Translated from Croatian

Facts

Zagreb, April 2006.

Publisher . . . . . . . . . .Oktavijan d. o. o.

Nikola Babić Praljak

Proofreader. . . . . . . . . . . .Tomislav Đonlić

Design. . . . . . . . .Miroslav Ambruš-Kiš

Editor. . . . . . . . . . . .Josip Jurčević

The expert opinion has been included in the book at the publisher's wish.

CIP - Catalog of Publication

National and University Library – Zagreb

UDK 355.4 (497.6 Mostar) "1993"

355.012 (497.6 Mostar) "1993":930.85

PRALJAK, Slobodan

Kako je srušen Stari most : činjenice /

Slobodan Praljak. – Zagreb : Oktavijan,

2006.

Parallel text in Croatian and English

ISBN 953-95410-0-X

I. Rat u Bosni i Hercegovini (1992.-1995.)

-- Mostar II. Mostar -- Spomenička baština

-- Ratna razaranja

460418054

CONTENTS

What Exactly Happened on 9 November 1993?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . .5

Introduction to Chapters with Original Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .13

Original Documents Related to the Events. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

Positions of Opposed Forces in November 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Position of the Tank That Was Shelling the Old Bridge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57

Analysis of the Destruction of the Old Bridge Based on the Available Video Tapes. . . . . . . .. .59

The bridge, a pearl of Ottoman architecture of the 16^th century, one of the few works of world architecture which gave its name to the city where it stands, was destroyed on 9 November 1993, in the conflict of two armies set to fight each other, although both were actually the defenders in the war, the victims of an aggressor who wanted to subdue the entire region and dominate it, treating its native population as subhuman.

Its construction was commissioned by the sultan Suleiman the Magnificent in 1557 from the master builder Mimar Hayruddin, the student of the great Ottoman architect Sinan. Legend has it that the construction took nine years, because the builder had to die on the day when he completed the bridge, taking with him the secrets of its unique elegant arch.

In the terrible time of the fight for survival in a restricted living space, it was the only bridge connecting the two riverbanks. All the other numerous bridges on the Neretva in the wider area had already been destroyed.

On 9 November 1993, on the same day when the bridge fell down into the rapids of the Neretva, the sad news of the destruction of a masterpiece of global architectural heritage went around the world, together with the news that it was destroyed by the Croat side, more precisely, by the "army of General Praljak".

And it was accepted everywhere as an established fact.

The local and global opinion was still the same when the reconstructed bridge was opened on 22 July 2004, put together from the available remains and with the joint building effort of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Turkish construction experts and the international community.

However, ever since the accusation was pronounced by the media on the day when the arch, greatly damaged by earlier fighting, fell down into the Neretva, nobody bothered to find out the truth. It was taken for granted that the Croat side gave the deathblow.

But that is not what really happened.

This book is the first systematic effort to collect the facts, review all the available materials and present them in an authentic way to unbiased experts, so they can make their conclusions about what exactly happened on 9 November 1993. We have enclosed the report of the expert group which examined the materials and verified its conclusions through an experiment. These documents are also included in this book.

We invite the readers to conclude by themselves what actually happened to the Old Bridge in Mostar on 9 November 1993.

Editor

INTRODUCTION TO CHAPTERS WITH ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS

DO WE KNOW THE TRUTH ABOUT THE DESTRUCTION OF THE OLD BRIDGE IN MOSTAR?

The name "Mostar" is related to the Old Bridge: most+star (bridge+old).

Evlija Čelebija wrote in his Travel Notes in 1664: Mostar means a town with a bridge.

The historians Ćorović and Smodlaka believe that the city of Mostar was named after the "bridge guards", mostari.

Near the stone bridge, remains were found of a wooden bridge that was built some 80 years before the Old Bridge.

(Source: The Old Bridge, from the location of events, Miroslav Landeka, HKD Napredak Sarajevo – HKD Napredak Split, Mostar 2005)

The wooden chained bridge had defensive towers, which were probably commissioned by Herceg Stjepan Kosača. One of the towers, although dilapidated, still stands today (the Herceguša Tower). The wooden bridge was built before 1452, since the Archive of the City of Dubrovnik has a written document from the 15^th century (from 3 April 1452) which mentions "two towers next to the bridge over the Neretva" (duo castelli al ponte de Neretva). Therefore, the wooden chained bridge and the towers existed before the Ottoman age.

The traveler and writer Evlija Čelebija mentioned it much later in his Travel Notes. After describing the stone bridge (the Old Bridge), he notes that the šeher, almost the same place, "…had, according to the tales of Latin historians, a bridge over the Neretva from one bank to the other, held by a strong iron chain…" (Evlija Čelebija, Travel Notes).

Mostar became a part of the Ottoman Empire in 1468. The Ottoman books from 1477 mention it as a "hamlet of 19 Christian households and a garrison of 25 people of Muslim faith from various places in the Balkans", who guarded the bridge and the towers.

