1 Tuesday, 30 January 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness enters court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.21 p.m.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Marcus, you are to continue with your
8 MS. MARCUS: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President and Your Honours.
9 Before I do so, I just want to request if possible that the witness
10 statements for Witness number 36 be given exhibit numbers.
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, let that be done.
12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, those witness statements, document
13 ID number DD00-0362 and 0363 will be admitted as Exhibits P117 and P118
15 WITNESS: AFEZA KARACIC [Resumed]
16 [Witness answered through interpreter]
17 Examination by Ms. Marcus: [Continued]
18 Q. Madam Witness, good afternoon.
19 A. Good afternoon.
20 Q. I just have very few more questions for you today.
21 First, I'd like to ask you, do you recall if the tram stopped when
22 it was fired upon, or did it keep going after you were shot?
23 A. It kept going. Further down the street it turned around and
24 stopped behind a building. It was a sheltered place, so those of us who
25 had been wounded could get off the tram.
1 MS. MARCUS: I'd like to request the case manager now to show the
2 360-degree photograph of the location.
3 Q. Madam Witness, we're going to see a photograph now, and I'm going
4 ask you, please, to stop us when we reach the location from which the
5 shots were fired.
6 A. Stop.
7 Q. Thank you. And now I'll ask the case manager, please, to continue
8 to complete the circle. Thank you.
9 Madam Witness, is this a true and accurate representation of the
10 location where you were on the tram when you were shot?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. I'd like, please, to tender this particular 360-degree photograph
13 into evidence.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
15 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P119, Your Honours.
16 MS. MARCUS:
17 Q. Can you tell the Court if you have any lasting medical
18 consequences to your injury?
19 A. Yes, I do. I have an 80 per cent handicap. My hand is not mobile
20 enough. I can't drive a car. I can't write properly, and I have
21 difficulty eating. Since I'm right-handed, I have trouble eating, feeding
23 Q. Thank you, Witness.
24 MS. MARCUS: I have no further questions, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Ms. Marcus.
1 Mr. Tapuskovic.
2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. Could
3 we please have that image back, the last picture that was shown and
5 Cross-examination by Mr. Tapuskovic:
6 Q. [Interpretation] Madam Witness, I would like to ask you something
7 based on the statements that you provided to the Tribunal's investigators
8 and a number of other documents as well. First of all, though, I would
9 like to ask you to show me exactly what the distance was between the tram
10 and the traffic light where the shadow falls, as it were. Where exactly
11 was the tram? Was it rather close to the traffic light? Or perhaps you
12 should tell us what the distance was.
13 A. It was roughly in the same area. I can't specify in terms of
15 Q. Right next to the traffic light then; right?
16 A. Yes. There's the shadow and there's the tracks.
17 Q. Can you show me where the Metalka building lies since allegations
18 have been made that the shots had been fired from over there?
19 A. It's over there. Maybe I even saw a part of roof.
20 Q. Where exactly?
21 A. There. Right there.
22 Q. In relation to this building across the way from the traffic
23 lights you mean?
24 A. Yes, yes.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Marcus is on her feet.
1 MS. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honours. I have three copies, hard copies,
2 of this exact photograph. If it would assist the Court, perhaps we could
3 enter one unmarked, and then I don't know if the witness is able or
4 comfortable to mark, but it might be of assistance.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, it may be of assistance.
6 I'm to say that the e-court problems that we have experienced,
7 that we experienced yesterday, I'm informed are resolvable and will be
8 resolved, particularly after tomorrow when the -- there's a meeting
9 between the court deputy and the parties.
10 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I may, something
11 about the meeting. We would be glad to have the meeting any time after
12 trial. Today perhaps. However, it would be very difficult for us to
13 manage 11.00 in the morning. You must understand that we are doing a lot
14 of work to prepare for our cross-examinations. It would be very difficult
15 to manage 11.00 in the morning. Right after our trial anytime.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. We've been advised that the court deputy
17 will make a separate arrangement with your team, Mr. Tapuskovic. So you
18 need not be worried.
19 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. I don't have anything
20 on my screen right now.
21 Q. All right. The tram was near the traffic light. I'm not asking
22 you to be dead accurate. Can you, please, show me how one can see the
23 Metalka building from this position. The Metalka building is behind these
24 buildings; right?
25 A. Yes, the Metalka is right there after this passage.
1 Q. Quite far behind; right?
2 A. Yes. The Metalka building is not that far behind.
3 Q. I wanted to ask you when things were going in a circle here, you
4 saw those two skyscrapers; right?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. The two skyscrapers are on the side where the BH army was?
7 A. No.
8 Q. The two tallest ones?
9 A. You go behind -- across the river and the river was the
11 Q. The two tallest skyscrapers are in the Serbian territory?
12 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters note the speakers are constantly
13 overlapping. It is impossible to interpret. Thank you.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Did you hear that? The interpreters complain
15 that you are both overlapping and that often happens when you speak the
16 same language. So you must observe a pause between question and answer.
17 That applies to both Mr. Tapuskovic and the witness.
18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. What I mean is the two really tall skyscrapers, the UNIS
20 skyscrapers that were right near the tram, that was in territory
21 controlled by the BH army; right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Are those the two tallest skyscrapers in that particular area of
25 A. Yes, but they have nothing to do with the fact that I was wounded.
1 Q. I won't be going into that now, but one thing I could ask you is
2 this: Did you ever notice, looking at those two tallest skyscrapers that
3 are as high as some hills, did you ever notice members of the BH army
4 firing shots at their own citizens?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Were shots ever fired from those positions at positions held by
7 the army of Republika Srpska?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Thank you. You answered a number of questions by the Prosecutor
10 yesterday, and you said -- you had known immediately where you'd been shot
11 from. That was my understanding of your answer. Am I right?
12 A. Yes. I pressed my right hand against it, so that told me where
13 the bullet had come from. It had to be from the right.
14 Q. We tried to reconstruct the setting, and you tried to show us
15 which direction the bullet had come from. What about the police inspector
16 who was in charge of the investigation? Why did they not try to
17 reconstruct this event in the tram itself? You were on a tram when you
18 were hit; right?
19 A. I don't understand.
20 Q. You were hit. You were injured. I don't doubt that for a second.
21 You were on a tram.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. A reconstruction was made, but this was done on the pavement and
24 not inside a tram.
25 A. Simply because no tram could stop there. The tram continued to
1 drive further down the street. It took a turn, turned behind the building
2 and stopped there.
3 Q. You weren't even in the same place where you were probably hit at
4 the time, were you?
5 A. I was on a tram and that's when I was hit.
6 Q. Thank you. I will have to ask you some questions now about the
7 statement that you made on the 15th of November, 1995. The document
8 number, the 65 ter number, is 02875. This is page 1 that I'm looking at.
