and mental health, and for the SIS to

19     look at who was there from the security aspect.

20             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Who took this conclusion?  Was this a conclusion

21     in which the head of the Defence Department concurred?  Was he also one

22     who stood behind this conclusion?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I presume that this

24     was so.  I do not know who attended the collegiums meeting, but I believe

25     that this would be a logical path to take.

Page 38089

 1             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you.

 2             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]

 3        Q.   I asked the document 7341, P7341 to be brought up.  We discussed

 4     Mr. Sakota, so let's continue with that.  This is a report on the work of

 5     the coordinator for inmates and prisoners of war in the territory of the

 6     Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna, for the period between 22nd July 1993

 7     and 25th of December, 1993.  It is signed by Mr. Tomo Sakota.

 8             Mr. Bandic, did you have knowledge that Mr. Sakota dealt with

 9     these issues and that he had been appointed by the president of HZ-HB to

10     assume that position?

11        A.   Yes, it was known to me because I personally knew Mr. Sakota, the

12     late Mr. Sakota.  I remember that this was at a time of intensive talks

13     and negotiations about the release of inmates, and I know that Mr. Sakota

14     played an important role at the time.  And I think if it's pertinent,

15     after that he became a member of staff of the general consulate of

16     Republic of Croatia in Mostar.

17        Q.   Let's take a look at the next document, 2D973.  This is a request

18     by Mr. Sakota, dated 1995 to the ministry of foreign affairs of the

19     Republic of Croatia.  In the third paragraph Mr. Sakota says:

20             "I was a member of the military police only for me in 1993, for

21     Mr. Mate Boban to ask me to take up the post of the warden of the Dretelj

22     collection centre.  Soon after that I was appointed warden of all the

23     collection centres in the HZ-HB."

24             Does this confirm what you just said, Mr. Bandic?

25        A.   Exactly that.  I think that at the time Mr. Sakota's role was

Page 38090

 1     very sensitive and very positive and this was the reason why he later was

 2     appointed to this position, and I would meet him on several occasions in

 3     the consulate general of the Republic of Croatia in Mostar.

 4        Q.   When you say that position, you mean the position at the

 5     consulate general, am I right?

 6        A.   That's correct.

 7        Q.   Fine.  Let's take a look at the next document.  We are dealing

 8     with the same topic, that's 2D926.  We saw what was the conclusion of the

 9     collegium about the drafting of reports.  If you know, please confirm

10     whether this document submits those information to the president of

11     HZ-HB, the information concerning this information in the operation zone

12     south-east Herzegovina.  Do you know whether the president received that

13     information?

14        A.   Your Honours, I'm not familiar with the individual documents out

15     of those four, but I do know that the president was informed of that.

16     This was one of the ways of reporting, particularly in delicate

17     situations such, as this one was, whenever the need arose to take this

18     path given that this pertained to very delicate events and developments.

19             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, one moment, please.

20     Ivica Lucic addresses himself directly to the president, Mr. Boban,

21     without referring to his superior.  To do so, it's as if an ambassador

22     addresses himself directly to the president without referring to the

23     minister of foreign affair.  Was this customary?  Was this how things

24     operated at the time?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the situation

Page 38091

 1     necessitated, obviously, to communicate in this way, although this was

 2     not the ordinary way of doing things.  You compare this with the

 3     situation of an ambassador and the ministry of foreign affairs and

 4     president, but this is valid in well ordered states in times of calm, but

 5     this situation was extremely difficult.

 6             If you allow me, I would like to emphasise that Mr. Lucic

 7     assessed at the time that the authority of Mr. Boban was the greatest and

 8     that his influence would be the decisive factor.

 9             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   Let's take a look at the next document, 2D950, dealing with the

11     same topic.  Discusses a request on the -- based on the verbal agreement

12     with Mr. Kraljevic, head of military investigation, detention, Ljubuski,

13     and Mr. Sesar.  For you to allow Mr. Stanko Juric, coordinator from SIS

14     administration, to visit Mr. Franjo Brajko and talk to him.

15             Mr. Bandic, Franjo Brajko seems to a Croatian person who was in

16     VIZ Ljubuski, and this was a military prison in Ljubuski.  Would this be

17     an ordinary request?  Whenever SIS operatives would talk to somebody in

18     detention centre, would such a request be a prerequisite for them doing

19     so?

20        A.   This was the standard operating procedure as per regulations, and

21     I believe that this was adhered to.

22        Q.   And now the last document, 2D929, dealing with this topic.  That

23     is addressed to the Heliodrom, Mr. Bosic, the warden.  What is requested

24     is an interview with Suad Repko and Milorad Tribun signed by the head of

25     the SIS centre of Mostar, isn't that so?

Page 38092

 1        A.   Yes, this was the regular path, ordinary procedure to be

 2     followed.

 3             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to ask to

 4     go into private session for a general ...

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar.

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we are now in private session.

 7                           [Private session]

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22                           [Open session]

23             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we are back in open session.

24             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]

25        Q.   Mr. Bandic, let's take a look at the document, it's a report or

Page 38093

 1     two reports in succession.  The first one is P561 --

 2     5619 [as interpreted].

 3             STRINGER:  Excuse me, is that 5619 or 6519?

 4             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Yes, P6519.  Well, P in Croatian is

 5     homonymous with 5.

 6        Q.   Have you seen this document, Mr. Bandic?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   Did you draft this report, first of all?  Did you draft it?  You

 9     read it, this is an exhibit, there's no need for us to dwell much on it.

10     We do not have much time, but briefly I'm going to ask you whether you

11     drafted it?

12        A.   No, I never drafted it and I've never seen it.

13        Q.   So you answered my third question there.  The second was supposed

14     to be, did you take any part in any way in drafting this report?

15        A.   Absolutely not.

16        Q.   You said that you've never seen it.  I'd like to know whether you

17     know the gist or the contents of this report and the details contained

18     therein?

19        A.   Details were not known to me, but I do know the circumstances and

20     I know of that event.

21        Q.   At the end of the report it says that it was submitted to SIS,

22     whatever that may mean, whether it's an SIS of a brigade or operation

23     zone or operations group, et cetera.  Could you confirm to the Chamber

24     whether the SIS administration at Mostar ever received this report?

25        A.   Your Honours, I'm not familiar with this, and I don't know

Page 38094

 1     whether this document ever reached the SIS at Mostar.

 2        Q.   Now, let's take a look at P6671.  Mr. Bandic, my questions are

 3     the same, whether you drafted this report, whether you did take part in

 4     the drafting of this document, and whether you've ever seen this report?

 5        A.   My answer to all those three questions is no.

 6        Q.   Mr. Bandic, could you take a look at 2D574.  Here we can see that

 7     on the 28th of October, 1993, the deputy of a district military

 8     Prosecutor did take some activities to detect possible criminal offences

 9     or perpetrators in connection with the Stupni Do situation.  When did you

10     learn that the Prosecutor was doing these things?

11        A.   Approximately one month after this date towards the end of

12     November, and this date is 28th of October.

13        Q.   We have another document concerning the investigation, it's

14     2D578, dated the 19th of December, 1993.  Here we can see that this

15     document confirms that activities had -- that had been started were

16     continuing.  You knew at the end of November that the Prosecutor had

17     undertaken certain actions?

18        A.   Yes, something in November and during December some things were

19     done.  It was known to me that the military Prosecutor had undertaken

20     action.

21        Q.   And now let's take a look at the document 6137.  It is an order

22     signed by Mr. Petkovic addressed to Mr. Rajic.  It is an order for the

23     undertaking of an investigation in the Stupni Do incident.

24             Mr. Bandic, did you see that order or this order at that time or

25     at a later date?

Page 38095

 1        A.   I've never seen this order until now that I've become a witness.

 2        Q.   Mr. Bandic, pursuant to the document that we saw here, you

 3     attended two meetings at the Main Staff of the UN protection force at

 4     Kiseljak.  I will show you a document, P6049, which predates those

 5     meetings.  P6049.

 6             Mr. Vinko Lucic signs this as a liaison officer with the UN.

 7     Could you please explain who Mr. Vinko Lucic was, whether you knew him,

 8     what were his tasks?

 9        A.   Your Honours, I personally know Mr. Lucic.  He was a liaison

10     officer, which means the official representative of the Croatian Defence

11     Council for contacts with international community organisations,

12     UNPROFOR.  I know him quite well.

13        Q.   Let's take a look at document P6963.  It is a voluminous

14     document.  Towards the end of your binder it's a report of the UNPROFOR.

15     And when you reach the Croatian translation, only the first two pages in

16     the English version refer to the meeting that you had.

17             Have you found it?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   There is mention on the 22nd of November that there was a meeting

20     with Colonel Lucic, investigator from the Main Staff of the HVO Mostar,

21     Mr. Bandic.  They wanted to assist concerning the investigation of the

22     incident at Stupni Do, the HVO was ready to cooperate.  Could you please

23     explain this item 2 -- well, you can explain the whole report, whether it

24     reflects developments as you remember them.  What I'm interested in is

25     item 2 where Mr. Bandic introduced himself after me, that would be 6963.

Page 38096

 1             No, this is a document under seal, I've just received information

 2     that this document is under seal.  I apologise.  Thank you,

 3     Mr. Registrar.

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, is the document

 5     under seal, because if it is then it will need be to redacted?  We'll

 6     move into closed session.

 7                           [Private session]

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 38097











11 Pages 38097-38100 redacted. Private session.















Page 38101

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20                           [Open session]

21             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we are back in open session.

22             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] We have five minutes to the break

23     right?  Am I right?  Yes.  I'll continue for these five minutes.  P6647.

24     Could we have a look at that, please.

25        Q.   Mr. Bandic, this document is an exhibit.  We are familiar with

Page 38102

 1     it, we in this courtroom.  It is called, "Combined Operation Kiseljak,

 2     Information of Interest to Security."  I'm not going to go into the

 3     content of the document.  The 13th of November, 1993, is the number

 4     [as interpreted] of this document.  And now I'd like to look at P6828.

 5     P6828.  Have you found it?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   This is a document provided by Mr. Biskic, and we see who he is

 8     sending this to.  It says, I am providing information to you in relation

 9     to what happened in Kiseljak, and we suggested that personnel changes be

10     made in the command of the HVO in Kiseljak.  And what is attached in the

11     information we saw a few minutes ago --

12             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I am sorry, Ms. Nozica, for interrupting you,

13     but I'm still with the last document, the document, I think it is 6647 or

14     perhaps it's ...

15             I see in the transcript you invoke the document, and then you say

16     you are not going into it and you invoke the next document.  Now, what is

17     the purpose of this?  Why do you mention it?  Why do you use your and our

18     time to go to a document, say this is document so and so, I'm not go into

19     it, and then you go to the next.  I just would like to understand?

20             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I kindly ask for a

21     little bit of patience.  I think that I know very well what I'm doing.

22     Would you please let me finish, and then you will see why I said that.

23     Just a little bit of patience please.  Now we are using more time over

24     this document had I just been allowed to continue, please let me continue

25     and you'll see.

Page 38103

 1        Q.   The document that I've just shown you now, the second one, is

 2     6828.  In terms of the text of the information, it is identical to the

 3     previous document and that's why I didn't want to deal with it.

 4     Identical, that's why I didn't want to deal with it.  The only difference

 5     is that in document 6647, the date is the 13th of November, and in

 6     document 6828 as the date when this information was compiled, it says the

 7     23rd --

 8             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  We can barely hear

 9     Ms. Nozica, there are other microphones that are on in the courtroom.

10             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   Did you take part in writing this document?  Could you please

12     tell the Trial Chamber when it was compiled?  There are two dates for the

13     same document.

14             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreters kindly ask for all other

15     microphones that are not being used to be switched off, thank you.  We

16     cannot hear the speakers.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I authored the majority of what is

18     written here.  I did that after returning to Mostar.  I actually remember

19     speaking to the head.  In view of the situation what was going on in

20     Kiseljak, and around Kiseljak, and in relation to Mr. Rajic, our

21     assessment was that it was necessary to compile a thorough piece of

22     information.  So this was written up and then what was added was parts of

23     other reports, and that is how this document came into being.  The 23rd

24     of November is the date of this document and that is why these two

25     documents show what they show in this way.

Page 38104

 1             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, shall we take the

 2     break now?  I believe that the time would be right.  Thank you.

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Absolutely.  We'll break for 20

 4     minutes.

