Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 50402

 1                           Thursday, 4 March 2010

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The Accused Praljak not present]

 5                           [The Accused Petkovic takes the stand]

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

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, can you call the

 8     case, please.

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

10     everyone in and around the courtroom.

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

12     Prlic et al.  Thank you, Your Honours.

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

14             Today is Thursday, the 4th of March, 2010.  I would like to

15     welcome General Petkovic, first of all, the accused who are in the

16     courtroom, Mr. Prlic, Coric, Stojic, and Pusic.  I would like to welcome

17     Defence counsel, Mr. Scott as well as all his associates, and all the

18     people assisting us in this courtroom, and also the security guards.

19             I have two oral decisions to hand down, which I shall hand down

20     straight away.  These are long.  I believe too formal, but whatever the

21     case may be, relating to the application by Stojic and Petkovic Defence

22     teams to be granted additional time to cross-examine Witness 5D-AB.

23             The Witness 5D-AB presented by the Coric Defence team will

24     testify as a viva voce witness from the 12th to the 14th of April, 2010,

25     according to the latest schedule that has been filed.  The Coric Defence

Page 50403

 1     has informed the Chamber and the parties of its intention to have two

 2     hours for the examination-in-chief and redirect, if any, for the witness.

 3             In its motion on the 1st of February, 2010, the Petkovic Defence

 4     asked to have one hour, i.e., an extra 48 minutes, as opposed to the time

 5     which would be allocated pursuant to Guide-line number 5 to cross-examine

 6     Witness 5D-AB.  The Coric Defence team has responded to this on the

 7     5th of February, 2010.  The 9th of February, 2010, the Trial Chamber

 8     authorised the Petkovic Defence to file a reply, which it did on the

 9     12th of February, 2010.

10             After that, it was notified on the 10th of February, 2010, by the

11     Stojic Defence, that requested an extra 20 minutes from the Chamber to

12     cross-examine the witness.  It requested, furthermore, that this

13     additional time be taken off the overall time which had been allocated to

14     it by the Chamber.

15             After having looked at the 65 ter summary relating to the

16     testimony of 5D-AB, the Trial Chamber holds that the additional time

17     application filed by the Stojic Defence is founded and proportionate.

18     The Trial Chamber, therefore, states that it can have 20 extra minutes to

19     cross-examine the witness, which means that the overall time of its

20     cross-examination will be 32 minutes.

21             The Trial Chamber also notes that the Stojic Defence has

22     requested to have 20 minutes' time taken off its overall time.

23             As far as the application filed by the Petkovic Defence is

24     concerned, the Trial Chamber feels that an extra hour to cross-examine is

25     disproportionate, in light of the material in the 65 ter summary of

Page 50404

 1     Witness 5D-AB.  The Trial Chamber holds that 30 minutes of extra time is

 2     enough to enable the counsel to protect the interests of their client,

 3     which means that the overall time of their cross-examination will be

 4     42 minutes.

 5             Accordingly, time allocation will be broken down as follows:  The

 6     Coric Defence will have two hours to conduct its examination-in-chief and

 7     redirect, if any.  The Stojic Defence will have 32 minutes for its

 8     cross-examination.  The Petkovic Defence will have 42 minutes for its

 9     cross-examination.  In the absence of any specific application, the

10     Prlic, Praljak and Pusic Defence teams will have 12 minutes each to

11     cross-examine, if need be.  And, lastly, the Prosecution, pursuant to

12     Guide-line number 5, will have two hours for its cross-examination.

13             I would like to say that this very long decision could have --

14     could read as follows:  In light of the parties' submission, the Trial

15     Chamber decides to allocate two hours to the Coric Defence team,

16     30 minutes to the Stojic Defence team, 40 minutes to the Petkovic Defence

17     team, and 12 minutes each for the other Defence teams, and two hours to

18     be allocated to the Prosecution.  This is what I would have said, had I

19     been on my own.

20             Oral decision relating to the Prosecution's application, and

21     Petkovic and Stojic Defence teams to have extra time to cross-examine the

22     Witness Mate Jelcic, relating to the time allocated for the appearance of

23     this witness.

24             Please be patient.  This going to take a long time.

25             Witness Mate Jelcic presented by the Coric Defence team must come

Page 50405

 1     as a witness pursuant to Rule 92 ter of our Rules of the 24th of March,

 2     2010.  The Coric Defence team has informed the Trial Chamber and the

 3     parties that it intends to examine in-chief this witness for 30 minutes.

 4             In its motion -- confidential motion filed on the

 5     1st of February, 2010, the Prosecution has asked to have two hours to

 6     cross-examine this witness.  The Coric Defence responded to the motion on

 7     the 3rd of February, 2010.  On the 3rd of February, 2010, also, the

 8     Praljak Defence joined in the response filed by the Coric Defence.  On

 9     the 14th [as interpreted] of February, 2010, the Prosecution asked to be

10     entitled to reply and to be entitled to reply to the -- and responded.

11             Furthermore, the Petkovic Defence filed a confidential motion on

12     the 4th of February, 2010, in which it asked to have 30 minutes to

13     cross-examine Witness Mate Jelcic, i.e., an extra 18 minutes.  On the

14     15th of February, 2010, the Coric Defence responded to the motion.  The

15     Trial Chamber authorises the Petkovic Defence to file a motion in its

16     oral decision of the 16th of February, 2010.  This reply was filed on the

17     17th of February, 2010.

18             Lastly, the Stojic Defence team has filed a confidential motion

19     on the 5th of February, 2010, in which it asks to have 24 minutes, i.e.,

20     an extra 12 minutes, to conduct the cross-examination of this witness.

21     It asks, in addition, that the additional time that has been requested be

22     taken off the overall time which was allocated to it by the

23     Trial Chamber.  The Coric Defence responded to the motion on the

24     15th of February, 2010.  As a preliminary matter, the Trial Chamber

25     decides to authorise the reply by the Prosecution filed on the

Page 50406

 1     4th of February, 2010, as far as Witness Mate Jelcic is concerned.

 2             The Trial Chamber notes, furthermore, that this witness,

 3     initially on the 65 ter list of the Coric Defence, was listed as a

 4     viva voce witness, with an examination-in-chief lasting two hours.

 5             In light of the submissions presented by the parties, in light of

 6     the 65 ter summary of the witness, and the practices of the Chamber with

 7     regard to time allocation to cross-examine a witness that testifies

 8     pursuant to Rule 92 ter of the Rules, the Trial Chamber has decided as

 9     follows:  The Coric Defence will have, for its examination-in-chief and

10     redirect, if any, 30 minutes.  The Trial Chamber grants the request filed

11     by the Prosecution and grants it two hours to cross-examine

12     Witness Mate Jelcic.  The Trial Chamber also decides to grant the

13     Petkovic Defence application and to grant it, all in all, 30 minutes to

14     conduct its cross-examination.

15             Then, and in light of the sole topic addressed by the

16     Stojic Defence, which intends to address with the witness of the Court,

17     will have 20 minutes to entitle it to conduct its examination-in-chief.

18     The Stojic Defence has asked the Trial Chamber to take this time off,

19     i.e., eight minutes off its overall time.  The Prlic, Praljak, Pusic

20     Defence teams that have not filed any particular application will have

21     36 minutes each to be shared between them, if they wish to cross-examine

22     this witness.

23             This decision could have been read as follows, in light of the

24     submissions presented by the parties:  The Trial Chamber is to grant the

25     Coric Defence 30 minutes, the Prosecution two hours, the Petkovic Defence

Page 50407

 1     30 minutes, the Stojic Defence 20 minutes, and the other Defence teams

 2     36 minutes.  That said, those questions that haven't been planned will be

 3     taken off their overall time; i.e., eight minutes for the Stojic Defence.

 4             I hope everyone has understood.

 5             Mr. Scott, you have the floor, and I give you the floor with

 6     pleasure.  You may start by continuing your cross-examination.

 7                           WITNESS:  MILIVOJ PETKOVIC [Resumed]

 8                           [The witness answered through interpreter]

 9             MR. SCOTT:  Thank you, Mr. President.

10             Thank you to all of Your Honours, and good afternoon to all of

11     you, to counsel, and to everyone in and around the courtroom.

12                           Cross-examination by Mr. Scott:  [Continued]

13        Q.   Good afternoon, Mr. Petkovic.

14             Sir, I'd like to go back to -- and do a very small bit of review,

15     based on where we left off yesterday.

16             We were talking about the circumstances surrounding your being

17     called to The Hague to testify in the Blaskic case.  I had put to you,

18     sir, that upon receiving information that you were going to be called, or

19     at least were being considered to be called, that the Tudjman government

20     was very concerned about this.  They were very concerned about what you

21     might say if you came to The Hague and gave testimony.  And, in fact,

22     they were concerned because -- and we'll see, I think, in a few minutes

23     that they considered that you knew too much.  You knew too much.  It

24     would be dangerous for you to come from [sic] The Hague, because things

25     might come to light that the Tudjman government would prefer not to.  And

Page 50408

 1     in the course of your conversations with the Tudjman government and its

 2     representatives about coming here, you knew that, didn't you?

 3 A. No, Your Honours, I didn't know why they were concerned and how concerned

 4 they were.  I only knew that they had contact with the Tribunal, and I was

 5   standing aside, and I only heard about the outcome, nothing more than that.

 6        Q.   All right.  Well, as further review, before we move forward, if

 7     I can ask to -- in Sanction, if we can display slide 33, please.  There's

 8     just a small -- a few items from your related testimony on this

 9     yesterday, sir.

10             You had indicated that Mr. Rebic, Markica Rebic, who we've talked

11     about before and which the Chamber, I think, has come to know, to some

12     extent, that he never contacted you.  Your evidence -- you said:

13             "My evidence, as I said, had been agreed upon without anybody

14     asking me anything about it."

15             "No, Your Honour, nobody controlled that testimony," you said.

16             "The Croatian government didn't influence me ..."

17             "The Croatian government displayed no interest whatsoever in the

18     contents of my evidence."

19             Now, with that in mind, sir, I think in the course of the

20     afternoon you mentioned the man -- the man Pavao -- or maybe it was

21     morning, I suppose, Pavao Miljavac, Miljavac, excuse me.  He was the

22     Croatian minister of defence in April 1999; is that correct?

23        A.   Yes, that's correct.  Miljavac was minister of defence of the

24     Republic of Croatia.

25        Q.   And in that sense or in that position, he was your superior at

Page 50409

 1     the time.  And when you mentioned a couple of times yesterday talking to

 2     someone or getting permission, et cetera, you were talking, in

 3     particular, about Mr. Miljavac?

 4        A.   I don't know which permission I spoke about, but I said that

 5     Miljavac was the minister of defence of Croatia and that he had summoned

 6     me when the government had received the notification that I had to

 7     testify, and he handed me the summons, because the summons didn't come to

 8     me, personally; it was addressed to the government.

 9        Q.   And a man named Kresimir Cosic was the deputy defence minister at

10     that time, wasn't he?

11        A.   Yes, I think so.

12        Q.   And what position did the man named Davorin Domazet hold in the

13     Croatian government or military in -- at the time of your summons or

14     subpoena in 1999?

15        A.   I think that he was Chief of Main Staff, unless I'm mistaken.  If

16     not, then he was deputy chief.  One of the two.

17        Q.   President Tudjman's view, at least initially, was that you should

18     not be allowed to give testimony at this Tribunal, wasn't it?

19        A.   I don't know President Tudjman's position.  He never spoke to me,

20     and he didn't make his opinion public so I'm not familiar with it.

21        Q.   You talked with Mr. Miljavac -- I'm sorry, it's a hard one for me

22     for some reason.  You talked with him for at least two hours, didn't you,

23     after the ICTY summons arrived?

24        A.   I stayed for up to two hours in his office, when he had summoned

25     me to come, to hand me over the subpoena.

Page 50410

 1        Q.   And in the course of that conversation, sir, you told

 2     Mr. Miljavac that you could come to The Hague to testify and there were

 3     any number of things that you could say or any number of interests you

 4     could serve, and you were essentially asking for guidances to the effect,

 5     What do you want me to say, which interest should I serve?

 6        A.   No, that is not correct.  You are twisting what I said with

 7     regard to the contents of Mr. Miljavac's intervention of what he said to

 8     me.

 9        Q.   When President Tudjman ultimately decided that that you would be

10     allowed to testify in the Blaskic case, various steps were taken to

11     prepare answers to the questions that were provided in advance by the

12     Court, weren't they?

13        A.   No, that is not correct, no steps were taken.  On the contrary,

14     not even Minister Miljavac knew what questions I was supposed to answer.

15     They were only interested in how their legal counsel would represent

16     Croatia in that trial.

17        Q.   Well, for example, sir, President Tudjman said you would only be

18     allowed to testify if you testified that the Croatian Army was not in

19     Central Bosnia.  If you said that, you would be allowed to testify;

20     right?

21        A.   I don't know to who Tudjman said that, but he certainly didn't

22     say it to me.  The first thing to establish is that I wasn't present at

23     that meeting that you're speaking about, so I don't know what Tudjman

24     said or how he said it.

25        Q.   Sir, there was a team that was put together that was making

Page 50411

 1     special preparations and working with you around that time, prior to your

 2     Blaskic testimony, to prepare you for your testimony, wasn't there?

 3        A.   No, no team worked with me.  The team you're mentioning, I don't

 4     know based on what they would prepare me to answer the questions that I

 5     had received.

 6        Q.   Well, let's look at Exhibit P08912, sir.

 7             MR. SCOTT:  And for the courtroom, this is one of the

 8     Presidential transcripts from a meeting on the 13th of April, 1999.  It

 9     is provided in hard copy, but we're also going to provide it and view it,

10     Your Honours, by way of Sanction, and I believe the first page is on the

11     screen now.  But it's P08912, or slide 19.

12             If we can go to -- this is a meeting, you'll see on the cover

13     page, on the 13th of April, 1999, at the offices of President Tudjman, as

14     I've mentioned already.  The particular conversation starts on page 31.

15     I'll pause and give people a chance to find that.

16        Q.   Starting on page 31, sir, Mr. Miljavac says:

17             "One more thing, Mr. President, which is coming up.  Nobody has

18     paid much attention to it, and I thought I should bring it to your

19     attention.  General Petkovic has received a summons to testify.

20             "The President:  To testify, where?

21             "In the Blaskic case.  In my opinion, this could be a huge trap.

22     He could go there ..."

23             And if we could skip over to page 33, about the middle of the

24     page.  The conversation is continuing.  We don't have time to go through

25     the entire transcript, word for word:

Page 50412

 1             "Now, it is a matter of negotiations with the Tribunal about

 2     General Petkovic's status while he is testifying.  We have analysed the

 3     situation thoroughly and asked for a status conference at which we can

 4     reach agreement on clear conditions under which General Petkovic can

 5     testify and what he can testify about ..."

 6             "The President:  And no other questions can be posed there, if

 7     that is agreed."

 8             To page 34, and the deputy defence minister, Mr. Cosic, comes in:

 9             "In this regard, Mr. President, I would like to point out one

10     thing:  General Petkovic is a person who spent the most time down there

11     and who was there from the beginning, always at Mr. Boban's side, and

12     covering the whole area of Sarajevo and Central Bosnia during the

13     Croat-Muslim conflict.

14             "Therefore, he is one of the Croatian generals, you will agree,

15     Admiral, you know that, who probably knows the whole story best.  There

16     is a high risk that some questions which need not be related to Blaskic

17     at all could be unacceptable for us.  General Petkovic knows too much,

18     and taking into account everything he has been through as a soldier, an

19     honourable soldier, and a general, I would not be inclined to put him so

20     lightly in an environment which is still hostile to us."

21             Continuing to the next page, Mr. Rebic comes in.  Skipping the

22     first paragraph, Mr. Rebic says:

23             "Furthermore, we have been in direct touch with General Petkovic

24     for three and a half years, for three and a half years we have been

25     working with Petkovic on these things.  He has been our associate and

Page 50413

 1     helped us to clear up some things while preparing Blaskic's Defence,

 2     et cetera.

 3             "So he has been in touch with us in continuo, and now he has been

 4     undergoing special preparations for several days with a team working on

 5     that."

 6             I ask you again, sir, when and where did you meet with this team

 7     that was preparing you?

 8        A.   No team prepared me, Your Honours.  I received my summons, I

 9     spoke to the minister for up to two hours, and left Zagreb to go to

10     Dubrovnik.  This is what they were saying to President Tudjman, who at

11     that moment wasn't even aware of my going -- or my coming here to

12     testify.  And Markica Rebic hasn't -- didn't actually prepare me for

13     testifying in the Blaskic case.  Rebic took very little part in that.