Following the orders of the sultan Suleiman the Magnificent, a stone bridge was built on the same place in 1566. Its construction was conceived and supervised by Mimar Hayruddin, a student of the most famous builder of the Ottoman Empire, Koja Mimar Sinan. The bridge was built by the Dubrovnik builders and stonecutters from Popovo, Dubrovnik and Korčula.

After 473 years of existence, the bridge was destroyed on 9 November 1993. The destruction of the bridge was reported by most global media.

In history, especially more recent history, the Old Bridge was in the danger of destruction many times:

- in April 1941, the army of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia set up explosives under the bridge, but they were removed by the Croatian miners,

- in 1943, the Italian army set up explosives in the interior of the bridge during the partisan offensive (the "Fourth Offensive"), but they were removed when the danger was over,

- the Old Bridge, like all the other bridges in Mostar before the start of the Bosnian war in 1991/1992, was filled with explosives and prepared for destruction,

- in October 1992, the bridge was damaged by a second Serb shell,

- the Army of BiH (hereinafter: ABiH) removed the UN flag from the Old Bridge and placed a green flag,

- Jozo Marić, the head of the Department for Education, Science and Culture of the Croatian Community of Herzeg-Bosnia (hereinafter: HZ HB), sent a plea to UNESCO to urgently help and save the Old Bridge (Archive of HR HB, 0183/93, of 8 July 1993).

The destruction of the Old Bridge was recorded from several locations, even from the bank of the Neretva, as if several cameramen knew in advance that the bridge would be destroyed,

- the names of some cameramen are known: Hadži Nedžad Kasumović; former English soldier and then a volunteer of the Croatian Defense Council (hereinafter: HVO) and ABiH, freelance reporter, calling himself James Wilson and known under the nickname "Scott"; Eldin Palata,

- their statements have been preserved,

- the proof is the videocassette called War in Mostar, BBC Video Production, sold in United Kingdom in 2000,

- "the video recording confirms the suspicion that the Old Bridge was not destroyed by shells but by an enormous quantity of set explosives" - this statement by prof. dr. Goluža was the first expert opinion which questioned the proclaimed truth about the destruction (prof. dr. Božo Goluža: Who Really Destroyed the Old Bridge, Old Bridges in Mostar, Mostar 2004).

Who would benefit from the destruction of the Old Bridge?

Already on 23 November, the District Military Prosecutor's Office in Mostar initiated the request to start the investigation against three members of HVO because of the reasonable suspicion that they participated in the destruction of the Old Bridge (District Military Prosecutor's Office in Mostar, No. KT. 2843/93 of 23 November 1993, signed by Mladen Jurišić, the District Military Prosecutor).

Pursuant to the report of SIS of the Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia (hereinafter: HR HB), the alleged perpetrators of that act were identified as the tank crew consisting of two Croats and one Muslim (Tomo Topić, Dragan Rezić and Senaid Čavčić), against whom an investigation was started.

The proof for the investigation is the Statement of the District Military Court in Mostar sent to the Office of the President of HR HB (Archive of HR HB, District Military Court in Mostar, No. KT. 173/93 of 21 December 1993, signed by Velimir Marić, President of the Court).

The court proceedings were still ongoing in 1995, which is proven by the Court's requests for an expert analysis of the destruction of the Old Bridge from the Faculty of Civil Engineering in Mostar and the Civil Engineering Institute in Zagreb, as well as the replies of both expert institutions. They asked the Court for additional data which would enable them to make an expert opinion. One of the questions/doubts of prof. dr. Hrvoje Soče from the Faculty of Civil Engineering in Mostar was this: "Was the Old Bridge destroyed by artillery shells or other kinds of shells fired from the right bank of the Neretva on that fateful day (9 November 1993) even earlier, or was the destruction of the bridge caused by something else (for example, explosives that were previously set up and activated etc.)?"

The court proceedings were discontinued. The fate of the three accused men is unknown. It is also unknown who stopped the proceedings.

"It is unknown who stopped it. The reasons and method of stopping can be only guessed at. The avoidance of this issue is damaging to the Croatian people." (prof. dr. Božo Goluža: Who Really Destroyed the Old Bridge, Old Bridges in Mostar, Mostar 2004, prepared by dr. Ante Pavlović).

Who wants to hide the truth? If we count the opinion of prof. dr. Božo Goluža as the first one, does not the second expert opinion motivate truthful people to invite independent experts to verify the new claims?

UN/UNESCO or some other respectable international organization should found a commission which will verify the new evidence and claims, and make a verdict that should not be doubted in the future. A new, independent and convincing verification is the only goal of this collection of documents and of this expert opinion about the destruction of the Old Bridge.

Questions

1. When did the Yugoslav People's Army (hereinafter: JNA) and the Chetniks occupy eastern Herzegovina?

2. How many Croats and Muslims/Bosniaks fled the area and where did they find a place to stay?

3. Did the Chetniks and JNA occupy the entire left bank of the Neretva on 10 May 1992 and did they force the remaining Muslims/Bosniaks to flee to the right bank?

