Page 44898
1 Wednesday, 16 September 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The accused Coric not present]
5 [The witness entered court]
6 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, could you please
8 call the case.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning,
10 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case number IT-04-74-T,
11 the Prosecutor versus Jadranko Prlic et al. Thank you, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
13 This is Wednesday, September 16, 2009.
14 Registrar, I think the witness cannot hear.
15 Can you hear me witness?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So this is Wednesday,
18 September 16th, and I welcome you, Professor, as well as the accused. I
19 also welcome the Defence counsels, Mr. Scott, his associates, and
20 everyone helping us.
21 Let me first give the floor to our Registrar. I believe he has
22 an IC number to give us.
23 THE REGISTRAR: That's correct, Your Honour. Some parties have
24 submitted lists of documents to be tendered through Witness
25 Slobodan Praljak. The list submitted by 3D shall given Exhibit IC1036.
Page 44899
1 The list submitted by 1D shall be given Exhibit IC1037. The list
2 submitted by 2D shall be given Exhibit IC1038. The list submitted by 4D
3 shall be given Exhibit IC1039. The list submitted by 5D shall be given
4 Exhibit IC1040, and the list submitted by the Prosecution shall be given
5 Exhibit IC1041. Thank you, Your Honours.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Registrar.
7 I have a question for Mr. Kovacic as well as Ms. Alaburic. When
8 looking at the schedule, the Trial Chamber noted that the last witness of
9 the Praljak Defence is scheduled to be heard on Tuesday, October 20th,
10 Witness 3DA. I believe he will have started his testimony on October
11 15th. And the first witness of the Petkovic Defence is scheduled for
12 Monday, November 2nd, 2009
13 will be an empty week, a week and a half without any witnesses. Could we
14 have some explanations, please.
15 Ms. Alaburic, maybe.
16 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, perhaps it would be a
17 good idea if I were just to inform the Court before Ms. Alaburic takes
18 the floor that as far as our 3DA, last witness, is concerned, we're still
19 not sure whether we're going to be able to bring him in. I don't want to
20 go into any explanations but there are two obstacles, first of all,
21 whether we're going to have enough time to do that, in view of the fact
22 that we have calculated everything and fine-tuned everything to the
23 minimum time. So if there are any extensions we won't have any more time
24 for him. And secondly, he still hasn't given us the go ahead and told us
25 that he's willing to come in. Now, since we have a signed statement from
Page 44900
1 him and since we've put him on our list pursuant to our Rule 92 bis, so
2 when we come closer to the time, we're going to see whether we're going
3 to be able to produce him or not, strike him off the 92 bis list or are
4 we going to leave him on the list and bring him in viva voce or not.
5 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours, to you
6 and everybody else in the courtroom. It is quite true that between the
7 schedule presented by the Praljak Defence to the Court and the schedule
8 prepared by the Petkovic Defence, there is a break of exactly six working
9 days, an intermission. Now, we did this respecting the fact that the
10 Praljak Defence in the first half of September will be submitting a
11 motion for leave to introduce as evidence under 92 bis witness statements
12 which our colleagues did indeed do on the previous Monday, last Monday.
13 Now, when we received the 65 ter list from all the Defence teams,
14 including the Praljak Defence team, we were able to see what witnesses
15 under Rule 92 bis they intend to call, the Praljak Defence intends to
16 call; then we thought that among those witnesses there was certainly
17 witnesses who, for the Prosecutor and perhaps for some Defence teams,
18 would be very interesting to be called in for cross-examination. Now, I
19 could give you some names right now, but that's just the opinion and
20 position taken by the Praljak Defence. We feel that those individuals
21 would be very important witnesses because they have a great deal of
22 knowledge about the events in Herceg-Bosna at the relevant time.
23 We also thought that for these witnesses we would need at least
24 five or six days, and being very rational we wanted to start out with our
25 defence on the 2nd of November. If the Trial Chamber decides otherwise,
Page 44901
1 we are ready to go ahead earlier; and in that case, however, we have a
2 problem, whereby the expert witness has to be handed in 60 days before
3 the actual testimony of the said expert witness, and the expert witness
4 Gorjanc and his report we submitted on the 2nd of September. So that
5 those 60 days expired on the 6th -- on the 2nd of November. So if we
6 have to start our Defence earlier, then we'd like to request of the
7 Trial Chamber that that dead-line be reduced from the 60 days to 50 days.
8 So those are our reasons. If there are any additional questions, I will
9 be happy to answer them.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Alaburic, there are two
11 things that strike me immediately. First, this expert witness, this
12 Gorjanc expert witness who can only be heard as of November 2nd, on this
13 point there is no problem. The problem is not the expert, he will come
14 after November 2nd, maybe, or December, I don't know, it's not really a
15 problem unless you absolutely want him to testify first, but we're not
16 there yet. But the second problem that you raise quite surprised me when
17 I heard you actually, the 92 bis statements or witnesses. General
18 Praljak is suggesting more than 150 of these, so since 6.00 this morning
19 I've been studying his motion, I've been looking into this motion.
20 Personally I sorted all witnesses. I don't know what the Trial Chamber
21 will decide in the end because we haven't deliberated on this yet, but
22 it's a huge amount of work for the Judges. First you have to read the
23 150 statements, read the summaries, read all references with the
24 indictment, see whether what they said corroborates what other witnesses
25 might have said. So it's a huge amount of work which, in order to know
Page 44902
1 whether there is -- will be need for cross-examination or not in the end.
2 So that's a problem and it's going to take some time to solve. I can
3 tell you it's not going to take -- it's not going to be solved overnight
4 and it's certainly not going to be solved before October 15th. But even
5 if the result is that there are 92 bis witnesses that need to be
6 cross-examination, we run into another problem. What time is going to be
7 used? So far we have no time allotted for these people. This has not
8 been considered. So what period of time are we going to use? When the
9 Trial Chamber set 55 hours for General Praljak it was 55 hours from A to
10 Z, including the theoretical possibility that a 92 bis witness would
11 become a 92 ter or viva voce witness.
12 And then I'm linking this with what -- follow about the Karadzic
13 case, in -- what Judge Kwon said about the Karadzic case, he very clearly
14 said that there would be two viva voce witnesses, some 92 ter witnesses,
15 and some 92 bis witnesses. So the Trial Judges on this Bench have
16 clearly gotten the message that there is a need to be a need to cut down
17 on viva voce witnesses. In the Karadzic case, there is only going to be
18 two of them. So among the 92 bis witnesses, are they people of such
19 importance that they're absolutely required in court? I don't know.
20 First we have to discuss this among us and then we have to solve the time
21 problem because so far this aspect of the problem has not been factored
22 in. When we decided to allot time, it was just a complete amount of
23 time, you know, including the possibility of a 92 bis witness becoming a
24 viva voce.
25 Now, asking for these witnesses for General Praljak to come
Page 44903
1 outside of any time allotment, there's a big problem here. As you see,
2 we're running into a problem. We're going to think about it. The Judges
3 will discuss this among themselves and we have some time to do that since
4 our last witness is scheduled for October 14th. That's the one we're
5 sure to have, a -- 3DA is in brackets for the moment because we're not
6 sure of having him. What the Petkovic Defence could do, it could factor
7 in the fact that as of October 14th they could call a witness right away,
8 maybe not an expert or their expert, but they could call another witness
9 as of October 14th.
10 We took due note of what you said. The Judges will now
11 deliberate. This is not an emergency. I don't believe we have to rule
12 on this overnight, but we'll keep you abreast of the developments.
13 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with your permission
14 may I just make one further request. The Petkovic Defence, of course, is
15 fully conscious of the fact that you are fully able to decide what the --
16 how the trial is going to proceed and that you can make rulings and
17 decisions with respect to the distribution of the individual witnesses,
18 but I'd like to ask you that the Petkovic Defence be placed in the same
19 position as my colleagues before me were; that is to say, that they start
20 their Defence when the previous Defence team has completed everything.
21 That is to say, when they complete the examination of all the witnesses,
22 that the Praljak Defence completes its examination of all the witnesses,
23 that's the previous Defence team.
24 I don't think I need to explain that we have also prepared our
25 Defence, bearing in mind what our colleagues in the previous Defence
Page 44904
1 teams have done and don't want to burden the Trial Chamber with the going
2 into facts that we consider have already been proved, and we still
3 consider that during the Praljak Defence certain facts will come to light
4 and be proved and we want to continue our Defence based on those facts,
5 following on from them.
6 Now, the 92 bis witnesses, among those we have people who were in
7 the Main
8 structures of Herceg-Bosna, and it would be of exceptional importance to
9 the Petkovic Defence that these witnesses be heard before we complete the
10 presentation of our Defence case. We do not wish to have the Praljak
11 Defence witnesses come -- who come under 92 ter witnesses to be heard
12 during our Defence or to be heard and examined after the Petkovic Defence
13 has completed its -- the presentation of its Defence case. Thank you.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
15 Mr. Scott, would you like to respond on Ms. Alaburic's statement
16 or remain silent? I don't know.
17 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honour, good morning. Just a couple of
18 matters in a moment or two. First of all, let me say again good morning,
19 Mr. President, good morning to each of Your Honours, good morning to all
20 those around the courtroom.
21 As I rise to my feet, Your Honour, the first thing I'd like to do
22 is introduce another member of our team, Mr. Jonathan Struggles.
23 Jonathan actually worked at the Office of the Prosecutor some years
24 previously and then spent some time working outside of the UN. He is an
25 English citizen but a member of the New York bar, and he has been
Page 44905
1 actually on our team for some time but, I think, only has been in the
2 courtroom, I think, on one prior occasion. I expect him to be in the
3 courtroom more frequently in the future, and I'm happy to be able to
4 introduce him to Your Honours this morning.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, the Trial Chamber
6 welcomes him and wishes him the best at the OTP. And we'll of course
7 hear very carefully when he will take the floor, bringing with him all
8 the excellent expertise he must have in common law matters. You know
9 that the Judges on this Bench listen to the -- to the counsels -- you
10 know that some counsels can become Judges now. We have some Judges
11 here -- some counsels here that are now permanent Judges, so all -- you
12 could all become Judges after all, and I wish that it will happen; 14
13 became Judges.
14 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Your Honour. I appreciate that and I'm
15 sure Mr. Struggles appreciates your comments.
16 Turning to the matter at hand, Your Honour, the Prosecution would
17 like to in this context make some preliminary remarks about the
18 procedural situation that we seem to be arriving at. We did take note
19 indeed that earlier this week the Praljak Defence filed a 92 bis motion,
20 with I think exactly 155 witnesses. And I think as Ms. Alaburic has
21 already mentioned, I think it's fair to say without saying too much more
22 that there are certainly a number on that list which most people would
23 probably consider relatively high-level-type witnesses whose names would
24 be -- I won't go into names because of -- I think it's unlikely, but I
25 suppose there might be a possibility of protective measures. But there's
Page 44906
1 a number of names on that list that people may recognise. It's rather
2 high-level actors in this -- in this situation.
3 So it would be very likely - and again I'm only giving a
4 preliminary observation - but it would be very likely the Prosecution
5 would seek indeed to cross-examine a number of these witnesses. And even
6 if one were to say and I'm simply -- I'm literally drawing this number
7 out of the air as I speak, but if there are 155 witnesses and even if we
8 were to, say, cross-examine 20, the Chamber knows that with a relatively
9 major witness it is not at all uncommon in the -- in this case for a
10 major witness to take a week.
11 So potentially, and I'm just -- very potentially, it could take
12 up to some 20 weeks to cross-examine at least 20 out of the 155
13 witnesses. That's assuming that it's 20. What if it's 50? What if it's
14 40? So indeed, Your Honour, we do have a situation that's going to take
15 some additional work on everyone's part.
16 Certainly the Prosecution, I can anticipate the Prosecution will
17 be asking for an expanded time to respond. We certainly cannot, I don't
18 think, be expected, I hope, to respond to such a lengthy and voluminous
19 motion in the normal 14 days. We just received it this week. I'm sure
20 we'll be filing a motion asking for an extension of time. And,
21 Mr. President, as you rightly noted, and I think was said, I don't think
22 this is going to be resolved before the 14th of October, so it indeed
23 does leave a potential gap in our schedule.
24 Those are our observations for the moment, Your Honour. Of
25 course there'll be further developments and submissions, I'm sure.