14     And you know how Blaskic's defence -- to what it came.

15             All these stories they told to President Tudjman are totally

16     unfounded.  The Republic of Croatia was able to get a status that gave

17     Mr. Rifkin the right to interrupt me at any moment.

18        Q.   I'm going to stop you, sir --

19        A.   I don't know why they were saying this.

20        Q.   I'm going to stop you there, sir, because our time -- I must

21     continue forward.

22             MR. KOVACIC:  Excuse me, colleague.

23             I believe -- I'm not quite certain, but I believe that there

24     was -- that something is wrong in the transcript.  There is a sentence in

25     line 7 which says:

Page 50414

 1             "Rebic took very little part in that."

 2             This is not what I understand General Petkovic said.  He said

 3     Rebic took no part in that, or he said that he didn't have any contact

 4     with him.  I didn't remember how exactly he said it, but I guess that he

 5     should be asked about that, because this is a substantial thing.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that Mr. Rebic didn't have

 7     any contact with me, nor did any team have contact with me, as he said.

 8             MR. SCOTT:

 9        Q.   The transcript continues, sir -- sir, I'm going to cut you off,

10     and I'm going to have to do that more today.  And I'll tell you that in

11     advance, sir, and I apologise for that, but the time simply does not

12     allow either you or I --

13             MR. KOVACIC:  I think this is not fair --

14             MR. SCOTT:  Excuse me -- excuse me, Counsel.

15             MR. KOVACIC:  Your Honour, I think it --

16             MR. SCOTT:  Don't interrupt me.  Excuse me, Counsel.

17             MR. KOVACIC:  The witness should be given an opportunity to

18     correct the transcript, and --

19             MR. SCOTT:  He just did.

20             MR. KOVACIC:  -- the counsel is interrupting witness in half of

21     the sentence when he's doing exactly that.

22             MR. SCOTT:  Mr. President, I allowed the witness very

23     specifically to answer the part where he said Mr. Rebic did not, in his

24     view, according to him, did not play a part in that, and I allowed him to

25     give that answer.  And then he's going on about other matters, and I

Page 50415

 1     don't have the time.  If the Chamber wants to give me more time, I'm

 2     happy to take it, but I cannot allow Mr. Petkovic to go on and on about

 3     everything that he'd like to talk about.

 4                           [Overlapping speakers]

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Alaburic --

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [Previous translation continues]

 7     ... to trap me, Prosecutor, and I can't accept that.

 8             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You're on your feet because --

 9     the Defence counsel are on their feet because you answered in your

10     language.  Since the Defence counsel know both languages, English and

11     B/C/S, they are saying, Be careful, there is a problem on the transcript.

12             That is why you're on your feet, Ms. Alaburic?

13             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Exactly, Your Honours.  I just

14     wanted to make my -- make the objection of Mr. Kovacic more specific.

15             Page 12, line 7, I believe, Mr. Kovacic said, the continuation of

16     the answer about Markica Rebic was that Rebic was not involved in the

17     preparation of the Defence of General Blaskic, either, and that the

18     Prosecution at this trial knows best how things ended up with Rebic and

19     Blaskic.  That's what the general said, and I believe that it is in

20     everybody's interest that we be accurate.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's what I said, that he

22     didn't take part in Blaskic's Defence.

23             MR. SCOTT:  And that's exactly what I allowed --

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott.

25             MR. SCOTT:  That's exactly what I allowed the witness to say.

Page 50416

 1        Q.   If we continue over to page 36, please, in the transcript,

 2     Mr. Tudjman comes back in:

 3             "This should be done in advance.  Therefore, the general can go

 4     and can answer only these questions in writing."

 5             And it might be of some interest, but we won't take time to read

 6     it all, but Mr. Gotovina apparently was opposed to your coming to

 7     The Hague, Mr. Petkovic.

 8             And we'll continue over on to page 38.  On page 38, Mr. Domazet

 9     says, about the middle of the page:

10             "So, this is clear.  If it is decided that General Petkovic

11     should go, he will be in an even more difficult situation than I was,"

12     I think that should say, "that is clear.  The questions and answers must

13     be defined exactly and precisely.  Nothing beyond that."

14             Now, Mr. Domazet makes it very clear here the questions and

15     answers must be defined exactly and precisely.

16             I put it to you, sir, that that's exactly what happened.  Isn't

17     it?

18        A.   No, Your Honours, that's not what happened.  The Republic of

19     Croatia is in no position to prepare the Tribunal's questions and answers

20     so Petkovic can go back to them and read them back and forth.  I think

21     this is ridiculous, the very idea that Croatia should be preparing the

22     Q and A and then Petkovic would be appearing in court and start off

23     saying, Your Honours, this is a question by the Republic of Croatia, and

24     then this is the answer.  Come on.  Have you ever seen evidence being

25     given like that before this Tribunal?  Is that your idea of how things

Page 50417

 1     work here?

 2        Q.   Sir, it wasn't apparently a joke to these men.  I'm not making

 3     this up.  I'm reading to you from the official record of the meeting.

 4     That's what they thought should happen.  These aren't Ken Scott's words.

 5     And, yes, it could happen -- no, of course you wouldn't be expected to

 6     say, Well, I was told by the Tudjman group to say this, but you could

 7     come to the Tribunal and say exactly what you were told to say, couldn't

 8     you, sir?

 9        A.   No, that didn't happen.

10        Q.   On page 40 --

11        A.   No.

12        Q.   Top of page 40, Mr. Miljavac says:

13             "I talked to him for two hours --"

14        A.   [No interpretation]

15        Q.   "I talked to him for two hours when the summons arrived --"

16             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] General, let Mr. Scott ask his

17     questions.  You are to answer them.

18             Please continue, because I will have a question after you.

19     Mr. Scott, please.

20             MR. SCOTT:

21        Q.   "I talked to him for two hours when the summons arrived, and he

22     said the following:"

23             Now, he says these are your words, not his, sir:

24             "You know that I can go and testify in Blaskic's favour or in the

25     favour of the Republic of Croatia.  You must decide:"

Page 50418

 1        A.   [No interpretation]

 2        Q.   "You must decide --" stop interrupting me, sir.

 3             MR. SCOTT:  I ask the Chamber to instruct the witness to stop

 4     interrupting my questions.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] General Petkovic, please listen

 6     to the Prosecutor first, because he's reading out what Mr. Miljavac said.

 7     So please listen carefully.  He's going to put a question to you and then

 8     you can answer and give your point of view.

 9             MR. SCOTT:

10        Q.   "You know that I can go and testify in Blaskic's favour or in the

11     favour of the Republic of Croatia.  You must decide.  I asked him what he

12     meant.  Just that, he said, because I know everything.  It is a matter of

13     deciding what to build our defence on.  He said, it is very risky for me

14     to go."

15             And that's the conversation that you told us about a few minutes

16     ago, that you said when you meet with Mr. Miljavac about the summons, and

17     you met with him for approximately two hours, which is exactly what he

18     says here, that's the conversation you had with him, isn't it?

19        A.   No, this has nothing to do with what I actually talked to

20     Mr. Miljavac about.  As I've already told the Trial Chamber, I met

21     Miljavac, and he was in charge of this conversation, saying that the

22     Republic of Croatia made sure it had a legal representative, and should

23     anyone ask any questions at all about the Republic of Croatia, this legal

24     representative would have the right to stop it.

25             After about an hour and a half of talking to him, I asked

Page 50419

 1     Mr. Miljavac, Mr. Miljavac, tell me, please, am I on my way to give

 2     evidence in the Blaskic case or is this a case against the Republic of

 3     Croatia?  The question simply suggested itself.  He didn't ask me how I

 4     was feeling, what sort of evidence I would be giving.  He kept telling

 5     me, We have a legal representative who'll be doing this and doing that,

 6     and you will hardly get a chance to answer.

 7             I didn't know what questions I would be asked, I didn't know what

 8     answers I would be giving.  And the questions about the Tribunal -- the

 9     questions that I got at the Tribunal have nothing whatsoever to do with

10     the Republic of Croatia.  It's a matter of public record.  If you want

11     to, you can go back to the transcript on that trial and read it for

12     yourself.

13             It is another matter [overlapping speakers] --

14             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Sorry.  Mr. Petkovic, you want to be heard and

15     understood, and that needs interpretation.  You are simply speaking too

16     fast.  The interpreters have difficulties, and then you don't come

17     across.

18             MR. SCOTT:

19        Q.   Sir, are you suggesting that Mr. Miljavac, the minister of

20     defence -- this is no small person.  This is the minister of defence of

21     the Republic of Croatia, who at least at the time thinks he's having an

22     important private meeting with other senior officials of the Government

23     of Croatia, including President Tudjman, and are you suggesting he just

24     made these words up; that he gave this account of what you told him in a

25     conversation and he just made this up in telling the other people in the

Page 50420

 1     meeting, including President Tudjman, what you had told him in your

 2     meeting?

 3        A.   What I said to Miljavac at the meeting does not tally with what

 4     it says here.  I'll stand by this for as long as you keep asking

 5     questions about it.

 6             Secondly, the gentleman could have invited me to that meeting and

 7     not say, Petkovic is off to Dubrovnik.  And they went to see

 8     President Tudjman -- to a particular meeting, and suddenly it crossed the

 9     minister's mind to say, Mr. President, you know there's a letter saying

10     that Petkovic should go and give evidence, and the president had no idea

11     about that, he had no idea that a letter had arrived.  And then the whole

12     story began.  Each of those involved there would give their own version.

13     Meanwhile, Petkovic was 600 kilometres away, on his way to Dubrovnik.

14     That is what I'm trying to tell you.

15        Q.   President Tudjman says:

16             "At this moment, I'm in favour of a decision banning Croatian

17     generals from going to The Hague, either as witnesses or as accused

18     persons."

19             Continuing on to page 41, Tudjman says again:

20             "If you will, he can go and testify about whether there were

21     regular Croatian units in the Lasva Valley, if his answer to that is, No,

22     he can go, but nothing else."

23             And that's part of the instructions you were given, isn't it?

24        A.   No, Your Honours, it isn't.  I was given no instructions.  No one

25     else was, either.  Tudjman cannot impose questions on a Trial Chamber.

Page 50421

 1     Obviously, President Tudjman had no idea, either, how business was

 2     conducted before this Tribunal.  He would have been in no position to set

 3     any conditions for the Trial Chamber.  Nevertheless, President Tudjman

 4     and the Croatian government managed to ensure the services of a legal

 5     representative.  It was the first time ever in that trial that Croatia

 6     enlisted the assistance of a legal representative.  I don't know how they

 7     were granted the power to do that by this Tribunal, but this legal

 8     representative had the right to stop me at any point throughout my

 9     evidence.

10             Croatia did not need Petkovic.  Croatia got itself a legal

11     representative, who turned up, appeared there, and stepped in twice,

12     maybe as many as three times, when an extension of my evidence was

13     required spilling over into the following day.

14        Q.   Page 42, sir, it says Ante Gotovina says:

15             "Our soldiers fought in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1992.  I was

16     the commander of the Livno Municipal Staff of the HVO.  Therefore, this

17     cannot be hidden ..."

18             This can't be hidden, this can't be kept from the Tribunal.

19             Skipping to the next paragraph:

20             "Therefore, they are taking him to The Hague because they have a

21     plan, while Blaskic's Defence is defending only Blaskic, not the

22     interests of the Republic of Croatia."

23             "If Blaskic is trying to save himself and get out as soon as

24     possible, good for him, but we must keep in mind that there are

25     definitely attempts to involve the supreme leadership of the Republic of

Page 50422

 1     Croatia.  If we give them every time ..."

 2             Tudjman:

 3             "You in The Hague group, OA Haag, you in The Hague group, go

 4     ahead and deal with it.  I do not have a definite position.  I am

 5     inclined to say that no Croatian general should go there, neither as a

 6     witness or as an accused person."

 7             And then skipping over -- skip over to page 44, toward the end of

 8     that page.  Mr. Rebic is talking again.  Mr. Rebic then -- they go

 9     further, even, sir.  Actually, pardon me.  Rebic, at the beginning of

10     that page 44, Mr. Rebic says:

11             "There are no signs Nobilo did not shift any blame to the

12     Croatian state so far, not to the state.  To some parallel structures

13     down there, yes ..."

14             And the Croatian Defence Minister says:

15             "Markica, six of one, half a dozen of the other, you know."

16             The people in that meeting had no trouble understanding that to

17     talk about Croatia, on the one hand, and to talk about Herceg-Bosna, on

18     the other, was six of one, half a dozen of the other.  They knew they

19     were one and the same thing, didn't they ?

20             MR. KARNAVAS:  I would be objecting -- I will be objecting at

21     this point in time.  I'm told that there's a translation problem, but now

22     he's -- the general is being asked to give an opinion as to what others

23     thought.  He can talk about what he thought, but at this point in time,

24     I think for the general to be giving an opinion as to what they thought

25     or what this particular individual thought about Croatia and Herceg-Bosna

Page 50423

 1     is improper.  It not only calls for speculation, but it's asking him to

 2     divine what exactly they meant at that meeting, at which he was not

 3     present.

 4             MR. SCOTT:  Thank you, Mr. Karnavas.  I'll come back to another

 5     topic, Your Honours.  I'll come back to it.

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI:  Mr. Scott.

 7             MR. SCOTT:

 8        Q.   Continuing on, Mr. Rebic, toward the bottom of the page, says:

 9             "... how Blaskic defines the command system is intended to remove

10     the blame from himself, but it is not true.  It is a material falsehood."

11             Continuing over to the top of page 45:

12             "There can be a collision there.  If General Petkovic goes there

13     and speaks the truth, they will have to pull down part of Blaskic's

14     position, because Blaskic quite unsuccessfully went into that double

15     subordination ..."

16             And the president says:

17             "... Unnecessarily" -- my apologies, "quite unnecessarily went

18     into that double subordination ..."

19             The president:

20             "But if there is a collision between Petkovic and Blaskic, things

21     get more complicated.  Thank you, gentlemen.  Goodbye."

22             Sir, you said yesterday afternoon, and you said again today, the

23     Croatian government displayed no interest whatsoever in the content of

24     your evidence, it was never agreed with anyone, no one controlled your

25     testimony, no one influenced you.  And, sir, I put it -- it become very

Page 50424

 1     clear from this meeting that the Croatian government, at least these

 2     people around Tudjman, were extremely concerned about the content of the

 3     testimony that you would give if you came to The Hague, and you knew

 4     that, sir.  You knew these people.  One was your minister.  You'd met

 5     with Tudjman before.  You were a senior leader of Herceg-Bosna, as we've

 6     talked about yesterday.  You knew what these concerns were.  And when

 7     they said you knew too much, you knew that to be exactly the case, didn't

 8     you?

 9        A.   No.  They held this talk without me.  Anyone talking in my

10     absence -- well, what they're talking has nothing to do with it.  This is

11     their story.  What bearing does this story have on this trial or any

12     other trial before this Tribunal?  None at all.  They simply are entirely

13     unaware of how things work, in a procedural sense.  They were talking to

14     each other, and that concerns no one else.  It would have been logical,

15     after this meeting, for someone to call me up, Petkovic, come over, let's

16     have a talk, but there was nothing there.  All you have is what they said

17     on that day, the exchanges that went on, and that's all you've got.  The

18     day I was supposed to testify, there was no one there.  The government

19     representative took me to the UNPROFOR base, left me there, and I

20     remained there with a secretary and a technician from the Tribunal.

21     There was no one to ask me any questions that afternoon.

22        Q.   Because Mr. Rifkin [overlapping speakers] --

23        A.   This is what they said at that meeting, and you know full well --

24        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ... because Mr. Rifkin and

25     Mr. Udiljak were sitting in the courtroom here, protecting the interests

Page 50425

 1     of the Government of Croatia, and you knew that.  You just told us, sir.

 2     But don't pretend that they weren't involved.  They were sitting in this

 3     courtroom, deciding on what questions you could answer and which ones you

 4     couldn't -- wouldn't be allowed to answer.

 5        A.   [No interpretation]

 6        Q.   Judge Jorda was the Presiding Judge, and he was listening and

 7     dealing with them.  And they would tell him, Well, you know, he can

 8     answer this question, he can't answer some other questions, weren't they?

 9     That's how it was.

10             MR. KARNAVAS:  Well, Your Honour, that's the way it always is.

11     We had an American ambassador, and, as I recall, we had a couple of

12     American -- young, bright American lawyers working for the State

13     Department here.  We had from other governments, and I don't need to

14     mention them.  They all brought their lawyers.  Holbrooke, when he

15     claimed that he was going to come here, he want to get his marching

16     orders from Washington, and they were going to work out the modalities as

17     to what he would be willing or able to talk about.  If you asked the

18     American government for any information, they neither confirm nor deny

19     that they have it, because of national security interests.  Even when it

20     isn't a national security interest, that's the way it is.  A government

21     is entitled to have their representative when an ambassador, or former

22     ambassador, or somebody in an official capacity is giving testimony, so

23     there's no difference.