9 Rather, page 2. The second page. I will do my best to ask you very
10 specific questions.
11 This was on the 23rd of November, 1994; right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. You say, "To my right was the Jewish cemetery and Grbavica." Is
14 that right?
15 A. Yes, that's right. That was to my right.
16 Q. I believe you also said that you'd been hit from there. I think
17 that's what you testified yesterday.
18 A. I meant the neighbourhoods over there.
19 Q. But you did say yesterday that -- not right here, but yesterday
20 you said you'd been hit from the Metalka building. How come?
21 A. What I said yesterday is that I'd been hit from that direction.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Marcus is on her feet. No doubt a
24 MS. MARCUS: Yes. Yes. Thank you, Mr. President and Your
25 Honours. I do not believe that the witness identified the Metalka
1 building. Perhaps learned counsel can point to the page and the line in
2 the transcript from yesterday where the witness actually said that.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: What do you say she said?
4 MS. MARCUS: She said from the direction of the Jewish cemetery
5 and Grbavica.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: I suggest you accept that -- accept that,
7 Mr. Tapuskovic, that you have mischaracterised the evidence. Not
8 intentionally, no doubt.
9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I accept that. What you suggest
10 is entirely possible. I will have an opportunity to analyse this though
11 and I'll be glad to accept my mistake for what it is. It is certainly not
12 my intention to mislead anyone.
13 Q. Further down, paragraph four of your statement you say: "The
14 confrontation line is quite near this area. I assume about 500 metres."
15 That's paragraph 4. "I told her that she needn't worry," to your
16 sister, I suppose, "because UNPROFOR, regarding that spot, they had an
17 armoured vehicle there." Is that right?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. You go on to state, "I heard no shots. I just heard people
20 screaming." Is that right?
21 A. Yes, precisely. People screaming and an impact against my
23 Q. Down towards the very last portion of your statement you say: "At
24 the hospital they told me that six persons had been injured on that tram
25 and that one person had been killed. The police told me that the bullet
1 that had struck me was not a direct hit but, rather, a bullet that had
2 ricochetted." Is that correct?
3 A. No, that's not correct. The police told me nothing. When I was
4 injured, we all ran down the tram. I tried to stand up and I asked my
5 sister to come and help me because my arm was hanging loose. Then we got
6 off the tram. There was a dead man there. I saw two other persons who
7 were injured, and later I found out that six of us had been injured.
8 Q. You gave this statement on the 15th of November, 1995, a mere year
9 after this tragic incident that you were a victim of. How do you explain
10 that in the light of what you're claiming now? Can you explain that to
11 the Chamber?
12 A. I gave a statement at the time, but it wasn't the police who told
13 me what to say. It was only what I had seen. It was only what I had
15 Q. So you didn't say what we can read here?
16 A. No, not the way you've just read it.
17 Q. I'm not reading something that I'm making up as I go along. I'm
18 reading your own statement. Is that your statement or not?
19 A. Yes, I did give that statement.
20 Q. Thank you. I was going to ask you something about the other
21 statement. Perhaps I'll just ask you this: In the other statement you
22 make no reference at all, the 20th of November, 2006, that's 11 years
23 later, you make no reference to what you originally stated a mere year
24 after the incident. How do you explain that, what you said at the very
25 end? Is this something that somebody told you to address?
1 A. No.
2 Q. Thank you. I have DD00-0376. I have no English translation of
3 this document. However, it's a document that I was given by the OTP.
4 This is an Official Note.
5 If you could please have a look, and then perhaps you could answer
6 two or three of my remaining questions, and that's about all I have. This
7 is DD00-0376.
8 Do you have that? As you can see, this is an Official Note, that
9 incident on the 23rd of November. This was compiled on the 15th of
10 December, 1994, by Kemal Buco. He's not a protected witness, is he?
11 Kemal Buco is one of our next witnesses. I'll be asking him questions
12 specifically about this, but I would like to read out a portion of this
13 Official Note just to see whether this is something that was discussed
14 with the present witness.
15 Down the middle of the page -- can you see that Official Note in
16 front of you, Witness?
17 A. You're asking me, are you?
18 Q. Yes.
19 A. Yes, I can see it.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Is there a translation of this document?
21 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Not that I could find.
22 MS. MARCUS: Your Honours, I'm sorry. I'm told that the number
23 for the English translation, the 65 ter number is 0059. If that will
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: I hope it does.
1 Mr. Tapuskovic, you must come with the translation, and you know
3 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I got this from the
4 OTP, and I -- I thought all along that there had to be a translation. I
5 looked high and low. My translations will only start to trickle in
6 slowly. I have submitted a number of documents, a huge number of
7 documents for translation. I'm not sure if those will ever see the light
8 of day even until the end of this trial. Perhaps we will have a chance to
9 review those later on. I was hoping all along that this would be
10 translated. A witness will be coming soon who will be addressing this
11 issue. I won't be dwelling on this. I have a single question to ask and
12 the rest I'll be discussing with our next witness.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ask your question, Mr. Tapuskovic. Let us move
15 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Just a single question. I'll be
16 tendering this document that was compiled on the 15th of December, 1994.
17 Down the middle of the page the police inspector seems to have
18 written this, "Given the fact that the tram was hit just there where the
19 two of them where, her sister and she herself, and that the bullet had
20 passed through an open window, there was no sound of glass being
21 shattered. The passengers were hit by a single fragmentation bullet that
22 splintered and Afeza was hit to the upper part of her right shoulder, the
23 bullet exiting through her right upper arm."
24 Q. Is this something that you were shown when you spoke to the
1 A. I didn't understand your question.
2 Q. In other words, did the police show you what you had previously
3 stated, that this had been a ricochet, not a direct hit?
4 A. I don't know about these military terms. I only know what
5 happened to me.
6 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'll be wrapping up
7 my cross-examination because this is something that I'll be asking other
8 witnesses about. There are several other statements, but I don't think
9 there's any need to tire this witness with any further questions about the
10 note that the police compiled based on this interview.
11 This concludes my cross-examination. Madam Witness, thank you
13 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Witness --
14 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] My apologies. My apologies.