Page 44907
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, thank you. The Judges
2 will carefully read what you said and we will discuss this among
3 ourselves. I think that we see the problem. My fellow Judge has a
4 question, I believe.
5 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Just to make sure I understand you correctly.
6 We are in expectation of a motion filed by you in which you ask for
7 additional time to react?
8 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Is that correct?
10 MR. SCOTT: I know that we were -- some of us on the Prosecution
11 side were talking about it yesterday, and, Mr. Stringer, as you know,
12 when one of us is in the courtroom the other one is engaged in other
13 matters, and Mr. Stringer and others are looking at this now. I would
14 anticipate filing a motion either the end of this week or early next week
15 for a schedule to deal with this voluminous filing.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Scott. I have a
17 couple things to say to this witness before we resume --
18 THE INTERPRETER: Before I give you the floor, interpreter's
19 correction.
20 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, perhaps to make the
21 situation easier a little bit because this has to do with planning.
22 First of all, as regards the proposal of my colleague for the extension
23 of the dead-line, of course I'm not opposed. We have faced similar
24 situations. As the Prosecution case drew to a close, Prosecution filed a
25 92 bis motion and we sought and got additional time because that's,
Page 44908
1 indeed, what you need. And the second thing I wanted to say as regards
2 the planning, by the end of the week or perhaps the first day after the
3 weekend -- but by the end of the week we will file our motion for
4 witnesses to be called under 92 quater. There are three or four of
5 them -- well, yesterday we received information that one of our witnesses
6 from 92 bis list actually passed away, so the 92 quater list might be
7 increased by one more name. But we will file that by the end of the week
8 anyway.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
10 Witness, I have a few things to tell you before I give the floor
11 to Mr. Scott. In order to better appreciate the credibility of your
12 answers, I would like to know whether before you came here you followed
13 the testimony of General Praljak. Now, he was sitting in your place for
14 several months. Did you follow this closely, yes or no?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I did not. I had other things
16 to do and I may have logged on to the internet just a couple of times to
17 follow what was going on.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you just followed on the
19 internet a couple times. Fine. Did you follow the entire transcript or
20 did you just catch a few glimpses of the hearing and nothing more?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Just some excerpts because I had
22 other things to do. I teach. I do research. I do my job, and in order
23 to be able to follow the trial you have to devote most of your workday to
24 that.
25 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Mr. Jurcevic, when you came here did you have a
Page 44909
1 chance to look at parts of the transcript during the proofing session in
2 The Hague
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, because on Friday and on
4 Saturday, Sunday, and Monday morning, I spent those days with the Defence
5 counsel.
6 JUDGE TRECHSEL: And the Defence counsel didn't show you parts of
7 the transcript of the testimony of Mr. Praljak?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, not a single fragment, but just
9 the documents that, for instance, Mr. Karnavas showed here. So they
10 didn't show me any part of the testimony.
11 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Professor, to make sure that
13 this hearing runs smoothly, the Prosecutor still has about two hours and
14 30 minutes for questions. His time is precious. He told you so. He had
15 asked for six hours. The Trial Chamber only gave him three hours, so
16 he's on a tight rope. He has many questions. He's got three binders of
17 documents to show you, so he is in control, okay, he's in control of this
18 cross-examination. So when he puts a question to you, you must answer
19 either by: Yes, no, I don't know, I don't understand the question. And
20 if the Prosecutor wants some more details, if you say just no, he might
21 ask you why, explain yourself, and then you can elaborate.
22 As you know, this is a common-law procedure. You studied the
23 law, so you know that this is a very surprising procedure for anyone
24 coming from the civil law system. As far as I can tell you that the
25 first time I was absolutely flabbergasted to find out that there were
Page 44910
1 leading questions, that those were allowed. And Mr. Ibrisimovic, who was
2 in the other trial at the time, can testify that I actually put the
3 questions, you know, because I was so surprised at these questions. I
4 was so -- but it's practice, that's the way it is. It's not in the
5 rules but it's practice. The lawyers who are putting questions to you
6 are usually either American or British -- we have a new one here,
7 actually. So that's the way they do their job. They can put leading
8 questions to you. And your answer should be: I agree, I don't agree, I
9 do not know, and that's it. And if he wants you to elaborate, he can ask
10 you to do so. He has his own strategy. He must have spent weeks to
11 prepare his strategy, so, you know, there's a logic to his questions and
12 to his line of questions. So if you go astray, you know, he's going to
13 be handicapped and he's going to want to put you back on track. Do you
14 understand this?
15 And also when Judges put questions to you, they put different
16 questions in a different way. But the procedure is such that the
17 Prosecutor does his job by putting questions to you by controlling the
18 time of the cross-examination, by asking you to get back on track and
19 answer the question. You can regret that, but that's the way it is here
20 at this Tribunal. And I hope everything will run smoothly.
21 Mr. Scott, you have the floor.
22 Professor.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have taken onboard
24 everything that you've just said and I've given it some thought, and in
25 light of what happened in the last half-hour of my testimony here
Page 44911
1 yesterday, I am fully aware of the oath that I took to tell the truth,
2 the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And I do have a
3 responsibility. I am also liable for criminal prosecution if I don't do
4 so. I was instructed by the Victims and Witness Unit to that effect. I
5 am an educated person and I prepared a statement. I signed it. And I
6 would like to ask for your permission to present it here so that we could
7 deal with what is about to follow and what you have just warned me about
8 could go as smoothly as possible, and so that we could show respect to
9 the Prosecution, its task, and the limited task it has. I have six
10 copies and the interpreters can be given a copy so that we can proceed
11 more quickly.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment. Your statement is
13 not part of the procedure. Witnesses do not need to make a written
14 statement. I don't know what it contains. I shall turn to the members
15 of the Bench to understand what their position is on this, and we will
16 let you know whether we agree with this or not.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, perhaps I may
18 assist ...
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Professor, the Trial Chamber
21 has just deliberated in front of you. Let me remind you that we are now
22 in the cross-examination phase. The witness has a sole duty to answer
23 the questions put by the Prosecution. The witness cannot interfere in
24 any way, either by stating something or by providing something in
25 writing. This is how things stand and we cannot accept your statement,
Page 44912
1 Professor.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the first statement --
3 sentence in my statement reads:
4 "Since under the Rules of this Tribunal I must not communicate
5 about my testimony before it ends with anyone outside of the courtroom."
6 I only have you to address because of some major doubts that
7 arose on Tuesday, the 15th of September, in the last half-hour of my
8 testimony. And I would like to ask you -- well, you don't have to take
9 my statement into account at all, but I think that it is within the
10 limitations that you've just delineated. It's about some events that
11 were left unclear in the course of the cross-examination by the
12 Prosecution, and Mr. President, in fact, ended the session, the hearing
13 yesterday, by saying that it is not clear what the Prosecutor used the 24
14 minutes of his precious time in the cross-examination. And I do not
15 challenge the right of the Prosecution to conduct the cross-examination
16 in any way they see fit, but I was really caught by surprise myself. And
17 in my hotel room I thought for a long time about that, and especially
18 about some doubts that were --
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Professor, we were not familiar
20 with your statement, and when I spoke to you a while ago the answer was
21 contained, answer to your question. The Prosecutor puts a question to
22 you, and the question he puts relates to his strategy, his case. So
23 please, listen to the question. If you agree with the Prosecutor because
24 the question is leading, then you can say that you agree; and then the
25 Prosecutor continues with his questions. If you disagree with the
Page 44913
1 questions, then say so, say that you disagree or not; and then the
2 Prosecutor will decide whether he will continue along those lines or
3 whether he changes his tack. But it's for him to decide. He is
4 conducting his cross-examination and no one else, and you simply answer
5 the questions. If he changes his tack, the Judges will see that he has
6 put a question and you answered by saying "no." The Prosecutor did not
7 belabour the point and the Judges will understand how to assess all of
8 this. If, however, you cannot answer one of the Prosecutor's question
9 you must say so and say that you cannot answer, and then you will see how
10 he reacts.
11 The Defence counsel should have told you this. When you testify,
12 there are two important things. There is a Prosecutor during his
13 cross-examination that will test your credibility, because the Prosecutor
14 knows that you are a Defence witness and therefore tries to attack your
15 credibility. This is how the procedure works. The Prosecutor will thus
16 try to make the Trial Chamber understand what you are saying might need
17 to be scanned somewhat. Then, as far as the merits are concerned, these
18 are questions of substance. This relates to your report. The Prosecutor
19 may agree or disagree with parts of your report and this is what the
20 Prosecutor is going to highlight. At the end of the hearing, the Defence
21 will then ask for your report to be admitted into evidence. The
22 Prosecutor can oppose this and the Trial Chamber will say whether your
23 report is admitted in its entirety or only partly admitted.
24 If the Trial Chamber feels that your report should not be
25 admitted, in that case it will remain on the transcript and on the
Page 44914
1 transcript there will be the questions and answers. This is how this
2 procedure works. You're not the first person to be taken by surprise by
3 this -- these proceedings. Well-known lawyers were surprised in the same
4 way as you are. A lot of people find this unusual.
5 The same thing happened when the Prosecutor called his or her own
6 witnesses. The Defence put questions to the witness, attacked the
7 credibility of the witness, and attacked the witness on the merits of the
8 case. This is -- you are now in a situation where you're being
9 questioned by the Prosecution and you are a Defence witness.
10 Have you understood this well?
11 Mr. Kovacic.
12 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I see that you're
13 really making an effort to explain the procedural issues to the witness.
14 It might be a good idea, because I cannot address him, to tell him that
15 the Defence can always deal with some issues in the re-direct, in
16 re-examination.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kovacic is an excellent
18 lawyer. Perhaps he could even be a Judge one day, is reminding the
19 Chamber that he is also entitled after the questions put by the
20 Prosecutor to put additional questions to you. Since he is a person who
21 has called you, if he feels that through your answers his case is being
22 challenged, he will put questions to you afterwards. This operates like
23 a watch-dog, if you like, and this is a balance system. You have the
24 feeling that you are being pushed around a little bit, but this is how
25 things work here. So please listen carefully to the questions put by the
Page 44915
1 Prosecutor and answer his questions.
2 Mr. Scott, I shall give you back the floor again.
3 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning again and
4 thank you for the Chamber's directions -- assistance to the witness.
5 WITNESS: JOSIP JURCEVIC [Resumed]
6 [Witness answered through interpreter]
7 Examination by Mr. Scott: [Continued]
8 Q. Good morning, sir.
9 A. Good morning, sir.
10 Q. I want to turn right away to something that's come up both, I
11 think, in response to a question by the President and also by
12 Ms. Alaburic, that is some questions about this World War II camp called
13 Jasenovac, and the fact that you have dealt with that on a number of
14 occasions and wrote a book on it called something to the effect of the
15 The Jasenovac Myth. And, sir, I'm going to put to you that in coming to
16 the courtroom in the last two days and the comments you have made on that
17 topic in particular, you have soft-pedalled your position on that. In
18 fact, you have spent a large part of your career defending and minimising
19 and denying what happened at the Jasenovac camp; isn't that true?
20 A. No, that is not true.
21 Q. Jasenovac was a notorious concentration camp run by the Ustasha
22 government of the independent state of Croatia; correct?
23 A. Yes, I confirmed that when I was asked by the Defence and this is
24 in all my public appearances on that topic.
25 Q. And indeed I think looking at my notes again, in 1998 you
Page 44916
1 authored or published a book titled "The Creation of the Jasenovac Myth,"
2 in which, sir, you have tried to greatly reduce the scope and magnitude
3 of the crimes committed at that camp, and you've done that over the last
4 10 or 15 years, haven't you? It's been one of your professional -- main
5 professional endeavours?
6 A. No. It is entirely untrue. I would like to say that yes -- I
7 said yesterday that "The Creation of the Jasenovac Myth" is my MA thesis
8 that I defended at the Faculty of Philosophy in Zagreb. Not a single
9 letter was changed and it deals with the methodology and the concept used
10 by the communist regime to -- the way that they used the victims to their
11 own purposes and I got the highest marks for my thesis.
12 Q. And in fact, sir, you -- your book was one of the things that was
13 actually celebrated or there was, if you will, a promotional event at the
14 institute in connection with your book about the Jasenovac myth; correct?