24             MR. SCOTT:  Mr. President, I didn't suggest that there was or

25     that this was a unique situation, but what I was responding to was

Page 50426

 1     Mr. Petkovic's -- some attempts to suggest that he was left by himself,

 2     fending for himself at an UNPROFOR base in Zagreb, and that wasn't the

 3     case at all.  And that was my point.

 4             Of course, I'm fully aware of what Mr. Karnavas has said, but the

 5     Chamber does know -- the Chamber does know, by the transcript it has just

 6     read, the fuller picture of what was going on.

 7        Q.   Now, sir -- and that's the way it was.  And, in fact, following

 8     this meeting it was Mr. Miljavac who successfully limited your

 9     appearance, at least initially, to one day only, and that was

10     specifically for the purpose of limiting the amount of questions that

11     could be put to you and how much information might be gathered from you,

12     wasn't it?

13        A.   No, I have nothing to do with that.  As I've told the Chamber

14     already, the Republic of Croatia was in charge of the entire procedure.

15     I was in Dubrovnik at the time.  I was informed at one point in time

16     under what conditions I would be giving evidence.  As soon as I learned

17     of that, I was to fill a form and send it off to the Trial Chamber, as I

18     did.  The Chamber's reply was a positive one, so I came and testified.

19     No one can prepare a Q and A session for something to happen before this

20     Tribunal and tell a person what responses to provide.  Don't say that,

21     because it didn't work like that.  As to what the Croatian government

22     did, well, it's their problem, not mine.  I realised how things worked.

23     At one point in time, I sat down, I said that I was off to The Hague

24     myself, on my own, without the assistance of the Croatian government, and

25     that I would be testifying on my own.

Page 50427

 1        Q.   When did you last speak or have any involvement with Mr. Udiljak,

 2     this Croatian intelligence officer?

 3        A.   First of all, Mr. Udiljak was a member of the Council for

 4     Co-operation with The Hague Tribunal, which at the time was headed by

 5     Croatia's prime minister at the time and some ministers.  He was a member

 6     of that body, and I --

 7        Q.   That really wasn't my question.  You're using my time.

 8             When was the last time you had contact with -- answer my

 9     question, sir.  When was the last time you had contact with Mr. Udiljak?

10        A.   I can't specify the time.  While this whole procedure was in

11     progress, prior to my testimony and after my testimony, Mr. Udiljak would

12     ask whether I was reading the papers and what they said about how people

13     were testifying, and that was the extent of Mr. Udiljak's questions to

14     me.  And I said, Yes, I'm following the media.  And what do you think, he

15     said.  I said, It's not my problem, is it?  Let each man testify --

16        Q.   That wasn't my question.  You're not answering my question and

17     you know it.  I said when is the last time you had contact with

18     Mr. Udiljak.  It has nothing to do with his questions about whether

19     you're reading the newspapers in 1999.  When was the last time?  Prior to

20     today, prior to right now, when was the last time you had contact with

21     Mr. Udiljak?

22        A.   I can't remember the last time prior to this day.  How could I

23     possibly remember when I was in touch with Mr. Udiljak, who retired five

24     or six years ago, perhaps more?  He's now retired.

25        Q.   Has Mr. Udiljak been involved in the preparation of this case or

Page 50428

 1     providing assistance in connection with this case?

 2        A.   Certainly not to me.  He provided no assistance to me and was no

 3     part of my team.

 4        Q.   My question isn't limited to you, sir.  Has he been providing

 5     assistance in this case?

 6        A.   Not to me, not that I'm aware of.  I'm not sure if my Defence

 7     team can contribute whether they were perhaps in touch with Mr. Udiljak.

 8     I think he was in contact with an altogether different Defence team, and

 9     I don't think he could possibly have been in contact with two different

10     teams at the same time.

11        Q.   Well, I told you once, sir, my question wasn't limited to your

12     Defence.  So if Mr. Udiljak has been involved in this case, tell us about

13     his involvement.

14        A.   I don't know.  As far as I know, he was helping General Praljak's

15     Defence.  I'm not sure about the extent, though.  Mr. Udiljak was at no

16     point in time in touch with the Petkovic Defence, that is, my Defence,

17     or, indeed, offer or give any assistance.

18        Q.   And, sir, this was the same Mr. Udiljak who was coming to this

19     Tribunal at a time when the Croatian government was telling this Tribunal

20     it didn't have the HVO archive, when, in fact, it was sitting in the

21     basement of the Croatian Intelligence Service, wasn't it?  HIS, H-I-S.

22        A.   I don't know what Mr. Udiljak told you at this Tribunal.

23        Q.   That wasn't my question, what he told me.  It was the same, and

24     you knew it, sir.  You've been close to these events.  Mr. Rebic said,

25     We've been working with Mr. Petkovic for three and a half years, and you

Page 50429

 1     knew what was going on, you knew the lay of the land.  And you followed

 2     these matters close enough to know that for a long time, the Tudjman

 3     government was denying it had the documents, was coming before this

 4     Tribunal, was appearing before Judge Jorda and others, and saying, We

 5     don't have any documents.  But they did, and they were sitting in the

 6     basement of the Intelligence Service.  And they knew that, and you knew

 7     that, didn't you?

 8        A.   No, I did not know that, Your Honours.  I wasn't living in Zagreb

 9     at the time.  I wasn't [Realtime transcript read in error "was"] living

10     with them there.  I wasn't meeting those people at the time, nor, indeed,

11     was that any of my concern.

12             MR. SCOTT:  Unless the Court has any --

13             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, a correction.

14     Line 16:

15             [In English] "I was living with them there."

16             [Interpretation] Whereas, the General clearly said he wasn't.

17             General, is that right?  What exactly did you say?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said I wasn't living with them

19     there.  I was at Croatia's far end, 600 kilometres further south, in

20     Dubrovnik, whereas they were in Zagreb at the time.  Therefore, I didn't

21     belong to the circle of people doing intelligence work or anything like

22     that.  What they did was their own worry.  I had no part in that, nor,

23     indeed, was I interested.  I only know that I walked away from

24     Herceg-Bosna at one point and the documents remained there, the same

25     place where I left them.  I'm not sure for how long, though.

Page 50430

 1             MR. SCOTT:

 2        Q.   Sir, let's move on.  And if the Judges have questions on this

 3     topic --

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes.  General Petkovic, given

 5     the topic which is an important one, and do you agree with me on that

 6     point, I have a few questions for you.

 7             First of all, the Prosecutor's shown you a document.  Were you

 8     aware of it?  Had you read it before you started testifying?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour, I was not aware of

10     it.  I received my summons, and then no one approached me again before

11     the Blaskic trial began.

12             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, could you please

13     just specify which evidence you mean?  Today's evidence or the one that

14     occurred 10 years ago?

15             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Excuse me, General Petkovic, I

16     wasn't precise enough.  I'm speaking about the document that the

17     Prosecutor showed you, this Presidential transcript, and now you're

18     testifying here now before us.  I'm not talking about the Blaskic case

19     10 years ago.  When you started, were you aware of the document?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm not sure how long

21     after exactly, but the magazine called "Nacional" published some of this.

22     Other than that, I've not seen the document nor did anyone inform me of

23     what occurred.  "Nacional" wrote about this document.  I'm not sure at

24     what point in time exactly.

25             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, could we please

Page 50431

 1     specify?

 2             Your Honour Judge Antonetti asked about the transcript, whether

 3     you knew about the transcript before you took the witness stand here.

 4     Did you read this transcript during this trial?  Were you aware of it?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, not now.  The transcript, you

 6     mean?  I read it because it was part of my material.  I thought you were

 7     asking whether someone informed me of it.  No, no, I did that at my own

 8     initiative.

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] General Petkovic, did you

10     expect the Prosecutor to ask the question he's just asked you or are you

11     totally taken by surprise?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, Your Honours.  I expected with

13     a degree of certainty that they would be asking questions on this.

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before I move to the

15     substance - I'll get there - but I see that Judge Trechsel --

16             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I would like to clarify a point, Mr. Petkovic.

17             In the transcript here, on page 29, line 9, I read:

18             "The transcript, you mean?"  You speaking, "I read it because it

19     was part of my material."

20             Are you referring to the transcript that was put to you by the

21     Prosecutor?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We received parts of this

23     transcript as part of our materials.  I believe some of these were

24     published in book form in Croatia at one point, but we received them as

25     part of our batch of documents for this trial.

Page 50432

 1             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I did not want any explanation.  I just wanted

 2     to be sure that there was no mistake in the transcript.  Thank you.

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] General Petkovic, before we

 4     move to the substance of the document, and you'll see why this is

 5     important soon, when you were in Croatia, when you learned that you were

 6     supposed to testify, you were called to testify by the Blaskic Trial

 7     Chamber, regardless of the part of the Croatian Defence Ministry, you,

 8     personally, did you go and see a lawyer in order to explain what the

 9     situation was about, that you'd been summoned, and ask that lawyer what

10     he thought of it, or did you not see any lawyer and did you just have

11     meetings with your ministry?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I did not have a

13     lawyer, myself.  I prepared when I received the summons, and then I

14     reported to Zagreb to take delivery of the Trial Chamber's summons.  I

15     did not have any legal representative or counsel, nor, indeed, was I

16     minded to take one on.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You saw the document, as I did,

18     and you listened to the Prosecutor as he was reading out some excerpts.

19     There are two points in this document that are clearly emphasised, and

20     you said so yourself regarding the first part.  General [as

21     interpreted] Tudjman discovered that the Tribunal sought to hear you,

22     because he says, Where?  So obviously he discovered this.  I'm talking

23     about him, President Tudjman.  I don't know about the others, but he

24     seems to discover the problem.

25             Secondly, and this is said by President Tudjman in person, he

Page 50433

 1     said that there's a so-called Hague group.  Now, when you received the

 2     summons, did you know of the existence of a so-called Hague group?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, Your Honours.  I only knew that

 4     there was an office of the Cabinet of the Republic of Croatia, an office

 5     for the co-operation with the ICTY.  And as far as I know, the

 6     vice-prime minister was the head of that office.

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If I were not to -- if I didn't

 8     put to you this question, I wouldn't be doing my job.  You are a

 9     professional in the military, and I'm a professional in legal matters.  I

10     must put to you the following question, which has to do with the

11     substance of the document:  On looking at this document, we see that a

12     number of people take the floor as regards the question of people taking

13     the stand and the accused, because Gotovina, who is well known, takes

14     part in the discussion.  This is what the document states.  On reading

15     the document, we can see that President Tudjman hesitates.  First of all,

16     he doesn't want the General to testify, but, on the other hand, those

17     people attending the meeting are saying that it's difficult not to go.

18     And then there's General Gotovina, who, for technical reasons, seems to

19     be totally hostile.  This is what the document states.

20             In this document, you can also see that Mr. Rebic says that there

21     is a preparation which is being done with you.  Any reasonable trier of

22     fact has only two assumptions to consider.  Either Mr. Rebic is talking

23     nonsense to the president, which is quite possible, either for personal

24     reasons or to put himself forward, I don't know, but that could be an

25     assumption.  The second one is that there was this preparation.

Page 50434

 1             To try and understand, when I listened to the Prosecutor and your

 2     answers, I looked at page 22.617.  As you know, General Petkovic, I've

 3     been preparing for your testimony for the last two years, and I had some

 4     pages at the ready, and these are public pages or pages heard in open

 5     session, since everything is public.

 6             22.617, I apologise to the English speakers, I shall read out the

 7     page.

 8             Judge Shahabuddeen, whom you know, retired after having worked a

 9     number of years in this Tribunal.  He did draft a number of dissenting

10     opinions, so he's quite well known in the Tribunal.  This is the question

11     he put to you.  Listen carefully:

12             "General, another issue, if you'll allow me."

13             Mr. Shahabuddeen was an extremely well-behaved gentleman and

14     asked you whether he would be allowed to put this question to you:

15             "When you were head of the Main Staff, were you paid by the HVO

16     authorities or by the Croatian authorities?"

17             So he's doing his job, he's putting to you a question of a

18     technical nature.  Your answer, listen carefully.  I shall read it very

19     slowly, because I believe it's important:

20             "Your Honour, in the course of my preparation, I was never faced

21     with such a question.  The representative of the Republic of Croatia is

22     present in the courtroom.  If he wishes to answer, he may do so.  As far

23     as I'm concerned, as well as all the other witnesses, we have received

24     instructions to only answer the questions that have been given to us

25     beforehand, but the representative of the Republic of Croatia may take

Page 50435

 1     the floor.  If he instructs me to, I shall then answer."

 2             Mr. Shahabuddeen then says this:

 3             "General, my position is that I would like to avoid embarrassing

 4     the representative of the Republic of Croatia.  I shall withdraw my

 5     question."

 6             And President Jorda, quoted by Mr. Scott, the Judge then withdrew

 7     his question:

 8             "Thank you."

 9             So two things follow from your answers.  A, you say, In the

10     course of my preparation.  When you say, In the course of my preparation,

11     this means that you accept the idea that you were preparing beforehand.

12     B, you said, We received instructions, which means that the Ministry of

13     Defence did monitor your answers.

14             Do you remember your answers?  Do you say that you are -- or that

15     you testified freely and that you weren't prepped in any way?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this is the very

17     question I've wanted to answer.

18             When I started answering a short while ago, there was a

19     misunderstanding between me and the President of the Trial Chamber, and I

20     said, Well, then I -- there's a misunderstanding between you and I with

21     regard to the questions I received to prepare.  Do you wish me to start

22     this way or move on to a specific question?  And the President said,

23     Let's move on to specific questions, but he allowed me an introduction.

24     These questions I mentioned were the questions I received from the Trial

25     Chamber and based on which I prepared.  And I replied that in my

Page 50436

 1     preparation and in my questions, there was nothing concerning matters

 2     contained in the question asked by the Judge to me.  So I thought the

 3     questions that I had received from the President of the Trial Chamber

 4     were the ones to which he wishes to hear answers, and I prepared based on

 5     these questions.  And that is why I said, Your Honour, I didn't deal with

 6     such questions during my preparation because such questions weren't given

 7     to me by the Trial Chamber, and we can go back to the list of questions,

 8     and you will see that -- what they were.

 9             And then I continued to say to the President of the Trial Chamber

10     that I had been informed that the legal counsel of the Republic of

11     Croatia is the one to decide whether I will answer any questions

12     concerning the Republic of Croatia.  And, of course, I obeyed because

13     that was the agreement between Croatia and this Tribunal.  I had no role

14     in that.

15             So when I refer to questions, I mean the questions that I

16     received from the Trial Chamber.  I got some questions, I gave them a

17     thought, sketched out my answers to them, and hence I said that I didn't

18     prepare to answer this question because it wasn't one of those that were

19     given to me.

20             I had been told by the Republic of Croatia, We managed to get the

21     right to be represented by a lawyer, and that there was an agreement

22     giving that lawyer the right to interrupt me.  In other words, he would

23     be the one to listen to the questions and say, Yes, the General can

24     answer.  And that was what I said in the first few minutes.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So I note that under oath you

Page 50437

 1     are saying that there was no preparation.  You prepared your testimony in

 2     the Blaskic trial all on your own, based on the questions which the

 3     Trial Chamber had forwarded to you, and nobody intervened.  This is what

 4     you've said.  I have noted this.

 5     One last question.  In the document, we have seen -- perhaps you will be

 6     able to shed some light on this, because I haven't quite understood what

 7     General Gotovina's role was here.  He is worried about Blaskic and you.

 8     He is concerned about the twofold subordination.  I'm not quite sure what

 9     this means.  Could you shed some light on this, please?

10     THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I think that General Gotovina

11     at that time had a position in the inspectorate of the Croatian Army. 

12    Whether or not he was chief inspector, I'm not sure.  And that was a group

13    of generals who constantly went to see President Tudjman, from General

14    Gotovina, Cosic, Minister Miljavac, Mr. Domazet, and I don't know who else

15   joined them. So it was a group that went to see the president every once in

16  a while. They discussed with him. What they discussed was never made public.

17             Why General Gotovina said what he said and what he had in mind, I

18     simply don't know, because in the Blaskic case, I know that the Blaskic

19     case has a substantial bearing on me.  There was no way I could get away

20     from the possibility that an indictment could be issued against me

21     tomorrow.  I was fully aware that, based on the questions I had

22     received, I had to speak my mind and the truth during that testimony, and

23     nothing else but that.  I never burdened myself with questions apart from

24     those that I had received.  Of course, I don't know what you are about to

25     ask me now or at any other time.  Nobody can know in that in advance.