15 DD00-0376, I would like to tender this document into evidence. And, if
16 possible -- dated November 1995. Well, that's been admitted. That's 65
17 ter 02875 -- or, rather, I'm tendering -- rather, it's among the 65 ter
18 documents, 02875, but I'm tendering this into evidence. This is the
19 statement dated the 15th of November, 1995. I'm tendering this as
20 possible evidence, those two documents.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
22 THE REGISTRAR: The 65 ter number 02875 will be admitted as
23 Exhibit D29. And the document ID DD00-0376 will be admitted as D30.
24 Questioned by the Court:
25 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Witness, please. I'd like to go
1 back to the question I asked yesterday. I believe that the Defence
2 counsel went pretty much in the same direction as I did. Of course you're
3 not a specialist. You're not a ballistic expert. You don't know much
4 about shooting. But this is what I'd like to know: Yourself, did you
5 have any concrete elements, concrete facts that could help us know where
6 the shot came from? We must establish the facts, the fact that you were
7 wounded, but we must also find who was liable, who is responsible for
8 this. Experts will come, of course, to help us, but yourself, you know,
9 you know what police told you at the hospital. You know what the
10 physicians told you. But did you hear any shots? Did you hear any sound
11 that could help us know where the shots came from, which direction and
12 where it came from?
13 A. No. I didn't hear the shot being fired. I just felt a very
14 powerful impact, as I said in my statement, and I heard other passengers
15 screaming and everything else that occurred just after. However, trams
16 had been shot at before in that same place, and those were the comments
17 predominantly being made by the people there. Those were the two
18 buildings that were the closest to the museum, and those were under the
19 control of the Serb forces.
20 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Witness.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Any re-examination?
22 MS. MARCUS: No thank you, Your Honours.
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Witness, that concludes your evidence. Thank you
24 for giving it. You may now leave.
25 [The witness withdrew]
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: We have to take a 20-minute break to allow for
2 some technical matters to be attended to in relation to the next witness,
3 and the Chamber has some matters to deliberate on. So we'll take a half
4 an hour break now.
5 --- Break taken at 2.49 p.m.
6 --- On resuming at 3.37 p.m.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: The Chamber had to spend some additional time in
8 deliberation, and the Chamber apologises, therefore, for the lateness of
9 the resumption.
10 The witness is here. The witness must make the declaration.
11 WITNESS: WITNESS W-138
12 [Witness answered through interpreter]
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
14 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: You may sit.
16 And you may commence.
17 MR. SACHDEVA: Good afternoon, Mr. President, Your Honours. Might
18 I just state just for advance notice, I'm going to be showing this witness
19 various documentation, and it might necessitate the Chamber -- or it might
20 necessitate my asking for leave to go into private session intermittently.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. We note that.
22 Examination by Mr. Sachdeva:
23 Q. Good afternoon, Witness.
24 A. Good afternoon.
25 Q. The Trial Chamber has granted you -- Witness, I was just saying
1 that the Trial Chamber has granted you protection in the form of face and
2 voice distortion, so I will refer to you as Witness 138. Before we start,
3 I'd like the court usher to hand you a document folded and I have copies
4 for counsel and for Mr. President and Your Honours.
5 Witness, do you see your name, your date of birth, your place of
6 birth, and your father's name on that piece of paper in front of you?
7 A. Yes. Yes.
8 Q. Can you confirm to the Court that those details are correct?
9 A. The details are correct.
10 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President and Your Honours, I would like to
11 offer that into evidence.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, it's admitted.
13 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P120 under seal, Your Honours.
14 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, Your Honours, I'm going to be asking
15 some questions about the witness's personal background. I would ask if we
16 could move into private session for that part of the examination.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
18 [Private session]
11 Page 1204 redacted. Private session.
17 [Open session]
18 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
19 MR. SACHDEVA:
20 Q. Now, Witness 138, during your time as a crime technician, from the
21 period you joined the force up until November 1995, did you investigate
22 incidents of shelling and sniping?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Are you able to tell the Trial Chamber roughly how many incidents
25 of shelling and sniping did you investigate in that period?
1 A. During that period I had 52 on-site investigations that concerned
2 those incidents.
3 Q. And are you able to say, within the 52 on-site investigations,
4 roughly, how many pertained to shelling and how many pertained to sniping
6 A. I can't give you the exact breakdown. I took notes in my diary,
7 but in terms of percentages, it would be about 75 to 80 per cent of the
8 incidents were shellings and the rest were incidents involving rifle fire.
9 Q. Now, I want you to concentrate on the period August 1994 through
10 to November 1995 for this question. Again, how many incidents of shelling
11 did you -- and sniping did you investigate in that particular period?
12 A. I think that altogether, when you count both sniping and shelling
13 incidents, there may have been 20 or 25 of such incidents. I'm not sure.
14 This is just off the top of my head.
15 Q. And again the same question. Within those 25 or so incidents, how
16 many related to shelling and how many related to sniping?
17 A. Well, the same statistics apply here. Many more incidents of
18 shelling than of sniping.
19 Q. Now I'm going to concentrate on shelling. We will get to sniping
20 at a later stage.
21 Just take the Trial Chamber through a typical shelling
22 investigation that you would undertake. Just describe the steps that you
23 would have to take conducting an on-site investigation.
24 A. Before coming to the scene, an investigating team was established
25 and I was part of it. Upon arrival on the scene, every member had his or
1 her specific task. It was my task to examine the scene, to photograph it,
2 to make a sketch of the scene. Of course, prior to photographing I had to
3 mark every piece of evidence that I was able to locate, and then if it was
4 in my job description to do so on that particular occasion, I was to take
5 samples or to collect that evidence and to send it for further forensic
7 When it came to shelling, it was not my task to collect evidence;
8 in other words, fragments of the explosive, of the rounds. It was done by
9 my colleague, and he would send those fragments on for further forensic
11 Q. You said that a team would be established before, as you said,
12 coming to the scene of investigation. Please tell the Trial Chamber
13 who -- who was in that team and what roles did each person typically play?
14 A. Well, depending on the actual case, the composition of the teams
15 varied. Sometimes there would be more people on the team, sometimes less.
16 In essence, this was decided by the investigative judge who was in charge
17 of the whole proceedings.
18 The investigative judge would go to the scene, one or more
19 inspectors from the security services centre that were working in the
20 crimes against person section. Then there would be an inspector from the
21 local police station, depending on the actual area. Member of the bomb
22 squad from the security services centre would also be there. I was there,
23 and possibly some experts that investigative judge requested to be present
24 on -- at the scene.
25 Q. Now, in addition to what you told the Court about examining the
1 scene and photographing the scene, did you undertake any investigation as
2 to direction of fire when it comes to shelling incidents?
3 A. Yes. That was indeed one of my tasks, of course, in consultation
4 with the entire team. I was one of the persons tasked with establishing
5 the direction on the basis of the round that had exploded there; so the
6 direction from which the round had come.
7 Q. Did you establish direction of fire for mortar weapons and air
9 A. Yes. Yes. Again depending on the actual evidence and traces on
10 the site. Sometimes it was possible to do so, to determine this direction
11 of fire on the basis of the traces on the scene.
