IT-04-74-T 70305 D70305 - D70119 31 March 2011 SF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA Case No. IT-04-74-T Original: English TRIAL CHAMBER III Before: Judge Jean-Claude Antonetti, Presiding Judge Arpad Prandler Judge Stefan Trechsel Reserve Judge Antoine Kesia-Mbe Mindua Registrar: Mr. John Hocking Filed: 31 March 2011 THE PROSECUTOR v. JADRANKOPRLIĆ BRUNOSTOJIĆ SLOBODAN PRALJAK MILIVOJ PETKOVIĆ VALENTIN ČORIĆ BERISLAV PUŠIĆ REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION ____________________________________________________ SLOBODAN PRALJAK’S REDACTED FINAL TRIAL BRIEF ________________________________________________________ Office of the Prosecutor Counsel for Jadranko Prlić Counsel for Milivoj Petković Mr. Kenneth Scott Mr. Michael G. Karnavas Ms. Vesna Alaburić Mr. Douglas Stringer Ms. Suzana Tomanović Mr. Zoran Ivanišević Counsel for Bruno Stojić Counsel for Valentin Čorić Ms. Senka Nožica Ms. Dijana Tomašegović Tomić Mr. Karim A. A. Khan Mr. Dražen Plavec Counsel for Slobodan Praljak Counsel for Berislav Pušić Mr. Božidar Kovačić Mr. Fahrudin Ibrišimović Ms. Nika Pinter Mr. Roger Sahota 70304 - 2 - THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA Case No. IT-04-74-T Prosecutor v. Jadranko Prlić at al SLOBODAN PRALJAK’S REDACTED FINAL TRIAL BRIEF 1. Pursuant to the Trial Chamber's instruction that all parties should submit a redacted, public draft of their final trial briefs before 1 April 2011, the Praljak Defence respectfully hereby submits a redacted version of Slobodan Praljak’s Final Trial Brief, incorporating corrigenda1 and redacting reference to all information that should not be made public to the best of its ability.2 Respectfully submitted, By Božidar Kovačić and Nika Pinter Counsel for the Accused Slobodan Praljak 1 The Prosecution noted apparent references to various documents not admitted in the initialdraft, generally due to typographical errors. In addition, the Praljak Defence notes that the lastsentence of paragraph 110 was leftoff of previous submissions due to a drafting error, and notes the correction ofvarious minor typographical errors. The Praljak Defence regrets allerrors. 2 The Praljak Defence thanks all parties with their assistance with the difficulttask of redacting all reference to the substance of confidentialmaterial, and takes responsibility for any error. Case No. IT04-74-T Prosecutor v. Jadranko Prlić, at al 31 March 2011 70303 Slobodan Praljak's Final Trial Brief - Redacted Case No. IT-04-74-T THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION FINAL TRIAL BRIEF OF THE ACCUSED SLOBODAN PRALJAK Case No. IT04-74-T Prosecutor v. Jadranko Prlić, et al. 1 70302 Slobodan Praljak's Final Trial Brief - Redacted Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................7 II. GENERAL CRITIQUE OF THE INDICTMENT.....................................................10 a. Quasi Res Ipsa Loquitur............................................................................................10 b. The “Nobody Else Could Have Done It” Argument ..................................................11 c. The Implicit Assumption That the BiH Is Primarily a Muslim State..........................11 d. The Prosecution Assumption as to Who Started the Conflict.....................................12 e. Basic Facts Refuting the Alleged JCE .......................................................................13 III. THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE THE SPECIFIC JOINT CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE ALLEGED........................................................................................18 IV. INHERENT WEAKNESSES OF THE EVIDENCE .................................................21 a. Terminology – The Weakness of Using Standard Associations and Assumptions......21 b. The Weak Probative Value and Low Evidentiary Weight of Certain Foreign/International Evidence .................................................................................22 c. The Weakness of Hearsay Evidence..........................................................................23 d. The Weakness of Testimony Based on 15 Year-Old Memories.................................24 e. The Weakness of Translated and Interpreted Evidence..............................................24 V. THE FALSITY OF PARAGRAPH 17.3 OF THE INDICTMENT CONTRASTED WITH THE REALITY OF SLOBODAN PRALJAK’S ROLE .................................25 a. Par. 17.3 (a) ..............................................................................................................26 b. Par. 17.3 (b)..............................................................................................................28 c. Par. 17.3 (c) ..............................................................................................................32 d. Par. 17.3 (d)..............................................................................................................33 e. Par. 17.3 (e) ..............................................................................................................34 f. Par. 17.3 (f)...............................................................................................................39 g. Par. 17.3 (g)..............................................................................................................39 h. Par. 17.3 (h)..............................................................................................................40 i. Par. 17.3 (i)...............................................................................................................42 j. Par. 17.3 (j)...............................................................................................................43 k. Par. 17.3 (k)..............................................................................................................43 l. Par. 17.3 (l)...............................................................................................................44 m. Par. 17.3 (m).............................................................................................................44 n. Par. 17.3 (n)..............................................................................................................45 VI. REBUTTAL OF CERTAIN ALLEGEDLY "INCULPATORY" EVIDENCE ..........45 a. [REDACTED] ..........................................................................................................45 b. Destruction of Mosque in Višići................................................................................45 c. Witness Mustafa Hadrović erroneously claimed that he saw Praljak in Heliodrom. ...46 d. Forged Document P06937.........................................................................................47 VII. PROZOR IN 1992 (paras 43 – 50 of the Indictment).................................................50 a. Prozor: Introduction..................................................................................................50 b. Prozor: Pre-October 23 1992.....................................................................................51 c. Prozor: On and around 23-24 October 1992..............................................................55 d. Prozor: Post-October 24 1992 ...................................................................................62 e. Prozor: Conclusion ...................................................................................................65 VIII. PROZOR IN 1993 (Paras. 50 – 59 of the Indictment)................................................66 IX. GORNJI VAKUF MUNICIPALITY (Paras. 61 – 72 of the Indictment)....................74 a. Introduction ..............................................................................................................74 b. October 1992 ............................................................................................................77 c. January 1993.............................................................................................................79 d. From 18 January 1993 Onwards................................................................................82 Case No. IT04-74-T Prosecutor v. Jadranko Prlić, et al. 2 70301 Slobodan Praljak's Final Trial Brief - Redacted X. MOSTAR (Paras. 88 – 118 of the Indictment)...........................................................85 a. Mostar - introduction ................................................................................................85 b. Alleged Siege of Mostar............................................................................................87 c. Public Utility Services in Mostar...............................................................................91 d. Sniping Civilians and Members of International Organizations .................................94 e. Shelling of East Mostar...........................................................................................100 f. Destruction of Mosques ..........................................................................................106 g. Destruction of the Old Bridge, 9 November 1993....................................................107 h. Mostar: 9 and 10 May 1993 ....................................................................................115 i. 30 June 1993...........................................................................................................117 j. Raštani late August 1993 ........................................................................................117 XI. ČAPLJINA