Page 50438

 1             On the other hand, Your Honours, President Tudjman and everybody

 2     else could have said whatever they wanted, but they knew that I had to

 3     come here to testify, irrespective of what they said, whether they would

 4     allow it or not.  They knew that, and I knew that, too, because I had

 5     followed how things worked here.  So all this time they spent at the

 6     president's office was wasted.  They even received a summons without

 7     informing President Tudjman.

 8             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] General Petkovic, I would like

 9     to discuss this twofold subordination.  I'd like to remain technical in

10     my question, because this could be understood two ways.

11             There is a chain of command which is a traditional chain of

12     command; Boban, you, Blaskic.  That would be the standard form of

13     subordination.  Do you agree with me?  But there could also be, and that

14     might be another way of seeing things when Gotovina mentions this dual

15     subordination, there could be the other side that could be Blaskic and

16     Boban, in direct line, and you are on the side-line.  What do you think

17     of that?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He obviously thought that apart

19     from what I call the normal line, possibly another line of commanding may

20     have been introduced.  Gotovina knows, because he was at high positions

21     in the Croatian Army, too, what the line of -- the chain of command was,

22     so he may have wondered whether a parallel chain of command had come into

23     being.  He probably meant some other chain of command apart from the

24     regular one.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] As this meeting took place in

Page 50439

 1     Zagreb between high-ranking Croatians, could there not be a connection

 2     with the chain of command that would be in Bosnia-Herzegovina, right up

 3     to Zagreb?  Is that a possibility?  Is this something which one could

 4     consider or was it a crazy idea?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, you can't even make up in your

 6     mind such a chain directly from Central Bosnia to Zagreb.  I can't even

 7     imagine such a chain of command that would go directly from Vitez to

 8     Zagreb.  It's impossible for me even to envisage it or assume that it

 9     existed.

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] General Petkovic, I shall put

11     my last question to you, which follows from your answer.

12             I understand full well that you are telling us that there's only

13     one chain of command, which is the internal Bosnia and Herzegovina chain

14     of command.  If that is the case, why do they all seem so worried?  Why

15     is Tudjman worried?  Why is the minister of defence worried?  Why is

16     Gotovina worried?  Why is Rebic worried?  Why are they worried?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think that none of

18     them really followed the Blaskic trial.  Blaskic selected his own team

19     that followed it.  Everybody else was -- wasn't really involved.  Blaskic

20     had been extradited, and nobody else seems to have thought that they had

21     anything more to do with that.

22             I was one of the witnesses at a high level, and everybody else

23     was at a lower level inside the Central Bosnia OZ, so I was one of the

24     most highest-ranking witnesses, and I had returned to the Croatian Army,

25     so I was actually a Croatian official.

Page 50440

 1             And there was some confusion about the transcript, so contact had

 2     been set up with the Tribunal as to what should happen next.  This was

 3     the first instance when there was a lawyer representing Croatia.  I don't

 4     think that this was repeated after my testimony, either.  So the

 5     technical conditions were agreed upon by them, not by me, and I informed

 6     the Trial Chamber, who simply accepted.  I don't know why.  They could

 7     have refused.  But the President of the Trial Chamber accepted the

 8     conditions, and that's how I came to The Hague to testify.

 9             And the second time around, as soon as I received the summons, I

10     drafted a letter, myself, to the Trial Chamber, saying that I would come

11     to The Hague.  I never contacted anybody in Zagreb about that.  And

12     that's how it went, because I had decided to -- to decide myself about

13     it.

14             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Mr. Petkovic, I have a small question which goes

15     back to the scene where Judge Shahabuddeen asked you, Who paid for your

16     salary?  And then you refused answering, if I understood you correctly,

17     giving two reasons.  First, you were not prepared for this question, and,

18     second, it was not one of the questions you were expressly allowed to

19     answer.  Now, the second point has been argued.  I will not refer to

20     that.  But the first point I find difficult to understand.  In what way

21     could the answer to that question need preparation?  Did you not know who

22     had paid for your salary?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I knew who was paying out my

24     salary, but I had already noticed that the lawyer was rising, asking for

25     the floor, when that question was asked.  I was going to say that this

Page 50441

 1     wasn't one of the questions that I had received from the Trial Chamber,

 2     and I referred them to the lawyer who had already stood up to object.

 3             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  So, in fact, lack of preparation was not an

 4     argument that you raised.  That makes sense.  Thank you.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott.

 6             MR. SCOTT:

 7        Q.   We'll start with the last point just made, touched on by both

 8     Judge Trechsel and Judge Antonetti.

 9             Sir, that wasn't the last time the salary question was put to

10     you.  And as was just said by the Judges, you certainly didn't need any

11     preparation.  You knew how you were being paid and where it was coming

12     from.

13             When you came back and testified in the Kordic case, you were

14     again accompanied by representatives of the Croatian government, weren't

15     you?

16        A.   As far as I know, they were only Croatian Embassy staff, no

17     lawyer or anybody.

18        Q.   That wasn't my question, sir.  That wasn't my question and you're

19     wasting time, to be honest, General.

20             My question was:  You were represented by a representative of the

21     Croatian government?  And the answer is, Yes.  The answer is clearly,

22     Yes.  We have the appearances on the record.  They stood up in court,

23     introduced themselves as representing the Croatian government, so there's

24     no mystery about that, sir.

25             And on that occasion, sir, you were also asked about who would

Page 50442

 1     pay your salary --

 2             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I do have an

 3     objection now, because the situation is very different.

 4             If representatives of the embassy are present here to represent

 5     the Croatian government, that's one thing, and another thing if they are

 6     present as representatives of General Petkovic before the Tribunal.

 7     There's no reason for us to confuse these two situations, and there is no

 8     reason why Mr. Scott should put forward false statements.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, and these people had no

10     authority.  They were sitting in a corner back there.

11             MR. SCOTT:

12        Q.   That wasn't my question.  And my position, I believe, unless I'm

13     not mistaken, and if I am, I apologise, but I thought I was clear.  I

14     said to you, sir, you were attended on that occasion again by

15     representatives of the Croatian government, and you were.  And that's --

16     and it's just purely that simple, isn't it?  I don't care if they came

17     from the embassy, I don't care if they came from Zagreb, I don't care if

18     they came from Split.  You were attended by representatives of the

19     Croatian government, representing the interests of Croatia; right?

20        A.   I have met these people in the courtroom.  I didn't know --

21        Q.   The answer is, Yes, sir?  Sir, the answer is, Yes.

22        A.   Yes, the answer is, Yes.  They were from the embassy here.

23        Q.   Thank you.  And you were asked again about your salary, seven or

24     eight times, at least, in the transcript.  You wouldn't answer the

25     question.  The question was quite clear.  You're an intelligent man.  You

Page 50443

 1     knew the question would be asked.  It was put to you by Mr. Nice, it was

 2     put to you by several of the Judges, and it was only about the eighth or

 3     ninth time, when you were pressed by Judge Robinson, that you finally,

 4     finally, said, Well, I was paid approximately half my salary by

 5     Herceg-Bosna and the other half or 60 per cent by Croatia, didn't you?

 6        A.   Yes, but not five or six times, as you say.

 7        Q.   Well, sir, if we can look -- the Judges have your transcript from

 8     Kordic, and they all follow it, and if we need to, I'll put out the pages

 9     later.  But you were repeatedly asked the question, you repeatedly

10     evaded, you repeatedly refused to answer the question, and it was only

11     when Judge Robinson continued to press you that you finally gave the

12     answer that, as Judge Trechsel said a moment ago, you'd needed no

13     preparation for.  You finally were pressed to give the answer you didn't

14     want to give, and that was 50 to 60 per cent of your salary was being

15     paid by Croatia, wasn't it?

16        A.   Yes, I said that, but I also had to think --

17        Q.   Why didn't you want to tell the Court that, sir?  Why did you

18     take so long?  Why, in the Blaskic case, could you not answer the

19     question?  Why, in the Kordic case, were you asked five, six, seven

20     times?  Why didn't you want the Court to have that information?

21        A.   I was thinking about my payment transactions, because money had

22     been paid to my savings account and that doesn't allow you to see who

23     paid in money.  And when it came to Herceg-Bosna, I was promised that

24     money would be taken care of.  And when somebody pays onto a savings

25     account, you had to remember who it was.

Page 50444

 1        Q.   You knew full well, because when you couldn't avoid it anymore,

 2     you gave the answer, you gave the answer, and you knew it all the time.

 3     It didn't just spring into your mind on the seventh or eighth time.  You

 4     knew the answer, and you only gave it when you really had no other

 5     choice, sir, I put it to you, and you knew that, and those were part of

 6     the instructions that you had received from the very beginning, When you

 7     go down there, sir -- when you go up there, I suppose, When you go to

 8     The Hague, don't talk about your connection to Croatia when you were in

 9     the HVO, don't talk about the HVO's relation to the Croatian Army, don't

10     talk about those connections.  And you followed your instructions, and

11     you refused to talk about it until you were finally -- on the second

12     court appearance in the second case, pressed by Judge Robinson, you

13     finally gave up that information, didn't you?

14        A.   No.  I was thinking, trying to remember whether I could

15     reconstruct the payments affected onto my account and where that payment

16     had come from, because once I had arrived to Herceg-Bosna I wanted to

17     resolve the financial matters.  And I was promised that there would be no

18     problem about that -- with that and that I would be entitled to some

19     additional benefits.

20        Q.   We have your position, sir.  We have your position.  You said a

21     few moments ago, in response to Judge -- the President's question, about

22     whether there was concern about, in fact -- part of the concern being

23     whether the chain of command could be traced back to Zagreb, and you

24     were -- I'm not sure why, but you were so quickly dismissive of that, as

25     if it was -- and you said, and I have it marked at page 37 of today's

Page 50445

 1     transcript, line 8:  "No, you can't make up in your own mind such a chain

 2     directly from Central Bosnia to Zagreb, I can't even imagine such a chain

 3     of command."

 4             Well, sir, I can imagine a chain of command.  It goes from

 5     Blaskic, to you, to Boban, to Susak, and Bobetko to Tudjman.  I can

 6     imagine it real easily, and I don't know why you find that so difficult.

 7     And that's exactly what Zagreb, and what Tudjman, and the people sitting

 8     in his office on the 13th of April, 1999, that's what they were so

 9     concerned about, isn't it?

10        A.   No.

11        Q.   Well, they say so, sir.  They say so.  At page 42 of the

12     transcript, P08912, Gotovina talking, second half of the page, I read

13     this before, but apparently it didn't sink in:

14             "Therefore, they are taking him to The Hague because they have a

15     plan, while Blaskic's Defence is defending only Blaskic, not the

16     interests of the Republic of Croatia.  We should see it that way for the

17     time being.  If Blaskic is trying to save himself and get out as soon as

18     possible, good for him, but we must keep in mind that there are

19     definitely attempts to involve the supreme leadership of the Republic of

20     Croatia.  If we give them every time," and I think what he's saying, "If

21     we give in every time ..."

22             And then Tudjman jumps in:

23             "Nothing to imagine, sir."

24             Mr. Gotovina put it there in black and white, didn't he?

25             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to ask

Page 50446

 1     one thing, please.  Let's try to be as specific as we can when we phrase

 2     our questions, and let us not draw the conclusion that Gotovina said

 3     something he did not, in fact, say.

 4             All of us here are well familiar with the Blaskic case.  We know

 5     his theory on the parallel chain of command and what it leads to.  There

 6     is no need at all to refer to anything that wasn't actually said in the

 7     Blaskic trial or in the present trial.

 8             MR. SCOTT:  I quoted the transcript, Your Honours, word for word.

 9     I didn't make up anything.

10        Q.   Sir, it was widely regarded -- in fact, it was widely regarded,

11     after you returned to Zagreb -- excuse me, after you finished your

12     testimony in the Blaskic case, and I should say -- maybe it hasn't been

13     clear and maybe it may have been a point of some confusion.  You gave

14     your testimony by videolink.  You were in Croatia, and the people here

15     were in the courtroom, and Croatia's representatives, Mr. Rifkin and

16     Mr. Udiljak, were sitting in court.  You were connected by videolink,

17     correct, just so that's clear?

18        A.   Yes, that's correct.

19        Q.   And when you finished your testimony, sir, and we all know --

20     everyone in this room or many of us knows that there's quite an active --

21     I suppose in most countries, active media, you had "Nacional," you had

22     "Globus," you had all the local newspapers, and it was quite extensive

23     coverage, albeit it was supposed to be in closed session, but there was

24     quite extensive coverage to the effect that you had come here and

25     committed perjury.  That's what the newspapers said.  You had come here

Page 50447

 1     to protect the interests of Croatia, and if that meant possibly doing

 2     damages to Mr. Blaskic's case, so be it, but your marching orders had

 3     been to come to The Hague, protect the interests of Croatia and the

 4     Tudjman government, and that's what you did; correct?

 5        A.   No, not correct.  The newspapers said what they said.  You should

 6     perhaps ask the newspapers how they know what I testified to.  Since I

 7     testified in closed session, there was no way for the media to get wind

 8     of it.  This was something that was down to Mr. Nobilo, the Defence

 9     counsel in that case, and those newspapers that favoured him such as

10     "Nacional" and other sources like that.  There is no way these newspapers

11     could possibly get wind of something that goes on in closed session.

12     Yet, they arrived at the conclusion that I gave evidence here.  How is

13     that possible?

14        Q.   How about a copy of your transcript, your closed-session

15     transcript that would have been leaked to the media, because that

16     happened repeatedly, didn't it?  In fact, even Mr. Mesic's testimony,

17     when Mr. Mesic came and gave closed-session testimony, it very quickly

18     found its way on the papers in Zagreb, didn't it?  Didn't it, sir,

19     statement?  You know that.

20             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm really not sure

21     whether Mr. Scott is perhaps insinuating that General Petkovic was the

22     person who handed over the transcripts to the media, particularly those

23     criticising him, including the transcript of Mr. Mesic's evidence.  I

24     really have no idea what these insinuations are supposed to achieve.

25             General Petkovic knew the transcript that bears the date of the

Page 50448

 1     17th of January, 2008.  That's when it became an exhibit.  He knows every

 2     single word in this case.  He's prepared to clarify and explain any

 3     question at all.  I would ask the Chamber, however, to please caution

 4     Mr. Scott to run his examination in a fair manner, to not dispute facts

 5     that are beyond dispute.

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Alaburic, I did not have

 7     the impression that he was -- Mr. Scott was insinuating that Mr. Petkovic

 8     would have leaked the transcripts.  I don't know whether my colleagues

 9     don't agree or not.  They would say so if they are.  He just said that

10     the media wrote or reported on what was said in closed session, but he

11     didn't say it came from a certain person.  Never did he say such a thing.

12     Well, that's how I understood it.

13             JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] The same thing for me.

14             Let me address a point that was discussed twice.  On one

15     occasion, I put the question, myself, about the salary.  You answered on

16     page 39, line 1 of the transcript.  Since I'm going to quote the

17     transcript, I'm going to return to English:

18             [In English] Your answer was:

19             "I knew who was paying out my salary."

20             And some minutes later, asked the same question by Mr. Scott and

21     asked for explanation why you took so long to give an answer on this, you

22     suddenly came up with all sorts of difficulties and things that you did

23     not know, and that was later than the Blaskic trial.  Can you explain

24     this, please?

25             JUDGE PRANDLER:  Actually, before this explanation, I would only

Page 50449

 1     like to say that, as it was indicated already by our President,

 2     Judge Antonetti, I have never felt that Mr. Scott's question was in a way

 3     insinuating that those information was leaked out by Mr. Petkovic.  Thank

 4     you.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Now I'll answer Judge Trechsel's

 6     question.

 7             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Please, please.  You must, actually.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Indeed.  That's why I was asking

 9     permission.

10             I was receiving my salary through a bank called Privedna Banka.

11     I would receive this at my home address, and not in Herzegovina, where I

12     was staying at that time.

13             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I'm sorry, I'm not interested in that at all.

14     I'm only interested in the fact that to my question, you simply answered,

15     I knew who was paying out my salary, and when Mr. Scott asked you, Didn't

16     you know who paid your salary, you said, In fact, it was difficult to

17     find out.  I had to think, and I -- only after being asked several times

18     did it occur to me how it was.  And I find it difficult not to find a

19     discrepancy between the first answer and the second answer, and it's only

20     this that I ask you.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, because the questions are

22     phrased differently and then I provide different answers.  That's why.  I

23     paused for a while there and tried to think back.  I had agreed that

24     payments would be made from Grude, which is where I was at the time, and

25     then I paused to think whether I could form an idea in my head as to

Page 50450

 1     whether the money actually arrived from Grude or from Croatia's Defence

 2     Ministry, which had been the case up until then.  Having thought about

 3     it, I realised that -- please.