12 Q. How would you determine the direction of fire from a mortar
13 explosion? Just briefly take the Trial Chamber through that process.
14 A. It was the easiest to determine that when mortar shells exploded
15 on hard surfaces. In the Novi Grad area, this happened quite often
16 because in most cases there was a concrete surface.
17 A mortar shell leaves a specific -- specific impact site, impact
18 print, and sometimes it was in the form of a ring and sometimes we
19 referred to it as a paw. When a mortar shell impacts, there is an
20 explosion and the actual shell itself fragments into a thousand pieces and
21 the shrapnel leave their trace on the ground.
22 It is now perhaps difficult to describe that. If you look at it,
23 if you make a drawing, then it's easy to determine the direction of fire
24 for that particular shell.
25 Q. And what do you -- what about modified air bombs?
1 A. Modified air bombs had a completely different shape and
2 destructive power. Their body was not the same as that of a mortar shell.
3 In other words, they did not fragment into many pieces of shrapnel. They
4 simply made a very strong detonation, and they destroyed everything in a
5 certain radius.
6 On the basis of the marks left by the explosion, if such a bomb
7 hit the side of a building and if there was a lot of ricochet, then you
8 would be able to determine the direction from which this modified air bomb
9 had been fired.
10 Q. I just want to pick up on something you said about the destructive
11 power. Can you describe the difference between the destructive power of a
12 mortar and an air bomb, a modified air bomb?
13 A. I lived in Sarajevo, and I could hear the sound that mortar shells
14 made and the modified air bombs made. Unfortunately, I can tell you that
15 the difference in the sound they make is immense.
16 Second, when I would come to a scene and if it involved mortar
17 shell impact, mortar shells caused less damage to the physical structures,
18 quite unlike the modified air bombs which sometimes could destroy two or
19 three apartments at once.
20 Q. When you speak about the sound, are you talking about the
21 explosion sound or the sound in flight?
22 A. No. I was talking about the sound of the explosion that I was
23 able to hear on several occasions.
24 Q. Are you able to put into words -- or are you able to describe the
25 difference in the sounds of both mortars and modified air bombs?
1 A. Well, modified air bomb explosions were much louder than the
2 mortar shell explosions. And the damage that the modified air bomb could
3 cause, you could see from the damage just how powerful those blasts were.
4 When I carried out on-site investigations in case -- in the case
5 of air bomb explosions, on some occasions mortar shells would land 150
6 metres from where we were doing our job, but to me it sounded like
7 firecrackers going off when you compare that sound with the sound of the
8 modified air bomb exploding.
9 Q. Yes. I will actually elaborate on your last -- on the last part
10 of your answer in a moment, but I want to go back to the -- the
11 destruction of physical structures that you spoke about. How about the
12 destruction of -- let's say, the human destruction? How does it differ
13 between a mortar and a modified air bomb?
14 A. Mortar shells are made in such a way that they have a body made of
15 cast metal which is made in such a way that it fragments into thousands of
16 pieces, and it's purpose is to kill personnel. The shrapnel have a large
17 range, the shrapnel generated by the explosion. Only the other hand, the
18 air bombs do not generated any fragments, but the fragments would be
19 generated if it hit a hard surface, and then the pieces of concrete would
20 in themselves become deadly fragments. But in our work we always
21 encountered many more casualties if we were dealing with mortar shell
22 impacts than with modified air bombs.
23 Q. When you talk about fragments, is there another term that one
24 could use to describe fragment?
25 A. Shrapnel.
1 Q. Now, I want to ask you about the difference between a modified air
2 bomb and a mortar in terms of its accuracy. Are you able to talk about
4 A. Indeed I am. The mortar shell is fired from a mortar which can be
5 adjusted accurately for the shell to land in an area that is normally
6 about 10 square metres large. That is normally the targeted area.
7 When you use a modified air bomb, the -- such targeting is not
8 possible. When I say "modified," it means they weren't serially produced.
9 They had special rocket launchers with special charges that they would
10 attach to the tip of these modified air bombs.
11 Q. How do you know that?
12 A. We took a number of specialised courses. We worked on this. We
13 worked with ballistic and forensic experts. We read literature on this
14 and so on and so forth.
15 Q. In your investigations of modified air bomb incidents, did you
16 ever find rocket launchers on the site or parts of rocket launchers on the
17 site of the investigation?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Now, we've just been talking about your -- your role in
20 determining the direction of fire of mortars and modified air bombs. Was
21 it your role to determine the origin of fire of modified air bombs and
23 A. That wasn't my job. There were other people who were in charge of
25 Q. What about determining the angle of descent of the projectile?
1 A. We're talking about mortar shells, because they would have an
2 angle of descent and then they would impact against a certain surface. I
3 didn't measure the angle and I didn't establish what the angle was. There
4 was a ballistics expert there who was in charge of those measurements, and
5 that was his job, not mine.
6 Q. Now, I want to move to some specific incidents. First of all, do
7 you remember an incident at Geteova street number 12?
8 A. Geteova street.
9 Q. Excuse me. That was my terrible pronunciation. Geteova street
10 number 12.
11 A. Yes, I do remember that explosion. 22nd of June, 1995. Geteova
12 street number 12.
13 Q. On that day, did you conduct an on-site investigation?
14 A. Yes, I did. There had been an explosion, and I came there with a
15 team and I carried out an on-site investigation.
16 Q. Who was on that team?
17 A. There was an inspector from the security services centre. There
18 was an inspector from the Novi Grad station. There was an inspector from
19 the bomb squad. I was there, and I think there was a judge with us. I'm
20 not certain, but I think that's what my report reflects.
21 Q. Actually, that leads into my next question. Do you remember
22 producing a report from your on-site investigation on that day?
23 A. Yes. I produced one as soon as I was back at the police station.
24 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President and Your Honours, I would like to
25 show Witness 138 Exhibit -- well, 65 ter number 02465, and I suspect it's
1 of assistance to the court deputy, but the ERN is 00375077 to 00375078.
2 And I understand that is pages 3 and 4 of the composite exhibit.
3 And, Mr. President and Your Honours, I would like to, if possible,
4 move into private session since there could be features that identify the
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Private session.
7 [Private session]
24 [Open session]
25 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
1 MR. SACHDEVA:
2 Q. Okay. Witness 138, do you have a sketch on the ELMO?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Did you complete this sketch?
5 A. Yes. This sketch comprises this sketch itself and another, an A4
6 sketch. There is a brief explanation of this sketch and a brief
7 description of events. On the front page you have my name, the date of
8 the incident and the file number.