15 A. My book was promoted in a number of places, and because of the
16 book and the views that I presented there in scholarly terms I had some
17 problems with the Croatian authorities. Before the book was published, I
18 was told that I should change two sentences in the book that had to do
19 with Franjo Tudjman's research into the matter, and an offer was made to
20 me that I would be the head historian in Croatia if I agreed to change
21 the two sentences, and I refused to do so.
22 Q. Was this someone who approached you on behalf of the Croatian
23 government, to censor your book?
24 A. I was not approached by anyone from the Croatian government, but
25 by a person who had a relatively high position in the HDZ, a colleague of
Page 44917
1 mine, from my studies in history. That's Zlatko Stublic, I can say even
2 his name.
3 Q. Sir, we don't have time for the reasons that Mr. President -- the
4 President has indicated, to go through these documents in detail,
5 unfortunately, but just so you -- the Judges and so you can know a bit
6 about what I'm talking about more, I will refer you to -- refer the
7 courtroom to Exhibits P11005 and P11007, which can be found in the
8 third -- in the third binder, but again I indicate to the courtroom I
9 don't intend to go through the documents.
10 But, sir, you've continued to publish articles and have
11 counter-responses and people coming back at you rejecting your position,
12 saying it's a terrible position, how can these crimes be minimised.
13 That's continued on, isn't it, there's been an ongoing dialogue, if you
14 want to call it that, in the press, in the media, in publications, about
15 your controversial work; isn't that correct?
16 A. Yes, there was debate about that, but it was not done in expert
17 terms, and the exhibit that you presented here is my response to
18 Mrs. Zorica Stipetic, who is a radical member of the communist structure,
19 who was a member of the central committee of the League of Communists and
20 she was in the ideological and political commission, as it was called,
21 and in the Croatian public she was well-known as a person who radically
22 dealt with all the opponents of the communist regime.
23 And in that debate I advocated the basic truths that I defended
24 as part of my master's thesis. And this master's thesis had to go
25 through all the complicated process of scholarly review in Croatia, in
Page 44918
1 the scientific community of Croatia
2 scholarly commission.
3 Q. In fact, sir, one of the first questions that the President asked
4 you on Monday was if you had testified before and you mentioned one case,
5 but I believe you forgot to mention that you actually testified as a
6 Defence witness, as a Defence expert, in a case involving the Jasenovac
7 camp; isn't that correct? You testified on behalf of one of the camp
8 commanders, Mr. Dinko Sakic?
9 A. His Honour the Judge asked me quite clearly at the beginning of
10 my testimony whether I had faced a similar situation regarding topic, the
11 topic of the Croatian homeland war, and I answered a very specific
12 question. This thing that you say here, it is correct, I did testify at
13 that trial, the one that you mentioned, as an expert. And this was all
14 recorded. At the beginning of the trial and when I was called --
15 Q. Let me ask you, sir, to look at -- excuse me. I thank you, sir,
16 and I apologise for cutting you off, but, again, you know the time
17 limitations that we're both under. Sir, if you would look at
18 Exhibit P10987 which should be again the third binder, you should be able
19 to find -- thank you, sir. 10987, this is an article from HINA, which is
20 the Croatian national news service. It talks about, sir, while you're
21 looking for that and to save time, it talks about your testimony in that
22 case, and again you're presenting in that case for the Defence the
23 "Jasenovac myth." And in the third paragraph -- fourth paragraph on
24 that -- in the English it will be -- the fourth paragraph in either
25 version I suppose.
Page 44919
1 Now, and at the end of that paragraph you say -- or the article
2 says -- excuse me, but it's referring to your testimony:
3 "'The first one to point to the fact that Jasenovac was a myth
4 was Franjo Tudjman,' Jurcevic said."
5 Was that your testimony at the Sakic trial that it was, in fact,
6 indeed, Mr. Franjo Tudjman who first said that Jasenovac was a myth?
7 A. No, that is not correct. He is one of the persons who explored
8 the topic and spoke to that effect. The word "myth" actually meant that
9 the communist regime would not allow any objective, scientific research
10 into the victims of the Second World War including the Jasenovac camp.
11 Q. Sir, with respect, you're speaking code. When you talk about
12 "objective data" what you want to say is that it wasn't nearly as bad as
13 is widely believed. The victims and numbers of victims were grossly
14 smaller. You said only a few bodies were actually found, only a few
15 skeletons were actually found, it's in your testimony in that case.
16 You'd want to tell the world - and you want to defend the Croatian
17 government's actions at the time - that Jasenovac wasn't "so bad."
18 That's your position, isn't it?
19 A. No. This is completely untrue, and if you look at a part of this
20 document that you have just shown where I say that as regards the
21 Jasenovac myth one of the first people to speak out was
22 Vlaso Bogdanov [phoen] a member of the Serbian academy, it's at the
23 penultimate paragraph here. So a member of the Serbian Academy
24 Vlaso Bogdanov, who stated that all the research about the Second World
25 War and Jasenovac are ill-intentioned, slanderous, chauvinist, and
Page 44920
1 reactionary generalisation to the effect that all Croats are Ustashas.
2 Q. In fact, sir, in fact you have generally followed in President
3 Tudjman's footsteps, haven't you. For example, following his book from
4 the 1980s that he published titled "The Wastelands of Historical
5 Reality," where President Tudjman devoted a book to minimising Croatia
6 World War II crimes against Serbs, against Jews, against gypsies, and
7 that's correct, isn't it? And you've just followed in
8 President Tudjman's footsteps in your career in terms of defending
9 Croatian crimes?
10 A. It is completely untrue, and I've said -- I've told you what
11 problems I had during the rule of Franjo Tudjman for publishing the book,
12 and I was told -- I was offered to change two sentences about
13 Franjo Tudjman, his research and his approach in the book, and I refused
14 to change those sentences. The book was a publication of my master's
15 thesis which I had defended down to the last comma.
16 Q. In fact, sir, you knew that President Tudjman in fact
17 supported -- his views were supportive of the regime of the national --
18 excuse me, independent state of Croatia
19 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, objection to this
20 question. Really, there should be a factual foundation for this
21 question. I don't want to now go into what we from the former Yugoslavia
22 know about the books and positions of President Tudjman.
23 MR. KARNAVAS: And there's also a matter of relevance. Unless
24 now there's some thematic trend, that is, Tudjman was a fascist, Tudjman
25 was a racist, it was part of his DNA
Page 44921
1 trend -- and now that he becomes president, now he is actually putting in
2 place his thoughts, his feelings, whatever is in his DNA. I think this
3 is ridiculous. Look at the indictment. Let's stick to the facts of the
4 indictment. The Prosecution wanted additional time. He's wasting his
5 time by going into areas which have nothing to do with the indictment.
6 Now if he can answer why is this relevant and then we can get a ruling,
7 but I'm objecting to the grounds of relevance.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, the Prosecutor is
9 addressing the issue of credibility right now. He is telling you, first
10 of all, that President Tudjman wrote a book on the Jasenovac camp. I
11 believe this was in 1980. The Prosecutor tells you that you yourself
12 wrote this and you agree?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [Previous translation continues]...
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This is in 1989, right. You
15 yourself wrote about the subject since this is the subject of your Ph.D.
16 on this topic. The Prosecutor then asks you to confirm whether your
17 point of view is the same as President Tudjman's. You answered by saying
18 no in certain instances. The Prosecutor then continues his demonstration
19 and tells you that President Tudjman was or followed the same trend as
20 the state that had established this camp, and he asks you then what your
21 view is on this, and you can say to him: You are making a mistake, I
22 agree, or disagree. The Defence counsel then seized this opportunity to
23 make objections. This issue of Jasenovac seems very clear to me,
24 Witness. There are two issues at stake here: A, were there any victims,
25 maybe you can tell us whether there were any; and B, what are the
Page 44922
1 figures? Everything rests on this, the Serbs say. And this is in your
2 document 1.400.000 victims. You say certainly less victims were
3 manipulated. Could you tell us, please, in your view how many victims
4 there were and then everything becomes crystal clear but you have not
5 answered the question. You haven't given us a figure. This is why the
6 Prosecutor is still put being this question to you and submitting his
7 arguments. He is asking you whether you could associate Mr. Tudjman with
8 a state which had established this camp. This is what I have understood.
9 Perhaps Mr. Karnavas has understood something differently since
10 he is on his feet.
11 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes, two points, Your Honour. When you say that I
12 seised the opportunity, it gives the impression that somehow there are
13 some evil motives on behalf of the Defence counsel for making the
14 objection, that's number one. But number two and most importantly,
15 Mr. Scott is making assertions about what President Tudjman believed and
16 so on and so forth. Those are mere assertions. Those are not proven
17 facts. Now when you put it together it's as if accepted his thesis of
18 what Tudjman believed and now that is the predicate for the question, and
19 it's a fact that hasn't been established and if it is in the Court's mind
20 that Tudjman was a fascist, was fascist in such a sense that he
21 identified with, believed in, and accepted all of whatever another
22 government did in a previous historical time, then I think we are in a
23 dangerous situation here.
24 First of all, I have not heard any testimony on behalf of the
25 Prosecution where they've tied in these facts that Tudjman was this or
Page 44923
1 that or the other. And now they're saying what his -- they're
2 characterising his book, his writings, and his thoughts. These are facts
3 that are not supported -- that haven't been proven in this court. And to
4 suggest now that it's an easy question, just answer it, presupposes that
5 we all accept that these are proven facts. That's my fundamental
6 objection.
7 Now, if Mr. Scott wishes to turn it around and say,
8 hypothetically speaking, If what President Tudjman wrote or if President
9 did indeed, whatever, but then that question becomes meaningless. But I
10 raised an objection based on relevance. What is the relevance of this
11 line of questioning to this indictment. And I believe that even under
12 this institution I'm entitled to a ruling. I'm entitled to a ruling.
13 I'm not entitled to a speech.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You will get your ruling.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 MR. SCOTT: Excuse me, Your Honour. Excuse me.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, you will -- would
18 you like to respond to what Mr. Karnavas has said?
19 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honour, ever so briefly.
20 Your Honour, it's plainly proper and relevant on at least two
21 grounds, and probably more. One, it does go directly to the credibility
22 of this witness and the various writings that he's spent a great deal of
23 his career talking about, that's in his CV that the Chamber asked
24 questions about previously. It goes directly to his credibility.
25 Second, it's been a long trial, there's been a lot of evidence,
Page 44924
1 but there indeed has been evidence on Franjo Tudjman's political views
2 and vision. It goes back to Dr. Donia at the beginning of the
3 Prosecution case, et cetera, et cetera. His views about Muslims and
4 Croats, the relationships between Muslims and Croats, whether Muslims are
5 really Croats of Islamic faith, all sorts of things that have plainly
6 been at issue in this case, and indeed as the Chamber, and as,
7 Mr. President, you in particular, have mentioned a number of times, in
8 the indictment, the indictment that Mr. Karnavas refers to,
9 Franjo Tudjman is listed and clearly one of the -- in the Prosecution
10 case, one of the leaders of the joint criminal enterprise, and his views
11 are, indeed, quite relevant to the case and it goes back again to the
12 credibility of this witness.
13 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if I might just be
14 allowed to say one sentence. I think that this whole problem could be
15 solved in the following way, that Mr. Scott should place the factual
16 grounds for his question and to summarise, in a word, what
17 Franjo Tudjman's position was on Jasenovac. That position can be
18 summarised in one sentence and that. So I'm sure Mr. Scott has read the
19 book, so let's hear the sentence so we know what the position was, and I
20 think that we'll find it simple to discuss matters after that.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Trial Chamber will rule on
22 this objection. The Trial Chamber is rejecting the objection on the
23 following grounds. The Prosecutor is challenging the credibility of the
24 witness and is putting questions to the witness in order to test his
25 credibility. So that's the ruling.
Page 44925
1 Professor, you're raising your hand.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I agree with what
3 you've just said. It is clear to me that what we're dealing with here is
4 my credibility, and if I were really to advocate something as an expert
5 on any subject and especially such an important topic as Jasenovac is and
6 the victims of World War II, if I were to advocate some political,
7 ideological, and other interests and not scientific truth, then I would
8 agree that I would not be credible for this case. But with every respect
9 for these proceedings, and I'm sure we'll proceed in the right direction
10 and that we're wasting a lot of time, I wanted to prevent the loss of
11 time. So I agree that we can discuss my professional and personal life
12 in detail for the Court to gain a full picture of my credibility. So I'm
13 ready to sit here and answer as many questions as possibility so that
14 that credibility from the Trial Chamber's aspects can be assessed, and
15 I'm willing to present the facts so that the Trial Chamber can assess
16 what my scientific credibility is on all topics, on everything that I've
17 written about, so I'm here at your service and I would like to ask the
18 Defence teams not to defend me because I am ready to defend my
19 professional dignity and credibility. So if something that I have
20 researched, both World War II and all the rest of it and if I have
21 written about world history and other aspects of history, then --
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We took due note of this
23 concern of yours and I give the floor to Mr. Scott.