 5                           --- Recess taken at 10.28 a.m.

 6                           --- On resuming at 10.50 a.m.

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Nozica, you have the floor.

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

 9        Q.   Mr. Bandic, I have received information that I only have ten

10     minutes left, so we will skip over the next document, and I'll just ask

11     you briefly with respect to Ahmici, since this village is mentioned in

12     the previous information, do you know who conducted the investigation in

13     connection with Ahmici?

14        A.   To the best of my knowledge, it was the military Prosecutor who

15     conducted the investigation.

16        Q.   Please look at 4D575.  So just skip over one document in your

17     binder.  575.  Yes.  It says here, this is a document written by

18     Mr. Tihomir Blaskic directly to the commander in chief, Mate Boban, and

19     he says here under 1.2, The Ahmici case is concluded according to your

20     instructions and the video delivered to the chief of the military

21     intelligence service of the Main Staff Zarko Kezo.  Did you have

22     information that Mr. Blaskic was authorised by Mr. Boban to conduct this

23     investigation?

24        A.   Your Honours are, I did not have this information.

25        Q.   Very well.  Now let's look at the next document, that's P5 --

Page 38105

 1             THE INTERPRETER:  Or, rather, interpreter's correction:  P6841.

 2             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] 6841.

 3        Q.   This is again information.  We are still dealing with Stupni Do,

 4     and it's signed by commander of OG group 2, Colonel Rajic.  I'll ask you

 5     only the following without going further into the contents of this

 6     document but looking only at paragraph 1.  After receiving a written

 7     order from Colonel Tihomir Blaskic, dated the 24th of October, to carry

 8     out an investigation against Zlonko Duzinovic, assistant for the

 9     information and security service of the Vares brigade.  It was determined

10     that this investigation should be carried out by Zoran Duno, assistant

11     for SIS OG 2.

12             Mr. Bandic, please tell Their Honours whether this is in fact the

13     method we discussed earlier respecting the duties of the commander

14     regarding investigations of events which might be misdemeanours or crimes

15     or breaches of discipline, and is this the way these proceedings were

16     conducted as Mr. Rajic did in relation with Mr. Duznovic?

17        A.   Yes, that was the procedure.  But, by your leave, it's strange

18     that Mr. Rajic wrote to the president, Mr. Boban, at that time the

19     president of the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna.  It's unusual.

20        Q.   Well, he's also write to Mr. Blaskic, but what I'm interested in

21     is the following:  Why was the he writing this, who was he at the time,

22     and what was the connection between Mr. Rajic and Ante Sliskovic, the

23     assistant commander for Vitez or, rather, the Vitez military district?

24        A.   Well, it's evident from this that Mr. Rajic was addressing the

25     persons he needed to address.  It was -- Colonel Blaskic was the

Page 38106

 1     commander of the military district, and then there was Mr. Sliskovic.

 2     And in this letter we can see that Zoran Duno was designated, his

 3     assistant, Mr. Rajic's assistant for OG 2 was designated to carry out the

 4     investigation.

 5        Q.   And now that we are dealing with Mr. Duznovic, please look at

 6     2D942.  This is a report - and we saw from the previous document - that

 7     Mr. Duznovic, against whom the investigation was being conducted, and we

 8     can see in this document dated the 23rd of February, 1994, that this

 9     document is a report according to which Mr. Zvonko Duznovic was found

10     dead.  Did you have information about these events concerning

11     Mr. Zvonko Duznovic?

12             MR. STRINGER:  Excuse me, Mr. Bandic.  I object to this line of

13     questioning.  It's irrelevant and it's beyond the scope of the witness

14     summaries that have been provided in respect of this witness, this issue

15     regarding Mr. Duznovic.

16             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Nozica, what is the

17     relevance of this?

18             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the relevance is in

19     that we are showing how because of the previous documents and the witness

20     statement of EA, here in the courtroom as I stated before, we see an

21     example here as to how an investigation was conducted and how in this

22    particular case it was ordered by (redacted), and I think it's quite

23     significant.  This can be compared with his statements, as we have

24     already said in the transcript of 24541 to 24862, when he said that in

25     the case of Stupni Do, the investigation was to be conducted by this

Page 38107

 1     witness together with his assistant for SIS, Mr. Duno, and it's evident

 2     from the previous document that (redacted) issued an order to

 3     Mr. Duno telling him to carry out this investigation.  So he acted

 4     differently from what he said before this court regarding this witness.

 5     Mr. Dunic [as interpreted] is connected with events in Stupni Do in a

 6     number of documents.  I don't think this had to be stressed particularly,

 7     but this is a document which deals very briefly --

 8             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please proceed.

 9             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   I'll just ask you the following:  Do you know something about

11     these events?

12        A.   Your Honour, yes, I'm familiar with this event and unfortunately

13     Mr. Duzinovic's death.  His name is Duzinovic, not Duznovic.  I knew him

14     personally, and I know that proceedings were initiated against certain

15     persons because of this murder.  And please excuse me, but let me

16     mention, it's relevant because Mr. Duznovic was SIS's man in the brigade,

17     Bobovac-Vares.

18        Q.   Mr. Bandic, in connection with Mr. Duznovic's death, I'm reading

19     it out as it's written in the document, if it's misprinted in the

20     document, thank you for the correction.  Please tell me the following:

21     We talked about your method of work and how operatives worked, how the

22     people in the brigades were in charge of SIS worked, so could you tell

23     Their Honours according to the information you have, with the exception

24     of Mr. Duzinovic were there also other cases of murders or unsolved

25     murders and other cases concerning people working in SIS?

Page 38108

 1             MR. STRINGER:  Objection.  It's irrelevant and it's beyond the

 2     scope of the witness summary that's been provided.

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stringer, I believe that

 4     this could be interesting.  I can't say why.  I'd rather listen to the

 5     answers.  Ms. Nozica, please continue.

 6             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, thank you for saying

 7     what you did.  I think it's very important because we are talking about

 8     the conditions and circumstances prevailing at the time and the witness

 9     did say that their job was highly unpopular, and I think it's very

10     important to assess the conditions under which people did their work, so

11     I think that this question is important.

12        Q.   Could the witness tell us how many persons died or were killed or

13     were -- well, how many persons were killed primarily, and whether these

14     cases were solved, and where these people did their work?

15        A.   Your Honours, these are two glaring examples in the Kiseljak

16     area.  One was the murder of Mr. Duznovic of the SIS of the Bobovac

17     Brigade from Vares, and the second case was a brutal murder of a SIS

18     member in Kiseljak.  His name was Mr. Lujo -- or, rather, Zeljko Bosnjak,

19     also known as Lujo.  Two other men were killed together with him, and the

20     status of the other person who was murdered was unclear to me, but

21     Mr. Bosnjak was a member of the SIS.

22             When I arrived on the ground in Kiseljak, I found him there as

23     one of the persons who were in the HVO SIS and he was killed.  I think in

24     the summer of 1993.

25        Q.   Tell me, did SIS conduct any investigations concerning these

Page 38109

 1     murders, and did they submit this material to the Prosecutor's Office; do

 2     you know that?

 3        A.   I'm not aware of the details, but I know that proceedings were

 4     initiated in connection with these murders.

 5        Q.   And now we'll move on to my last topic, Mr. Bandic.

 6             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Just one question which perhaps is not entirely

 7     relevant, but in the previous document, P06841, at the end we read that

 8     the president, Mate Boban, had requested the transfer of, inter alia, one

 9     Zvonko Duznovic, to him to Grude.  And as it is the same name, I wonder

10     whether he is the one identical with the one who was later murdered?  Can

11     you verbalize the answer because otherwise your nodding is not recorded

12     in the transcript.

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, you are right.

14     Mr. Boban's intervention concerned several people to be transferred to

15     Herzegovina for their protection because they were being detained in

16     Kiseljak pursuant to a decision issued by Mr. Rajic, but unfortunately,

17     Mr. Duznovic did not survive to be transferred because he was killed.

18             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  So there was on 23rd November, 1993, that

19     Supreme Commander, Mate Boban, requested the urgent transfer of Zvonko

20     Duznovic who was murdered on 22 February, 1994, that is three months

21     later.  Is that -- can we -- what do we have to conclude on the authority

22     of orders by Mate Boban, if we look at this?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, many things were

24     illogical in that time and in that place.  The authority of Mr. Boban was

25     unchallenged; although, towards the end of 1993, it was already

Page 38110

 1     considerably weakened and his replacement was also being discussed.

 2     Mr. Duznovic was there throughout this time and unfortunately he was

 3     killed as is stated here, in February 1993.

 4             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you.

 5             THE INTERPRETER:  1994, interpreter's correction.

 6             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15             We'll now look at a similar document, that's P3988, dated the 6th

16     of August.  We have no signature here, but we see it's a report by the

17     prison warden of that date, and it was received on the 18th of August,

18     1993 by the SIS in Mostar, and the last document --

19             MR. STRINGER:  Excuse me, Your Honours, for the intervention.

20     I'm being told that these last two exhibits are confidential.

21             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, thank you.  I omitted to

22     do this.  These are documents 3906 and 3988.  If we can agree, I won't

23     read out the contents and we don't have to show them in e-court.  I'm

24     only interested in the dates on these documents so they need not be seen

25     outside the courtroom.

Page 38111

 1        Q.   And the last document bears a date, it's 4177, that's the

 2     document number.  P4177.  The document was signed by Mr. Luka Markesic,

 3     and the date is the 14th of August, 1993, and it was received in the

 4     Mostar SIS on 18th of August, 1993.

 5             Mr. Bandic, do you have any information as to why these documents

 6     were received in the Mostar SIS, one on the 17th of August, 1993, two on

 7     the 18th of August, 1993, although they were all compiled quite sometime

 8     before those dates?

 9        A.   Counsel, Your Honours, I know the answer in part.  I know part of

10     the reason, I'm not familiar with the details of course.  I think that

11     that was when I was on the ground in central Bosnia, but I remember that

12     this was an important case.  It was a high-profile case.  There were

13     conflicts at the level of the operative zone and the brigade in Rama

14     regarding the SIS, and he personally went up there to resolve the

15     situation to see what was going on.  And after that, he withdrew

16     Mr. Markesic from his post as assistant for SIS in the brigade.

17             I think that for awhile Mr. Markesic was on leave, and then an

18     attempt was made to establish a centre in Rama, and Mr. Markesic was

19     appointed to it.  The reason the documents arrived when they did is, I

20     assume, that Mr. Markesic gave them to Mr. Lucic personally, and

21     Mr. Lucic took them to Mostar with him.  Or perhaps they were sent to

22     Mostar, which I think is the reason why the dates are more or less the

23     same, whereas the documents were compiled two or three weeks prior to

24     that, but the dates are the same as to the time of when they were

25     received.  So this has to do with the brigade SIS and the SIS of the

Page 38112

 1     military district.

 2        Q.   Well, let's look at the last two documents.  2D1506.  It is a

 3     document from which we can see that on the 25th of August, after these

 4     documents had been received and after the meeting, as you said, with

 5     Mr. Lucic, that Mr. Markesic is replaced and discharged from the duty to

 6     assume another duty.  And then the next document, 2D1505.  1505, dated

 7     the same day, a decision whereby Mr. Luka Markesic is appointed to the

 8     duty of -- in the SIS centre, to the position of head of SIS centre Rama.

 9     Is this what you discussed, Mr. Bandic?

10        A.   Your Honours, this is exactly what was going on.  I personally

11     knew Mr. Markesic during the war, and this was a sort of a recognition of

12     his work in that particular case.  The head of the administration judged

13     him to be right.  He withdrew him from the brigade and at his proposal,

14     Mr. Bruno Stojic, head of the Defence Department, appointed him as head

15     of the SIS centre Rama, but unfortunately that centre never functioned.

16        Q.   My last question, Mr. Bandic.  Have you ever head of

17     Mr. Mate Zadro being an employee of SIS administration, that he withdrew

18     his salary from the SIS administration?  Have you ever heard of anything

19     like that?  We've seen the lists, the payroll lists, but do you know

20     anything about that?

21        A.   I never heard of that.  Usually, people who were connected in any

22     way at centre level or administration level, I knew them almost

23     personally, almost all of them, but I do not know Mr. Zadro and I'm not

24     aware of any of his connections with the SIS.