 4             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I'm sorry, Mr. Petkovic, you are not answering

 5     my question, but I will not insist.  I think it's time for the break,

 6     anyway.

 7             MR. KARNAVAS:  Before the break, if I may --

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Don't interrupt me just like that,

 9     for all sorts of reasons.  I don't think it makes any sense at all.

10             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I think the General

11     should be allowed to complete his answer.  This is far from being the

12     first time that Judge Trechsel interrupts the General, expresses his

13     dissatisfaction at the answer, and says all sorts of things --

14             THE INTERPRETER:  Which counsel proceeds to quote in English,

15     interpreter's note.

16             MS. ALABURIC:  [In English] I will leave the Prosecution to clear

17     up the matter.

18             [Interpretation] I really think that is entirely unfair, and the

19     General should be allowed to provide any answers that he thinks he

20     should.  You can take his answer or leave it.

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment.

22             Judge Trechsel is going to answer, but let me say this:  You are

23     now saying that my fellow Judge interrupted the witness because he was

24     not satisfied.  How can you say this?  The Judge asked a question, and he

25     expects an answer.  Apparently, there's a problem in the interpretation?

Page 50451

 1             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] I understand.  This was a

 2     misinterpretation.  I'll try to say slowly what I just said.

 3             I said I believe this is not the first time that Judge Trechsel

 4     interrupts an answer by the General and expresses his dissatisfaction at

 5     the answer.  Nevertheless, he always says he would leave it to the OTP to

 6     clarify matters and take them as far as necessary.  I believe the witness

 7     should be allowed to complete his answers, to complete what he's trying

 8     to say.  It is down to the Judge to evaluate his answer as a valid one or

 9     not.  It never even crossed my mind to say that the Judge was

10     interrupting because he was unhappy, and I didn't say that, to begin

11     with.

12             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Well, Ms. Alaburic, in a way, I was unhappy,

13     because I heard a story where I wanted an explanation on a very narrow

14     point.  You seem to introduce new rules here.  We have always, and

15     rightly so -- everyone in the courtroom, I think, insisted that when a

16     question is asked, the witness cannot say what he wants to say, but he

17     has to answer the specific question.  And if he goes astray and speaks of

18     something which the person who has put the question does not recognise as

19     leading to an answer to the question, it is his duty, in order to save

20     time, to interrupt the witness and try to lead him back to the track on

21     which he has been set by the question.

22             MR. KARNAVAS:  If I may.  Something different, because I'm not

23     going to get into this discussion.  Rightly or wrongly, my opinion

24     doesn't matter.

25             But what I am concerned is the line of questioning by the

Page 50452

 1     Prosecution, and I agree, he was not insinuating that it was

 2     General Petkovic who was leaking the material, so that was my

 3     understanding as well, but it would appear that the government, or

 4     through its representatives, may be doing all these harmful things.  The

 5     problem is the government is not on trial.  The Croatian government

 6     doesn't have a representative here to defend Croatia.  And how do I now,

 7     representing Dr. Prlic, challenge this line of questioning at this stage,

 8     if you are to then accept the Prosecution's line of questioning, that the

 9     Croatian government was doing all of these things?  This is a Tribunal of

10     individuals.  We don't have countries here, but I think this is something

11     that needs to be taken into consideration.

12             Now, I understand the joint criminal enterprise, it has

13     individuals.  We're talking about Tudjman, we're talking about -- they're

14     not here to answer, and nobody's here to defend them, and Croatia hasn't

15     sought leave to have a representative over here to protect the interests

16     of Croatia, but it puts us in a very difficult position.  And I would ask

17     the Trial Chamber to think about this and, perhaps, at some other point

18     have a discussion, because I'm concerned.

19             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Mr. Karnavas, I take your point.

20             My conception or my understanding of this line of questioning is

21     that it is all about the credibility of the witness and not about what

22     the moral quality of the actions of the Croat government is, not -- I

23     don't see that, really, as the issue.  I only see it as an issue of

24     credibility.

25             MR. KARNAVAS:  That's fine, because I'm thinking joint criminal

Page 50453

 1     enterprise, that's where my mind is racing, and international armed

 2     conflict, you know, might be tied into that as well.  So that's my

 3     concern.  I can only defend my client based on what the evidence is

 4     there.  But now, if we're going to go into what somebody in the

 5     government did that we don't even know, and I'm not contesting that those

 6     events weren't occurring, because it was rather obvious that something

 7     was being leaked, but how do I defend against that, because my client has

 8     nothing to do with it and it's not part of the indictment?  Thank you.

 9             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with your leave, I'd

10     like to follow up in relation to what Mr. Karnavas said.

11             I, personally, hesitated -- I'm waiting for the interpretation.

12             I, personally, hesitated to say anything of that kind, because my

13     client is before us at the moment and I didn't want this to influence on

14     his testimony.  I absolutely understand that the Prosecution has the task

15     to put each and every question that concerns Mr. Petkovic's credibility,

16     but to follow up on what Mr. Karnavas said, why put questions -- why

17     interpret Gotovina's words or the words of a participant of a meeting

18     that wasn't attended by Mr. Petkovic?  If we want to challenge

19     Mr. Petkovic's credibility, we should then ask him about what he said in

20     the Blaskic or Kordic case.  If he said something that wasn't true in

21     Kordic or Blaskic, if he said something different from what he has been

22     saying in this case, then that is what will challenge his credibility as

23     a witness.

24             I don't believe that the objective is primarily to challenge

25     General Petkovic's credibility.  It's rather a matter of speaking about a

Page 50454

 1     meeting and saying that there was a joint criminal enterprise that was

 2     involved.  You might think this is legitimate, Your Honours, but we don't

 3     believe that this is a legitimate means of examining the witness.

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We're going to have our break.

 5     It's going to be the only one, and, well, the tapes were just about

 6     empty.  So we'll resume in 20 minutes.

 7                           --- Recess taken at 4.03 p.m.

 8                           --- On resuming at 4.29 p.m.

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, you may proceed.

10             MR. SCOTT:  Thank you, Mr. President.

11        Q.   Sir, I'd like to move forward to another topic at this point.

12     And in your binder, I think toward the front, behind the index, and for

13     all those in the courtroom, under, I think, a green tab, I'm told, there

14     is a table titled "Herceg-Bosna and the HVO."  Binder number 1, the same

15     binder that we've primarily been working on.

16        A.   Is that number 1 or --

17        Q.   I can't say that I can see from where you -- the Usher can help

18     you -- will assist you, sir, or he has it separately, I guess, in this

19     case.  Maybe not, sorry.

20             I will raise certain parts of it with you, sir, and of course

21     we'll be assisted.  This is the schedule, there are the documents behind

22     it.  We will -- of course, there will be translation.  But the point I

23     want to put to you, sir, in introducing this topic, and it goes really

24     back, again, to your testimony in the earlier case, and in Blaskic in

25     particular, as Judge Jorda's name has been mentioned several times this

Page 50455

 1     afternoon, and Judge Jorda asked you this question in Blaskic, and you

 2     gave the following answer.  This is at transcript page 24221-22.

 3     Judge Jorda:

 4             "I have very few questions, General Petkovic, very few questions.

 5     I have a political one.  I'm saying this so that Mr. Rifkin," the

 6     representative of Croatia, "I'm saying this so Mr. Rifkin will be

 7     vigilant."

 8             And then he says:

 9             "The Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, did it have a political

10     objective?"

11             And you answered:

12             "No, it did not have one, and I did not attend a single meeting

13     of the HDZ of Bosnia-Herzegovina or Herceg-Bosna."

14             And, sir, I'm putting to you and we're going to talk for some --

15     probably some time, once again, sir, your answer, under oath, in response

16     to Judge Jorda, was fundamentally false and misleading, wasn't it?

17        A.   No.

18        Q.   Everything we've covered so far in the cross-examination, sir,

19     your role, your extremely high level and role, far beyond being a

20     soldier, to being a politician, which you, yourself, had indicated you

21     felt more like a politician than a soldier, your involvement in

22     government meetings, your involvement in meetings with Mr. Tudjman, you

23     knew full well what the political programme of Herceg-Bosna was, and when

24     you answered Judge Jorda, No, you testified falsely, didn't you ?

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Why are you on your feet,

Page 50456

 1     Ms. Alaburic?  Is there a problem in the question, a mistake in the

 2     question?

 3             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I wanted to intervene

 4     with regard to a false claim in the question, that the witness felt he

 5     was more a politician than a soldier, because Mr. Scott is quoting an

 6     introduction to an interview shown yesterday.  Those were the words of a

 7     journalist.  They weren't the words of General Petkovic.  That's all I

 8     wanted to say.

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott.

10             MR. SCOTT:  Your Honour, the journalist was reporting on the

11     conversation with Mr. Petkovic, in which Mr. Petkovic, according to the

12     journalist, made that statement.

13        Q.   Sir, if you look at this document, I'm going to start with -- and

14     I can't go through all of these because, again, we don't have enough

15     time, but, sir, if you'd look down -- if you'd look at item number 1,

16     Exhibit P0079, item number 2, P00151, these are the documents -- some of

17     the documents establishing Herceg-Bosna and Croatia, and they all talk

18     about Croatia this and Croatia that.

19             The first article, P0079, talks about the territories.  We see

20     the list of territories claimed.  We hear about the seat of the Croatian

21     Community of Herceg-Bosna being in Mostar.  We see the establishment of

22     the Croatian Defence Council, the sovereignty of the territories of the

23     Croatian Community, to protect the Croatian people.

24             Sir, if there was no political objective or if this was just

25     motivated by loyalty to and protection of Bosnia-Herzegovina in general,

Page 50457

 1     why the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, why the Croatian Defence

 2     Council?  Why not All People's Defence Council?  Sorry --

 3             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Mr. Scott, I would like to draw your attention

 4     to the fact that you have used the term "territory," but we have had many

 5     objections because of that.  It is "podrucje," which probably false to be

 6     translated as "area," and I think it would be better to avoid unnecessary

 7     and repetitive discussions about that.  So I think it would be a good

 8     idea if you used that term.

 9             MR. SCOTT:  Thank you, Your Honour.  Thank you, Your Honours.

10        Q.   But my point remains, sir.  Why Croatian this and why Croatian

11     that?  Why did you have to rename the university in Mostar the Croatian

12     university?  Why change the name of Prozor to Rama?  Why change the name

13     Gornji Vakuf to Uskopje, if there was no political objective?

14        A.   No, there was no political objective such as you interpreted.  I

15     didn't refer to any political objectives.  Could you please precisely

16     quote my answer to the Judge's question?  Perhaps we could have a look at

17     what the Judge asked me when I testified, because I don't have my

18     testimony in front of me and I wouldn't like to speak off the top of my

19     head.  So could we take that as our starting point?

20        Q.   The starting point, sir, is what I read to you, and I'll read it

21     to you again.  Judge Jorda asked you this question:

22             "The Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, did it have a political

23     objective?

24             "A.  No, it did not have one."

25        A.   Was it a political objective or a political programme?  Which

Page 50458

 1     term was used in the question?

 2        Q.   A political objective, sir.  It did, didn't it?  Herceg-Bosna had

 3     plenty of political objectives, and you knew it.  That's what you were

 4     fighting for.

 5        A.   The political objective of Herceg-Bosna was to protect the

 6     Croatian people and others in areas where the Croats were in a majority,

 7     and also in areas where they were in a minority.  So it had to do with

 8     engaging all the Croats to defend themselves against an act of

 9     aggression, and that was the sole purpose of Herceg-Bosna.

10        Q.   If you were acting to protect everyone, sir - I go back to my

11     question before - then why Croatian Defence Council, why

12     Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna?  Why not All People's Defence

13     Council, for example?  I'm not going to repeat all my questions to you

14     three or four times, but I have asked you this now.  So why, sir?

15        A.   Well, you should ask those who, on the 18th of November, took

16     that decision.  I was far away from Herceg-Bosna on the 18th of November.

17        Q.   Sir, you were there at the Presidency meeting in July 1992, when

18     the decision establishing the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna was

19     amended.  You confirmed that yesterday.  You were there, you spoke, you

20     participated.  So don't pretend that you don't know.  It doesn't help

21     you, sir.  It doesn't help to you pretend things that you don't know when

22     you know that you do.

23             You went to work for these people.  You worked for Bruno Stojic,

24     you worked for Mate Boban.  You knew what their political objectives

25     were, didn't you?

Page 50459

 1        A.   [No interpretation]

 2        Q.   Let's go to item number 3, let's go to item number 3.

 3        A.   I've answered the question.  I said that the political objective

 4     was to protect the Croats and everyone else in the area, and that has

 5     been recorded.  It was recorded at that meeting that I attended.  You can

 6     read that.  Nothing else was written.  The areas of certain

 7     municipalities that constitute the HZ-HB were protected, and the

 8     possibility of everyone else joining up was there.  It wasn't a

 9     territorial definition.  Anyone who wanted to join could join.

10        Q.   Why did it say, sir, in the establishment of the HVO, in item

11     number 3, P00154, that the Croatian Defence Council will have exclusive

12     supreme command of the Herceg-Bosna armed forces, that this body is the

13     only legal body, the only legal military, that all other military

14     formations in the area of Herceg-Bosna, the alleged or so-called area of

15     Herceg-Bosna, are illegal or enemy formations?  Sir, that doesn't sound

16     to me like the language of someone who's trying to reach out and be

17     inclusive of everyone, but to be quite the contrary, to be exclusive and

18     to exclude, doesn't it?

19        A.   No.  Read out the first sentence.  You skipped that deliberately.

20     You do that whenever you refer to this document.  If you do read out the

21     first sentence, you'll see that it says that the Croatian units and

22     Croatian soldiers can only be in the HVO and in no other units.  And then

23     there's a criticism of Izetbegovic wanting the TO, but no one is

24     preventing Izetbegovic from having his TO.  Here, it is said that the

25     Croats who are organising themselves can only be called the HVO, be part

Page 50460

 1     of the HVO.  You can't claim what you are claiming, that no one else is

 2     legal.

 3        Q.   Sir, that's not what it says at all.  That's not what it says at

 4     all.  It purports to establish the exclusive and only legal armed force

 5     on the so-called area or territory of Herceg-Bosna.  It doesn't say

 6     anything about recognising that, well, the Muslims or the BiH Army can

 7     have its units too.  It's, No, absolutely not, this is Herceg-Bosna, and

 8     the only legal army is going to be the HVO, and everybody else is the

 9     enemy.  That's what it says, isn't it -- doesn't it?

10        A.   Only the army of the Croats, no, that's not correct.  No, that's

11     not what it says here.  Read out the first sentence.  Allow me to do so,

12     if I may.

13        Q.   Go ahead.

14        A.   "Since the start of the aggression on the Croatian territory of

15     Bosnia and Herzegovina, there has been inconsistency in the use of the

16     name for the Croatian forces in Herceg-Bosna."

17             This means that there are problems because the Croats, who

18     organised their army, use several terms.  They say --

19             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness please repeat what he just

20     said.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's why the Presidency of the

22     Croatian Community took a decision on the 8th of April, 1992, that the

23     supreme body of Croatian defence in Herceg-Bosna should be called the

24     HVO, the Croatian Defence Council.  So in this document, it says that the

25     Croats, who are organising themselves, can organise themselves as part of

Page 50461

 1     the HVO.  If the Croats organise themselves into some other unit, this

 2     won't be accepted by the HVO, or the Main Staff will not accept them as

 3     such.  They won't be allowed to be an integral part of the Main Staff.

 4             MR. SCOTT:

 5        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ... it doesn't say that at all.

 6     It doesn't say that at all.  Specifically --

 7        A.   That is what it says here --

 8        Q.   [Overlapping speakers] ...

 9             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Please, please, please.  Mr. Scott is in charge.

10     You can stop the witness, but you should not talk both at the same time,

11     because it's like if no one were speaking.  It's only noise.

12             MR. SCOTT:  My apologies, Your Honour.  My apologies to you, and

13     my apologies to the interpreters.

14        Q.   But, Mr. Petkovic, I don't need to be counselled --

15             MR. KARNAVAS:  If I may, Mr. Prosecutor.  If you're going to ask

16     him to interpret, and he's giving an interpretation, then have you to

17     allow him to interpret.

18             MR. SCOTT:  I don't have to --

19             MR. KARNAVAS:  I think that's what he was doing.  Now, maybe if

20     the question is rephrased in a closer fashion, you know, you can cut him

21     off.  But the way the question was phrased, he was answering that

22     question, and there lies the problem.