24 Mr. Scott, you may resume.
25 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. President. We've lost it on the
Page 44926
1 page -- well, some minutes ago.
2 Q. But I think my last pending question to you, sir, was something
3 along the lines that in fact consistent, in my view, and I'm putting my
4 case to you, sir, in fact consistent with I put to you was Mr. --
5 Franjo Tudjman's views on these subjects and what things that he wrote
6 about, and we'll come back to that, and, indeed, we'll get there in just
7 a moment, in fact Franjo Tudjman was supportive of the independent state
8 of Croatia
9 and supported them at times, didn't he?
10 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] No, no, I'm going out. I'm
11 ill. Your Honours, I am ill, and because I am ill and because I feel
12 sick at this point in time, would you allow me to leave the courtroom
13 before this is over?
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, if you feel, you
15 may go and rest.
16 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Thank you.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well --
18 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] And --
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Get some rest and come back
20 when you feel well later.
21 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Let it be added to the
22 indictment that I am being accused -- stand accused of fascism --
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [No interpretation]
24 MR. SCOTT: Sir, if I can direct your attention and the
25 courtroom's attention, please, to Exhibit P07695, P07695.
Page 44927
1 Q. It's in the second binder, sir.
2 THE ACCUSED PRLIC: I think --
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Prlic.
4 THE ACCUSED PRLIC: I think that witness didn't answer. A
5 question was put to him and Praljak stood up. I think that witness
6 should answer on this question.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You're right. I had noticed.
8 Professor, Mr. Scott has put his case to you and General Praljak
9 stood up as he felt ill. He's get some rest and I'm sure he'll be back
10 soon, but could you please answer the question put to you by Mr. Scott?
11 If you forgot the question, I'm sure he can re-put the question to you.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, for the Trial Chamber and for
13 me, could he ask the question again.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott.
15 MR. SCOTT: I'm looking at the transcript, Your Honour.
16 Q. In fact, sir, Franjo Tudjman was supportive of the independent
17 state of Croatia
18 praised and supported them at times, didn't he?
19 A. I appreciate that this examination, as the President of the
20 Trial Chamber says, is a cross-examination where everybody has the right
21 to present his views, and I'm going to present my views or a view which
22 is indubitable in the physical sense. Everything else is interpretation.
23 Franjo Tudjman from 1941 to 1945, during the Second World War, when the
24 Independent State
25 Communist Partisan movement with a rifle, so therefore he fought armed
Page 44928
1 against the independent state of Croatia and that is a fact.
2 Q. If we can turn now, as I indicated a few moments ago, to P07695,
3 P07695, sir, in the second binder. This is a record of a meeting
4 involving President Tudjman on the 27th of January, 1994. It will
5 assist, sir, if you can move more quickly. I've asked you, please, to
6 turn to the binder. You're not putting the binder on your desk, if you
7 can please turn to binder number 2, P07695.
8 MR. SCOTT: Perhaps the usher can assist us.
9 Q. Sir, this is a record of a meeting in the office of
10 President Tudjman on the 27th of January, 1994, with various persons.
11 And I'm going to direct your attention particularly to page 7, the first
12 paragraph beginning on page 7 in both the English and the Croatian
13 language. And in that paragraph President Tudjman is speaking and he
14 says:
15 "We must not forget that the majority of Croatians were in favour
16 of the independent state of Croatia
17 but the NDH. We must not forget that without those radical Croats we
18 would not have won the war with the Serbs and our war with the Muslims
19 today."
20 Today. That's what President Tudjman said; correct?
21 A. That's what it says here. Whether he actually said that, I don't
22 know.
23 Q. And in fact, sure, Mr. Sakic was the witness or the accused that
24 you were a Defence witness for concerning the Jasenovac camp. Mr. Sakic
25 was convicted of many crimes, murder, starvation, physical and mental
Page 44929
1 abuse of prisoners, torture, execution of sick prisoners. He was
2 convicted and sentenced to 20 years, wasn't he?
3 A. He was sentenced. I don't remember to how many years.
4 Q. Sir, has there ever been a Croat indicted for war crime or a
5 Croat convicted of war crimes that you are not sympathetic to or
6 supportive of?
7 A. I was never opposed to any trials for any war crimes, and as a
8 citizen of the Republic of Croatia
9 oriented, it is in the interests of everyone that all crimes be punished
10 so that no damage and detriment should be done to the Croatian society.
11 That's my opinion as a citizen and as a professional, and I would never
12 take part in any act that would oppose that. And as proof of that I
13 think the Prosecution called me up I think a year or two ago, the
14 Prosecutor from this Tribunal, asked me to be a witness and help the
15 Prosecutor to establish certain facts linked to the Gotovina trial, and I
16 willingly accepted to do that. Bringing in my texts, which could have
17 been of assistance to them, a text which they didn't know about and
18 didn't ask for, articles; so your observation is incorrect.
19 Q. I want to refer you to a man that you knew named Tihomir
20 Oreskovic. You left a public appearance to go and see him off after he
21 had been sentenced to serve 15 years for crimes committed in Gospic, and
22 you left because you wanted to go -- a public appearance that you were
23 involved in because you wanted to go and see Mr. Oreskovic off to prison;
24 isn't that correct?
25 And while I'm thinking in time, sir, and you can answer this
Page 44930
1 question, too: Mr. Branimir Glavas, who's -- a former member of the
2 Croatian parliament was recently convicted on the 8th of May, this year,
3 2009, sentenced to ten years' imprisonment for war crimes against Serbs,
4 and you went -- you publicly defended Mr. Glavas. And, in fact, you said
5 that if Mr. Glavas happened to kill himself with a hunger strike while in
6 prison, it would be the prime minister of Croatia's fault for prosecuting
7 the man. That was your position, wasn't it?
8 A. Not like that. Dr. Slobodan Lang, a Croatian humanist, launched
9 an action, a drive, according to international standards for the
10 protection of prisoners and hunger-strikers, and since Branimir Glavas, a
11 detainee, was on the very edge of physical life and a large number of
12 physicians -- many physicians who know what humanitarian rights means
13 asked me to join and to have this drive for humanitarian rights respected
14 for the hunger strike -- people going on a hunger strike and I took part
15 on that.
16 Q. Sir, you say on your own web site, you said that the trial of
17 Mr. Glavas was "undoubtedly a political trial which harkened back to the
18 time of the second communist Yugoslavia
19 A. Correct, because the trial itself was held for political motives
20 and that's what I said, and in that way any judgement that is passed in
21 the Glavas case cannot be treated as being objective because in the rift
22 in the HDZ, the ruling party, only when Glavas left the party were these
23 proceedings initiated; before that everybody kept quiet. So I was
24 referring to the motives, which were political, and which render the
25 judgement itself not credible. And as is common knowledge all
Page 44931
1 international institutions in assessing Croatia and in evaluating
2 Croatia
3 Croatian state -- today's Croatian state, the Croatian state of today is
4 one of the most --
5 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness repeat the word he used --
6
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- in
the world and in Europe
7 this particularly refers to the Croatian judiciary, and this is the main
8 problem which prevents Croatia
9 with all those international assessments I completely agree.
10 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, just one
11 intervention. The interpreters did not hear a word uttered by the
12 witness. The witness used the word "the most corrupt," "the most corrupt
13 state," the word was "most corrupt" which did not go down in the record.
14 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, counsel.
15 Q. And, sir, you said this was a political trial and that's your
16 view of this Tribunal too, isn't it? You believe that this Tribunal is a
17 political institution that's gross -- in fact, grossly incompetent and
18 below the lowest levels of human experience. That's what you've said
19 about this Hague Tribunal; correct?
20 A. It was a question posed by the Trial Chamber from the very first
21 day linked to the article which is publicly accessible and posted on my
22 web site, where I speak -- spoke about the historical and political
23 aspects of The Hague Tribunal, and I state the fact that unfortunately
24 the Tribunal was established - and that's the only trial [as interpreted]
25 that was set up by the Security Council and not the UN General Assembly.
Page 44932
1 And that it has been given a very narrow remit --
2 Q. Well, let's go directly to your words, let's go to Exhibit
3 P11009, in the third binder, P11009, sir. Page 6 of the English. It's
4 your article, sir, hopefully you'll be able to find it. It's the bottom
5 of page 6 in the English version --
6 JUDGE PRANDLER: Mr. Scott.
7 MR. SCOTT: Yes, sir.
8 JUDGE PRANDLER: I'm sorry to interrupt you, but you have to give
9 us some time to find the documents first. So it is in the third binder?
10 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE PRANDLER: And the number is 11009, isn't it?
12 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honour. My apologies if I rushed the
13 Court.
14 JUDGE PRANDLER: Okay. Thank you.
15 MR. SCOTT: Third binder, P11009, and if I could direct the
16 courtroom's attention, please, to --
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could you give us the Croatian
18 number, please.
19 MR. SCOTT:
20 Q. It's at the same exhibit number, sir. In your article it is the
21 paragraph that starts:
22 "Everything stated is clearly reflected in ..."
23 I'll read it out loud to you and I'm sure you that -- please
24 listen to the interpretation.
25 "Everything stated is clearly reflected in, among other things,
Page 44933
1 the creation of The Hague Tribunal and its past activities, which are a
2 good deal below the level of the international legal standards, reached a
3 long time ago, and below the level of the worst experiences in the
4 international relations so far."
5 That's your view of this Tribunal; correct?
6 MS. PINTER: [Interpretation] I apologise to my learned friend,
7 Mr. Scott, but it is P11009, that's the document number. The number of
8 the document was not translated into Croatian and the witness asked you
9 to repeat the document number. I didn't want to interrupt you while you
10 were quoting.
11 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, counsel. I didn't hear the translation
12 and I see on the transcript it's correct so I wasn't aware of it.
13 Q. Indeed, P11009.
14 A. The document's on the monitor, on the screen. So could you
15 please tell me what paragraph you're referring to so I can follow the
16 Croatian text, the source.
17 MR. SCOTT: If we can have e-court's assistance, please, by
18 showing the -- in parallel, it's on the bottom of page 6 of the English
19 version, if you can go down in the -- I would say go down two or three
20 pages.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And could the usher help me to find
22 the integral document in this very large binder.
23 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I believe it's page 6 and then the last
24 paragraph before the next title. "Sve navedeno se najjasnije" and so
25 forth.
Page 44934
1 MR. SCOTT:
2 Q. That's what you said about the Tribunal, correct, sir?
3 A. You read out just one sentence taken out of the whole text. It's
4 a scholarly, integral text, and in order to objectively present my
5 opinion of the Tribunal in The Hague
6 text and the elaboration that contain in the text --
7 Q. Indeed, sir. Let's go to page -- let's go to page 9 of the
8 English version --
9 JUDGE PRANDLER: Excuse me, excuse me, Mr. Scott. On page 7
10 first if we are taking up this article, then I would like to ask the
11 witness about the following.
12 On page 7 of the English text with the heading "the importance of
13 The Hague Tribunal's activity," we find paragraph number 1, and then what
14 you also refer to before, I mean, Mr. Scott refers to it, that the
15 witness said, and I quote:
16 "After all, it was not founded by the General Assembly but by the
17 Security Council, which in terms of concept is an outdated institution,
18 using all means to maintain and replicate the many centuries long
19 unjustified 'legality' of inequality of the international entities, in
20 other words, the big and the rich discriminate against the small and the
21 poor."
22 And here -- end of quotation.
23 Now my question is to the witness that if you know about the
24 relevant competencies according to the Charter of the United Nations of
25 the General Assembly and the Security Council, would you be able to tell
Page 44935
1 us why in your view has the Tribunal been established by the Security
2 Council and not by the General Assembly? I would like to hear your view
3 on that. Thank you.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. And I'm
5 happy that you've given me an opportunity to give you an explanation
6 because this is not a criticism that's levied just by me. It is quite
7 clear that in the Security Council we have the permanent members and
8 temporary members, and the Security Council does not have the kind of
9 global authority that's wielded by the General Assembly. And I am
10 sure -- or rather, I believe and I hope that had the decision been taken
11 by the UN General Assembly, the powers of the Tribunal would have been
12 much greater, at least up to the level of the Nuremberg trials. And
13 that's what I'm elaborating in this article.