25             MS. NOZICA:  [Interpretation]  My question -- last question

Page 38113

 1     referred to page 10434 concerning the statement of the witness under the

 2     pseudonym of CC.  My questions have been exhausted.  Mr. Bandic, thank

 3     you for answering them.  Your Honours, my examination-in-chief hereby

 4     concludes.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Alaburic.

 6             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] I'm trying to organise myself.

 7             Your Honours, I'd like to greet you.

 8                           Cross-examination by Ms. Alaburic:

 9        Q.   [Interpretation] Greet you, Mr. Bandic.

10             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] And greet everybody in the

11     courtroom.

12        Q.   As I said yesterday on one occasion, Mr. Bandic, we had occasion

13     to meet two, two and a half or three years ago.  We conducted

14     conversations over the telephone.  I would like you to ask you to confirm

15     to the Bench whether this is correct?

16        A.   Yes, that's true.  But it's not completely fleshed out with all

17     the details that we discussed.

18        Q.   No need to go into details.  I did not take part in proofing you

19     for this testimony, and neither I nor anybody else from Mr. Petkovic

20     Defence?

21        A.   That's correct, but we did discuss for my possible appearance

22     here as a witness for the Defence Mr. Petkovic.

23        Q.   Yes, three and a half years ago I talked to you as a person that

24     may have some knowledge about events concerning the indictment; isn't

25     that correct?  After that one meeting and conversation, we have never met

Page 38114

 1     in the meantime; is that correct?

 2             First of all, Mr. Bandic, I'm going to ask you about one of the

 3     last questions of Mr. Bruno Stojic's Defence team.  You mentioned how

 4     Mr. Zeljko Bosnjak and Mr. Duznovic were murdered, about the difficult

 5     circumstances in which SIS personnel worked.  I would like you to tell

 6     the Chamber whether a claim is true, and that claim is contained in

 7     P6828.  This is one of the reports that we discussed as documents of

 8     almost identical content, the operative combination of Kiseljak.  There's

 9     no need for us to -- reading that document.  I'm going to read out a

10     section concerning Mr. Bosnjak and since you are an author of part of

11     that information, I would like you to confirm whether this is true.

12             Whether it's true that Mr. Bosnjak involved in illegal activities

13     and that he associated with antisocial persons who followed his conduct,

14     conflict with Mr. Rajic culminated in August this year when Mr. Rajic

15     engaged some of his people and liquidated Bosnjak and his cup-bearers;

16     Mr. Petsurepa [phoen], aka Legija; and Ivica Petsurepa, aka Pezar

17     [phoen].  Could you tell us whether this is true?

18        A.   I don't know which report you are referring to, but the facts are

19     true.

20        Q.   The report is one of those documents which have identical

21     contents of which you admitted authorship.  Is this true concerning Mr.

22     Bosnjak?

23        A.   I don't have this document in front of me, so this is why I say

24     that I don't know which document you are talking about, but the

25     information that you quoted is true, that such information was gathered

Page 38115

 1     in connection with this event and those persons.

 2        Q.   Could you tell us, please, whether SIS had any information about

 3     Mr. Duznovic being involved in illegal actives in the area of Vares?

 4        A.   I personally have no knowledge about that.  But I presume that,

 5     and this is what SIS does and Mr. Duznovic was an SIS operative, I don't

 6     know whether he had engaged in any criminal activities.

 7        Q.   Fine.  Now, Mr. Bandic, let's clarify some details concerning

 8     your positions, your functions.  I hope that we will be quick about it.

 9     In listing the positions at the beginning of your testimony, you

10     confirmed a question of Mr. Stojic's Defence that from the end of 1992 to

11     1994, you were in SIS administration; is that correct?

12        A.   Not correct completely.  I was not in the administration from

13     April because it was established in July 1992.

14        Q.   So it's reflected so in the transcript, that's incorrect?

15        A.   That's correct.  Because between April and July I was in military

16     police.

17        Q.   Fine.  Could you tell us whether from October 1992 and autumn

18     1994 you were part of the SIS administration?

19        A.   That can be said in this way.

20        Q.   Soon afterwards you said that in -- from summer 1993 you were at

21     the Main Staff; is that correct?

22        A.   I don't know the exact date believe me, but somewhere around that

23     time.

24        Q.   Could you explain please, for us, that at the same time that you

25     were in the SIS administration and the Main Staff?

Page 38116

 1        A.   Simple, I did not have a document appointing me there, but

 2     because of the nature of my work and constant company of Mr. Petkovic, I

 3     physically was located at the Main Staff for awhile.  I'm not sure

 4     whether I ever received appointment decree to work at the SIS

 5     administration.

 6        Q.   With respect to the documents, were you an SIS personnel at the

 7     Main Staff?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   So that you're not an employee of the SIS administration in the

10     SIS administration at the same time?

11        A.   It doesn't preclude, this is not mutually preclusive.

12        Q.   Fine.  You told us that you were in the escort of Mr. Petkovic,

13     General Petkovic, on his visits to central Bosnia and Sarajevo; is that

14     correct?  Could you please repeat your answer?

15        A.   That's correct.

16        Q.   Please tell us, did you follow Mr. Petkovic when he travelled to

17     Split, Geneva, or other places?

18        A.   No, no.  Mainly these were visits to central Bosnia.

19        Q.   Please tell us, if you were detailed to work at the Main Staff

20     and you were supposed to escort General Petkovic, how is it that you

21     escorted him only when he visited central Bosnia and Sarajevo?

22        A.   It's only logical in my opinion, Mr. Petkovic, General Petkovic

23     attending peace negotiations outside Bosnia-Herzegovina because these

24     were political and military negotiations, and in my capacity I could not

25     have been involved in those.  And when he visited central Bosnia, as I

Page 38117

 1     stated earlier, on top of by virtue of the nature of my job, I was

 2     seconded to Mr. Petkovic as an assistant.

 3        Q.   Mr. Bandic, did your operative work as SIS operative, did include

 4     the area of central Bosnia and Sarajevo, or did your work include some

 5     other areas?

 6        A.   There were no limitations.  It was the territory of

 7     Bosnia-Herzegovina; wherever HVO forces were, this was part of my area of

 8     responsibility.  This was not exclusively restricted to central Bosnia.

 9     I personally, for instance, never went to Posavina.

10        Q.   Apart from central Bosnia, where else did you work as an SIS

11     officer elsewhere in Bosnia-Herzegovina?

12        A.   All the other areas.  I visited the area of Tomislavgrad, Livno,

13     south-east Herzegovina, central Bosnia, there where HVO forces were

14     stationed.

15        Q.   Could you please take a look at the first set of my documents.

16     Let's go through them quickly.  Some of them are known to you.  The first

17     one is 2D003939 [as interpreted].  939, 2D939.  This is a payroll list of

18     Security Sector employees for July 1993.  You are referred to under item

19     2, Mr. Ivan Bandic.  Would it be logical to conclude that in July 1993

20     you received a salary as an employee in the Security Sector of the

21     Defence Department?

22        A.   Yes, that's logical.

23        Q.   Fine.  Let's take a look at the next document, P5467.  This is

24     Mr. Bruno Stojic's proposal to Mr. Gojko Susak, recommending a promotion

25     of HVO officers for a comission with the Croatian military and suggestion

Page 38118

 1     that Mr. Bandic, who is a major brigadier in HVO and proposed to assume

 2     the rank of major in the HV.  Does this refer to you Mr. Bandic?

 3        A.   That's correct, yes.

 4        Q.   Would it be logical to infer that the end of September you were

 5     head of the administrative department of the SIS in the Defence

 6     Department?

 7        A.   That's correct.  I would like to supplement this with the

 8     following:  Since you've noticed that at different situations I'm

 9     introduced by different titles.  Sometimes assistant head or chief or

10     head of administrative department.  Believe me, I personally don't know

11     all the titles that were attached to me.

12        Q.   Let's take a look at another document, 2D942.  2D942.  It is a

13     report that SIS assistant commander of the Kiseljak Brigade sends to you,

14     to the SIS administration in Mostar.  My question is, were you at the

15     time of this report being submitted, that's February, 1994, whether you

16     were a member of the SIS administration at Mostar?

17        A.   I believe so.  At that time, yes, I believe so.

18        Q.   Fine.  Given your statement that you were at the Main Staff,

19     please take a look at the next document, 4D1311.  It is an Article by

20     Mr. Ivica Lucic entitled "Security and Intelligence Services in

21     Bosnia-Herzegovina."  On page 9, somewhere down the middle of the page in

22     the English version that would be the first quarter of the second large

23     paragraph that was translated, I'm interested in one statement by

24     Mr. Ivica Lucic, where he says that there were no SIS personnel at the

25     Main Staff.  Could you tell us whether this statement is true or untrue?

Page 38119

 1        A.   I cannot find the article.  I don't think that this is true.

 2        Q.   Fine.  Let's take a look at the next document.  4D1652.  That's

 3     your interview to Globus magazine dated the 2nd of December, 2005.  After

 4     the content of Mr. Ivica Rajic had been --

 5        A.   There is only the title page.

 6        Q.   Impossible.

 7        A.   I've found it.

 8        Q.   In that article, you say at the end of the first column,

 9     beginning of the second column, the author introduces you as a person

10     who, during the conflict with the Muslims, was sent to central Bosnia as

11     a formal liaison officer with the -- for the Main Staff of the HVO who

12     informs on the events of Kiseljak, Vares, Zepca, in Usora, then sends

13     information to the Main Staff.  Is it true that you had some tasks,

14     intelligent tasks in central Bosnia and that you were formally labelled

15     as a person who has connections with the Main Staff because it would be

16     inappropriate for you to introduce yourself as an intelligence officer

17     whenever you had contacts with UNPROFOR representatives or whoever else

18     you got in contact with?

19        A.   I reiterate, for a time I was in the SIS administration.  For a

20     time I was at the Main Staff, and of course this was not determined

21     officially when I would be in the administration, when I would be in the

22     Main Staff.  My task was for somebody of -- who has experience to be of

23     assistance to HVO commanders, in this case to Mr. Petkovic, whenever we

24     went out into the field in central Bosnia.

25        Q.   Now, let's take a look at the next document.  P03177.  It is an

Page 38120

 1     official note compiled by crime investigation officer, Stefan Petric, on

 2     an interview with you dated 3rd of July, 2000, in the premises of

 3     Croatian MUP.  First of all, have you ever seen this document?

 4        A.   I've never seen it.

 5        Q.   And did you talk to a MUP official of the Republic of Croatia in

 6     mid-2000?

 7        A.   Yes, I did.

 8        Q.   Please look at page 2, the first paragraph, it says:

 9             "In September 1992, the said person was sent to the area of

10     central Bosnia with a view to collect information that is of security

11     interest, and the cover for his work was the position of assistant head

12     of the Main Staff for security within which he was in charge of the

13     security of General Milivoj Petkovic.  He remained in central Bosnia in

14     this way all the way up to the signing of the accords in 1994."

15             Mr. Bandic, my question is whether it is true that you said that

16     you had your own independent tasks in central Bosnia and that Milivoj

17     Petkovic was just a cover for your activities?

18        A.   Your Honours, since we are talking about a document that has to

19     do with the time while I was still a member of the Croatian service, I

20     cannot speak about that unless I get permission from the authorities of

21     the republic of Croatia.  I am a person who is a legalist, who honours

22     legal institutions, and I can speak about all the things that are

23     referred to in this note only with permission provided to me by the

24     competent authorities of the Republic of Croatia.

25        Q.   Mr. Bandic, in mid-2000, you were not in the Ministry of Foreign

Page 38121

 1     Affairs?

 2        A.   Yes, I was in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

 3        Q.   Let us look at the next document, P8852.  This is --

 4             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

 5             MR. STRINGER:  Counsel, I apologise for the interruption.  I

 6     apologise to counsel for the intervention, but I should alert the Trial

 7     Chamber, this witness is going to be asked -- I don't know what counsel

 8     has planned for the remainder of her cross-examination, but I can assure

 9     the Trial Chamber that it's the Prosecution's intention to conduct an

10     extensive interrogation of this witness in respect of his activities as

11     an operative for the Croatian government in 2000, in 1997, 1998, when he

12     was attached to the Croatian embassy here in The Hague, and any number of

13     other positions that he held after leaving Bosnia-Herzegovina during the

14     time of the conflict.