9 Q. Right. What I would like you to -- at this stage, with the sketch
10 in front of you -- first of all, can you explain the figures -- well,
11 figure number 1, first of all? What does that denote?
12 A. Number 1 marks the place of the explosion. That is the exact
13 place where the projectile went off.
14 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President and Your Honours, I now find myself
15 in a little bit of difficulty because I would like Witness 138 to mark
16 this -- this sketch. I guess it can be done on the monitor now.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, he can mark it on the ELMO.
18 MR. SACHDEVA:
19 Q. You said that point number 1 marks the exact place where the
20 projectile went off. Well, firstly, when you say "went off", do you mean
22 A. That's where it exploded.
23 Q. Can you, beside the number 1 on the right, just put the letter E.
24 A. [Marks]. Yes.
25 Q. Can I just inquire --
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic is on his feet.
2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I can't see
3 anything at all. Thank you.
4 MR. SACHDEVA: I apologise for being difficult, but is the letter
5 E in the same colour as the figure number 1? I would prefer it if it
6 could be done in a different colour. I'm grateful for the indulgence.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [Marks]
8 MR. SACHDEVA:
9 Q. Now, do you see the figure 2 there?
10 A. I see all the numbers quite clearly.
11 Q. What does the figure 2 denote?
12 A. The figure 2 marks the place where a part of the explosive device
13 was found, and we used this number to mark that.
14 Q. Perhaps you can mark that with an F for "fragment." Is that an
15 accurate reflection when you talk about part of explosive device?
16 A. Yes. We can say that, F for "fragment." F1 perhaps? Would you
17 like that, because there are more fragments.
18 Q. Well, do you see a position there where there was another fragment
19 found and, if so, which number is that?
20 A. This is number 3. Another fragment was found there.
21 Q. Very well. Can you mark that with the letter F and the figure 1.
22 A. [Marks]
23 Q. Now, on that sketch, do you see the place where the damage was
25 A. No. Apart from the place of the explosion, you can't see that on
1 the sketch, with the exception of number 4, which is blood marks. That's
2 the place where we found blood marks.
3 Q. Why did you find blood marks at number 4?
4 A. In addition to other marks that I found, I also found blood marks.
5 Someone was probably hit there and left bleeding, hence the blood marks.
6 When we arrived to carry out an inspection, there were no injured or dead
7 at the scene itself.
8 Q. Did you find out later whether anybody had been injured or killed
9 in this incident?
10 A. Yes. It's in my report. I found out from my colleagues who were
11 part of the investigation team. They were in charge of finding out who
12 had been injured and who had been killed. I later got the names from
14 Q. Do you remember who was killed on that incident?
15 A. In this particular case, a two-year-old girl was killed, and her's
16 is the only name I remember. Her name was Elmedina Burek.
17 Q. Looking at this sketch, are you able to say where the girl was
18 located when she was killed?
19 A. The girl was in a cot inside a flat. The piece of shrapnel tore
20 through the wall of this building and killed the little girl in her cot.
21 Q. Is the wall of the building depicted on this sketch?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Can you mark it with the letter B, please?
24 A. I'll mark the middle point, but it runs the entire length, and I
25 mean both sheets. It's right underneath the mark where it says P16. That
1 is the wall I'm talking about.
2 Q. That's fine. Thank you. Now, I just want to ask you about the
3 figures that are on the sketch in the middle. Do you see those figures?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And what do they represent?
6 A. These are elevation marks marking the distance between certain
7 pieces of evidence that were inspected and marked, so that if the
8 investigation was to go on the next day, these pieces of evidence could be
9 returned exactly to the same spots where they were found or else, in order
10 for us to be able to tell the distance between these traces, pieces of
11 evidence, and the corner of the building.
12 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President and Your Honours, I'd like to offer
13 that into evidence.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, it's admitted.
15 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P122, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Witness, I'm sorry, but I have a
17 question. On this graph, the figure 2 that's at the bottom of the page
18 means fragment number 1, but what is the figure 2 that is on top of the
19 page? There's also figure number 4. Could you tell us what that is, the
20 ones that are on the top of the page? There's a 2 and a 4 on the top of
21 the page.
22 A. Certainly. Number 4 marks the blood, the blood that was found in
23 that spot. The number 2 marks the distance between that and the corner of
24 the building. You see this curving line right here and the corner. So
25 this is the corner of that residential building. At a distance of two
1 metres from there, you find the blood marks. And the 15.4 metres is the
2 distance from there to the other opposite corner of the building. So
3 that's what the number 4 marks both in the sketch and in the photographs
4 that I actually took.
5 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you.
6 MR. SACHDEVA:
7 Q. I'd like to now, sticking with the -- the same exhibit number,
8 which is 2465, could we move to page 00375086. Before we do that, excuse
9 me, can we move into private session?
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, private session.
11 [Private session]
11 Page 1220 redacted. Private session.
21 [Open session]
22 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
23 MR. SACHDEVA:
24 Q. Witness 138, sticking with this incident, finally, I'd like to
25 show you Exhibit 65 ter 2466. And the ERN is 00375110 to ERN 00375114,
1 and I hope that these are photographs.
2 Witness 138, do you see a photograph on your screen?
3 A. Yes, I can see this photograph.
4 Q. Did you take this photograph?
5 A. Yes, upon arrival at the scene and once we've marked everything.
6 Q. Just to -- just to confirm, this photograph relates to the
7 incident that we're currently talking about, that is, on the 22nd of June,
8 1995 at Geteova number 12; is that right?
9 A. That is correct. This is an impact site on the asphalt surface
10 next to a building in number 12 Geteova Street.
11 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President and Your Honours, just for the sake
12 of completeness, I'd like to -- to interchangeably use the sketch that has
13 been admitted with the photographs so Witness 138 can present -- help
14 present the sequence to Your Honours if that's possible.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Let that be done.
16 MR. SACHDEVA:
17 Q. Witness 138, do you see the sketch on the ELMO beside you?
18 A. Yes, I do.
19 Q. Now, looking at the photograph, do you see a figure number 2
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Does that figure number 2 correspond to a marking on the sketch,
23 and if it does, please indicate that.
24 A. Yes, it does correspond. This is in fact marked accurately both
25 in the photo file and on the sketch.
1 Q. Well, just to be clear, there are, as I can see, two figure number
2 2s on the sketch. Can you point out the figure number 2 on the sketch
3 that corresponds to the number 2 on the photograph?
4 A. The one that we're looking at on this photograph is the one that
5 I'm pointing at right now. This might be a bit confusing because I put
6 number 2 here and I didn't write this down here, but the point where --
7 that I'm pointing at where these two lines intersect, this is the location
8 of this fragment that you can see here on this photograph.