14 I compared the powers of the Nuremberg trials to try some
15 individuals and organisations. I analysed the principles on which the
16 Nuremberg Tribunals were based, and I said, as I said at the first day,
17 that international judiciary should have much greater powers than it
18 actually has. Many of the problems of this Tribunal in The Hague stem
19 from the fact that its powers are extremely, extremely reduced. And I'm
20 really sad that it does not have the power to try persons for crimes
21 against peace and aggression and that it cannot actually try collective
22 entities such as states.
23 JUDGE PRANDLER: Mr. Jurcevic, I would like you to stop. As a
24 matter of fact, the -- your answer has not given a kind of answer to me.
25 The point is then -- and you should know -- you should have known if you
Page 44936
1 write about these matters that the General Assembly is not entitled to
2 establish such judicial organs like the ICTY. And I'm frankly a bit
3 surprised that you take the liberty to write about subject matter about
4 which you do not know. Thank you.
5 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I would like to stay with this text, Mr. Praljak
6 [sic] has drawn attention to. In number 4 you criticise the fact that
7 there is no compensation in case of an accused finally acquitted. I
8 agree that this is not satisfactory, but this is not what we think but
9 you purport that it is scientifically justified. Now, do you know about
10 international human rights standards? Are you -- are you familiar with
11 international right -- of human rights?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I am familiar with it, and I
13 approached this problem not from the legal standpoint but as you can see
14 from the title from a political and historical point of view. And I'm
15 expounding my opinion, which I think is a legitimate one, and I don't
16 want to impose it on anyone.
17 JUDGE TRECHSEL: The question of a right to compensation is
18 clearly a legal question. "Right" refers to law. Do you know that
19 neither the European Convention of Human Rights nor the International
20 Covenant on Civil and Political Rights nor any other binding legal
21 instrument grants right for compensation for someone who has been
22 detained on reprimand and then is acquitted. Did you know that?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do not think -- well, I agree
24 that there is a legal aspect of this problem. However, I think that the
25 ethical and social aspects are much more important. And law should
Page 44937
1 regulate those aspects -- on the basis of those aspects. And I still
2 maintain as a humanist that anyone who was remanded in custody for any
3 reason has reason -- has the right to compensation, moral or material.
4 And there is such a provision in many jurisdictions. And I think that
5 this is justified. Now, whether there are laws to that effect, I don't
6 know, but I think humanist and ethical standards and the idea of justice
7 that is at the basis of law really justify it.
8 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Professor, all Judges took the
10 floor on this paper you wrote, paper P11009. And you gave us your
11 opinion. You're an eminent personality in Croatia. You told us that
12 you'll be running for the presidential election. So theoretically you
13 could one day be a head of state, which is why what you're saying is
14 extremely important. What I believe is absolutely essential is that you
15 have Judges putting questions to you, Judges who are fully independent,
16 fully unbiassed. You must be absolutely certain that these Judges are
17 not political Judges. If you feel at any time that the questions are
18 biassed, please tell so -- say so; however, if you don't think so, you
19 must recognise that the Judges on the bench are just doing their job as
20 Judges, as if they were Judges in Zagreb or Belgrade or elsewhere.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honour.
22 In discussions - and I think those discussions are legitimate in
23 accordance with your Rules - with the Victims and Witnesses Unit, when I
24 was asked yesterday how I was, I said that I felt much better and much
25 more comfortable than I had felt when I testified before Croatian courts.
Page 44938
1 And as a person that has some experience and education, it would never
2 occur to me to see your questions or my testimony here in court in light
3 of the -- those matters that are matters of principle that I expounded on
4 in this paper, in this article.
5 I was motivated, as I indicated in the part of my text, by my
6 desire to study the setting up of the international justice in light of
7 the global developments, at least up to the level that exists in national
8 systems so that this system should be independent and efficient, which is
9 in the interest of every citizen of the world including myself. I
10 believe that those powers do not depend on persons, including the present
11 Trial Chamber, persons who do their jobs, but it cannot go beyond the
12 powers of jurisdiction that it has been granted. I am convinced that
13 this is a major problem that hampers the efficiency of this Tribunal,
14 which goes below the levels achieved by the Nuremberg Tribunals which was
15 able to rule very quickly. And it says somewhere in the documents of
16 this Tribunal that its mission is to send a public message that crime
17 doesn't pay. And I advocate that too.
18 The problem is that if trials are not expeditious, then the very
19 slowness of the trials sends the message that crime does pay. The Tokyo
20 and Nuremberg
21 that crime really doesn't pay, and I think that this is a basic
22 civilisational heritage that every court, including the international
23 court, must leave behind. Unfortunately, this does not depend on the
24 Judges because they have limited powers, and this is what I still
25 maintain.
Page 44939
1 So this was the level of the discourse in my paper but if you
2 read the integral text of this paper or any other of my writings that
3 have been translated into English, and you can see them on my list of
4 papers when I speak about human rights and the experience of the camp
5 inmates, comparing the tragic fact - this is something that I state quite
6 explicitly - that unfortunately the rules of international law, including
7 human rights and humanitarian law, protect the human rights at a very
8 fundamental level, including the rights of the camp inmates. But
9 unfortunately because of the lack of efficiency on the part of the
10 courts, the experience of the inmates are growing worse and worse, and
11 this is something that the UN commission also found in its tragic report
12 from the former Yugoslavia
13 all the warring factions and they operated between 1991 and 1995. And
14 unfortunately, many tragic stories - and I'm quite familiar with
15 them - did not end up with the kind of satisfaction that they deserved.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It is time to have a break now.
17 We shall have a 20-minute break.
18 --- Recess taken at 10.34 a.m.
19 --- On resuming at 10.59 a.m.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The court is back in session.
21 Mr. Scott, you have the floor.
22 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Your Honour.
23 Before continuing, it's probably been corrected by now, but for
24 the transcript some minutes before the break in one of Judge Trechsel's
25 questions he made reference to a point that had been raised by
Page 44940
1 Mr. Praljak, and I believe he was referring to Judge Prandler. It was a
2 reference to -- just for clarification's sake.
3 Q. Sir, we've only spent the last few days together, but I'm seeing
4 a pattern here. You say a number of things outside court, including
5 about Jasenovac and about this Tribunal, and then when you come and
6 you're sitting here in court in front of these Judges you try to
7 soft-pedal it, somehow appear more reasonable, more moderate. In fact,
8 you said before the break as an example of this, you said to the effect
9 you would never suggest that this Trial Chamber or these Judges would be
10 political and play games, but indeed, sir, that's exactly what you've
11 said previously, isn't it?
12 A. No. What you've just said, sir, Mr. Prosecutor, is not correct,
13 especially that first observation of yours. Well, I'm well-known in
14 Croatia
15 supporting positions of principle and that I can articulate them very
16 well. And also, that I am capable of articulating my political, world
17 views, scientific views, and so on, and I can differentiate between them.
18 So when it comes to this Trial Chamber, I quoted the example and I think
19 that is on the record. I haven't verified it but I think that the tape
20 records exactly what I said, especially following the Presiding Judge's
21 questions. I was given an opportunity to elaborate on my basic positions
22 which is contained in the text that you're using.
23 So may we have the whole text read out in full, where it is
24 clearly articulated why I am writing about those issues and what my
25 motives are, and that my motive was to strengthen the international
Page 44941
1 justice system because it is highly necessary and I say that explicitly
2 in --
3 Q. You said just now, and let me be just very transparent, picking
4 up on something you just said, that you were able to differentiate
5 between your scientific views and your political world views. Let me say
6 this about your report. Sir, I put it to you that the first 50 pages of
7 your report are rather historian like, the early history, the history of
8 Yugoslavia
9 50 pages or so of your report I would suggest it to you and I put it to
10 you are relatively well-written. The problem, sir, is that the balance
11 of your report you change from being a historian to a political activist.
12 You're here to espouse a particular political view in defence of Croatia
13 and in defence of these men; correct?
14 A. That is not correct. I respect your right to have an opinion of
15 your own about my scientific and historical works; however, since you're
16 a lawyer it's not a professional opinion. And I think that a scientific
17 analysis of my work including an expert analysis can be open to
18 scientific elaboration and criticism and that's how it was done and I can
19 accept it, but I don't agree that there are differences in the
20 methodological approach or any other different one throughout my expert
21 report. It is an integral comprehensive work, as it says in the
22 introduction, nobody influenced me in writing it nor did anybody set any
23 requests, requirements, asking me to write in one way or another --
24 Q. If time allows, and my time is limited, but if time allows we're
25 going to turn to your report in more detail. You say -- you keep saying
Page 44942
1 let's go back to your article, so indeed let's go back to your article,
2 page 9 of the English version, page 8 of the Croatian language version.
3 It helps us in that this particular paragraph is numbered 8, page 9 of
4 the English, paragraph numbered 8; and page 8 of the Croatian, sir. You
5 say:
6 "The Hague Tribunal, which is an ad hoc court, has twisted its
7 original purpose also by the amount of time it has been in operation,
8 because, even after 13 years since its establishment it has failed to
9 name the main perpetrators, let alone sentence them, nor is it likely to
10 do it by the end of its mandate. Consequently, the Tribunal has not
11 carried out its legal duty ..."
12 And you go on to say at the end of the sentence that in fact the
13 Tribunal actually encourages the further perpetration of war crimes.
14 That is what you said; correct?
15 A. What you've just read out, that first sentence, you read it out
16 correctly, but would you read out the second sentence too, the one you're
17 referring to, because it's also short because you interpreted it wrongly.
18 Q. If we go to page 10 of the English version of your article,
19 Croatian page 9, it starts with the "speaking of the Republic of
20 Croatia
21 don't, unfortunately, have time. But you have the text in front of you
22 and everyone has the text, and I have no doubt if I mis-characterise
23 something I'm sure I will be quickly corrected.
24 Sir, what you say in this paragraph essentially is that one of
25 the problems with The Hague
Page 44943
1 sentence.
2 "The systematic repetition of The Hague concepts has already
3 achieved the psychological and social effects which firstly point to a
4 disbelief and apathy ..."
5 You go on to say:
6 "That if this -- if The Hague's truth were to be put in Croatian
7 textbooks, it would have a huge detrimental effect on Croatian --
8 including the disintegration of Croatian society ..."
9 Now, sir, are you telling us that the Republic of Croatia
10 many good people who are citizens of that country if, in fact, some
11 people are prosecuted and convicted of war crimes, that's going to lead
12 to the downfall of the republic; the Croatian republic can't deal with
13 that? Is that your position, sir?
14 A. Sir, I'm happy that you've reached this excerpt, however
15 unfortunately for the purpose of objectivity you would have to read the
16 passage before. You of course used your right to try to discredit me by
17 using fragments, but before this particular fragment for it to be
18 understood -- before that I speak about the work of the institution you
19 work in, the Tribunal and the OTP. And among other things, I mention
20 things that are unacceptable from the social and civilisational
21 standpoints. And I said that it doesn't worry anybody in charge of The
22 Hague Tribunal when the main Prosecutor of The Hague Tribunal, the woman,
23 holds lectures at respected places where it's emphasized that it is the
24 object to write new historical truths with respect to the Balkans she
25 says. And the problem is that those historical truths are in opposition
Page 44944
1 to objective facts, and that problem is resolved by acting from the
2 standpoints of the power that the media has in Croatia. So the Hague
3 Tribunal very often - and I wrote this earlier on - the OTP of The Hague
4 Tribunal, in fact, in political life represents itself as being a court
5 and presented its views and positions as being --
6 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speaker kindly be asked to slow down.
7 MS. TOMANOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise. In this whole last
8 speech -- or rather, response by the professor on page 43 and 44 from
9 lines 21 to page 45, line 12, the professor throughout is speaking about
10 the OTP, the Prosecution of the Hague Tribunal, not the Tribunal as an
11 institution per se. I think that that should be corrected in the
12 transcript and the professor can say whether I'm right or not.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I'm not following the
14 interpretation and I'm not able to assess it, but there is a tape of what
15 I'm saying and I'm talking about the Prosecution, the OTP, yes, the OTP
16 as an institution, which in public held forth from political and other
17 standpoints representing one -- itself as being the whole Tribunal,
18 although the Prosecution or OTP is a party in the proceedings. And some
19 institutions, for example, which I hold is not a good thing -- so even
20 some international institutions ask to have the OTP's opinion with
21 respect to certain political issues. And I hold, it is my opinion, that
22 that topples the credibility and does not add to the acceptability of
23 international justice in the broader sense of the word. And it is from
24 that standpoint that I analyse the effects that ...