15             So I think that it -- maybe the Trial Chamber needs to sort this

16     issue out now, because if the witness is going to decline to answer

17     questions about these issues, then it's going to be our submission that

18     his entire testimony should be stricken because we are not in a position

19     to ask the witness legitimate questions that go to his credibility and

20     his willingness to tell the truth in this Tribunal.

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stringer, you are raising a

22     legal issue and in this courtroom I have no answer to give you.  In many

23     jurisdictions, in democratic countries, United States, France, or

24     Croatia, operatives who work for the secret services are not authorised

25     to talk about their activities unless -- well, first of all, they have to

Page 38122

 1     respect confidentiality.  But in order not to be bound by confidentiality

 2     they need authorisations, and they can be -- end up by legal proceedings.

 3     And I think that this is the case in the United States, notably.  So this

 4     is a new problem.  Perhaps Mr. Karnavas has some light to shed here.

 5             MR. KARNAVAS:  A couple of points.  Couple of points, and let's

 6     be serious about it.  First of all, first of all, we are talking about a

 7     period that is outside the indictment that the Prosecution wants to go

 8     into.  Seconds of all, if we may recall the testimony of Galbraith who

 9     was heavily involved, heavily involved with the US government in shipping

10     arms into Bosnia-Herzegovina at a time when there was an embargo, and it

11     was clearly involved in the very thick of violating UN -- the UN embargo.

12     Okay.  And when pressed, his position was he couldn't speak about it.

13             We also heard testimony from a Prosecution witness which we

14     believe was an operative from one of the middle eastern countries, I'm

15     not going name it because I don't want to indicate who the person was,

16     but I think that we didn't press the issue because obviously it's an

17     non-starter to start with.  So I think that at this point in time, it may

18     be good now that the Prosecution has indicated where it wishes to go, and

19     I commend them for doing that, and I would agree that under other

20     circumstances they may be entitled to pursue those lines of questioning,

21     and if not that they can move for the entire testimony to be stricken.

22             At this point in time, it may be useful to first excuse the

23     witness from the courtroom, and then to have a brief discussion and to

24     figure out where we are going to go from here.  Because one, it would

25     impact on the cross-examination of my colleagues, my cross-examination,

Page 38123

 1     if there is to be any, and I'm not suggesting that there will be one way

 2     or the other.  But of course the Prosecution is entitled to have some, I

 3     would suspect, some guide-lines as to where it wishes to go, and the

 4     sooner the better as opposed to waiting until the end of the

 5     cross-examination by my colleagues.  Thank you.

 6             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  That's actually what I just wanted to say,

 7     Mr. Karnavas.  I think, Ms. Alaburic, do you plan to go a lot into

 8     matters which the witness will probably say that he cannot answer, or

 9     will you -- do you have other areas which are negotiable?  That are open

10     terrain?

11             MS. ALABURIC:  [Interpretation] Your Honour, I did not ask the

12     witness at all about his actives in the HIS.  In the HIS, he worked from

13     the autumn of 1994 until the first of March, 1995.  And my question

14     pertains to his activity in central Bosnia from September, 1992 up until

15     the spring of 1994.  I just used this official note as a basis for my

16     question, but the question I am putting to him only pertain to his

17     activity that he described during his examination-in-chief.  My

18     colleague, Senka Nozica, asked the witness about his activities as an SIS

19     official, about his reports, about his activities in central Bosnia, and

20     my question pertained to the same topics and the same period, and I do

21     not intend to question the witness at all about what he did in the HIS.

22             Perhaps, if some subjects related to the trial of General Blaskic

23     crop up as interesting, I will just base my questions on newspaper

24     articles.

25             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honours, but I

Page 38124

 1     should like to say something in relation to what the Prosecutor said.  I

 2     want to have the witness's statement to be perfectly clear.  He said that

 3     he was prepared to testify if he is given permission, because the

 4     Prosecutor said "if he is unwilling to testify."  He said that he is

 5     perfectly willing to testify, but he has to get permission from the

 6     service that he worked for.

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, unless I'm mistaken there

 8     are two separate issues here, there is the cross-examination by

 9     Ms. Alaburic which focused on his activities within the SIS, and then the

10     Prosecutor is telling us that during his cross-examination he would like

11     to ask questions on various activities that were carried out after the

12     time when he was member of the SIS, and this is precisely where the

13     problem lies.  So the Judges will have to discuss it, we'll have to

14     discuss it amongst ourselves.  We'll see whether the Prosecutor will be

15     allowed to ask the questions, but we are not yet there so we'll be able

16     to discuss it beforehand.  In order not to waste any time, I suggest that

17     Ms. Alaburic carries on with her line of questioning which are not

18     focused on the secret activities of the witness.

19                           [Trial Chamber confers]

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, since the Prosecution

21     will only start asking you questions tomorrow, so until then, could you

22     perhaps contact representatives of your government in order to know

23     whether you have the authorisation to tackle issues relating to your

24     activities within the services that are covered by confidentiality in

25     your country, and by tomorrow morning you might be able to tell us, Well,

Page 38125

 1     I was given the authorisation, I was not given such an authorisation, or

 2     I didn't get any answer.  Is that possible at all, sir?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I appreciate your

 4     interest and the interest of the Prosecutor, of course, concerning all

 5     these details, and I am prepared to discuss that at any point in time of

 6     course, and with the full consent of the competent authorities of the

 7     Republic of Croatia.  I personally cannot -- I do not have the

 8     possibility to communicate during the course of the day with the

 9     competent authorities so that I could have this permission by tomorrow

10     morning.  I kindly ask you to understand me.  As far as I am concerned

11     personally, there is no obstacle whatsoever to my speaking about this and

12     explaining this entire period; however, I do have to get permission from

13     my authorities.

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We are going to close the

15     hearing at 13.45, so you have the entire afternoon to make a phone call

16     to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Zagreb, you can mention the issue,

17     they will get in touch with the presidency of the republic, and they will

18     be able to let you know very quickly whether you have this authorisation

19     or not.  I'm not going to tell you how to do it.  I'm just going to --

20     have just indicated how you could proceed, and then tomorrow morning

21     you'll be in a position to let us know that this is what I did, this is

22     what they said.  Did you understand me, sir?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course, Your Honour.  I shall do

24     that.  I shall do whatever I can to get the permission.  I know what the

25     course to be taken is so that I would get permission in writing to

Page 38126

 1     testify about all the facts that you are interested in here.

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] An additional question, when

 3     you came to testify here, did you ask your authorities an authorisation?

 4     I assume you did?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right.

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  So when they

 7     authorised you to come, they knew that the Prosecutor would lead a

 8     cross-examination, didn't they?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I don't know.  I assumed they

10     did know.  My testimony has to do about the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, so

11     the period is roughly 1991 to 1994.

12             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I may be of

13     assistance, I think that we have a bit of confusion there, perhaps I

14     created it, but we have two different organs here.  The witness did come

15     here with a strictly formal permission provided for his testimony, and we

16     had to do this in writing twice when he was supposed to come and testify

17     here; however, we are not talking about the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

18     that is supposed to give its permission or its consent.  It's a different

19     organ, a different authority that has to give its consent.  So that's

20     what the witness is referring to, this response in writing.  So I don't

21     think that he can resolve the matter just by phoning the foreign

22     ministry.  That is my understanding of it.

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, however, the witness is

24     an expert and knows how to deal with such matters, because since the

25     Prosecutor said that when cross-examining he will ask him questions about

Page 38127

 1     his credibility or he will test his credibility, and from what I

 2     understood he wants to ask him questions about his time at the Croatian

 3     embassy here in The Hague, therefore, he is bound to ask questions, and

 4     the witness could say No, I will not answer because this is closely

 5     linked to the diplomatic interests of my country.  So this is a real

 6     issue which, of course, has to do with the Croatian foreign affairs

 7     ministry, but also Defence Ministry in terms of secret service

 8     activities.  So the best for us is to ask Ms. Alaburic to carry on and

 9     proceed.

10             MS. ALABURIC:  [Interpretation] Your Honour, if you allow me

11     before that, I would like to say something about the topic that we've

12     been discussing to indicate how complex Mr. Bandic's situation is.

13             I know roughly what the topic would be of Mr. Stringer's

14     cross-examination.  This is indeed something that has to do with his

15     activity of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.  However, in the Republic of

16     Croatia, foreign policy is also within the province of work of the

17     president of the republic, and of course in the interest of cooperating

18     with the ICTY in the best possible way, the witness cannot theoretically

19     communicate with all the authorities in charge and all the persons who

20     are supposed to take part in making this decision.

21             So could the witness, well, please try to do this, but if he does

22     not manage to do it, it is due to these objective circumstances that I've

23     just describe.  In this context, can we just look at another document.

24     The document is P8852.

25        Q.   Please look at page 5 -- or, actually, let's say what the

Page 38128

 1     document is.  It is the report of Major General Ljubo Cesic Rojs, dated

 2     the 21st of May, 1998, to the then Croatian President Dr. Franjo Tudjman,

 3     about what had happened at the 5th Sabor of the HDZ that was held on the

 4     16th of May, 1998, in Mostar.  We are not going to deal with all of this,

 5     but let us look at page 5 of the B/C/S text and page 9 of the English

 6     translation.  It says that Bandic, that's you, is involved in key matters

 7     within the service as the chief of operations of SIS, and he is

 8     particularly engaged in operative work vis-a-vis central Bosnia, in

 9     parenthesis Kiseljak, Sarajevo.  Tell us, is this statement in General

10     Rojs' report correct?

11        A.   It is not correct.

12        Q.   What do you mean by not correct?

13        A.   Well, Your Honours, these are very arbitrary qualifications

14     because these were political conflicts, and I really don't know anything

15     about that, and I really did not -- I was not affected by it in any way

16     because I was not politically engaged.

17        Q.   Mr. Bandic, I'm not asking you about the content of the document

18     as a whole.  I'm just asking you about this statement that I quoted in

19     terms of your engagement in central Bosnia, Kiseljak Sarajevo

20     specifically; is that part correct?

21        A.   The nature of the context is not correct because Mr. Rojs cannot

22     know what my work was.

23        Q.   Very well.  We are not going to deal with this any longer then.

24     Tell us, Mr. Bandic, did you personally ever write a report about your

25     operative activities, and did you submit it to a commander or Chief of

Page 38129

 1     the Main Staff?

 2        A.   I do not recall ever having written something like that or that I

 3     was ever asked to do that.  If I was asked to provide some information

 4     orally or some explanation, then I certainly did try to do that.

 5        Q.   Very well.  In your interview to Globus that we looked at a few

 6     moments ago, 4D1652, that is the reference, in response to the direct

 7     question put by the journalist about the investigation concerning Stupni

 8     Do, you said that Petkovic did not order anything to me because he was

 9     not my superior; is that a correct statement, Mr. Bandic?

10        A.   Yes, it's correct.  It is correct in the sense of him not having

11     ordered me to do anything and that's not the way our relationship

12     functioned anyway.  General Petkovic practically never gave me any

13     orders.  We had a relationship of confidence and friendship.  If he ever

14     required information about a particular case, I provided it to him.

15        Q.   Tell us, was General Petkovic your superior?

16        A.   Formally, yes.  Well, General Petkovic, as far as I understand

17     things correctly, was certainly my superior.  Not my immediate superior,

18     but he was my superior because I was a military person, but he what not

19     my immediate superior.  That's how I understand it.  He was my commander,

20     wasn't he?

21        Q.   Let's clarify this a little.  He was your commander.  As an

22     employee of the SIS, were you a member of the HVO?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   As you say that as of mid-1993 you were in the Main Staff, does

25     that mean that General Praljak was your commander?

Page 38130

 1        A.   Well, yes, General Praljak too, and General Petkovic also.  I

 2     considered them my commanders.  I was a member of the HVO and I wore a

 3     uniform.

 4        Q.   In the period we are dealing with regarding Stupni Do, Mr. Roso

 5     was the chief of the Main Staff, does that mean Mr. Roso was also your

 6     superior?

 7        A.   Ultimately counsel, I consider the commander of the armed forces

 8     to be my commander.  That's how I understood it.

 9        Q.   Mr. Bandic, there's only one commander of the armed forces and

10     that's the Supreme Commander, Mr. Mate Boban, do you agree with that?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   Do you agree that the armed forces also include the forces of the

13     military police?