4. How many of them came and where were they lodged?

5. How many bridges on the Neretva were destroyed by JNA by then?

6. Did the "Penal Battalion" free "Orlovac" on 11 June 1992?

7. Did Slobodan Praljak (because of the speed and success of the operation which he followed in the field) order all HVO units to move towards the Neretva?

8. Did HVO fighters, by the evening of the same day, liberate the occupied part of the right bank of the Neretva – Hum, Čule, Heliodrom, Aluminij factory, Soko factory?

9. Did the speed of the decision and the top fighting readiness and motivation of HVO soldiers save Aluminij and Soko from the prepared destruction by explosives?

10. After their escape, did JNA and the Chetniks blow up the last operating bridge, the Airmen Bridge?

11. Did Slobodan Praljak decide and order on 14 June 1992 to cross the Neretva and liberate Mostar and the area up to Dubravska Plateau (freed together with Stolac some time earlier)?

12. Did Slobodan Praljak order the protection of the bridge immediately after setting up the bridgehead around the Old Bridge?

13. How many people worked on the protection of the Old Bridge and

· Who were they?

· Was there shooting around the bridge?

· Was the bridgehead larger than a couple of hundred meters around the bridge?

· How many cubic meters of planks, five centimeter thick, had to be brought?

· How many iron tubes had to be found and brought together with the tools?

· How many hours of work were needed to protect the bridge from mortar fire?

· Was the bridge already damaged?

· Did shells fall around the bridge during the work?

· Why did the commander Slobodan Praljak imperil his men to protect an artifact?

· Why did his men obey him then?

· Did they obey because he had a rank or because he deserved it? If the latter is the case, how did he deserve it?

14. How and why is it possible that such situations never include sensitive intellectuals and other lovers of the beautiful who later find it so easy to talk about what should have been done and how, and especially about the worthlessness of human life when compared to unspeakable beauties – when the human life in question is not theirs?

15. Who and why removed that protection which HVO built on the Old Bridge?

16. Was the bridge used for military purposes after the clash between HVO and ABiH, and

· Did ABiH transport weapons across the Old Bridge?

· Was the Old Bridge crossed by soldiers equipped for warfare?

17. Are there clear and multiple video recordings showing it?

18. Is it allowed by the international warfare rules to shoot at any military target and

· Is any human artifact a military target if the other side is using it as a means of war?

19. Do you remember Monte Cassino and the Baghdad museum?

20. Why didn't HVO destroy the Old Bridge although it had the war right to do so?

21. If the HVO commander Slobodan Praljak had decided to destroy the Old Bridge, how would he do it, what would he use, and how long would the destruction take?

22. Isn't the dawn or nightfall the best time for the destruction, isn't it best to place the tank together with artillery on Hum, isn't it best to use shells with delayed action, which would destroy the bridge in one minute?! In fact, the Old Bridge is hollow.

23. This claim was verified by a journalist of Die Zeit, who talked to a Bundeswehr artilleryman. Yu can verify it too!

24. If this is so, as it most certainly is, why was somebody constantly shelling from a tank for 24 hours and

· Why were more than 80 shells fired?

· Why didn't they use shells with delayed action, which would pierce the hollow bridge and then explode?

· Why was it all recorded with three cameras?

· Why was nobody from ABiH shooting at the tank, since it was very visible and very close to their positions?

· Why didn't anybody call the Spanish battalion to stop the destruction?

· Why was this done at the time when Slobodan Praljak was informing Ante Roso about the situation on the battlefield (8 November 1993) and formally gave him the command at 7:40 am, on 9 November 1993, and left?

25. What was there doing the ubiquitous Englishman called "Scott" (aside from filming the destruction), who rushed to Sarajevo immediately after the destruction, leaving the supposedly blocked Mostar; wasn't he transported by a team from the ABiH 4^th Corps, didn't he immediately board an England-bound plane?

· How could an ABiH soldier (Scott) so easily board an UNPROFOR plane in Sarajevo and leave for England?

26. Since it is certain that neither Slobodan Praljak nor any other HVO commander (which means the entire HVO) had nothing to do with the tank which was shelling the Old Bridge, who was it?

27. Since it is clear that the tank did not destroy the Old Bridge, who did?

28. Why was the investigation, which was supposed to determine all the facts, stopped? If the legal system was unable to complete it then, why wasn't the investigation continued after the arrival of the legal experts from the international community, and

· Why didn't UNESCO ask for an investigation?

· Where are the people accused as the tank crew? Are they still alive? What was their fate?

29. It can be concluded that:

(a) some people were shelling the bridge to devastate it, to make the devastation last a long time and to make it attractive for cameras;

(b) others destroyed the Old Bridge;

30. Some Croats did (a), some Muslims/Bosniaks did (b), and you should investigate who did (c).

31. You should investigate who and for what purposes wanted to incite and deepen the Croat-Bosniak conflict and who would benefit from presenting the Croats as being equally guilty as the Serbs in the matter of aggression and warfare methods!