25 MR. SCOTT:
Page 44945
1 Q. Sir, in terms of the characterisation of what the various parts
2 of the Tribunal you're referring to in this 13-page article which you
3 keep saying -- I'm sure the Judges when they read the entire article can
4 draw their own conclusions about the full scope of your comments. But in
5 the next paragraph after the one that I mentioned before -- in fact, then
6 you endorse Mr. Praljak, don't you, and praise him for essentially
7 picking up the mantle and doing battle with The Hague Tribunal on these
8 very issues; correct?
9 A. I very clearly wrote, not only in this particular article but in
10 others too, that the system -- state system and archive system was in a
11 catastrophic state and that one of the problems for the functioning of
12 the legal system, the justice system, including The Hague, one is the
13 lack of documents. And the Prosecutor is criticising Croatia for that.
14 Now, the Prosecutor, who is well-versed in how archives are set up - and
15 I gave a detailed report to The Hague Tribunal about that - so as a
16 member -- you forgot to ask me this, from 2004 to 2009 was I a member of
17 the government council for --
18 Q. [Previous translation continued] Unfortunately, I'm going to cut
19 you off, that's not the question I asked you. That's not the question I
20 asked you. And I think if --
21 MR. SCOTT: If I can finish my comment, Your Honour --
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I apologise, Mr. Scott.
23 Professor, I have just read something on the transcript. You
24 said it. From 2004 to 2009 you were a member of the government council
25 in charge of the archives. Do you confirm this?
Page 44946
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] During that period and since its
2 inception, which is how long the institution lasted, and it was called
3 the government council -- the council of the Government of the Republic
4 of Croatia
5 international tribunals and courts, primarily including this tribunal,
6 the Hague Tribunal. So I was asked to take part as a professional there,
7 as a historian, as an expert and other lawyers were asked to attend too.
8 And perhaps it's important for the Trial Chamber to hear another fact.
9 At the founding meetings a question was raised, and this was recorded,
10 that what should be done was to defend Croatia. That was written down.
11 And as an expert and as an individual, as I emphasised there, I refused
12 to take part in that if that was what I was asked to do, and I said that
13 I would agree to work there, participate there, if my criterion were
14 scientific objective truth and that was all I would work on. And in that
15 context I commended, and said in this article, commended General Praljak
16 who was the only institution in Croatia
17 way amasses and collects the vast material. Everything else in Croatia
18 is not accessible, and in that sense, in certain aspects, I have --
19 JUDGE PRANDLER: Actually, Dr. Jurcevic, let me ask you again
20 that please slow down.
21 I would also like actually to ask Mr. Scott, sometimes he should
22 also speak more slowly and to have the respective pauses between the
23 questions and answers. Thank you.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'd like to thank my colleague
25 for having said this. There are gaps sometimes in what you say. Please
Page 44947
1 try to slow down.
2 What you have just said seemed interesting, but in this
3 particular light a few weeks or a few months ago the Praljak Defence
4 highlighted the fact that there were some documents which, in their view,
5 were fake or forged documents. I wanted to know what the motive behind
6 this was, i.e., the people that had forged these documents, to adduce
7 forged documents to the Court. You have some understanding of the
8 archives and how these documents are filed. Do you believe that some
9 people who wish to deceive the Tribunal introduced some forged documents
10 in the evidence? Have you ever heard about something of this kind or
11 never?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't have any concrete - in the
13 full sense of the word - concrete evidence and proof of what you have
14 just said. But by deduction and using some other methods as well, I am
15 convinced that a lot of things went on on the territory of the Republic
16 of Croatia
17 similar in other parts of the former Yugoslavia. And to bear out your
18 thesis, we have the fact that the former chief Prosecutor, the last day
19 before she forfeited that right asked that the Tihomir Blaskic trial be
20 re-opened. And one of the reasons, on the basis of the knowledge I had,
21 was that certain political groups in Croatia, using their political
22 power, falsified, having political goals in mind, certain facts,
23 endeavouring to lead astray the Hague Tribunal. And I've spoken about
24 this many times publicly over the media in Croatia.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Who are these groups exactly?
Page 44948
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Unfortunately in Croatia
2 politicologically speaking we have groups of interest ruling which are
3 organised into the leading parties and behave partyocratically and their
4 interests, in any sense, in institutions of power and authority and
5 others where they wield power, so the interests of those groups are a
6 priority. And all the rest, everything else, the whole world, the rest
7 of the world, Europe
8 Croatian society are just a tool by which to realise those interests.
9 And I say this publicly. It is a corrupt and irresponsible method of
10 management and administration. And one of the consequences of that is
11 what we've already said. So both historical truth and current affairs
12 and reality and projects for the future have been put on the agenda as
13 being asocial -- in an asocial way.
14 MR. KOVACIC: If I may correct the transcript on page 49, line
15 10, the witness said - and I'm quite sure on Croatian language I followed
16 closely - leading parties and behave partyocratically and their
17 interests, so the interests of those groups are a party. He said so the
18 interests of those groups are --
19 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]
20 MR. KOVACIC: He said -- that those interests has priority, not a
21 party. So their interests, the interests of the group were their
22 priority. That was the sentence. But maybe the witness could confirm.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Professor, do you agree with
24 the correction that has just been made?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, I agree. I said that for
Page 44949
1 those groups, the interests of those group or party, are the first and
2 foremost. So this is the partyocratical model. I have written
3 extensively about it and spoken about, and this has to do with the text
4 that we're analysing about now.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott.
6 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry, Witness, could you name groups? Can
7 you identify some groups? This was very vague. I mean, I'm not saying
8 it's not true, but could you identify one or several groups that,
9 according to your opinion, mixed forged documents into the material that
10 finally landed before this Chamber?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, since I don't have, as I've
12 said, specific palpable physical evidence of that but deduction and many
13 events in the Croatian public life, and it seems to me this motion to
14 re-open the case were based on the fact that at the level of the police
15 top and intelligence services in Croatia, including elements of the
16 defence system, this case occurred. And this is not the only case. My
17 scientific viewpoint or hypothesis, which of course it is very difficult
18 to prove in full today, but a lot of things, analogy, deduction, speak to
19 that --
20 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- speak to the fact that from the
22 standpoint of those interests --
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott.
24 MR. SCOTT:
25 Q. In fact, sir, you believe that one of the principal problems in
Page 44950
1 connection with the work of the Tribunal is not just the Tribunal, but
2 the fact that at least some Croatian governments have cooperated with the
3 Tribunal, and your view is that that's kind of where things got off the
4 rails, that the Croatian government should never have cooperated with
5 this Tribunal in the first place. That's your view, isn't it? I refer
6 the courtroom to page 12 of the English version and to the Croatian
7 language version pages 11 carrying over to 12.
8 You say there as part of that passage, sir, the origin of the
9 problem was ... the Croatian government's cooperation with the Tribunal;
10 correct?
11 A. No, that is not correct. My key motive and interest that I
12 systematically and consistently advocated in all my appearances and
13 publications is that one needs to reconstruct the Croatian judiciary in
14 depth and the Croatian state in general, all of its institutions, in
15 order for it to be able to face and deal with the crimes that happened in
16 the Republic of Croatia
17 of Croatia
18 in Croatia
19 govern. Because if you have a state that is sovereign, an
20 internationally recognised state, yet it is unable to do one of its key
21 tasks which is to try its criminals and deal with the crime in its
22 territory. This is my basic argument and everything else is just taken
23 out of the context. I know what I'm doing. I know that I have been
24 consistent. I know the hierarchy of my thoughts. What the basic tenets
25 are, what the arguments are, and what one can or cannot do in public
Page 44951
1 appearances in the media and elsewhere. But I never questioned this
2 basic tenet and I always made it quite clear in those terms.
3 Q. Well, as you say, sir, the Judges have your complete article.
4 Dario Kordic, what does Mr. Dario Kordic symbolise to you in
5 terms of his involvement in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the 1992/1993
6 period?
7 A. Well, my knowledge, or rather, it must be said here that the
8 first time that I saw Mr. Dario Kordic physically, it was a couple of
9 months ago when I visited him in the place where he's serving his
10 sentence. It's in Graz
11 Q. I'm going to give you a chance, but let's just set the scene here
12 because we have to try to manage our time a bit. If I can direct your
13 attention, please, to P11050. It should in the third -- toward the end
14 of the third binder. P11050. And while you're looking for that and
15 while the courtroom is looking for that, you just mentioned visiting
16 Mr. Kordic and you did indeed visit Mr. Kordic in prison just a few weeks
17 ago on the 3rd of August, 2009, is that correct, sometime around then?
18 Correct, sir?
19 A. Yes, something like that.
20 Q. And you said that -- toward the -- it's the third -- the end of
21 the third paragraph from the very end. So if you go to the end of either
22 the English or the Croatian version, go up to the end of the -- skip two
23 paragraphs up, the end of that paragraph, the question I just put to you.
24 You say:
25 "'Due to Dario Kordic's symbolic importance, especially as a
Page 44952
1 representative of the Croatian people in BiH, I was glad to have visited
2 him,' says Jurcevic."
3 So when you talk about his symbolic importance, sir, which was a
4 question I put to you a few moments ago, what is his -- what is
5 Dario Kordic's -- what is the symbolic importance of this man who this
6 Tribunal at both the trial level and again in the Appeals Chamber
7 convicted and affirmed a 25-year sentence for war crimes? What's the
8 symbolic importance of this man to you?
9 A. Well, you can find your answer in the previous paragraph, in
10 answer to the previous question, where it says in this text the ruling
11 structures in Croatia
12 public forgery, indicating that the institutions and persons who played a
13 key part in Croatia
14 that Dario Kordic in the case in which he was convicted -- well, I cannot
15 say that for a fact, but I have spoken to a number of people who know
16 him, that in light of the game that was being played in -- because it's
17 being played in Croatia
18 any research into Kordic as a person or individual or in any other way
19 and I cannot say that in some other cases --
20 Q. Excuse me, sir, you've now said several times in the last few
21 minutes, Well, I can't really prove something. The President
22 Judge Antonetti, asked you about some of your allegations and you said,
23 Well, I can't really prove it, blah, blah, blah. And you've just said
24 the same thing, sir. I can't really prove that there was anything wrong
25 in the conviction of Dario Kordic, but by gosh in my public statements
Page 44953
1 I'm going to say so anyway. You can't prove any of this, can you?
2 A. Well, I don't know what the interpretation was, but that's not
3 what I said. I said very clearly that I cannot prove that in full. When
4 I say "in full," it is clear to me because I have enough education to
5 know what it means. So I cannot - this is what I said before - show you
6 specific, concrete evidence that would remove any doubt as to this --
7 Q. Sir, in your statement here, in your statement here, in the
8 paragraph we were reading before, as you say, above that there is the
9 sentence:
10 "Kordic was convicted in a political trial based on fabricated
11 evidence and false statements which were mainly prepared by the
12 leadership structures in Croatia
13 And I just -- to put this in context, sir, I'll remind you
14 Mr. Kordic stood trial before three Judges similar to those here, he took
15 an appeal before a whole other set of Judges. His convictions, in large
16 measure, were affirmed. His sentence to 25 years were affirmed. Are you
17 saying that those three Trial Judges and Appeals Chamber Judges were all
18 misled and conducted a political trial?
19 A. Sir, I know that you are a lawyer with a great deal of expertise
20 which I lack, but I am aware of the fact that a Trial Chamber bases its
21 decision on the evidence which is not called by the Trial Chamber but by
22 the Defence and the Prosecution. And in this sense what you've just said
23 does not hold water. It is very clear to me how a Trial Chamber reaches
24 its decision. So I did state what you've just read out, that it is false
25 evidence which had for the most part been prepared by the ruling
Page 44954
1 structures in the Republic of Croatia
2 sentence which follows which clears it up, as evidenced by the fact that
3 Carla del Ponte filed a motion to re-open the case against Blaskic for
4 that reason, but the Trial Chamber, probably because of lack of time and
5 capacity, rejected the motion.