14        A.   I think so, yes.  I'm not a military expert, believe me.  I can't

15     go into detail of the military structure.  I only know the basics.  But

16     I'm not familiar with military matters.

17        Q.   Very well.  You spoke about your communication with Mr. Ivica

18     Lucic and the reports you wrote to him as the chief of the SIS.  Did you

19     consider Ivica Lucic to be your superior?

20        A.   Yes, my immediate superior.

21        Q.   And to whom was Mr. Ivica Lucic responsible for his work?

22        A.   I think it was the head of defence who was his superior.

23     Mr. Lucic was responsible to the head of the defence office, later the

24     minister of defence.

25        Q.   Very well.  Mr. Bandic, let's look at this very briefly.  In the

Page 38131

 1     Main Staff, was a post or section or department envisaged for SIS,

 2     General Praljak is telling me that he will deal with this more

 3     extensively, so just tell me according to the establishment of the Main

 4     Staff, according to any documents, can we find any trace that in the Main

 5     Staff, according to the establishment, there should be a staff member or

 6     a service of the SIS?

 7        A.   Madam Counsel, I don't know what the detailed structure was.  But

 8     I do know that Mr. Kraljevic, who succeeded me, was also a SIS employee

 9     in the Main Staff.  How and through which establishment we were appointed

10     there, I don't know, but physically there was an area, a space, a room

11     there.  First in Citluk and then in Posusje.

12        Q.   Mr. Bandic, you are a lawyer, do you draw a distinction between

13     the terms "employee in the Main Staff" and "employee at the Main Staff"?

14     I wish to correct the interpretation.  My question referred to employee

15     in the Main Staff [In English] Attached to the Main Staff.

16     [Interpretation] Do you draw a distinction?

17        A.   Personally, no, I don't.

18        Q.   Look at my second set of documents, the last two documents.  The

19     first is 4D14324.

20             THE INTERPRETER:  Or rather 4D1324, interpreter's correction.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Forgive me, I can't find my way

22     around this.

23             MS. ALABURIC:

24        Q.   [Interpretation] Towards the end of this second set, you have

25     4D1324, and Mr. Predrag Covic, who signed this document, is introducing

Page 38132

 1     himself as the officer for the SIS attached to the Main Staff, and the

 2     date is 26th of December, 1993.  His name is Predrag Covic.  Mr. Bandic,

 3     is this the same Predrag Covic which you mentioned as a SIS employee

 4     attached to the Main Staff?

 5        A.   Yes.  Yes, Madam Counsel, he is one of the three of us who were

 6     attached to the Main Staff.  In addition to me, there was Mr. Covic and

 7     Mr. Kraljevic.

 8        Q.   Very well.  Mr. Bandic, to whom did Mr. Covic send this report?

 9        A.   To the assistant of the minister, Mr. Biskic.  I don't know who

10     the other person is.

11        Q.   So the Main Staff is not among the addressees; is that correct?

12        A.   Well, that's evident from this document.

13        Q.   Look at the introduction, the preamble.  It says:  "Pursuant to

14     your oral order of the 26th of December," and so on and so forth, I

15     visited the ground.  So does it follow from this that Mr. Biskic issued

16     an order to Mr. Covic for him to act on and that this is what this report

17     is about?

18        A.   Yes, that's what it says here.

19        Q.   Please look at 4D1325, that's also a piece of information by the

20     same author, Mr. Covic, dated March 1994, and it's an assessment of the

21     security situation in the Main Staff of the HVO.  We don't have time to

22     go into detail, but tell me, this Mr. Covic, is he in fact reporting on

23     his, we could call it, security surveillance of the Main Staff, and is he

24     informing his superiors in the SIS administration concerning the

25     situation, the activities, and the problems in the Main Staff?

Page 38133

 1        A.   Madam Counsel, I have never of course seen this document.  I

 2     didn't see it at the time.  I was not in the Main Staff of course.

 3     Mr. Covic was.  It's unusual to see that there are no addressees here.  I

 4     assume this is being sent to Mr. Lucic, that's the only way I can

 5     understand this document.

 6        Q.   Employee of the SIS attached to the Main Staff, this term.  Does

 7     it mean in fact that this employee is authorised to monitor the work of

 8     the Main Staff and report on the situation in the Main Staff?

 9        A.   Madam Counsel, I don't know why you are so concerned with this in

10     or attached to.  I don't see what the difference is, but quite simply, he

11     is authorised to compile information on the situation prevailing there.

12        Q.   Very well.  Let's move on to the third set of documents.

13     Witness, you told us when --

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [No interpretation] There is a

15     problem, I'll resume.

16             Let me put my question again.  We've just seen a whole series of

17     documents in which clearly the SIS is interested in the way the military

18     apparatus quote unquote functions.  The military brigade of the HVO is

19     mentioned and the Main Staff of the HVO is mentioned.  Based on this, I

20     have the following question:  The minister of defence, was he not the

21     person that turned to the SIS to collect information on the way in which

22     the military apparatus operated?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I cannot answer this

24     question, although I would wish to be able to do so.  I don't know

25     whether he issued such an order, but certainly the chief of the SIS

Page 38134

 1     administration asked the SIS employee to compile such information.  I

 2     don't know whether the head or the chief of the SIS administration --

 3     well, I don't know who he got his orders from.  I'm not aware of that.  I

 4     don't know.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

 6             MS. ALABURIC:  [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   Mr. Bandic, according to the regulations governing the work of

 8     the SIS, was it envisaged that the SIS had to deal with monitoring the

 9     situation in the HVO units and the military police units?

10        A.   That was one of the main tasks that the SIS dealt with, but I

11     would wish to add, Madam Counsel, since you mention the military police,

12     in the military police there was also the SIS which was unusual.

13        Q.   Well, let's move on to the next topic.

14             Mr. Bandic, you told us when we were reading one of the

15     provisions governing the work of the security services, that in

16     Herceg-Bosna, the regulations of the former intelligence services of the

17     former state were copied more or less.  Do you remember saying that

18     answer?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   Now I'd like to put to you some documents from which it clearly

21     follows that in the General Staff of the Army of Yugoslavia, the security

22     administration was in the General Staff of the Army of Yugoslavia.  Do

23     you know anything about the organisation of the Army of Yugoslavia?

24        A.   Madam Counsel, I don't have the faintest idea of how the former

25     army was organised.  I was only trying to say that when these regulations

Page 38135

 1     were drawn up, the material from the former state was used, and the

 2     former military services, but also others in democratic countries of

 3     course.

 4        Q.   Very well.  Mr. Bandic, do you know that the staff of the Supreme

 5     Command of the armed forces of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina also had

 6     their security service?

 7        A.   Yes, I am aware of that.

 8        Q.   Very well.  But the HVO Main Staff did not have its own security

 9     administration, the security administration was within the Ministry of

10     Defence; is that correct?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   Tell us to the best of your knowledge, Mr. Bandic, the model

13     according to which the SIS in Herceg-Bosna was organised?  Was it similar

14     or identical to the model according to which the SIS in the Republic of

15     Croatia was organised?

16        A.   Yes, one could conclude that.

17        Q.   Very well.  In view of your answer, I won't waste time on

18     comparing the regulations.  Instead, I will put to you a statement made

19     by the late Franjo Tudjman as the president of the state when he was

20     conducting a conversation with officers of the Croatian army referring to

21     the SIS, and I will ask you to comment on whether the same rule can be

22     applied in Herceg-Bosna.  The document is P131, 131.  The transcript of

23     the 4th of March, 1992.

24        A.   Excuse me, counsel, I can't find it.

25        Q.   It's good that you told me.  Your Honours, as this is a large

Page 38136

 1     document, it is separate.  It's been provided separately.  So one of the

 2     documents is only this transcript.

 3             Witness, in the upper right-hand corner in the Croatian text you

 4     will find the following numbers, they are called ERN numbers, so look at

 5     the number ending in 948.  And for Their Honours with respect to the text

 6     in English, it's 99 forward in the English text.

 7             So, Mr. Bandic, let's analyse this text.  This refers in a way to

 8     the conflict between the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Croatia

 9     and the Main Staff of the Croatian army.  Tell me, were you aware that in

10     1992 and 1993 there were some problems in delimiting the powers and

11     authorities?

12        A.   I'm really not aware of that.  I know nothing about it.

13        Q.   Very well.  Let's look at this part.  There are very many

14     interesting details.  I will have to cut this short.  I hope I will do it

15     in a fair way but anyone can read the document.  It says, The minister

16     also has part of my authority to administer the army and the Chief of the

17     Main Staff to administer and the command, if I delegate that.  And then I

18     will skip over four -- or three or four paragraphs and I will go on.  The

19     SIS is under the minister here, down there it's under the commanders, but

20     to the greatest extent, it is subordinated along the vertical line more

21     than, let's say, operations and training.

22             I will skip over a paragraph and go on quoting, So this means

23     that the political sector of the personnel service, the moral and

24     political and security service of the military police, and as regards the

25     other services, the sectors of the ministry from securing the budget,

Page 38137

 1     procurement, and the supplies for the ministry, they have to deal with

 2     the Main Staff as a whole.  And down there in the commanders also as a

 3     whole.

 4             Mr. Bandic, I conclude from this that the model was that at the

 5     state level the SIS is subordinated to the Ministry of Defence rather

 6     than the Main Staff, and the entire organisation should be such that SIS

 7     employees also work in the units of the Croatian army because their task

 8     is to monitor the situation in the Croatian army; is this correct?

 9        A.   Madam Counsel, my knowledge of this is minimal.  I cannot assert

10     with confidence how it was.  President Tudjman was attempting to set up

11     an organisation, but I am not familiar with this and I cannot draw any

12     conclusions.

13        Q.   Well, tell me, is that how it was in Herceg-Bosna?

14        A.   It could be concluded that the model was similar, that it was

15     attempted in a similar manner to transfer such things into Herceg-Bosna.

16        Q.   Could you please take a look at the next document, 4D1310, part

17     of an interview with Mr. Miroslav Tudjman, former HIS director.  I'm

18     interested in one answer, you can find it at the bottom of page 3.  This

19     is the only one that has been translated.  It is dated 2000, a time when

20     in Croatia new regulations on the security services were being

21     introduced, and, prompted by that, the interviewer asks, How do you

22     comment the proposed changes in military security and intelligent

23     services.  And Miroslav Tudjman answers, We see that there are HV Main

24     Staff demands that the SIS is brought back under the wing of the Main

25     Staff.

Page 38138

 1             This is a legacy of the JNA where KOS was under the Main Staff.

 2     This is something which belongs to the past.  This was dealt with back in

 3     1991 when those who are now trying to do so again, wanted for both the

 4     political department and the military police to be both the police --

 5     military police, I correct myself, and the political department and the

 6     SIS be part of the General Staff.  It is known, however, that because of

 7     a civilian oversight, this should be put into the Ministry of Defence

 8     system because this is a solution we can find in other western European

 9     countries.

10             My question to you, Mr. Bandic, is, we've seen Army of Yugoslavia

11     and Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina who have security services within their

12     Main Staffs.  Is it true, is it correct that the Republic of Croatia and

13     then Herceg-Bosna, modelled after the solution in Croatia, wanted for the

14     Ministry of Defence, through the SIS, to conduct and preform civilian

15     oversight over the military?

16        A.   Madam Counsel, after what you've read and after your question, I

17     cannot answer by simply saying yes or no.  I would like to appeal to the

18     Bench to allow me to explain this context.

19        Q.   Since I don't have much time, I would rather not dwell on the

20     context, sir.  Could you please answer whether SIS was a mechanism of

21     civilian oversight over the military?

22        A.   A mechanism of civilian oversight over the military, well, I

23     don't know the term.

24        Q.   The second row from the bottom, Miro Tudjman is discussing

25     civilian oversights.  Have you ever heard about civilian oversight?

Page 38139

 1        A.   Esteemed Counsel, yes, of course.  We are discussing a person who

 2     is an expert in security services.  He was the head of security service

 3     of the Republic of Croatia.  He is an expert in this field.  That's one

 4     thing.  Another thing, the relevant period is 2000, that's five years

 5     after the war.  When Croatia had begun to build its democratic

 6     structures, and it's very difficult for me to draw any parallels between

 7     the statements of Professor Tudjman and the time and the circumstances

 8     prevailing when, in Herceg-Bosnia, the system was attempted to be created

 9     that would function.

10        Q.   Mr. Bandic, Mr. Tudjman discusses here the situation in 1991.  He

11     says that politically it has been overcome in 1991, and this is why I'm

12     asking you this question, but we can proceed.