9 Q. For the --
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 MR. SACHDEVA: For the benefit of the record, in answer to my
12 question whether the figure number 2 on the photograph corresponds to a
13 figure on the sketch, Witness 138 pointed at the figure number 2 that is
14 on the bottom left-hand corner of the sketch closest to the figures
16 Can we now move -- keeping the sketch on the ELMO, can we now move
17 to the second page of the photographs, and that is 00375111. Can we for
18 the moment just concentrate on the top picture. Thank you.
19 Q. Witness, do you have a picture on your screen with the figure
20 number 1?
21 A. Yes, I can see it.
22 Q. What is depicted on that picture?
23 A. On this photograph we can see the impact site, the explosion site,
24 in other words, and the remnants of the projectile.
25 Q. Now again for the sake of completeness, does the photograph with
1 the figure number 1 correspond to a mark or a figure on the sketch on the
2 ELMO, and if it does, please, can you indicate that?
3 A. Yes, that is correct. We have the same number both on the sketch
4 and on the photograph. It is the same mark.
5 MR. SACHDEVA: For the record, the witness is -- the witness has
6 pointed to the figure number 1 on the right-hand side at the bottom of the
8 May we move back to the top picture, please.
9 Q. Witness 138, while we're on this picture, since you've said this
10 is the explosion point, were you able to determine the direction of fire
11 from this explosion point?
12 A. Yes, we were, because on the basis of the explosion and the fact
13 that this tube got stuck in the concrete, we were able to determine the
14 direction from which this projectile had come, and in fact I marked this
15 on the drawing that I made.
16 Q. Well, firstly, what was the direction that you concluded it came
18 A. Well, you can see here that it came from the west.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: Sorry, Counsel. Could you, please, ask the
20 witness to show this again, because I didn't get it.
21 MR. SACHDEVA: Absolutely, Your Honour. I was just trying to get
22 back to the ELMO. I noticed that the witness was marking on the ELMO.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Okay. This arrow here marked with
24 number 5 indicates that the shell had come from this direction and that it
25 exploded at this point here that is marked with number 1.
1 MR. SACHDEVA: For the record, the witness is pointing to the
2 arrow on the bottom right-hand page of the sketch that is just above the
3 markings 1, E. Perhaps, actually, to make it easier, could the witness
4 put the letter W at the end of the arrow.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [Marks]
6 MR. SACHDEVA: Thank you. Can we now move to the same page of the
7 photograph but to the bottom photograph on the picture.
8 Q. Do you see a photograph on your screen, Witness?
9 A. Yes, I can see it.
10 Q. What is that photograph?
11 A. This is a fragment that we found on the site. It is marked with
12 number 2. It was photographed together with a scale ruler.
13 Q. And actually, I forgot to ask you, but this photograph and the one
14 before that and the words on top of this one, did you personally take
15 these photographs?
16 A. Yes, that's right. I took those photographs. I photographed the
17 fragment that is marked both on the sketch and in the photo file with the
18 number 2.
19 Q. Now, again, the same exercise. Looking at the sketch on the ELMO,
20 does the figure number 2 here on this photograph correspond to a figure on
21 the sketch, and if it does, please, indicate that for the Court.
22 A. Yes. This is the fragment that I'm pointing here on my drawing.
23 I first approached it, then I placed a scale ruler next to it, then I
24 photographed it from above.
25 MR. SACHDEVA: For the purposes of the record, the witness pointed
1 to the -- the marking -- the area of the marking F, 2 on the bottom
2 left-hand corner of the page.
3 May we please move to the next page of the photographs.
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: Excuse me, Counsel. Could you ask the witness
5 what are the small signs that look almost like, I don't know, pigeon feet
6 just south of the point on the map marked as 3, between the -- marked 3
7 and the wall. There are two groups of small marks, and what are they?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [Indicates]
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes. Exactly, Mr. Witness. What are they?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is our mark indicating that
11 this is grassy area. This is an area where there's grass, whereas all the
12 rest is actually asphalt, and you can see that on the photographs. So
13 this was a convention that we used.
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you very much.
15 MR. SACHDEVA: Did we arrive at 00375112, the next page of the
16 photographs? I see that we did.
17 Q. Witness 138, do you see a photograph on your screen?
18 A. Yes. Yes, I do. I see a photograph.
19 Q. Did you take that photograph?
20 A. Yes, I did. I took this photograph.
21 Q. And what is depicted in that photograph?
22 A. This is where one of the larger fragments was found. It was
23 marked with number 3. And you can see behind it the explosion site.
24 Q. Just for the benefit of the Court, when you said you could see the
25 explosion site behind it, can you point to it, and is it possible to mark
1 this with an E?
2 A. You can see in the photo file, behind number 3, you can see a dark
3 area on the road. This is the explosion site, and this number 3 is the
4 fragment that we marked with this number. And the explosion site in
5 relation to the number 3, this is the direction from which I took this
6 photograph. I wanted to get the location where fragment number 3 was from
7 this direction, and then in the background you can actually see the
8 explosion site.
9 I don't quite understand. What is it that you want me to mark?
10 Q. Yes. We will get to the same exercise with respect to the sketch
11 in a moment, but I actually -- since you mentioned, you could see the
12 explosion site on the photograph behind, as you said, the figure number
13 3. I would like you to mark that on the photograph, and I understand it
14 can be done.
15 A. So this is the explosion site, and this is the fragment that is
16 marked with number 3. You told me to put a letter next to the explosion
18 Q. I didn't, but I am now, please.
19 A. Which letter do you want me to put?
20 Q. The letter E.
21 A. [Marks]
22 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, Your Honours, I think that that
23 particular photograph needs to be -- I'd like to tender that individually
24 into evidence.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
1 THE REGISTRAR: That will be admitted as Exhibit P123, Your
3 MR. SACHDEVA:
4 Q. All right. You mentioned in your initial answer to my question
5 that -- that you could see the corresponding figure from this photograph
6 on the sketch, and again I'd like you to go to the sketch on the ELMO and
7 indicate that for the Court.
8 A. The fragment that can be seen on this photograph marked with
9 number 3 is here on the sketch where you can see these two lines with
10 arrows intersecting, and it is marked with this number here, F1.
11 MR. SACHDEVA: For the record, the witness is pointing to the spot
12 just beside the figure number 3, the letter F, and the figure number 1.
13 Now, if we can scroll down to the second photograph on the page.
14 Q. So, Witness, do you see a photograph on your screen with a big,
15 large figure number 3?
16 A. Yes, I can see this photograph.
17 Q. And -- and what is depicted in this photograph?
18 A. This is a photograph of the fragment that is marked with the same
19 number on the previous photograph but close up and again with the scale
21 Q. So can I just confirm so as to save us going back to this sketch
22 that this figure number 3 corresponds to the figure number 3 that you just
23 indicated a moment ago?