6 Q. Let's go, sir, your view is -- and that motion is a matter of
7 public record, and I'm sure if anyone wants to read the motion -- or I
8 assume it is at least. You indeed report it publicly. If it was sealed
9 I guess it isn't anymore. But in any event, sir, if anyone wants to
10 review it, I'm sure they can.
11 But let's go back to your basic position here. You think, sir,
12 that as the people like Dario Kordic and, indeed, the three generals on
13 trial in the Gotovina case, and, indeed, with great respect to the six
14 individuals on trial in this case, your view is that the Croatian
15 authorities all owe all these men a debt of gratitude, don't you?
16 A. No. I have never said that. I did say on some occasions at
17 sessions of the council with a great deal of elaboration, I'm talking
18 about the council of the Government of the Republic of Croatia
19 reiterated that in my public appearances, that unfortunately in the
20 political games in Croatia
21 who was responsible for the crimes that had been committed, but to play
22 the game and to -- to sacrifice people in accordance with the
23 political -- demands of the political game. When it comes to the three
24 people, and I know that they're being tried because of their position in
25 the chain of command --
Page 44955
1 Q. Excuse me, excuse me, sir. I'll come back to Gotovina in just a
2 moment. Just in line with what you just said, let's go to the paragraph
3 just above the one we were last looking at. Above the heading there is a
4 sub-heading that says "False Statements." And in that paragraph here's
5 what you say, and I asked you about whether they -- in fact, the
6 government of Croatia
7 "The Croatian leadership structures are the main creator of the
8 political, legal, and public forgery which turned meritorious Croatian
9 institutions and persons into alleged war criminals. This never happened
10 before anywhere except in the Croatian national entity. In principle,
11 equal victims of the callousness and ungratefulness of the so-called
12 Croatian authorities are all Croats who were put on trial ..."
13 Correct?
14 A. Well, the interpretation that I hear in my headphones differs and
15 could be interpreted differently from what is written in the original
16 text that I wrote. I'm talking about the callousness and ingratitude of
17 the so-called Croatian authorities, because I think that those
18 authorities cannot bear that epithet. And on the basis of what I wrote,
19 it follows that the Croats from Croatia
20 the e migres community that have been tried, are the victims of this
21 callousness. They were selected to be tried, including the trials in
22 Croatia
23 the chain of command, and those who were the commanders, supreme
24 commanders in those situations are not tried. And they are tried because
25 of their position in the chain of command, and the case of the three
Page 44956
1 people tried here before this Tribunal is the same case. So we're not
2 trying the person who is at the top of the chain of command, but the
3 commander of a sector.
4 But people who were superior to him had been interviewed but were
5 let go for ideological and also political reasons.
6 Q. Well, let's -- you've mentioned the Gotovina trial a couple of
7 times. Let's go to Exhibit P11049 which also mentions this trial.
8 P11049 should be the exact -- the previous -- exactly the previous
9 exhibit, sir, before the one you're looking at now or have been looking
10 at.
11 Sir, you made this statement just 13 days ago, this is the 3rd of
12 September, 2009, less than two weeks ago. And you once again affirmed:
13 "The Hague Tribunal is primarily a political tribunal, where
14 various geopolitical and other interests are being achieved ... contrary
15 to historical truth ..."
16 That's what you said on the 3rd of September, 2009; correct?
17 A. This is an interview, a short interview, it was limited in terms
18 of number of words for my answers to each and every question, and I
19 provided my answers in line with those restrictions. And this is in line
20 with the explanations that we have already seen, and I stand by all this
21 with the explanation that I've provided when I was asked questions about
22 Their Honours and I provided arguments in the article that we saw a
23 little while ago about the Tribunal in The Hague, explaining that the
24 geopolitical and other interests that are counter to historical truth are
25 at play here. And I wrote a number of other extensive texts that -- from
Page 44957
1 the point of view of historiography and political thought actually
2 provide arguments. So in this brief interview for the media there was no
3 space for me to elaborate, but in principle I stand by what I wrote, but
4 in the interests of having the whole truth as I said in my oath you have
5 to take into account everything else that I said on this matter.
6 Q. All right. Well, in principle, sir, you say you stand by what's
7 here so let's go to the next paragraph below the one we were just
8 referring to.
9 "Therefore, through attentive following of the hearings and all
10 games happening at the Hague Tribunal, unfortunately, guilty verdict and
11 a rather harsh sentencing can, with great certainty, be expected for Ante
12 Gotovina and the other two generals, and also for six Croats from BiH."
13 That is the six men on trial in this case; correct, sir? As far
14 as you're concerned, this political Tribunal is already determined to
15 convict all six of them?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Is that what it says here?
18 A. I was speaking not about this honourable Chamber -- and if that
19 is what I thought I would say it here because in far more difficult
20 situations in Croatia
21 were clearly. I was very well articulated, and I answered the question
22 put to me by the President of this Trial Chamber --
23 Q. Excuse me, there's only one trial at this Tribunal involving
24 these six. You said following the hearings, there's only one set of
25 hearings, and that's these, the one we're sitting in today. Following
Page 44958
1 these hearings you express your view with "great certainty" that the six
2 Croats from BiH can expect to be convicted; correct?
3 A. That's one assessment because of the games played, and I said
4 where -- and around the Hague Tribunal and including everything that I've
5 said so far.
6 Q. Very well.
7 A. And that's my evaluation. As a citizen to a question put by a
8 journalist, I answered the way I have. Now, if you want an
9 interpretation, then I am capable of giving that explanation and if you
10 ask me then I have the right to answer and expound.
11 Q. Well, about the Gotovina case and just to mix this in with some
12 of the other things you've said -- you've told the Judges today so far --
13 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Sorry.
14 MR. SCOTT: Yes, sir.
15 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I would like to ask a question with regard to
16 this very document. Today in the beginning of the hearing, Mr. Jurcevic,
17 you have affirmed that you have hardly followed the hearing of witness
18 Praljak here and that you lost one and then -- but you have put this as
19 very low-key.
20 Here you have written:
21 " ... through attentive following the hearings ..."
22 Now, I cannot help but noticing a discrepancy. Which is true and
23 which is not true?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This here is a very short text --
25 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Sorry, I -- please --
Page 44959
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I followed the trial --
2 JUDGE TRECHSEL: It's not a question of the length or not the
3 length. Here you say you followed "attentively," which is definitely not
4 the same that you said when questioned this morning. It's not possible
5 to pretend it's the same. Which was true, this or what you told us this
6 morning?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have understood, Your Honour, and
8 I will answer very specifically. Without a doubt, and I stand by that,
9 that the Praljak case at this Tribunal after handing in my expert report
10 I followed in the manner in which I stated this morning. When I had
11 time, I preferred to follow the Gotovina trial, because it is far more
12 important for the Croatian society and far more things hang on it. And
13 as you can see even in this short sentence I speak about the completeness
14 of the trials in The Hague
15 going on in Croatia
16 in an all-embracing fashion so that both statements are true. You asked
17 me very specifically this morning and I answered quite honestly, and I
18 have no reason -- well, even if I followed the proceedings, that is
19 legitimate because it's a public trial. But I always preferred to follow
20 the Gotovina trial where far more -- far bigger games are being played.
21 And as far as this interview is concerned and this exhibit that you have
22 before you and from the questions raised in Gotovina, you see that that
23 case in the journalist's opinion is far more important, whereas about the
24 six there is silence in Croatia
25 comes to these six on trial.
Page 44960
1 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I want -- just want to make clear that of course
2 anyone has every right to watch any trial or other things that he wants
3 this -- I want to avoid any misunderstanding in that respect.
4 Mr. Scott, I'm sorry for the interruption.
5 MR. SCOTT: Not at all.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise, sir, but could I be
7 just allowed to add something. This morning's question was very precise:
8 How much - and you can check the transcript and there is a tape, too, but
9 I remember it very well - the question was a strict one: How far did I
10 follow the trial of General Praljak and what he said here, and the truth
11 is that I did follow it to that extent. And since I was doing my expert
12 report and used General Praljak's material, then of course I was clear on
13 what was happening in that case and I don't think that anything can take
14 me by surprise, and I don't think that Mr. Praljak could say anything
15 essential which I don't already know or I'm not already aware of.
16 JUDGE TRECHSEL: That was a rather a waste of time. You didn't
17 say anything new.
18 Please, Mr. Scott.
19 MR. SCOTT:
20 Q. Sir, just since you've spent some time talking about the Gotovina
21 case, let's just go down on the page a little bit what you say there.
22 You apparently claim that there are three causes -- at least three causes
23 for what you allege to be happening in that case. You say, one, the
24 power structures in Croatia
25 second -- "second" is my comment. Second, some international circles and
Page 44961
1 it is time to say this publicly, number three, the key elements of the
2 so-called Ante Gotovina Defence team.
3 Now, again, are these the sorts of allegations you think you can
4 prove, or are these the same things of what you've told us before that,
5 Well, I can't really prove it but I'll say it anyway.
6 A. I emphasize that I differentiate between a short public speech,
7 but by method of deduction and everything that was happening with the
8 Gotovina Defence, one could conclude from certain moves made and from
9 what I followed as a public personage, one can conclude or could conclude
10 that what is correct is that which refers to the key parts of the
11 so-called Ante Gotovina Defence, including the fact that the state is
12 participating in that because the Ante Gotovina Defence team is made up
13 of many parts of both state, intelligence friendly to him, and so on and
14 so forth people. And in view of the symbolic importance of Ante Gotovina
15 in Croatia
16 that's what I think.
17 Q. Well, let's -- before we finish with this article and move on,
18 and let's kind of tie some things back this morning. Also in the next
19 page and again we are assisted by again numbers. In item number 4 --
20 question number 4 was put to you, which again was only, I remind
21 everyone, 13 days ago on the 3rd of September.
22 "What is your position on Jasenovac and Bleiburg?"
23 Answer:
24 "Jasenovac and Bleiburg are the symbols of grave war and post-war
25 victimisation related to the Second World War ..."
Page 44962
1 And I don't think anyone will disagree about that.
2 "However, those who are ruling Croatia even today are still
3 preventing Croatian society from confronting objective information on
4 those tragic experiences."
5 And, sir, I put to you earlier today when you talk about
6 objective information, what you're real -- that is code, isn't it, sir,
7 for saying we should drastically reduce the number of the victims. It
8 really wasn't that bad. Correct?
9 A. Well, here we have an example -- of course I respect the right of
10 the Prosecutor to extract things from their context, but this is an
11 opportunity to show just how that solipsistic method leads to unobjective
12 conclusions, solipsism. Now, I was very often asked in Croatia to say
13 how many victims there were in Jasenovac. I never gave an answer because
14 I knew where the trap was, and I always answered what was objective, that
15 unfortunately it is not allowed to establish the number of Jasenovac
16 victims, but regardless of how high -- how great that number is it is a
17 crime locality, the location of a crime, where the worst kinds of crimes
18 were -- had been committed that can be imagined according to
19 civilisational standards and according to international law. So I never
20 said, nor did I opt for a figure, a number, but on the basis of my
21 research - and I insist upon this and it was defended before a competent
22 Trial Chamber - I was never able to say as an expert what the number was.
23 Because what it says here, it is true, objective knowledge is made
24 impossible and it is -- the Croatian society cannot face the subject as
25 is written here.
Page 44963
1 MR. SCOTT: Unless the Chamber has questions about that
2 particular document or that series of questions, I'll move on to another
3 topic.
4 Q. Sir, I'd like to turn now to the preparation of your report.
5 Have you and Mr. Praljak ever collaborated on any work of any sort,
6 co-authored, worked together in preparing or producing a document, apart
7 from the book about the old bridge. You've already told us that you
8 wrote the preface to his book about the destruction of the old bridge.
9 So we know about that one. Any others that you've collaborated with
10 Mr. Praljak on?
11 A. Well, as far as I -- well, I've already said that Praljak,
12 Mr. Praljak, I met physically for the first time then, in 1992, in the
13 Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Croatia
14 not on any close or any other terms and perhaps --
15 Q. Sir, I think this is a question -- excuse me, I think this is one
16 that you really can answer yes or no. Have you collaborated, co-authored
17 any works, worked on any publications, books, materials, together with
18 Mr. Praljak other than the book about the destruction of the old bridge.
19 I think that's truly a "yes" or "no."
20 A. Well, here you are. Well, I'm saying that I spent very little
21 time with him and I didn't see him for 10, 12, 14 years afterwards, and I
22 don't think that I wrote anything with him. So the answer is negative.