13             Please take a look at the next document, 4D1308.  At the same

14     time, the then minister of defence who was a member of the liberal party

15     says in the first paragraph that you can see in the left most column, The

16     counter-intelligence or security part of the service is absolutely within

17     the Ministry of Defence because of the possibilities for civilians

18     oversight which is conducted through parliament, that is, through the

19     Ministry of Defence.  And this is why it is placed in the Ministry of

20     Defence and so should be in Croatia.

21             Please tell us, Mr. Bandic, this is the same matter, civilian

22     oversight.  Could you agree that security services are one of the ways

23     whereby civilian authorities can exert control over the military?

24        A.   Madam Counsel, I can agree that control is needed, absolutely,

25     but again, this context is 2000, after profound political changes had

Page 38140

 1     occurred in Croatia, and the then minister of defence explains his

 2     position and opinion.  I cannot comment on that.

 3        Q.   At the time when Gojko Susak was minister of defence, were things

 4     different?

 5        A.   I don't know.  At the time I was not in position to define the

 6     relationships and how the relationship between the General Staff and the

 7     Ministry of Defence in Croatia were structured.

 8        Q.   Let's skip one document and let's take a look at 4D1281.  4D1281.

 9     It is a schematic of the SIS, the Security information Service, which was

10     drafted pursuant to a document referred to herein.  Can we agree that the

11     security sector, in that part which concerns the SIS, is -- consists of

12     SIS administration and SIS centres in operational zones; is that correct?

13        A.   That's correct.

14        Q.   Can we agree that what is indicated, I hope that you have a

15     colour print-out, the blue section, if not, you can see it on the screen

16     in colour, can you agree that these are SIS operatives in military units

17     in HVO units?

18        A.   [No interpretation]

19        Q.   When we see the lines, as the way they are connected, is it

20     true -- I apologise, that the head of the Defence Department and

21     assistant head of the Defence Department for security, or that is head of

22     the SIS administration -- Mr. Bandic, can you repeat your answer to my

23     previous question, whether this blue field denotes SIS operatives in

24     military units as per operational zone?

25        A.   To the best of my understanding of this schematic, this is so.

Page 38141

 1        Q.   Thank you.  Is it true that SIS operatives in the military units

 2     were appointed as per regulation and dismissed by the head of the Defence

 3     Department in cooperation with the head of the SIS administration and at

 4     lower level the head of SIS administration de jure or as per regulations;

 5     was that so?

 6        A.   De jure, it was so, I think.

 7        Q.   So de jure by law, if a SIS operative failed to preform their

 8     duties conscientiously, head of the Defence Department could dismiss him,

 9     and at lower levels SIS administration head; is that so?

10        A.   I would not concur.  I think that this was at the commander

11     level.

12        Q.   I'm asking you about the law, the letter of the law, de jure?

13        A.   I'm not sure.

14        Q.   Fine.  Let's take a look at the rule book on the work of the SIS,

15     which is a document.

16             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise, if my

17     learned colleague wants to adduce this document as exhibit, let's have it

18     at IC because we will be receiving it in black and white, but the witness

19     has testified to the colouring of this document and this can open a door

20     to misinterpretation.  Could we have this document printed in colour as

21     an exhibit?

22             MS. ALABURIC:  [Interpretation] If I may, this document will

23     always be in colour, and if you get hold of a colour printer, you will

24     print it in colour.  This document, after all, is an exhibit, and we used

25     it when cross-examining Mr. Davor Marijan.

Page 38142

 1             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I agree.  I don't want to argue

 2     about that.  But the question to the witness was whether the blue field

 3     denotes assistants SIS affairs of commanders.  It's all about the context

 4     of the question and answer, and if my learned friend says it's in colour,

 5     then we will make sure that we use it as such.

 6             MS. ALABURIC:  [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   Mr. Bandic, let's take a look at P4211.  It's a rule book on the

 8     work of the SIS.  Article 5 for starters.  It says here, verification and

 9     control of the legality of work of the SIS is safeguarded and carried out

10     by the head of the Defence Department and the commission appointed by the

11     president of HZ-HB.

12        A.   This is written here.

13        Q.   In examination-in-chief, if I remember correctly, you said that

14     you did not know whether the commission has been established at all?

15        A.   It was not known to me.

16        Q.   Could you tell us, please, whether this means that head of the

17     Defence Department was the only person who authorised to -- ensuring and

18     implementing the verification and supervision of the legality of the work

19     of the SIS?

20        A.   I cannot say so because I don't know whether the commission was

21     set up.  I don't know anything about the commission.

22        Q.   I'm not asking you, Mr. Bandic, about the commission, but the

23     competencies of the head of the Defence Department, pursuant to Article 5

24     of this rule book, which has been enacted by the head of the Defence

25     Department himself?

Page 38143

 1        A.   Madam Counsel, it is clear from this provision that the head of

 2     the Defence Department and the commission do so, but I reiterate that I

 3     don't know whether that commission was ever established or not.

 4        Q.   Very well.  Let's take a look at Article 10 which says, The work

 5     of the administration shall be managed by its chief who shall be held

 6     accountable for its work and the work of the service to the head.  Let's

 7     first agree on what the term "service" denotes.  Could you please tell

 8     us, Mr. Bandic, whether we can define this term service as the SIS

 9     administration, SIS centres, and operatives of the SIS in military units

10     and military institutions?  Would that, put all together, would

11     constitute the service?

12        A.   Yes, in its totality.

13        Q.   Very well.  In following from Article 10, if I'm reading this

14     correctly, head chief of the SIS administration is responsible or

15     accountable for the work of the whole service to the head of the Defence

16     Department; is that correct?

17        A.   Yes, you can understand it by reading this provision, this

18     article.

19        Q.   If we said that the service is comprised of SIS operatives in

20     military units, it means that the chief of the SIS administration is

21     responsible to the head of the Defence Department for their work as well?

22        A.   This is not so.

23        Q.   But the article states so?

24        A.   Well, counsel, in Article 7 mention is made of specialised

25     security tasks.  In Article 8, discusses information gathering, and

Page 38144

 1     Article 9 discusses what the operatives are supposed to do.

 2        Q.   Fine.  But what about Article 10?

 3        A.   It is -- what is known to me are military matters and expert

 4     matters.

 5        Q.   We will come to that, this is a completely different matter.

 6     Let's take a look at Article 11 then.  It refers to SIS centres, and it

 7     states here that they coordinate and direct the work of all employees in

 8     their area.  Please tell us, Mr. Bandic, whether this means that SIS

 9     centres are authorised to coordinate and direct the work of SIS

10     operatives in the military units?

11        A.   Madam Counsel, I've just -- I've said that this coordinate and

12     direct is the professional part of their responsibilities.

13        Q.   Yes, we will come to that.  Let's skip a large chunk, but we do

14     not have the time to deal with everything, and let's take a look at

15     Article 51.  Let's check whether you defined correctly what the service

16     comprises.  In Article 51 it is state that all documentation shall be

17     stored in the service administration, at SIS centres, and in possession

18     of operative employees who, among other things, are part of the military

19     units; is that correct?

20        A.   Madam Counsel, I did not understand your question, because units

21     are not mentioned.

22        Q.   Employees or operatives are mentioned and they are in units?

23        A.   Centres are referred to.

24             MS. ALABURIC:  [Interpretation] Shall we take a break or should I

25     continue.

Page 38145

 1             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I suggest we go for a break

 2     now.  You probably have one hour left.

 3                           --- Recess taken at 12.28 p.m.

 4                           --- On resuming at 12.53 p.m.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes.  The hearing resumes, and

 6     before I give the floor back to Ms. Alaburic, I wanted to tell

 7     Mr. Stojic's Defence team the following.  As you are aware of, tomorrow

 8     the witness will let us know what was the outcome of his proceedings with

 9     the authorities, but regardless of this, we ask the -- Mr. Stojic Defence

10     team, by virtue of Rule 70, to hand in a request for protective measures

11     in order to limit the scope of the cross-examination should it be

12     necessary.  So I invite you to do this so that when it comes to the scope

13     of the cross-examination, you know precisely what is the position of the

14     Croatian authorities, but it is up to you to do whatever needs to be done

15     but you have the --

16             MR. STRINGER:  It's the Prosecution position, but maybe I'm

17     jumping the gun, but Rule 70 doesn't apply to this witness's testimony.

18     He's already testified.  He's already given evidence.  There's been no

19     confidential information that's been given to which Rule 70 might apply.

20     So I -- certainly if they want to ask for protective measures at this

21     extremely late time, Mr. Karnavas is right, this has been dealt with many

22     other witnesses who come with a diplomatic background, but of course this

23     is raised and dealt with and resolved by the Trial Chamber months in

24     advance of any witnesses actually coming to testify here.

25             So now this witness is going to go away tonight, and he is going

Page 38146

 1     to talk to some people at his embassy about the one thing he is not

 2     supposed to talk about with anybody, which is his testimony, so we are

 3     already running off the tracks, if I may suggest that, because of the

 4     fact that this issue was raised by the witness sitting in the stand for

 5     the first time while on cross-examination.  So we are already in trouble,

 6     if I might suggest that.  I think it's also incorrect, with respect,

 7     Mr. President, to suggest that Rule 70 applies at all to this witness's

 8     status or to the evidence that's already been given in open session.

 9             So if there are protective measures that will be sought, that's

10     certainly fine, but it's not within the context of Rule 70, and certainly

11     the Prosecution is going to take its own position in respect of the

12     applicability of protective measures at this late stage of the witness's

13     testimony.

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stringer, a very quick

15     reply to the legal issue.  There are many situations in the jurisprudence

16     of this court where state's operatives benefitted from protective

17     measures by virtue of Rule 70, General Clark being one example, and I

18     could give you other examples.  Secondly, you could -- you can benefit

19     from protective measures at any time.  Nothing stipulates that it has to

20     be beforehand.  It can be at any time.  And thirdly, you said it yourself

21     when you announced that you were intent on asking him questions on issues

22     that haven't been tackled during the examination-in-chief or

23     cross-examination.  You, yourself, have -- the position originates from

24     you.  So the Trial Chamber has made its decision and has invited the

25     Defence teams who invited the witness to come and testify to do have to

Page 38147

 1     is possible in order for this to be settled.

 2             Ms. Alaburic.

 3             Yes, witness, you raised your hand I hadn't seen you, I do

 4     apologise.  Yes, Witness?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Mr. President, thank

 6     you for giving me the floor.  It does are to do me with me after all, so

 7     may I be allowed to be of assistance, if I can.  I'm not asking for

 8     immunity here on account of my diplomatic status.  That is not why I'm

 9     asking for a closed session.  I'm not intervening because of that.  I

10     would just like to say that there are things regarding which I do not

11     have permission.  It is when I worked for the Croatian secret service.  I

12     cannot testify without the permission of the appropriate authorities.

13     It's just a question of procedure.  The answer will be there.  I cannot

14     call the president or the prime minister or the minister, Your Honours.

15     Of course, they will respond to my call but there is a procedure that has

16     to be abided by.  I did not contact anyone so far.

17             After I complete my testimony, I planned to meet up with my

18     colleague, the ambassador here, since we are friends and we know each

19     other but that would be after my testimony.  Thank you for having allowed

20     me to speak.

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

22             Ms. Alaburic.

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

24        Q.   Mr. Bandic, let us go back to our rules.  Let us look at Article

25     62, the document is P4211.  The rules on the work of SIS.  Sorry, 63

Page 38148

 1     actually.  Article 63.  Let us try to be as brief as possible.  Article

 2     63 says in paragraph 1:

 3             "Assistant commanders for SIS shall be required to perform the

 4     tasks of commanders of units within whose structure they belong which

 5     pertain to the scope of work of the service," as defined by the

 6     regulations.

 7             I'm trying to cut things as short as possible.

 8             Mr. Bandic, this provision shows that the SIS officers in

 9     military units are duty-bound to carry out the tasks assigned to them by

10     the commander of the unit that they belong to; is that right.

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   Please look at the next paragraph, With respect to the

13     implementation of tasks from the scope of work of the SIS, the employees

14     shall be responsible to the competent -- to the superior centre or

15     administration.  This provision shows that all SIS officers, including

16     those in military units mentioned in the previous paragraph, shall be

17     responsible for their work to the appropriate superior centre or

18     administration; is that right, Mr. Bandic?