24 A. Do you want me to point to something on the sketch or ...
25 Q. No. I think it's fine. If you can confirm that this figure
1 corresponds to the figure number 3 on the sketch.
2 A. Yes, that is correct. This is the fragment that we saw on the
3 previous photograph, and on the sketch of the scene, it is marked with the
4 number 3 or with the letter F1 which I put next to it a little while ago.
5 MR. SACHDEVA: Okay. Can we now move to the next page of the
6 photographs, and that is 00375113.
7 Q. So, firstly, Witness 138, did you -- do you see a photograph on
8 your screen?
9 A. Yes, I can see a photograph.
10 Q. Did you take that photograph?
11 A. Yes, I took this photograph.
12 Q. And what is in that photograph?
13 A. On this photograph we can see a section of the northern facade of
14 the skyscraper or a high-rise building located at number 12 Geteova
15 Street. And you can see on it, on the sandy area here, you can see the
16 red stains. That's actually blood.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic.
18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if I may ask the
19 Prosecutor, this is not marked with any number, this photograph. So far
20 we've had numbers for each of the photographs, and that's been very
21 useful. Do we have a number on this photograph?
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Is there a number on this photograph?
23 MR. SACHDEVA: No, Mr. President, at the moment there isn't, but
24 I'm going to ask Witness 138 to provide some more explanations which
25 should make everything clear.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
2 MR. SACHDEVA:
3 Q. Now, on that photograph that we see here, do you see an impact
4 point on the wall in the photograph just above the sandy area?
5 A. Yes. I can see the damage to the facade which occurred when a
6 projectile or part of a projectile hit the building.
7 Q. Did that damage to the facade that you speak about, was it caused
8 by the projectile that exploded at the impact point that you have
9 indicated with the figure 1 on the sketch?
10 A. That's right. This damage was caused by a fragment of the
11 projectile that tore through the wall and hit the little girl who was
12 lying in her bed.
13 Q. So behind the wall where you see the impact point, is there a
14 residence at that -- at that place, an apartment there?
15 A. Yes, that's right. There's a residential building.
16 Q. Perhaps, Witness, you can mark the -- the area of the wall where
17 you see damage with the letter D for "damage."
18 A. This is the damage.
19 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President and Your Honours, I'd like to offer
20 that into evidence as an individual photograph.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Let it be admitted.
22 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P124, Your Honours.
23 MR. SACHDEVA:
24 Q. Now, again, I'm sorry. This may appear laborious, but I submit
25 it's ultimately helpful. Can you look at the sketch that you have and put
1 a -- or indicate -- indicate on the sketch where the damage on the
2 photograph occurred, if you can do that?
3 A. You can't see that particular piece of damage on the sketch
4 because this is the flank of the building, the flank of the wall, but it
5 should be hereabouts. So what you see on the sketch is a bird's-eye view
6 as it were, and this sketch was taken from one of those sides. Therefore,
7 that damage can't be seen.
8 Q. Very well. But taking that it is a bird's-eye sketch, you have --
9 where you have put the letter B -- do you see where you put the letter B
11 A. Yes, I see the letter B. This damage would be to the right of
12 where the letter B is. Which means in the photograph, too, you can see
13 that it's closer to the left-hand corner of the building.
14 Q. Well, if you can, I'd like you to mark where you say it's closer
15 to the left-hand corner of the building. I'd like you to mark on the
16 sketch where that place is with the letter D.
17 A. [Marks]. I've just done it.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President and Your Honours, I'd like to tender
20 that sketch as it now appears into evidence. I -- I have lost count,
21 actually, as to how many times it's been admitted with different markings
22 on there, but I'd be grateful for some --
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, let that be done.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we've admitted this sketch with the
25 first series of witness markings as Exhibit P122.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
2 THE REGISTRAR: And it will remain Exhibit P122.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Sachdeva, we are going to have to take a
4 break now. We'll break for 20 minutes.
5 --- Recess taken at 5.06 p.m.
6 --- On resuming at 5.24 p.m.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, please continue, Mr. Sachdeva.
8 JUDGE HARHOFF: Counsel, can I just put a question to you to
9 address to the witness. I'm just a little unsure about the date when this
10 took place, because I think according to my recollection that the witness
11 said that this happened on the 22nd of June. That's in my notes. But at
12 a later point he -- the witness said that it took place on the 25th of
13 June. So please check whether this took place on one or the other date.
14 And secondly, we have seen on some of the photographs that were
15 shown to us that there was a bloodstain that looked to me as if that had
16 occurred outside the building, but I was confused because I thought that
17 the person who dropped this blood had been inside the building. So if you
18 can please ask the witness to clarify how the bloodstains got there.
19 Thank you.
20 MR. SACHDEVA: Absolutely, Your Honour.
21 Q. First of all, Witness 138, please just tell the Trial Chamber the
22 date of this incident.
23 A. The 22nd of June, 1995.
24 MR. SACHDEVA: Does that clarify it for Your Honour?
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, Counsel.
1 MR. SACHDEVA:
2 Q. And secondly, Witness 138, if we could go to the photograph on --
3 again, I'm sorry to be reading out the ERN number, but it is 00375113. Do
4 you have the photograph with the letter D on there?
5 A. Yes, I see the photograph.
6 Q. Now, when I first put this photograph up you were -- you explained
7 that there could be seen some blood traces in the -- in the sand part of
8 the yard. Do you remember that, firstly?
9 A. Yes, I remember that. It can be seen clearly in this photograph,
10 although no numbers were used to mark it.
11 Q. The question is, do you know where -- how that blood got to be at
12 that location?
13 A. As far as I know, when the projectile exploded, a girl was killed,
14 but several other persons were injured. Therefore, the blood probably
15 comes from one of the persons who were injured.
16 Q. So from your answer, just to confirm, it is not the blood of the
17 little girl that you have given evidence about that was killed?
18 A. No. The girl came to grief inside the flat. This blood is not
19 her blood.
20 Q. Thank you, Witness 138. Now, if we could move to the last two
21 photographs, and that would be on the next -- actually, excuse me. If we
22 can just go down to the lower photograph. I'm sorry.
23 Okay. Witness 138, do you see a photograph there with the figure
24 4 on it?
25 A. Yes, I see it.
1 Q. Did you take that photograph?
2 A. Yes, I took that photograph.
3 Q. And what's depicted in that photograph?
4 A. You can see blood from the previous photograph which was not
5 marked with the number 4. It was first marked and then subsequently
7 Q. Is that the blood that you were referring to in the previous
8 photograph just in front of the building?