23             MR. SCOTT:  Mr. Karnavas, he asked me to read something, and I

24     said he could read it, but I'm not going on for five minutes.  And you

25     know and I know that we're all operating under severe time-limits, so I

Page 50462

 1     cannot allow -- with respect and courtesy to Mr. Petkovic, I cannot allow

 2     him to sit here and let him read for 10 minutes, which -- in a

 3     non-responsive way, ultimately.  I wish that maybe it was otherwise, but

 4     it's not.

 5        Q.   Sir, this -- Mr. Boban, in this document, responds very

 6     specifically.  In the second paragraph, he rejects the action of the

 7     Presidency in accepting the Bosnian state armed forces:

 8             "The decision of the Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina is

 9     politically expedient," et cetera, and he goes on.

10             He's specifically reacting to the establishment of the state

11     armed forces, and Boban is saying, Absolutely not, we will have no part

12     of it.  The only legal armed force on the territory or on the area of the

13     so-called Herceg-Bosna is going to be the HVO.  Everyone else is illegal

14     and the enemy.  Right?

15        A.   No, that's not correct.  The Croats can --

16        Q.   [Overlapping speakers] ... didn't ask you for any other answer.

17     Stop.  You've answered the question, sir.  You said, No.  That's your

18     position.

19             Then I'm directing your attention to item number 5 in the table,

20     and P00185.

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] General Petkovic, I'm very

22     confused regarding the last paragraph in this document.  It is stated

23     there that apart from the HVO, there cannot be any other formation,

24     because any such formation would be illegal.  So I'm asking myself, What

25     about the 4th Corps, what about the 1st Mostar Battalion, what about the

Page 50463

 1     embryonic ABiH?  If we are to read this paragraph in a strict fashion,

 2     well, it could be that it was poorly crafted, or does this translate the

 3     will to have nothing else but the HVO?  That's the question, isn't it?

 4     And you have to shed some light on this, even if you did not write this

 5     document, yourself.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour Judge Antonetti, my

 7     starting point is that Mr. Boban said that when the Croatian forces were

 8     organising themselves in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the term to be used was

 9     "the HVO."  In his opinion, the Croats shouldn't use any other term.  If

10     they were to use a different term, the Main Staff wouldn't accept them as

11     their own men.  And it says that the Main Staff only accepts those

12     Croatian units that are called the HVO.  The Main Staff will not accept

13     the HOS or any other unit formed by Croats, and that is what is at stake

14     here, that's the problem.  The ABiH or the TO can establish or organise

15     itself.  No one prevented the formation of these units.

16             In Mostar, you saw that a month and a half later, I wrote to

17     Vakuf and Konjic and said that the TO and the HVO were the same armed

18     force, so this -- there's an attempt to interpret this erroneously.  The

19     TO wasn't attached to the Main Staff.  Units that had been formed by

20     Croats were linked to the Main Staff, and Croats would only recognise the

21     HVO as an organisation, and no other organisation.  So that is the

22     substance of this order issued by Mate Boban.

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I think I was right in asking

24     you this question, because you answered that this text does not prevent

25     the ABiH from being created, but it should be read only through the HVO

Page 50464

 1     units.  Is this what you're saying?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, it doesn't prevent that.

 3     Mate Boban, Your Honours, is speaking about the organisation of Croats in

 4     Bosnia and Herzegovina here.  The army is established on a principle.

 5     The Croats can only organise themselves using the term "the HVO."  Boban

 6     is not prepared to accept Croat organisations in any other form, as part

 7     of the Main Staff.  Therefore, it was possible for there to be some other

 8     Croatian unit, but he said, I won't accept that, and you won't have ties

 9     to the Main Staff.  Mate Boban in no way prevented Mr. Izetbegovic from

10     establishing the Territorial Defence in the manner he thought

11     appropriate, and afterwards you can see that there was a TO and an HVO in

12     all municipalities.  So how did he prevent this?  He didn't do anything

13     to prevent this.  Boban quite simply said, and that's in the first

14     sentence, The Croats shall organise themselves within the HVO, and

15     nothing outside of that framework will be accepted.  So he is only

16     objecting to Izetbegovic for accepting the TO since it's been

17     compromised, but he's not preventing Izetbegovic from having a TO if he

18     wants it.  A few months later, Izetbegovic thought this wasn't a

19     satisfactory state of affairs, so he introduced some changes.  In this

20     document, Boban has done nothing to prevent others establishing units of

21     a certain kind.  He is addressing Croats, and no one else here.

22             The Croats didn't accept the HOS.  Mate Boban didn't want the

23     Croats establishing units of their own that would be called the

24     Territorial Defence.  He quite simply didn't want that.  If the Croats

25     establish units, they can be called "the HVO."  Establish other units in

Page 50465

 1     the municipalities, if you like, but you won't fall under the Main Staff,

 2     and that is what is at stake.  No one is preventing anyone from

 3     establishing a Patriotic League, for example, a Territorial Defence,

 4     establishing Green Berets, or any other units.  Each municipality had a

 5     Croatian organisation within the framework of the HVO, and there was an

 6     Muslim organisation in the TO, in the Territorial Defence, or in some

 7     other formation.  They spontaneously established these units.

 8             Why would we co-operate with Pasalic in Mostar, for example, if

 9     we wanted to implement this?  Pasalic organised the Muslims, the

10     Bosniaks.  No one prevented him from doing this.  But as for the Croats,

11     Boban wanted them to organise themselves within the HVO.  If anyone else

12     wanted to form units of another kind, that was fine, but they wouldn't be

13     tied to the HVO.

14             And that is the essence of this document.  One has been trying to

15     interpret it as a document that says we're preventing the Presidency from

16     doing certain things.  No, that's not the case.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You took a long time to explain

18     the substance of this document, but it's now been recorded.

19             Yes, Mr. Prosecutor.

20             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone for counsel, please.

21             MR. SCOTT:  My apologies.

22        Q.   Let's go on to Exhibit P00185, which is item 5 in the chart.  I'm

23     not going to read the entire conversation, but this is a conversation

24     between Mr. Stojic and some of the Serb leadership figures.  Maybe you

25     can remind the Chamber who Mico Stanisic is and what role he played in

Page 50466

 1     May of 1992.

 2        A.   Your Honours, I have no idea as to who Mico Stanisic is.

 3        Q.   In this conversation, Mr. -- toward the end of the part that's in

 4     the table, it says Mr. Stojic refers to -- they're talking about coming

 5     to an agreement, and Mr. Stojic says:

 6             "There is the 1939 one and none other.  I'm dead serious."

 7             Stanisic:

 8             "We need to see what is realistic there and sit down and make a

 9     deal."

10             Stojic:

11             "Only the 1939 borders, and no bargaining.  Ha-ha."

12             Now, this is the man, sir, that you described in your previous

13     testimony, and you confirmed here again, this was your minister.  This is

14     the man that you said was your superior.  This is the man you said was

15     more powerful than you.  And you knew, sir, from all your dealings with

16     him in 1992 and 1993, from him and others, that the territorial

17     objectives of Herceg-Bosna, and of Mr. Tudjman, and of Mr. Susak, were to

18     establish -- re-establish the Banovina borders of 1939, weren't they?  --

19        A.   No, that's not correct.  Tudjman didn't establish a banovina of

20     any kind in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

21        Q.   We look in going to Exhibit -- item 6, P00199.  This was an order

22     by Bobetko, which you signed on his behalf, and Boban, appointing the

23     Mostar HVO, appointing Mr. Jadranko Topic and others.  By what authority

24     did Mr. -- did a Croatian general, Bobetko, and Mr. Boban -- by what

25     authority did they have to establish the government in Mostar?

Page 50467

 1        A.   Mr. Boban has the powers to appoint authorities in Mostar.  Why

 2     he appointed the commanders as listed here is the military aspect, and

 3     whereas item 1 refers to the civilian authorities.

 4        Q.   Let's start --

 5        A.   Mr. Boban --

 6        Q.   We'll come back to Mr. Boban, but let's start with Mr. Bobetko.

 7     What authority did the general -- did the head of the Croatian Army, the

 8     Republic of Croatia -- what authority did Bobetko have to issue an order

 9     appointing the government in Mostar?

10        A.   Bobetko had no authority to appoint government, but --

11        Q.   But why is it on this document, sir, and why did you sign for

12     him?  Why didn't you say, General, you've asked me to sign this document

13     for you, and surely you have no authority to do this.  I'm not putting my

14     name on this because you have no authority to issue such an order, I'm

15     not signing this.

16        A.   Then, I was commander, and I had the right to sign that.

17        Q.   But what gave you the authority to appoint the government of

18     Mostar?

19        A.   I was accepted as a member of the HVO, and thus received the

20     authority to sign for the commanding structures.  About -- for items 1

21     and 2, I had no authority over these, but for the following items, yes, I

22     did.

23        Q.   What gave the HVO the authority to appoint the Mostar government?

24        A.   The constitutional right of a people to organise itself to oppose

25     an aggression.

Page 50468

 1        Q.   Who gave the HVO the authority to do that?

 2             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] I just have a correction of the

 3     transcript.  I believe that this is very important.  This refers to

 4     line 6 and 7.  General Petkovic said, I had no authority to appoint

 5     people under item 1, only Boban could do so, but I did have the authority

 6     to appoint those under items 2, 3, 4, et cetera.  General, it was

 7     recorded in the transcript that you said the following:

 8             [In English] "About -- for items 1 and 2, I had no authority over

 9     this, but for the following items, I did."

10             [Interpretation] Tell us what you actually said.

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is correct that I had no

12     authority over the position in item 1, whereas for the commanders of the

13     municipal staffs, which are items 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, I did have the right to

14     sign because at the time I was in a commanding position.

15             MR. SCOTT:

16        Q.   The command of what, sir?  Were you still acting, in May of 1992,

17     as a Croatian general, or an HVO officer, or both?

18        A.   I was not a Croatian general.  I was an officer of the HVO.  I

19     had been relieved of all my duties in the Croatian Army.  You have that

20     document from my personnel file, so you can read it any time.

21        Q.   And what gave the HVO the authority to appoint the Mostar

22     government, or Mr. Boban?

23        A.   The HVO is just another name of the authorities that were

24     established pursuant to the elections.

25        Q.   What authorities, sir?

Page 50469

 1        A.   Well, first there were the election results, and then the

 2     authorities chose to call themselves HVO, so this was a continuation of

 3     the previously existing authorities.

 4        Q.   Certain authorities decided to call themselves the HVO.

 5     Mr. Boban was never elected mayor of Mostar.  He had no legal authority

 6     over Mostar whatsoever.  When was there an election?  When did the Muslim

 7     members of the territory claim to be Herceg-Bosna?  When was there a

 8     referendum?  When was there a free election by which the Muslims said,

 9     Yeah, we want to be part of this, we sign up voluntarily?  Tell me --

10     give me the date, and where those polling booths were, and where that

11     election was held.

12        A.   Well, don't speak about elections during the war.

13        Q.   You just did.

14        A.   The war had started.  The elections were before.

15        Q.   Excuse me, sir.  You said, in paragraph -- you said, in page 66,

16     page 66, line 8 and 9:

17             "The HVO is just another name of the authorities that were

18     established pursuant to the elections."

19        A.   As far as I know, there were elections in Bosnia-Herzegovina in

20     1990, but not during the war.

21        Q.   When was Mr. Boban elected to be the president of Herceg-Bosna,

22     which gave him, according to you, apparently, the authority to appoint

23     the government in Mostar?

24        A.   Given the fact that the central authorities didn't function --

25        Q.   Sir, that wasn't my question.  Tell me when he was elected?

Page 50470

 1        A.   -- Boban organised provisional authorities.

 2        Q.   Tell me when he was and by what process he was elected and given

 3     this power.

 4        A.   Mr. Boban was provisionally elected president of the HVO.

 5        Q.   By who?  By who, sir?

 6        A.   Before I got there, by the representatives of the Croatian

 7     people.

 8        Q.   By the representatives of the Croatian people.  But you didn't

 9     answer the question I put to you five minutes ago, sir.  When did the

10     Muslim people who lived within the borders that Herceg-Bosna claimed,

11     when they said, Our borders go all the way to Vares, and our borders go

12     all the way to Gornji Vakuf, and our borders go to Grude, and Stolac, and

13     Mostar, and Jablanica, and Konjic, when did all the Muslims living in

14     those borders -- when were they given the opportunity to vote and say, We

15     freely choose to be part of this?

16        A.   The Muslims, as far as I know, accepted the provisional

17     authorities of the HVO in those areas, and they co-operated with each

18     other.  They knew that the central authorities didn't function and

19     couldn't function.

20        Q.   They co-operated.  Is that why they --

21        A.   It is possible to establish provisional authorities in the war.

22        Q.   -- were rounded up on the 9th and 10th of May, 1993, and put in

23     the Heliodrom, because they co-operated and went along?  Is that why all

24     the Muslim men, in July 1993, were arrested and put in prisons, because

25     they went along?

Page 50471

 1        A.   No, I was speaking about 1992 now.  Many things happened before

 2     1993.  Do tell me when the central authorities organised elections --

 3        Q.   No, sir.  You're answering my questions.

 4        A.   -- in these areas?

 5        Q.   You're answering my questions, and you can't presume that the HVO

 6     just somehow sprung into existence with legitimacy.  It was simply

 7     self-declared by a certain group of people who were acting to create

 8     their own state, sir, a Croatian state.  Isn't that the truth?

 9        A.   No, there was no state of any kind.  There was a need to organise

10     oneself and defend oneself against the aggression that had already begun

11     in those areas, only that.

12        Q.   Let's go to item 8 in the table, P00279.  This is a report, and

13     this is your own document.  This is a report that you wrote to the

14     municipal leaders and commanders of the HVO units.  And you say, in

15     number 1 --

16             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] As regards the last document,

17     General Petkovic, I must tell you that I have a question mark when I see

18     the name of Bobetko in it.  There are several assumptions we can make.

19     It's a typo, it was your name that should have been there, and "Bobetko"

20     was put in there instead.  That's a possibility.

21             Second assumption:  There's an agreement between Mate Boban and

22     Bobetko, as far as all these appointments are concerned, and you, who are

23     at the HVO Main Staff, since it is written here, you signed this.  That's

24     a possibility.  I don't know.

25             If I look at the names of the people who have been appointed,

Page 50472

 1     Mr. Topic is seemingly a civilian.  I don't see why he would be appointed

 2     to a civilian position unless one holds that the president of the HVO in

 3     Mostar is a military position.  That's also a possibility.  I don't know.

 4             Jaganjac, commander.  From what I understood, this would come

 5     under Mr. Boban's authority.  If that is the case, why would your

 6     signature be needed in that case?

 7             What I'm interested in is this:  Why is Bobetko mentioned in this

 8     document?  What business does he have to be there?  The Trial Chamber

 9     will have to draw its conclusions.  Why is his name in this document, and

10     what does it mean?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, whoever drafted this

12     document for Mr. Boban obviously didn't know what this was about.  The --

13     General Janko Bobetko was never commander of the Main Staff of the HVO,

14     but somebody wrote it that way.  Mr. Boban didn't want it changed, and I

15     signed it because, well, after all, I had accepted a commanding function

16     in the HVO.

17             Why this unknown person put General Janko Bobetko's name under

18     the heading "Commander of the Main Staff of the HVO," I don't know.

19     There's no reason for mentioning Bobetko here, because he never called

20     himself or proclaimed himself commander of the Main Staff of the HVO.  I

21     placed my signature there.  It would have been better if we had removed

22     that, but such were the times.  Anyway, this is my signature, not

23     General Bobetko's.

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So by way of an explanation,

25     you are telling us that this was a mistake and that you didn't correct

Page 50473

 1     it.  It's as if someone asked me to sign a judgement, and it says

 2     Ms. Alaburic -- stating that Ms. Alaburic is a judge, and then I sign

 3     because it doesn't matter.

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, possibly, but I don't think

 5     anybody would like to go back to those times.  It would have been

 6     important to remove that, but it didn't happen, so it remained.

 7     Mr. Boban thought it sufficient for me to sign it as it was, and I

 8     signed.  But Mr. Bobetko was never the commander of the Main Staff of the

 9     HVO.

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If it had stated at the bottom

11     of the document "General Colin Powell," would you have signed, all the

12     same?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course not, but because that man

14     wouldn't have been there.  And, Your Honour, this is the 10th of May,

15     1992.  There is no document that regulates any kinds of relations in the

16     HVO, and yet such documents are drafted.  That was the problem, that the

17     HVO had not yet adopted any decrees, laws, regulations, nothing.  All we

18     had was an order dated the 10th of April which is half a page long.  The

19     relations were not clear, but it was important to appoint people to

20     commanding functions -- to commanding positions and organise the defence

21     of Mostar.  And we can't compare this with Colin Powell or anybody else.