19        A.   In the professional domain, yes.

20        Q.   In the professional domain, are you actually referring to SIS

21     work, that's what you meant by professional domain?

22        A.   Madam Counsellor, I'm trying to understand things and to explain

23     them to you, and to me there is a double link.  One is the military

24     operative, one at battalion level, brigade level, military district

25     level, so officers there are responsible to their commanders.

Page 38149

 1        Q.   Mr. Bandic, sorry for interrupting, but please show me in this

 2     rule book where does it say that SIS officers in military units shall be

 3     responsible for their work to the commander of the unit?

 4        A.   Counsellor, that goes without saying.  The commander is the one

 5     that issues orders within the unit.

 6        Q.   Can I interpret your answer to mean that the rules do not

 7     stipulate this, but you believe that this goes without saying?

 8        A.   It goes without saying as far as I'm concerned.

 9        Q.   If the same rules established that SIS officers shall be

10     responsible to the centre or the administration, can you explain to us

11     then how come this is regulated by these rules?

12        A.   Madam Counsellor, Your Honours, this was not my line of work.  I

13     really did not take part in the writing of these rules.

14        Q.   All right.

15        A.   If you want detailed explanations of each and every article, you

16     can always call a person who took part in this, who was simply in charge

17     of this.  Thank you.

18        Q.   All right.  Then we are going to skip that.  Let us look at

19     paragraph 65 -- or rather, Article 65.  Article 65 says the commander of

20     a unit may issue an order to an employee of the SIS for the performance

21     of tasks related to SIS work.  Was that really the way it was?

22        A.   Just as I said a few moments ago, as far as I'm concerned it goes

23     without saying.

24        Q.   All right.  Let's look at the next provision.  The employee shall

25     submit a report on the order executed not only to the commander who

Page 38150

 1     issued the order, but also to the centre or administration of the

 2     service.  Is that the way it really was?

 3        A.   Madam Counsellor, I'm telling you once again, I did not write

 4     these provisions.  We can interpret them.  We can analyse them now.  I'm

 5     familiar with the legal part, but I cannot tell you what things were like

 6     in the field.  Things can be read the way you have read them just now.

 7        Q.   All right.  I'm going to ask you whether that's the way the

 8     things were in practice; namely, that a SIS officer in a military unit

 9     sent his report not only to the commander, but also to the superior

10     centre or SIS administration.  Is that the way things worked in practice

11     as a rule, of course, not in each and every individual situation?

12        A.   I'm not aware of that.  But it is possible that there were such

13     cases.

14        Q.   All right.  Let us look at Article 66 together.  It says, In the

15     event an order is issued to an employee of the SIS, which is beyond the

16     scope of the work of the service, the employee shall immediately inform

17     the person in charge in the SIS, and he, in turn, shall take appropriate

18     measures prescribed by the decree in these rules.  Tell me, Mr. Bandic,

19     does this provision defend SIS members in military units from any kind of

20     orders that would ask them to do something outside the scope of SIS work

21     and that in such situations they can ask for protection from the person

22     in charge of SIS, would that be the right way to interpret this

23     provision?

24        A.   I think so.

25        Q.   Very well.

Page 38151

 1             Let us look at Article 68.  It says, Employees of the SIS in

 2     commands and units shall inform the administration and centre in the

 3     prescribed manner about all developments influencing the state of

 4     security in counter-intelligence protection.  Tell me, was that the way

 5     things were in practice, one of the tasks of SIS officers in military

 6     units?

 7        A.   I think that was the case, that it was one of the tasks.  But I

 8     think that in practice it didn't really work.

 9        Q.   Tell us, to the best of your knowledge, did military commanders

10     know that SIS officers had the task to report about the situation in the

11     unit that they were in, that they were supposed to report to the centre

12     or administration of the SIS, did military commanders know about that

13     task?  Did they know that SIS officers were sending report to the SIS

14     administration or centre about the situation in that military unit?

15        A.   I'm not aware of that.  I don't know whether they knew.

16        Q.   All right.  I have prepared two more documents in this respect,

17     however, in view of your answer who the members of the SIS were, I'm

18     going to complete this topic that pertains to regulations and I'd like to

19     move on to my next topic, and that is your statement, Mr. Bandic.

20             If I understood you correctly, as you were answering the

21     questions put to you by the Bruno Stojic Defence, you said that the

22     appropriate procedure was not observed in the appointment of SIS members,

23     and all the way up to sometime towards the end of 1993 SIS officers held

24     their posts without having been appointed by authorised officials and in

25     a way that was prescribed by the regulations.  Do you remember having

Page 38152

 1     stated that?

 2        A.   Yes, I do.

 3        Q.   Please look at the next number of documents after the blue piece

 4     of cardboard, document P938.  Bruno Stojic, and command of the operative

 5     zone of central Bosnia in December 1992, appoints some high-ranking

 6     officers and among them number 12, Ante Sliskovic, head of security.

 7     Have you found that?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   Tell us, Mr. Bandic, how do you interpret this, does this

10     document show that Mr. Sliskovic really held that position, that he was

11     appointed to that position by Mr. Bruno Stojic?

12        A.   Madam Counsellor, this is the first time I see this document.

13     Under number 12, head of security, this is a notion that I find confusing

14     because as far as I know, Mr. Sliskovic was assistant head of SIS for the

15     military district.  I don't know what head of security means here, of the

16     security centre that we've already discussed.  We've already said that

17     there were problems in its establishment up there.

18        Q.   Mr. Bandic, Mr. Ante Sliskovic was in the command of the

19     operative zone, not at the SIS centre; right?

20        A.   That's right.

21        Q.   All right.  Please look at the next document, January 1993, Bruno

22     Stojic.  Dismisses from duty in the Banja Lukic Brigade from the

23     positions of assistant commander for SIS and all duties and brigade

24     logistics, the assistant commander.  The document is P10306.  P10306.

25        A.   Yes.

Page 38153

 1        Q.   This document shows that Bruno Stojic could already in the

 2     beginning of 1993 relieve of duties SIS commanders in brigades.  Did that

 3     really happen to the best of your knowledge?

 4        A.   Madam, this is the first time I see this document yet again.

 5     What I find interesting is -- well, I don't know who Josip Maric was,

 6     although he was in SIS, although I had spent time there already, so

 7     according to this, yes, but I really do not know that this was a frequent

 8     occurrence.  I really don't know.  Especially I don't know who this man

 9     was.  I personally find this interesting that I never came across him.  I

10     never met him.

11        Q.   P835 is the next document, let's have a look at it.  This is a

12     document on the appointment of persons to the Rama Brigade in Prozor.

13     It's signed by Bruno Stojic, November of 1992.  Point 3 says Luka

14     Markesic is appointed head of security, chief of security.  Tell us,

15     Mr. Bandic, is that the same Luka Markesic that you spoke of during your

16     direct examination?

17        A.   Yes, I believe it's one in the same person.

18        Q.   All right.  Please look at the next document.  2D1446.  Again,

19     this is a document signed by Bruno Stojic on appointment into the command

20     of the 1st Herzegovina Brigade Krez Domagoj.  It's a long decision.  I'm

21     just going to ask you to look at SIS officers very quickly now.  Number

22     16 says Zarko Pavlovic, chief of SIS.  Have you found that?

23        A.   Sorry, could you please help me once again.

24        Q.   16.

25        A.   I find it a bit illegible.

Page 38154

 1        Q.   16, Zarko Pavlovic, chief of SIS.

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   Is that the same Zarko Pavlovic that you said during your

 4     examination-in-chief could not be resolved, is that one in the same

 5     person?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   17, look at that desk officer of SIS, Ljubo Ilic.  Did you know

 8     this desk officer of SIS?

 9        A.   Mr. Pavlovic, I did know.  The gentleman that we are talking

10     about now, Mr. Ilic, that's someone that I do not know of and do not

11     know.

12        Q.   All right.  Number 65, Borislav Jurkovic, desk officer for

13     security in the 1st Battalion.  Tell us, did you know that security

14     officer?

15        A.   Madam, I did not know him.  Indeed, I did not have occasion to

16     meet a great many people from different units.

17        Q.   Please look at number 94 now.  Desk officer for security, Mile

18     Tomic in the 2nd Battalion.  Have you found him?  Do you know him?

19        A.   I didn't know him.

20        Q.   And now for Their Honours and for the transcript, SIS desk

21     officers are under numbers 124, 143, and 165.  I'm trying to cut things

22     as short as possible, so we are not going look at each and every one of

23     them now.

24             Tell me, Mr. Bandic, after these documents, could you at least

25     change in part what you said during your direct examination, namely that

Page 38155

 1     desk -- that officers of SIS in military units were appointed by

 2     unauthorised officials apart from regular procedure?

 3        A.   I stand by what I said, there were many such cases.

 4        Q.   To the best of your knowledge, if you were to count how many were

 5     appointed through a decision by Bruno Stojic and how many were not, could

 6     you give Their Honours at least a ball-park figure, because on the basis

 7     of your statement, it seemed that no one had been appointed in accordance

 8     with procedure?

 9        A.   Madam, I never said that no one was appointed.  I cannot give you

10     a figure.  I cannot give you a percentage, but yet again I would like to

11     point out that after the administration was established, after we tried

12     to establish centres in a way we worked on a recapitulation.  We tried

13     quite simply to compile a list to find out who these persons were,

14     because these people had already been appointed for almost a year and a

15     half.  I mean, a year and a half before we tried to establish who the

16     said officers were.  There is a period that we are talking about because

17     we had found a situation that we found --

18             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's correction:  Half a year, not a

19     year and a half.

20             MS. ALABURIC:  [Interpretation]

21        Q.   Can we cut things as short as possible?

22        A.   I'm just trying to say that we found a certain situation, and

23     only then was procedure observed and did they receive the kind of

24     documents they were supposed to receive.

25        Q.   All right.  Mr. Bandic, I would like to put a few questions to

Page 38156

 1     you now in relation to your answer given during the direct examination.

 2     In response to the question on whether SIS officers had the same kind of

 3     authority, like organs of the interior did in proceedings before district

 4     military courts.  If I may be allowed to remind you, in response to the

 5     question put by the Bruno Stojic Defence, your answer was yes.  After

 6     that the question was repeated and you changed your answer in the

 7     following way, you said that these duties of the organs of the interior

 8     before military district courts were enjoyed only by SIS members and

 9     military units, that is to say, that these responsibilities were not part

10     of the responsibilities of SIS officers in the centre, and the

11     administration.  Do you remember that answer?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   All right.  In the next set of documents, could you please look

14     at document 4D1317.  Again after the little blue cardboard.  The first

15     document there.

16             MS. ALABURIC:  [Interpretation] Your Honours, this is a document

17     that I prepared because I wanted to draw a comparison for you between the

18     relevant provisions of the Law on Criminal Procedure applied in the

19     civilian judiciary and the provisions in military courts that apply in

20     the military judiciary.  So it's the first document after the next little

21     blue cardboard.

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Madam, I cannot, well, it's a

23     different document here, the one after the little blue cardboard.

24             MS. ALABURIC:  [Interpretation]

25        Q.   Maybe you are looking at the wrong little blue cardboard.  Yes,

Page 38157

 1     yes, look at that first page now.  Yes, that's right.  And now the next

 2     document.  Do you see this document in two columns, Mr. Bandic?

 3        A.   No, no, no.

 4        Q.   Now, we are going to give it to you.  Yes, you can see it on your

 5     screen, yes, on your screen.  You are a lawyer, Mr. Bandic, I think that

 6     you will be able to clarify certain matters for the Honourable Trial

 7     Chamber.  On the left-hand side you have Article 148 of the criminal

 8     procedure act which discusses duties of all state organs, enterprises, to

 9     report criminal offences which are prosecuted ex officio.  Please take a

10     look at paragraph 3 of that article.  It is said that:

11             "State organs and enterprises and other institutions should in

12     such criminal report to list evidence known to them," then they are

13     duty-bound secondly to take measures to preserve traces of criminal

14     offences, and thirdly, to safe-guard items which were the subject of or

15     the instrument of commission of such criminal offence and other physical

16     evidence.

17             This was a piece of legislation in effect throughout former

18     Yugoslavia, and you remember whether these were the duties of all the

19     state organs, self-government organisations, et cetera, et cetera, I'm

20     cutting a list short?