23 I didn't except for the old bridge do anything together with Mr. Praljak.
24 For precision purposes I gave thought to this answer, to my answer, to
25 see whether from the time that I was interested in the archive base of
Page 44964
1 Mr. Praljak, I helped him about that database to make it as public as
2 possible and accessible as possible and clear as possible. But except
3 for the book that you mentioned, I did not sign anything or do anything
4 with Mr. Praljak.
5 Q. Wait a minute, what do you mean you assisted him to make the
6 database? What database?
7 A. Well, I didn't help him personally. There was a team,
8 General Praljak's team, made up of informatics experts and people of
9 different profiles whom I helped because they knew I was one of the
10 experts for archive, material, databases, and for the famous council, the
11 Republic of Croatia
12 like. And this is important for your questions. Some colleagues
13 professionally from the council, I took them to see what
14 General Praljak's database looked like, and I proposed that that kind of
15 information base and even better quality should be furnished at the level
16 of the state and be made accessible to everyone; the courts, the public,
17 the media, science, scholars, so that objective research could be
18 conducted in any sense on any subject, and there are minutes about the
19 meeting there with Mr. Krabac [phoen] and another person when we were
20 there.
21 Q. Sir, are you aware that probably I suspect a huge percentage of
22 the material that Mr. Praljak has that you talk about, that was all
23 provided to him by the Office of the Prosecutor?
24 MS. PINTER: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have to react to this
25 because that assertion, that claim, on the part of the Prosecutor is not
Page 44965
1 founded in argument. General Praljak -- General Praljak amassed a far
2 larger number of documents than the ones provided to us by the
3 Prosecution, and the ones that were provided by the OTP we already had in
4 our possession except for some additional matter about Jablanica and
5 areas that they did not respond to.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I be allowed to answer? My
7 principal interest was not to learn the ways in which General Praljak
8 arrived at the information and data he had. I was interested in seeing
9 that those data should be professionally archived and grouped properly
10 for the purpose of easier research and the interests shown by different
11 researchers and scholars. So I wasn't interested in it -- well, it
12 wasn't a priority, that is to say, how those documents reached
13 General Praljak in the first place. So I don't know that. It's
14 something I'm not aware.
15 MR. SCOTT:
16 Q. Sir, we've all -- well, I'm not sure how it would be -- what
17 might be -- how this might be described in the Croatian language, but
18 in -- at least in English we've heard of the concept of someone being a
19 ghost writer. Someone publishes a book, usually it's someone of some
20 profile, and writes a book and puts their name on it, but we all know and
21 in fact it's an open secret that in fact the book was actually written by
22 somebody else. Sometimes we call those people a ghost writer. Have you
23 ever ghost written anything for Mr. Praljak?
24 A. Not only for Mr. Praljak -- well, I know about this custom that
25 you're referring to and it's done a lot in Croatia and even scientific
Page 44966
1 titles are gained on that basis, and I have a series of witnesses to bear
2 out that I categorically refuse to sign anything that I haven't written
3 myself. And also I consider my work to be the work of myself as an
4 author and I am very proud of it, and I would not agree to write as a
5 ghost writer for someone else and have that other person sign it as being
6 their own.
7 Now, when it comes to the book about the old bridge, it's a book
8 of documents and that is indubitable.
9 Q. Sir, the report that the Judges have in front of them and it's
10 been provided to all of us, it's your testimony under oath that you wrote
11 every word of that yourself; is that right?
12 A. Here you have it, as I said, at the beginning of today's
13 proceedings I assumed which line this would take. So in the statement
14 that I wrote I say there in one of the points --
15 Q. Sir, just answer my question.
16 A. Well, that's a response --
17 Q. It's either yes or no, and I'm not trying to be -- cut you off.
18 If you say "yes" we'll go one way, and if you say "no," maybe we'll go
19 another direction. But let's first start with the answer to the
20 question.
21 A. All right.
22 Q. Did anyone -- just -- everything in this report was in your
23 words, you did the research, this is completely your product and nobody
24 else's, yes or no?
25 A. Five seconds. I wrote the expert report as an author
Page 44967
1 independently, according to objective, scientific, and scholarly
2 standards with the best human intentions within the frameworks of my
3 possibilities. Now, in writing the expert report and in preparing for
4 expert testimony, I did not consult the Defence teams or enter into any
5 unlawful or dishonourable acts, nor was I offered to do that. I've
6 written other things, so as I've written this text perhaps I could leave
7 it with the Trial Chamber and the Court. With the Court's permission
8 perhaps I can hand this piece of paper over to you signed by me which
9 resolves certain problems.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let's not mix things up. The
11 Prosecutor is asking you whether you authored this report in full,
12 whether you actually wrote everything, even the footnotes. You are
13 answering yes. And then you start to talking about this other document
14 that we don't have. Maybe you say the same thing in that document, but
15 you said -- you told Mr. Scott: I authored the report. That is enough
16 of an answer. If I understood you correctly, you did not ask some kind
17 of -- any student of yours to write the report for you. You authored it
18 yourself, you wrote it yourself.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely so and I never did any of
20 that ever in my life. Everything I wrote, I wrote myself.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] My question will establish a
22 connection which is what I said a while ago. You told us that you saw
23 Mr. Kordic August. When you went to see Mr. Kordic in the month of
24 August, did you know that you needed to come here to testify?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That was clear when I accepted to
Page 44968
1 write the expert report, and it was customary -- I knew it was customary
2 to come in here. Only some extraordinary circumstances could have
3 prevented me from possibly not coming.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] When you went to see Mr. Kordic
5 in Austria
6 you were going to go and see Mr. Kordic?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. The first time I saw
8 Mr. Kordic was, in fact, there in prison. My wife and a girl -- a friend
9 of Kordic's were also -- were also there. We did not talk about the
10 trials before this Tribunal. We talked about general issues which are of
11 no interest to the --
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation
13 continues]... answering my question. Maybe it was mistranslated. When
14 you go and see Mr. Kordic in the month of August, you went to visit him
15 in jail. Before going there or after having gone to see him, did you say
16 to Mr. Kovacic, I would like to advise you of the fact that I'm going to
17 go and see Mr. Kordic, or I would like to advise you of the fact that I
18 have seen him?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Why didn't you do this?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I thought that this was immaterial
22 and that it was up to me whether I would visit Mr. Kordic or not and that
23 it had nothing to do with this trial, and I didn't even give it any
24 thought. Let me tell you quite frankly.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Did you know that Mr. Kovacic
Page 44969
1 had defended Cerkez?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I knew that Mr. Kovacic had been
3 practicing law before this Tribunal before some ten years, but we never
4 discussed that during our meetings. I didn't know that.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.
6 Mr. Scott.
7 MR. SCOTT:
8 Q. Sir, in your report -- in reviewing it very carefully, there are
9 two persons in particular that you cite for support far more than any
10 other, and I put it to you, sir, that the two people that you base much
11 of your report -- in fact, some sections almost entirely if not entirely,
12 the sources that you rely on most extensively are Mr. Praljak himself and
13 Miroslav Tudjman, the son of former President Franjo Tudjman. That's
14 correct, isn't it?
15 A. No, that's not correct. I refer to documents that are available
16 in General Praljak's database, and I also refer to documents that have
17 been published in a variety of places, including a book of documents
18 published by Miroslav Tudjman. It's a book of documents about Bosnia
19 Herzegovina
20 Q. So, in the --
21 A. And in the expert reports, in the footnotes, the sources -- other
22 sources on those documents are also listed as well as the possibility
23 that they might be contained in Mr. Miroslav Tudjman's book.
24 Q. Sir, putting aside the first 60 pages or so of your report, which
25 even the Trial Chamber itself did not really go to the scope of this
Page 44970
1 case, putting aside those -- the first parts of your report, I put it to
2 you a review of your report indicates that in the -- in the last hundred
3 pages of your report, the last 100 pages you cite either Mr. Praljak or a
4 Praljak book or the Praljak web site approximately 110 times; correct?
5 A. I don't know whether this is correct because I did not really
6 count all that and I did not take-over any views or positions of
7 General Praljak. I simply used the documents that I believe are not
8 forged. If you believe that they are forged, please give me some
9 arguments in favour of that claim.
10 Q. And indeed, isn't it correct, sir, that some parts of your --
11 large parts of your report are entirely dependent on Mr. Praljak. And I
12 refer in particular as one example, one example, your section on the
13 relationship of the Republic of Croatia
14 that can be found at pages 132 to 177 of your report, and that entire
15 section is either based largely or in some parts entirely on Mr. Praljak.
16 Correct?
17 A. It is entirely untrue. None of this report is based on
18 Mr. Praljak, but on documents that clearly indicate their source. So for
19 the most part the source of the documents is quite clearly indicated in
20 the text. So I don't think that I used documents from Mr. Praljak, but
21 from various institutions, literature, both from the -- well, from the
22 Bosnian, Serbian, Croatian, and international side that is relevant for
23 the needs of the drafting of the expert report.
24 Q. Sir, in a number of citations, in fact, you give no other source
25 or citation except for a reference to Mr. Praljak's web site. You don't
Page 44971
1 give a page, you don't give a document number. You just say,
2 essentially, See web site; correct?
3 A. I am a scholar and I know very well how the scientific apparatus
4 is used, which means that in the text I indicate the source of the
5 documents whether it was -- it originated from the Croatian army, the
6 HVO, BH Army, the president of Bosnia and Herzegovina. So it is very
7 clearly indicated in the text who authored the document, and I also make
8 references, specific references, to pages because it is easy then to
9 check whether this document exists in that form.
10 Q. Well, sir, that's just not true. If you look at footnotes 309,
11 310, 392, 474, 475, 480 --
12 JUDGE PRANDLER: [Microphone not activated]
13 MR. SCOTT: Sorry, Your Honour.
14 Q. 480, 490, 491, 601, 606, 617, the only citation we get -- the
15 only information the Judges have to base -- to assess your report is a
16 citation to www.slobodanpraljak.com --
17 MR. KOVACIC: Objection, this is exactly what the witness said in
18 previous answer. He said that the references were to the pages, and he
19 was previously talking about web pages, internet pages. This is exactly
20 what he said.
21 MR. SCOTT: No, that's not correct, sir.
22 MR. KOVACIC: Judge Trechsel, don't -- don't make a face. This
23 is what --
24 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry, Mr. -- yeah.
25 MR. KOVACIC: I thought I heard it on Croatian language --
Page 44972
1 JUDGE TRECHSEL: It's -- it's clever but it's a bit strange
2 because when scientifically speaking you say "I refer to the page," then
3 page is meant in the sense of a number in a document of several pages
4 which you take and then you find where the quotation is, where the source
5 is. Here when you -- the web site, the web site, may be called "page" in
6 certain languages, but it -- you do not know what is there. Normally
7 there is a lot of things on a web site, and it doesn't have the precision
8 which an understanding Judge expects when he's told: This is a reference
9 to a page. I mean, it does not correspond to the expectations that this
10 affirmation raises. That may be different in Croatian. I am not able to
11 comment on that.
12 MR. KOVACIC: Your Honour, I -- [Microphone not activated]
13 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, counsel.
14 MR. KOVACIC: [Microphone not activated]
15 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the counsel.
16 MR. KOVACIC: I'm sorry. I entirely agree with your assertion,
17 but when witness was talking here previously in those -- he said: Yes, I
18 was referring to the pages on site, Praljak's pages on site, when we sum
19 up all together. So -- and before that he said there was a perfect
20 database Praljak page, so sometimes instead of going into the details --
21 that is impression what I had, but I don't want to testify. I think that
22 we should ask the witness to clarify. That was merely my impression
23 based on original Croatian language.
24 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.
25 Mr. Scott.
Page 44973
1 MR. SCOTT:
2 Q. So --
3 A. Your Honour, Your Honour, the question was addressed to me so
4 perhaps he we can deal with all the doubts and I would like to deal with
5 this as an expert --
6 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry, this is an error. I have not
7 addressed any question to you. I have just had an exchange of views,
8 during which Mr. Kovacic has kindly explained what was possibly based on
9 a linguistic misunderstanding and Mr. Scott has the floor now.
10 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Q. If we can --
<