22     This was done a month after the fighting at Kupres, and the risk of

23     having half Mostar occupied.

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott.

25             MR. SCOTT:

Page 50474

 1        Q.   Sir, we were about to go to --

 2             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

 3             MR. SCOTT:  Apologies.

 4        Q.   We were about to go to P00279, line 8 in the table.  This is your

 5     report, sir, and, among other things, you say, on -- in a number of

 6     items, you say:

 7             "To put under control the remaining area of Croatian

 8     municipalities."

 9             Number 3:

10             "To establish Croatian rule over all municipalities.

11             "Our intentions are, among other things, to prepare ourselves,

12     and through offensive activities, liberate the remaining Croatian

13     territory or area."

14             But, in any event, "to liberate the Croatian area or territory."

15             Now, if this was just one big happy family, all for one, one for

16     all, why didn't you just say "to liberate all of Bosnia and Herzegovina"?

17     Why just "the Croatian area"?

18        A.   We did liberate Bosnia and Herzegovina, part of it.  The

19     introductory part was drafted by somebody who lived there, unlike me, but

20     that doesn't mean that we claimed all of Bosnia-Herzegovina or part of

21     Bosnia-Herzegovina to ourselves.  We always acted in accordance with the

22     principle that it was the common country of Croats and Muslims.

23        Q.   Sir, why didn't you say that, then?  Why didn't you just say

24     that?  Why did you say "the Croatian municipalities," "to establish

25     Croatian rule over municipalities," "to liberate the Croatian areas"?

Page 50475

 1     It's very simple, sir, and in response to the questions -- answers you

 2     just made to the President and questions -- answers to my questions, you

 3     can't say, sir, every time that, well, Someone else drafted the document,

 4     they weren't your words, and it was all a mistake, and now you wish you

 5     had said otherwise.  This is your document.  It's very easy to say.

 6     You're an educated man.  You're a professional soldier.  You could have

 7     very easily said, sir --

 8        A.   [No interpretation]

 9        Q.   Excuse me, sir.  You could have very easily said, Let's put

10     under -- let's put under -- let's get the Serbs out of here, let's

11     re-establish the Bosnian authorities in this area, let's liberate the

12     remaining territory of BiH.  There are all sorts of things you could have

13     said that are far more inclusive, but it was "Croatian, Croatian,

14     Croatian."  Now, why did you say that?

15             And I remind you, sir, that we started this topic because you

16     told Judge Jorda, under oath, that Herceg-Bosna didn't have a political

17     objective.  Why "Croatian, Croatian, Croatian"?

18        A.   The municipalities mentioned here are Neum, Ravno, Ljubuski,

19     Citluk, Siroki Brijeg, and they are purely Croatian municipalities.  In

20     others, the Croats are the majority.  That's why they're called Croatian

21     municipalities.  And they were ruled by the HDZ, and that's what they

22     were called.

23             The second thing here --

24        Q.   Well, let's go to another [overlapping speakers] ...

25        A.   -- is part of the area of the Ravno municipality.  Let me just

Page 50476

 1     explain.  In part of the Ravno municipality, which is almost exclusively

 2     Croatian because the Croats are the absolute majority there, but a part

 3     of it was still not liberated.  In the Stolac municipality, there was an

 4     area called "Stjepan Kriz," by which name we can judge its nature --

 5        Q.   Sir, I'm now going to cut --

 6        A.   -- and there was --

 7        Q.   I am cutting you off now, sir, sorry.  If we go back to

 8     article -- let's go back to line 1, or P00079.  Look at the list of

 9     municipalities there, page 1, row 1:

10             "Kakanj, Gornji Vakuf, Konjic, Jablanica, Stolac."

11             Those are all Muslim-majority municipalities.  Those aren't Croat

12     majorities at all.  Mostar has a Muslim plurality.

13        A.   [No interpretation]

14        Q.   It's simply false, what you said a moment ago.  It's simply false

15     what you said, these were Croat majority -- just the Croat-majority

16     municipalities.  They weren't at all, were they, sir?

17        A.   Yes, the municipalities Neum, Ravno, Capljina, Ljubuski, to the

18     greatest part, Citluk, Siroki Brijeg, these are the municipalities I'm

19     talking about, not Kakanj.  And I'm speaking about the remainder of the

20     municipality of Stolac and part of the municipality of Ravno, which were

21     yet unliberated.  And those were areas mostly inhabited by Croats, and

22     that's why we said that we must --

23        Q.   Let's stop there --

24             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I may, I believe

25     there is a misunderstanding between Mr. Scott and the witness, because

Page 50477

 1     Mr. Scott spoke about a document that we see on our screens, whereas the

 2     witness is referring to another document, P279, and that's why they are

 3     talking about different municipalities.

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, yes, 079 has nothing to do

 5     with this report here.

 6             MR. SCOTT:

 7        Q.   Regardless of which list you look at, sir, regardless of which of

 8     the lists you look at, you know full well that there were a number of the

 9     municipalities claimed by Herceg-Bosna, and we're going to get there in

10     just a moment, we're going to get there.  But you know full well that

11     there were a number of these municipalities that weren't Croat-majority

12     municipalities at all; right?

13        A.   Yes, I know --

14        Q.   Well, let's go back to your -- so you answered my question.

15        A.   -- and nobody in the HVO disputed that.

16        Q.   Well, we'll see.  And then let's go back to the position you said

17     just a moment ago, because there's really two separate things now going

18     on.

19             You said, Well, we were trying to establish Croatian control in

20     these particular municipalities, these were the Croatian municipalities.

21     Well, there again, sir, what difference did that make?  Why did you only

22     want to establish control in certain municipalities and liberate certain

23     municipalities, but not others?

24        A.   Your Honours, you cannot liberate everything in one operation.

25     Have you to start with one part and proceed to the second, third, fourth,

Page 50478

 1     et cetera.  So it wasn't possible to conduct operations in all of

 2     Bosnia-Herzegovina.  The HVO did what it could, based on its

 3     capabilities, so they liberated areas that had -- that previously hadn't

 4     been liberated.  If you want -- you seem to want us to have liberated all

 5     of Bosnia-Herzegovina at once.  That was impossible.

 6        Q.   That's not at all what I said.

 7             Let's go to the next document.  Let's go to line 9, 1D01670.  And

 8     as we go into this, and I refer you to your participation, we talked

 9     yesterday about how you had participated in this meeting.  This is a

10     meeting at the HZ-HB Presidency.  This is the same meeting where the

11     Decree on Armed Forces was adopted.  This is the same meeting where the

12     declaration of the existence of Herceg-Bosna was amended and approved,

13     and you participated in it.  And before I put the next statement to you,

14     I remind you and I remind the courtroom of what you said a few moments

15     ago, Well, the Muslims went along.  It was okay, it was okay with the

16     Muslims.  Well, let's see what you said, sir, in July 1992.  Page 4, item

17     10.  Page 4, item 10.

18             Petkovic:

19             "Relations between the Muslims and Croats are poor in the better

20     part of the territory.  Efforts have to be made to return the situation

21     to normal.  We are the ones who did all this, and they," referring

22     obviously in the context to the Muslims, "are the minority ethnic groups

23     in these parts."

24             You go on to say:

25             "Care must be taken to avoid territorial fragmentation."

Page 50479

 1             Well, again, sir, it's simply not true that the Muslims were the

 2     ethnic minority in all of those parts.  It's not true, is it?

 3        A.   Let me just see where you're reading from.  Can item 10 be

 4     enlarged so that I can read it?

 5             I'm saying that outside the area of HZ-HB, adequate resistance

 6     isn't offered to the aggressor.  That's a statement.  Unfortunately, I

 7     don't know the balance of forces, but in Eastern Bosnia, one area is

 8     falling after another.  And then I go on to say the relations between

 9     Muslims and Croats in the better part of the territory are poor.  Efforts

10     must be made to normalise the condition.  We are the ones who did all

11     this, and they are the minority people in these areas.  The burden of

12     defence was shifted to municipalities in the outskirts, whereas the

13     others are acting as in peacetime.  The line on the Neretva is not safe.

14        Q.   Sir, we're not going to read the entire document.  I'm sorry

15     we're not going to do that, we're not going to [overlapping speakers] --

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But I don't know where --

17             MR. SCOTT:  Maybe the Chamber can give additional time, but we're

18     not simply going to start reading documents now.

19        Q.   My question to you, sir, and in reference to the last document we

20     looked at in line 8 of the table, and now in line 9, you repeatedly, sir,

21     are talking about what you're interested in and what the Herceg-Bosna and

22     HVO authorities are interested in is establishing Croatian rule over the

23     so-called Croat municipalities, which you said -- which you say were

24     Croat municipalities or Croat majorities; isn't that the case, sir?

25        A.   And the municipalities I mentioned, as far as I know, are -- have

Page 50480

 1     a majority-Croat population, and some of them have 100 per cent of

 2     Croatian population.

 3        Q.   If we can shift to Sanction, please, and we have map 9 from the

 4     book of maps, which is marked as Exhibit P09276.  The book is P09276.

 5     Map number 9.

 6             Sir, Kakanj is Muslim majority; Gornji Vakuf is Muslim majority;

 7     Konjic is Muslim majority; Jablanica is Muslim majority; Travnik is a

 8     Muslim plurality; Bugojno is a Muslim plurality; Konjic is a Muslim

 9     plurality; Mostar, itself, is a Muslim plurality; Stolac is a Muslim

10     plurality.  Those aren't Croat-majority municipalities at all, are they?

11        A.   No, but the Croats didn't take the entire municipality with them

12     and joined it to the Herceg-Bosna.  The HVO wanted to join the

13     Herceg-Bosna, and if the Muslims didn't want that, well, they would

14     remain in their municipality and go on living there.  The HVO didn't take

15     away the territory from a certain municipality and take it to

16     Herceg-Bosna.

17        Q.   Well, sir, they could go on -- the Muslims could go on living

18     there if they accepted HVO control and Herceg-Bosna control.  Sure, they

19     could continue living there.  We're going to be the masters, we're going

20     to control the government, it's going to be our army, it's going to be

21     our taxes.  Yeah, they can continue living there under your terms.  Isn't

22     that what you're saying?

23        A.   No.  You are not putting it properly.  Take a look at who had the

24     authorities.  In Konjic, there was the Crisis Staff, in which the HVO,

25     Croats and Muslims, are participating.  Wasn't there in Jablanica a

Page 50481

 1     Crisis Staff manned by Croats and Muslims?  In Kakanj, there was also a

 2     Crisis Staff --

 3        Q.   Sir, the HVO in municipality after municipality was throwing the

 4     Muslims out of the authorities.  They were just like the document we saw

 5     40 minutes ago.  They created the Mostar government, Bobetko -- you

 6     signing for Bobetko, and Boban saying, Here's the Mostar government, as

 7     we see it.  We don't want -- well, you know, the Muslims, well, you know,

 8     you can go do your own thing maybe, but this is our government and we're

 9     in charge, and this is our army, and it's the only legal one.  That's how

10     it was, wasn't it?

11        A.   No, no, that wasn't so.  We can analyse the authorities in any

12     municipality.  There were Crisis Staffs in which there were both Croats

13     and Muslims.  What is being put forth here is a construction.  Let's take

14     Jablanica or Konjic.  There were Crisis Staffs manned by Croats and

15     Muslims.  We had a witness from Jablanica and from Konjic, Muslims who

16     were in Crisis Staffs.  HVO is another thing.

17        Q.   Well, if that's the case, sir -- if that's the case, then we're

18     jumping ahead of ourselves.  But when we get to March and April of 1993,

19     and you say, Well, the Muslims, yeah, they had the right to control their

20     own fate, then why is it -- why do you blame and resist -- why does the

21     HVO resist the Muslims in Konjic and say, Oh, they started the war in

22     Konjic, and it's terrible because the Muslims aren't doing what we want

23     them to do?  According to you, the Muslims have every right not to do

24     what the HVO wanted them to do, and they did, didn't they?  I came back

25     to what I put to you 45 minutes ago, sir.  When did the Muslims vote for

Page 50482

 1     Herceg-Bosna?  And you never did answer that question, by the way.  When

 2     did the Muslims vote for Herceg-Bosna?

 3        A.   The Croats didn't vote for Herceg-Bosna either.  You don't --

 4        Q.   You're absolutely right, sir.  No one elected Boban -- no one

 5     elected Boban, or Prlic, or Kordic, or Bender, or Boras.  No one elected

 6     them legitimately to any of these positions.  Power was taken and seized

 7     and asserted, with the help of the Government of Croatia, wasn't it?

 8        A.   No, that's not correct, no.  I said that no elections were held,

 9     but the representatives of the Croatian people and the authorities under

10     the municipalities organised provisional authorities in that way.  And

11     don't talk to me about Konjic and other municipalities, where there was

12     participation in power.  Nobody had seized power.  The HVO existed in

13     Konjic and participated in power, and then Mr. Cibo comes along and blows

14     everything apart.

15        Q.   Well, we'll come to that if we have time, sir.  Why Croatian

16     symbols?  Why Croatian -- why a flag that looks almost identical to the

17     Croatian flag ?  Why insignia and badges that look almost the same as the

18     Croatian Army?  Why the Croatian university?  You never answered my

19     question.  Why Rama instead of Prozor, why Uskopje instead of

20     Gornji Vakuf?

21             MR. KARNAVAS:  Before he answers, on the Croatian University of

22     Mostar, and I stand to be corrected and I welcome the opportunity, but we

23     haven't seen a single document where it says that that university was

24     changed from the name that it had to Croatian University of Mostar.  It

25     was University of Mostar.  And I invite any member of the Bench or the

Page 50483

 1     Prosecution, or anyone on the planet, to show me where in the record is a

 2     document that states that.  So let's be accurate.  Now, everything else

 3     Mr. Scott is entitled to put, but let's be accurate with the record.

 4             MR. SCOTT:  As to the -- Your Honour, Mr. Karnavas, I won't

 5     persist at the moment in that, because I don't want to take the time to

 6     do it.  I will search for and I believe I can produce that document.

 7        Q.   But in the interests of time, in the interests of time, take

 8     Croatian University out of it.  Why Croatian symbols, why Croatian

 9     insignia, why Croatian flag, why the Croatian national anthem, if this

10     was a territory and area for everybody?

11             MR. KOVACIC:  Well, I don't -- Your Honour, again similar

12     objection.  I don't remember that ever anybody mentioned "Croatian

13     anthem."

14             MR. SCOTT:  It's been played before in court --

15             MR. KOVACIC:  Yeah, yeah --

16             MR. SCOTT:  -- and I will find the exhibit.  And I will find the

17     exhibit.

18             MR. KOVACIC:  Yes, I agree, but not the anthem.  The national

19     songs people were singing there for centuries.

20             MR. SCOTT:  I disagree with counsel on that.

21        Q.   But, in any event, why Croatian symbols --

22             MR. KOVACIC:  Anthem is something in the law.

23             MR. SCOTT:

24        Q.   Why Croatian symbols, why all these insignias?  We can do this

25     all afternoon, if that's what people want to do, but my question remains

Page 50484

 1     to you, sir:  Why all these things that were Croatia?

 2             MR. KARNAVAS:  Well, again, they're not Croatian, they're

 3     indigenous.  These are for Bosnia and Herzegovina.  That's the

 4     importance, not Croatia proper, the Republic of Croatia.  We're talking

 5     about symbols that the Croats of that area of Bosnia-Herzegovina, these

 6     are their national -- there is a distinction, and keep in mind that we

 7     are dealing with constituent peoples.  That's the important aspect of

 8     this.  It may not be important to an American, because we don't have that

 9     notion in the United States, but in this part of the world, for better or

10     for worse, it exists, and these are symbols that are designed for those

11     people living there, not from some other country.  So if we're going to

12     be accurate, let's be accurate and then pose the question.

13             MR. SCOTT:  Well, first of all, I don't think --

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott --

15             MR. SCOTT:  First of all, I don't think Mr. Karnavas needs to be

16     testifying and telling us which -- what the source of these are.

17             MR. KARNAVAS:  Based on the evidence.

18             MR. SCOTT:  In any event --

19             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, perhaps you should

20     highlight with your question, if it's possible, a difference between the

21     local symbols, Croatian symbols, from Croatian symbols.  I think what you

22     have in mind are those symbols that relate directly to the Republic of

23     Croatia.  Maybe that's what the issue hinges on.  Through your questions,

24     he might say that he agrees or disagrees with you.