21        A.   Yes, I am a lawyer, but unfortunately, I did not deal with

22     criminal law, but this is a provision known to me.

23        Q.   Let's take a look at an identical provision which regulates these

24     matters before military courts.  It's Article 27 of a decree on military

25     courts, which spells out the duties of commanders, military institutions,

Page 38158

 1     et cetera.  The commander of a military unit must take all necessary

 2     measures to prevent the perpetrator of crime, to prevent his flight, to

 3     safe-guard physical items which may be used as evidence, and to collect

 4     all information that might be useful for criminal Prosecution and

 5     criminal proceedings, the military commander is duty-bound to inform the

 6     district military Prosecutor and the immediate superior officer of any

 7     such matters.  Have you seen this?

 8        A.   Yes, I've seen it.

 9        Q.   Can we agree that this goes for a general obligation of the

10     competent state or military organs to take whatever they can to help

11     detect the perpetrators of criminal offences and help prosecute them?

12        A.   That's correct.

13        Q.   Thank you.  Let's turn the page.  In Article 151 and 154, and

14     there are some other articles, what is discussed is what organs of the

15     interior are supposed to do with respect to criminal procedure.  Your

16     Honours, you may read it.  These are typical activities of a police in

17     any country which -- and they are authorised and duty-bound to perform

18     such tasks.

19             Let's list some of him.  Detect and find perpetrator of a

20     criminal offence, undertake measures to prevent his flight or him being

21     unavailable, to secure evidence items which may be used as proof, collect

22     all information which may be useful for a successful criminal

23     prosecution, et cetera, et cetera.  In the right-hand column, Article 25

24     on the Decree on military -- District Military Courts, it is said that

25     the tasks of the interior shall be done by the authorised personnel of

Page 38159

 1     the security organ of the armed forces.  This is what you discussed in

 2     your examination-in-chief, isn't that so, Mr. Bandic?

 3        A.   That's correct.

 4        Q.   Your claim is, if I understood it correctly, that some SIS

 5     officers had authorities and powers of organs of the interior and some

 6     did not; is that correct?

 7        A.   Madam Lawyer, my understanding of that is that in operative and

 8     military sense, and in this case as an authorised person within the

 9     security organ, together with the security assistant of the operation

10     zone, it was their duty to act with respect to any criminal offences.

11        Q.   And you as an employee of the an SIS within the SIS

12     administration did not have such powers?

13        A.   Madam, if I am in an immediate situation, and let me note for the

14     benefit of the bench that I was such an authorised person in the previous

15     regime in the ex-Yugoslavia, but I never had the powers of arrest, of

16     apprehending and bringing in people, and I am discussing -- talking about

17     pre-war period and the war period.

18        Q.   But if I were to understand your testimony, you were authorised

19     to talk where certain persons, for instance, those two who took part in

20     the HVO action at Stupni Do, you were authorised to make an official

21     note, to forward that official note to your superior, Ivica Lucic, for

22     further procedure?

23        A.   Yes, I had authority to conduct interviews and produce a note,

24     maybe just -- maybe even take a statement.

25        Q.   Let's take a look at Article 151, Criminal Procedure Act.  The

Page 38160

 1     powers of the organs of the interior are defined as such to collect

 2     information from citizens to search in appropriate matter, to collect

 3     evidence --

 4             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I have to intervene, I apologise.  I

 5     would like the witness not to be implied or imputed.  He said that he had

 6     powers to interview and produce an official note, and this Article 151,

 7     paragraph 2, discusses what the official organs of the interior had

 8     powers to do.  As far as I can understand, the witness in

 9     examination-in-chief said exactly that, it was envisaged that organs of

10     the interior could investigate and everything else that SIS organs had no

11     authority to do, neither did they have capacity to do it.  So if it is

12     imputed that he had said that, then let's read out paragraph 2 of Article

13     151 to see what organs of the interior did in connection with documenting

14     criminal offence.

15             MS. ALABURIC:  [Interpretation] What my colleague is saying, she

16     is going to deal with in her redirect.  I'm not going to deal with this.

17        Q.   I'm going to ask you my concluding question with respect to this.

18     So your thesis is that SIS administration was not in charge of the

19     detecting crimes, criminal offences, collecting evidence, and submitting

20     and lodging criminal reports and criminal prosecution and initiating

21     criminal proceedings against perpetrators.  Is this your thesis?

22        A.   Yes, it is.

23        Q.   Let's look at the next document, P128.  It is a report on the

24     work for 1992.  The part which concerns the SIS.

25        A.   Madam Lawyer, could you assist me.

Page 38161

 1        Q.   The next document following this juxtaposed overview immediately

 2     after the document that you have in your hands, the next -- the very next

 3     document.

 4             On page 8, this is a report covering 1992, a report on work of

 5     the HVO.  On page 8 is a section of the report which concerns the SIS,

 6     Security and Information Service.  In English, I will give you the page

 7     number very soon, unfortunately I haven't noted it.

 8             Mr. Bandic, please take a look.  It is stated here towards the

 9     end of the second paragraph, midway down the page, After systematising,

10     analysing data which are collected through operational work and through

11     interviews, consolidated reports were produced for the head of the

12     Defence Department and the president of the HZ-HB.  Have you found this

13     part?

14        A.   I am sorry, I couldn't find it.

15        Q.   In English, it's also page 8, paragraph 2.

16        A.   Well, I have no pagination.

17        Q.   Yes, there is.  Take a look at the screen, please, the last

18     paragraph, the last sentence.

19        A.   We are not discussing the same document.  There's no pagination.

20        Q.   Mr. Bandic, please be kind and focus on the screen.  The last

21     sentence in this first large paragraph saying:

22             "After systematising and analysing data collected through

23     operative work and through interviews, consolidated reports were produced

24     for the head of the Defence Department and the president of HZ-HB."

25             Have you found this, sir?

Page 38162

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   Please tell us, systematising and analysing data gathered through

 3     operations, could you please tell us what activities these are referred

 4     to.  How is this done, how do you collect or gather data through

 5     operations?

 6        A.   Very simple, madam counsel, and this is the work that is the

 7     basis for our service.  If somebody submits a document through a

 8     connection or an informant, then this is operations, and then through

 9     interviews by producing official notes.

10        Q.   Interviews.  This is what -- we saw that organs of the interior

11     are authorised under the Criminal Procedure Act, they are authorised to

12     interview and talk to citizens, see if they have some knowledge about

13     certain criminal offences?

14        A.   That's correct.

15        Q.   It says here that comprehensive reports were made by the SIS; is

16     that correct?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   And following from this report it, says that such comprehensive

19     reports were submitted to the head of the Defence Department and

20     president of the HZ-HB; is that correct?

21        A.   Of course.  If this is stated here, I can just confirm.

22        Q.   I'm going to skip one paragraph.  Please take a look at the

23     paragraph which is at the bottom of that page.  The part which said that

24     the service, in accordance with its capability, it has also participated

25     in the monitoring and detection of organised crime, can you see that?

Page 38163

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   Please tell us, this is a part of the report which was drafted by

 3     the SIS administration.  If it's true what you said, that SIS

 4     administration was not in charge of activities concerning the detection

 5     and prosecuting criminal offences, how come that this claim has found its

 6     way to this SIS administration's report?

 7        A.   Madam counsel, my understanding is simple.  It says here the

 8     service, and this is referring to the whole service, criminal offences

 9     are referred to about which the service collected and analysed data, but

10     the data came from the field through the centres, et cetera.  When I said

11     the administration, please understand me that I'm referring to ten people

12     or so who have no capability of going out in the field.  This was a place

13     where we tried through operational and analytical work to cover this part

14     of our responsibilities.

15        Q.   If I understood you correctly, Mr. Bandic, SIS operatives and

16     employees at the SIS administration did not conduct operative work in the

17     field, but they processed the data they received from the ground

18     concerning prosecution of criminal offences; is that correct?

19        A.   No, not just that exclusively.  I did go out in the field

20     personally, but I'm talking about the administrative and operational

21     capacities.  I want to avoid you understanding that there was a large

22     number of people who could work also in the field, et cetera.

23        Q.   But from your answer, it follows that you at times would go out

24     in the field and collect information; is that correct?

25        A.   Yes, that's correct.  I collected such information.

Page 38164

 1        Q.   SIS employees at SIS centres, they were closer to what was going

 2     on on the ground than people in the SIS administration?

 3        A.   Yes, that was of course so.

 4        Q.   And could you please tell us whether they collected evidence in

 5     the field and tried to contribute to successful detection and prosecution

 6     of perpetrators of criminal offences?

 7        A.   This was one of their tasks.  One of their tasks.

 8        Q.   Very well.  Let's take a look at the next document.  Mr. Bandic,

 9     I think it is in a separate set of documents, there are three documents

10     because of their volume were set aside.  This is P4699.  It's a HVO work

11     report for the first half of 1993.  I'd like to draw your attention to

12     the SIS administration's report which starts on page 17 of the Croatian

13     version.

14             Please take a look at page 18.  There is a very important remark,

15     one of the key topics in this whole trial in the opinion of General

16     Petkovic's Defence team.  Have you found it?  In English version that's

17     page 11.

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   The service in a timely manner registered many irregularities

20     within HVO units, skipping the rest of the sentence.  And I'm quoting the

21     next sentence, As a separate problem in certain units, we found a large

22     number of troops, non-Croats who were mainly Muslims.  The importance of

23     this warning was confirmed when the ABiH army attacked the HVO at Bioelo

24     Polje when HVO soldiers of Muslim ethnicity walked over to the ABiH ranks

25     and were the strongest force of the Muslim army in the attack against

Page 38165

 1     Grbavica.  My question is, was the HVO created as a military force of

 2     Croats, Muslims, or all citizens or citizens without any ethnic

 3     affiliation?

 4        A.   Your question, Madam Counsel, is -- touches the main topic, but

 5     it necessitates a wider elaboration, and it necessitates an explanation

 6     of how things came to a head in this way that it was described here.  By

 7     the Bench's leave, I would delve into a wider explanation, this is a very

 8     delicate political matter.

 9        Q.   Mr. Bandic, I fully agree with you, and I think it would be very

10     good to do that if we had sufficient time.  But all I'm interested in at

11     this point is what your perception was.  Did the authorities in

12     Herceg-Bosna truly wish to create the HVO as the giant army of the Croats

13     and Muslims, was it a multinational, multiethnic army up until mid-1993?

14        A.   Yes, I saw the HVO as a multinational army.  And the army of BH

15     also had different nationalities in it at that point.

16             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Alaburic, you can continue

17     tomorrow, you have time left, and the Registrar will tell us how much

18     time you actually have.

19             We would just like to complete the oral decision that was handed

20     down this morning as regards the cross-examination that will be conducted

21     by the Prosecution.  I shall read this out slowly so that no mistakes are

22     made.

23             Let me stipulate, Ms. Alaburic, that you will have 26 minutes

24     left for tomorrow.

25             The Trial Chamber in its oral decision completes the already --

Page 38166

 1     the decision that has already been handed down as follows.

 2             The Trial Chamber, after having recorded the comments made by the

 3     Prosecution and the witness's statement, would like to complete the oral

 4     decision in the following manner:  Asking, thereby, the Stojic Defence

 5     team to carry out the necessary measures on behalf of the witness since

 6     the witness is a witness of the court, and according to the response

 7     provided by the Croatian authorities, to seize us of a motion pursuant to

 8     Rule 70 of our rules of procedure if necessary.

 9             To sum up, Ms. Nozica and Mr. Khan, it's for you to phone up the

10     authorities in question because the witness is now in a position where he

11     is a witness of the court.  We have addressed matters of substance and

12     therefore he cannot discuss a case file with his authorities.  But you

13     may, and you can therefore call up the authorities and explain the

14     problem to them.  If the authorities have nothing against this witness

15     talking about his activities which he had after he worked for the SIS.

16     So please file a written motion pursuant to Rule 70 of our rules, please.

17     The witness, therefore, will not find himself in a delicate position.

18             Witness, I'm sure you've understood what I've just said.  You

19     musn't phone anyone up since you are now a witness of the court, and we

20     do not wish to put you in a delicate position.  The lawyers that have

21     asked you to come and testify will do that on your behalf.  They have all

22     afternoon and all night to do so.  We will now adjourn and meet again

23     tomorrow at 9.00.

24                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.44 p.m.

25                           to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 18th day of

Page 38167

 1                           March, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.