25             MR. SCOTT:  Well, Your Honour, if need be.  After almost four

Page 50485

 1     years of trial, I think everyone should be familiar, all of us, with some

 2     of these things.  But if it's necessary, by Monday I'll try to bring in a

 3     picture of the Croatian flag and a Herceg-Bosna flag, and the HV badge

 4     and the HVO badge, and the songs that were sung, and the Croatian names,

 5     and the name of the university.  I'll try to bring all those in, if

 6     that's what it's going to take.  But --

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] General Petkovic, in the

 8     interests of time, you know that we've seen documents in this courtroom.

 9     What do you say?  You've heard Defence counsel making points, presenting

10     submissions.  You've heard the Prosecutor's question.  What do you say?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, those aren't the

12     symbols of the Republic of Croatia.  They are the symbols of the Croatian

13     people in Bosnia-Herzegovina.  They used them even at the time of the

14     Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.  They had such a flag at that

15     time, and they kept it.  And the flags are not the same.  The sequence of

16     the colours, red, white and blue, doesn't mean that the flags are the

17     same.  The flag of the Republic of Croatia differs from that of

18     Herceg-Bosna.  And the military insignia were also different.  We had

19     insignia saying "HVO," so I don't see where that similarity is.  It was

20     completely different, and we cannot say that something is similar if it

21     isn't.  I cannot say that Mr. Scott resembles Mr. Stringer because they

22     are both Prosecutors, because they are different.  And along the same

23     lines, the flag of Herceg-Bosna is not the same as that of Croatia.

24             All these symbols and insignia were those of Herceg-Bosna.  I

25     removed all my insignia and placed HVO insignia instead.  So there were

Page 50486

 1     differences between the symbols.  They were the symbols of the Croats in

 2     Bosnia and Herzegovina.

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, please proceed.

 4             MR. SCOTT:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 5        Q.   Sir, all right.  You've just said it.  These are the -- it's on

 6     line -- sorry, that's what I was trying to do, Mr. President.  I'm sorry.

 7             Page 82 of today's transcript, line 13:

 8             "All these symbols and insignia were those of Herceg-Bosna."

 9             Well, that's exactly the point.  They were the symbols and

10     insignia of Herceg-Bosna.  These were the symbols you said a few moments

11     ago of the Croatian people, but how about the symbols of the Muslim

12     people, the indigenous symbols, as it was referred to a few moments ago?

13     Why did you pick -- why did the HVO -- why did Herceg-Bosna pick only the

14     Croatian symbols?  Why didn't you have a flag with a chequer-board on it

15     and a lily?  Why didn't you call it the All People's Defence Council?

16     Why Croatia -- the same question, sir, that I've been asking for the past

17     hour.  Why "Croatia, Croatia, Croatia," if there was no political

18     objective, as you told Judge Jorda?

19        A.   That was not our political goal.  It was an impetus for the

20     Croats to organise and defend Bosnia and the areas where they lived.  If

21     no commander in Tuzla minded having an HVO brigade with Croatian

22     insignia, why would anyone have minded?

23        Q.   Well, they did mind, sir.  They did mind.  They did mind.  Maybe

24     not in Tuzla, when they put themselves under the local -- under the

25     authority of the national government, but in Herceg-Bosna they did.  The

Page 50487

 1     Muslims kept telling you over and over again.  Izetbegovic kept telling

 2     you over and over again, We're not buying it -- well, we'll get to those.

 3     Throughout -- through a number of the meetings, including the so-called

 4     friendship meeting, Mr. Izetbegovic and others tell Mr. Tudjman over and

 5     over again, We don't accept Herceg-Bosna.  And if anyone wants to read

 6     one transcript, and I believe it's P00336, read it.  Read it four times,

 7     because Mr. Izetbegovic tells Tudjman and the others, over and over

 8     again, We don't accept Herceg-Bosna, we're not joining, we're not on

 9     board.  And we'll get to those documents on Monday or Tuesday, if we have

10     time.

11             Sir, you know full well that when you describe something as

12     Croatian, such as "Croatian Mostar," the implication is -- the meaning of

13     that -- the connotation is that it is Croatian and nothing else, that

14     Croatians are in charge, Croatians are in control, Croatia -- it's

15     Croatia, and you know that, don't you?

16        A.   It is not correct.  Croats and Muslims in those areas, starting

17     with Southern Mostar and all around Mostar, were together, and they did

18     not mind.  They crossed the Neretva together, and they didn't mind being

19     in the HVO and the HVO being called that.

20        Q.   They might not have in May of 1992, but they did soon thereafter.

21     You said in your own report, a few minutes ago -- we looked at it, and

22     you said relations between the Muslims and Croats by July of 1992 were in

23     most parts poor, and you said it the other day.

24             Let's go to slide 22, please, in Sanction.  This is your

25     testimony on the first day, sir:

Page 50488

 1             "As for the term "Croatian,' if anybody said 'Croatian Mostar,'

 2     of course, that could be understood to mean that no Muslims are there."

 3             You gave us your definition of what that meant on the very first

 4     day of your testimony under oath.  There it is.  If something is called

 5     "Croatian Mostar," that means no Muslims are there.  And that's what you

 6     meant when you said "Croatian territory," "the Croatian Army," "the

 7     Croatian government," "the Croatian republic," "the Croatian HVO."

 8     That's what you meant, isn't it?

 9        A.   No, that's incorrect.  The Muslims were there, and they lived

10     together with Croats, and they fought together.

11        Q.   Line 13 in the table, P00307, the Book of Service Rules.  These

12     are the service rules of the HVO, the army of which you were the

13     commander.  Page 1, a part of the -- a part of the objectives and

14     strategy of -- or the goals of bringing young men into the Croatian Army

15     of Herceg-Bosna:

16             "Develop love for and loyalty to HZ-HB.

17             "The independence and territorial integrity of the HZ-HB.

18             "To protect and defend the sovereignty, independence, and

19     territorial integrity of HZ-HB."

20             Again on number 3:

21             "To protect and defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity

22     of the HZ-HB."

23             Number 8, continuing to the top of -- or it's in the same row,

24     excuse me:

25             "The independence and integrity of the HZ-HB."

Page 50489

 1             Not Bosnia, not Bosnia and Herzegovina, not the territorial

 2     integrity of Bosnia, not the independence of Bosnia, not the sovereignty

 3     of Bosnia, but the HZ-HB.  That's what you were fighting for, isn't it --

 4     wasn't it?

 5        A.   The HZ-HB in Bosnia.  We were the majority army, and we had

 6     initiative over the Serbs at the time.  We were defending our parts,

 7     whereas the Army of B and H were defending Eastern Bosnia and the

 8     Tuzla Corps area.  Therefore, we were defending the HZ-HB, and thus were

 9     defending Bosnia-Herzegovina.

10        Q.   You weren't the majority army, sir.

11        A.   We, indeed, managed to defend it wherever our troops were.

12        Q.   You weren't the majority army.  We went through -- we looked at

13     the map a few minutes ago.  There are all sorts of municipalities within

14     the HZ-HB that were not Croat at all; correct?

15        A.   You misunderstood me.  I said where we fought the Serbs, that's

16     where we were in the majority.  I did not mean to dispute the fight of

17     the Muslim people, be it by themselves or alongside us.  In these areas,

18     we put up fierce resistance to the Serb aggression, and thanks to that we

19     kept the area, and thus we preserved Bosnia-Herzegovina.  Had we not

20     managed to defend it in the southern part, it's highly questionable as to

21     what would have happened with it until the end.

22        Q.   Let's go to line 14 -- let's go to line 14 or row 14, P00588.

23     This is from the Decree on Armed Forces .  Article 21 says:

24             "The HZ-HB Armed Forces shall protect the sovereignty of HZ-HB

25     and defend its territorial integrity."

Page 50490

 1             Article 86 establishes the oath, and we've heard this oath in the

 2     courtroom.  We saw the video of the swearing-in ceremony in Zenica, or

 3     around Zenica, the Jure Francetic Brigade, and we saw -- I believe

 4     Mr. Kordic was there, and I think Mr. Praljak was there, and we heard the

 5     HVO soldiers taking the oath.  And what the oath says is, as indicated

 6     here:

 7             "I shall protect and defend my motherland of Herceg-Bosna, its

 8     sovereignty, territorial integrity, and all its citizens."

 9             Not Bosnia, not the motherland of Bosnia, not the sovereignty of

10     Bosnia, not the territorial integrity of Bosnia, but Herceg-Bosna.  That

11     was the oath that HVO soldiers had to take, isn't it?

12        A.   Yes, that was the oath, but it did not negate the notion of

13     Bosnia-Herzegovina; quite to the contrary.  We were a part of

14     Bosnia-Herzegovina, and we waited for the Presidency of the B and H to

15     forward an oath that we could use, but nothing of the sort took place in

16     the meantime.

17        Q.   You're not serious -- you're not serious about that?

18        A.   [No interpretation]

19        Q.   It was Bosnia -- it was the authorities of Bosnia and

20     Herzegovina, it was their fault that they didn't send you a different

21     oath?  You really want us to take that seriously, Mr. Petkovic?

22        A.   Tell me, what did the Government of Bosnia-Herzegovina ever send

23     to the Croats?  Let's see Alija Izetbegovic's document and how he tried

24     to implement the Zagreb Agreement with the Croats.  Let's discuss that.

25        Q.   They offered you, sir -- they offered you membership in --

Page 50491

 1        A.   [No interpretation]

 2        Q.   -- the joint armed forces.  They offered you, and we'll get

 3     there eventually, and again if we have time, we'll go through the

 4     documents, and they said, You want to be part of us, you can join us.

 5     We're happy to have you, but you become part of this armed forces, under

 6     our command, and of course the HVO would have no part of it, would they?

 7     No, they didn't?

 8        A.   Yes, yes, yes, that's incorrect.

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] General Petkovic, an ancillary

10     question.

11             Did you take an oath?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.

13             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Why not?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was in Bosnia-Herzegovina

15     temporarily.  There was no need for me to take the oath.

16             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You see, I'm looking at this

17     document presented by Mr. Scott.  There may have been a problem.  If you

18     wanted to protect your motherland of Herceg-Bosna, this was not your

19     mother country.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That was not my mother country, but

21     I put myself at the disposal to others to help them in defending the

22     areas where they lived.  A mother country or a homeland is a narrower

23     concept to me.  Dalmatia, for example, could be my homeland.  By creating

24     our community there, we did not try to disrupt Bosnia-Herzegovina, as

25     such.  We waited for their government to sit down and start regulating

Page 50492

 1     matters, some of which they never did.

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] At any rate, now you know that

 3     you did not take this oath.

 4             Mr. Scott.

 5             MR. SCOTT:

 6        Q.   Following up on this, sir, I want to go back to something that

 7     Judge Trechsel put to you on the first day of your testimony, on the

 8     11th of February, because it really rings true, at least to me.  It

 9     resonates again today of what you've been telling us all afternoon.

10             Judge Trechsel said:

11             "Mr. Petkovic, listening to you, one gets the impression that it

12     was a matter of course that the authorities would be Croat, but that may

13     be the issue, to establish Croat rule even where previously, as in

14     Stolac, there was not a Croat rule, and even a clear Muslim majority in

15     the population.  I think that was the point that the President,"

16     referring to a question by the President, "was raising here."

17             And I put it to you -- and I adopt that question or that comment

18     and I put it to you again.  The problem, if I can put it to you this way,

19     sir, what your position is, you just presume that there was some sort of

20     legitimate claim of these HVO authorities springing into existence and

21     having some sort of legal claim to do everything that it did, and

22     dominate the Muslims, and establish -- and for Bobetko and Boban to

23     appoint the mayor -- the government of Mostar, and to establish which

24     territories and armies they want, with all other armies being illegal.

25     You just presumed that that's the case; isn't that the case?

Page 50493

 1        A.   You are not right.  I don't know when I presumed that.  How come

 2     Mr. Izetbegovic had no problem with coming to Zagreb and to sign the

 3     Agreement on Co-operation and Friendship?  It was all happening early on.

 4        Q.   Well, sir, again you take that out --

 5        A.   He went there to sign it.

 6        Q.   You say that as if that's all the case, but that friendship

 7     agreement, so-called, number 1, says absolutely nothing about -- it came

 8     out of the same meeting we were talking about 20 minutes ago, in which

 9     Izetbegovic told Tudjman and all those others present, We don't accept

10     Herceg-Bosna, we will not accept Herceg-Bosna.  You can see Tudjman

11     getting frustrated with Izetbegovic, but Izetbegovic sticks to his

12     position, We will have nothing to do with Herceg-Bosna.  If the HVO, as a

13     military force, wants to put itself under BiH government command, we will

14     accept that happily and we will fight together, but you come join us, you

15     put yourself under our command.  We will do that.  And you didn't do

16     that, did you, because that wasn't part of the political objective?  The

17     political objective was to establish your own little Croat statelet,

18     under your control and with the borders that you wanted.  That was the

19     political objective, at least in part, wasn't it, sir?

20        A.   No, that was not the objective.  We waited for Mr. Izetbegovic to

21     come so that we could continue further elaborating the plan.  Why didn't

22     he come?  He came to --

23        Q.   Why didn't you go to him, sir?

24        A.   I went to see him at the Presidency.

25             MR. KARNAVAS:  Excuse me.  He's entitled to answer the question.

Page 50494

 1     That was a very long question, with all sorts of predicates.  He's not

 2     entitled to do that and then cut the witness off.  It is impolite, and it

 3     is unethical, in my opinion.  Now, he should be entitled to answer that

 4     question, even if it's going to take a little bit of his time.

 5     Otherwise, go step by step.

 6             MR. SCOTT:  No, I'm not going to do that, sir.  He said -- I'll

 7     take it -- his answer is -- his attitude towards it is, Why didn't

 8     Izetbegovic come to us?  And I accept that as his position.

 9        Q.   Sir, let's go to exhibit -- line 24 --

10        A.   [No interpretation]

11        Q.   Let's go to row 24 of the table, P01032, and this is a video.

12     And I'd like to --

13             MR. SCOTT:  If we can set -- get that ready to present, please.

14     This is the video of the session -- of the meeting of the Presidency on

15     the 28th of August, 1993, where the Croatian Republic, not the Community,

16     but the Croatian Republic was established.  And among others, Your

17     Honours, I'll watch -- and some of it goes very quickly, but if you watch

18     very carefully, you'll see Mr. Petkovic there, you'll see Mr. Boban,

19     you'll see Mr. Prlic.  I think you'll see Mr. Stojic.  But this is at the

20     meeting of the Presidency on the 28th of August, 1993.

21                           [Video-clip played]

22             MR. SCOTT:  "Those in favour of the republic ..."

23                           [Video-clip played]

24             MR. SCOTT:  The booth should have a transcript as well, I

25     believe, if that would assist.

Page 50495

 1                           [Video-clip played]

 2             MR. SCOTT:

 3        Q.   So you just saw yourself, didn't you, Mr. Petkovic?

 4        A.   Will you mark it?

 5             MR. SCOTT:  If we can go back, please.  Go ahead and play it

 6     forward.

 7                           [Video-clip played]

 8             MR. SCOTT:

 9        Q.   I think you're in the back there, Mr. Petkovic.

10             MR. SCOTT:  Go back for just a second.

11        Q.   Against the wall there, please, is that you there, sir?

12        A.   Yes, it is. That's why I asked to see where I was in the footage.

13             MR. SCOTT:  All right.  Continue on, please.

14                           [Video-clip played]

15             MR. SCOTT:  Sir, it's almost 6.00, and I want to try -- at least

16     I want to try, if I'm able, to finish this particular topic this evening,

17     subject, of course, to questions from the Judges.

18        Q.   But as I said -- as I said an hour and a half or so ago, and I

19     put it to you again in closing out this topic, when you sat here in this

20     same building in the Blaskic case, under oath, and when Judge Jorda asked

21     you whether the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna had a political

22     objective, and when you said, No, that was not really a very accurate or

23     fair answer, was it?

24        A.   He asked about a political programme and not about any

25     objectives, as far as I recall.  The programme was, and one could say

Page 50496

 1     "objective," to defend those areas from the Serb Chetnik aggression.

 2             MR. SCOTT:  I think that's an appropriate place to stop,

 3     Your Honour.

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] General, we're going to call it

 5     a day, but I just have one tiny question.

 6             Looking at this, did everybody vote?  Did you vote?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I held no right to vote.  Only the

 8     delegates who came could vote.  I was there as a guest.

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] That's what I wanted to

10     ascertain.

11             It's now 6.00.  The tape has run to its end, or just about.

12             We shall reconvene, as you know, on Monday at 2.15.  Thank you.

13                           [The Accused Petkovic stands down]

14                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.00 p.m.,

15                           to be reconvened on Monday, the 8th day of March,

16                           2010, at 2.15 p.m.