9 A. Yes, that's right. It's the same blood as in the previous
10 photograph under the letter D that I placed on the previous photograph.
11 Here it is marked with the number 4, and you can see the exact spot. And
12 the distance between this spot and both corners of the building was
13 specified on the sketch.
14 Q. And does that 4 on the photograph correspond to the figure 4 on
15 the sketch?
16 A. Yes, that's it.
17 Q. Okay. If we can move to the last two photographs, please.
18 Witness 138, do you see those two photographs on your screen?
19 A. I see both photographs, one after the other.
20 Q. Can you tell the Court what are those photographs?
21 A. The first photograph you can see the entire body of the child who
22 was killed. In the other photograph you see the head injury, which was
23 photographed using a scale ruler.
24 Q. And are those photographs of the child who you mentioned as
25 Elmedina Burek?
1 A. Yes. And underneath the photographs you have explanations that I
2 provided and typed up.
3 Q. Now, did you take these photographs?
4 A. No. I wasn't the one who actually took them.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Can we get away from this photograph now.
6 MR. SACHDEVA: Yes, Mr. President. That can be removed.
7 Q. Now, you've just said that you weren't the one who actually took
8 the photographs. Who took them then?
9 A. These photographs were taken in the morgue of the Kosevo Hospital
10 by one of my colleagues who does the same job as I do.
11 Q. Why didn't you take these photographs in the morgue of the
13 A. When I arrived at the scene at the outset of the investigation, I
14 had nothing to indicate who had been injured or who had been killed in
15 this incident. Therefore, throughout my duties, which includes the moment
16 when this incident, this shelling happened, I had been transferred to the
17 Novi Grad police station from my original place of work. When we arrived
18 at the scene, we found no dead bodies, and we found no injured persons.
19 All we found were the pieces of evidence that I marked in the photograph.
20 With the exception of these last two photographs that were taken by one of
21 my colleagues, workmates, in the morgue of the Kosevo Hospital, they
22 submitted the photographs to me so that I could attach them to the file
23 that I was working on. At the time, this was standard procedure used to
24 reduce the risk of physically going to the hospital and back.
25 Q. When you say that this was standard procedure, was this something
1 that occurred on a regular basis, that is, you produced a photo
2 documentation report with photographs, but photographs of casualties would
3 be taken by other officers and included in your final photo documentation
5 A. Specifically, as regards this particular case, my bosses had
6 agreed to do it this way. In all my other cases, I would photograph the
7 scene, and I would photograph the bodies, the bodies that there were in
8 the morgue wherever I happened to be. However, prior to our arrival,
9 someone, and I don't know who it was, had taken this body to the Kosevo
10 Hospital morgue. I wanted to avoid the risk inherent in -- by journey to
11 the hospital and back, so my boss sent another forensic technician who
12 then photographed the body of Elmedina Burek. He sent a messenger over to
13 me with the photographs so that I might attach them to the relevant file.
14 Q. How -- well, put it this way: How was it established that this
15 child was killed as a result of this incident?
16 A. I didn't conduct the investigation on my own. The team comprised
17 several people who were in charge of taking witness statements, the
18 statements of those injured in the incident, and so on and so forth. So
19 this is something that they learned, and they passed this information
20 along to the investigating magistrate. The investigating magistrate or
21 judge then gave an order for the forensic technician to go and photograph
22 the body, do his job. They had probably found out that the body was
23 inside that flat. I didn't take any photographs of the flat myself simply
24 because back then I was not even aware of what had occurred. Later on we
25 weren't even able to access the flat since the parents never came back.
1 Q. When you say that the team was comprised of several people who
2 were in charge of taking witness statements, are you saying that the
3 information about the deceased child was established by other officers
4 speaking to witnesses at the scene?
5 A. This was something that was done by inspectors of the security
6 services centre and those belonging to the Novi Grad station. So yes,
7 that's a fair summary.
8 MR. SACHDEVA: I'd like to show Witness 138 a third document. It
9 is part of the same -- the same 65 ter number, being 2465, and it
10 starts -- it starts 00375075. And, Mr. President, Your Honours, might we
11 move into private session since --
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, private session.
13 MR. SACHDEVA: -- it might -- thank you.
14 [Private session]
11 Page 1238 redacted. Private session.
24 [Open session]
25 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
1 MR. SACHDEVA: Might I just very briefly seek some clarification?
2 I have -- I intend now to show the witness further materials from that
3 35-page exhibit, that composite exhibit, for the purpose of offering it
4 into evidence. If, however, it's been admitted into evidence, then I can
5 move on. I just want to clarify that.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: The answer is yes. Yes. However, Judge Mindua
7 has a question.
8 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Counsel, before we move on to
9 another question, I would like the witness to answer a question regarding
10 the sketch, the sketch which he has drawn fairly well.
11 Witness, on the sketch where we have figure number 1, that is the
12 point of impact; is that right? And on the photograph on which we have
13 the figure number 1 is a photograph of the impact, the point of impact. I
14 don't have it on the screen, but I remember.
15 So you conclude by saying that the shell came from the west. Your
16 sketch shows that the south is at the bottom and the north at the top.
17 The west is therefore on the left-hand side of your sketch. Is that
18 right? Could you spell this out a little bit. I'd like to understand
19 more clearly. On the basis of the facts you have provided here, you infer
20 that the shell came from the west. In other words, from the right-hand
21 side of your sketch. That's it.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I've marked with an arrow was
23 the direction of the incoming shell. The arrow in the lower part of the
24 sketch, if that's the one you mean, that doesn't mark south. It actually
25 marks north. We use the letter S to indicate north in our language. It's
1 not the letter S as it is in English. The letter S stands for "sjever",
2 which means north in our language. Does that explain it?
3 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] That's fine. That's fine.
4 I understand much more clearly now. Thank you.
5 MR. SACHDEVA: Before I move on, I'd like to offer into evidence
6 the set of photographs that we've just been going over, and the exhibit
7 number is a different one, being 2466.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
9 THE REGISTRAR: That will be admitted as Exhibit P125, Your
11 MR. SACHDEVA:
12 Q. Now, Witness 138, I want to talk to you about some other
13 incidents. You've just been talking about an incident at Geteova number
14 12. Did you at any time undertake another investigation at that same
16 A. Yes. I undertook other investigations on this same street but at
17 a different house number.
18 Q. Well, firstly, what was the house number, if you remember that?
19 A. The building on Geteova Street, the house number is 5.
20 Q. And when was that?
21 A. On the 28th of June, 1995.
22 Q. Now, in addition to this incident on the 28th of June at Geteova
23 Street number 5, did you undertake another investigation on that same day?
24 A. Yes. I was on duty that day, and I was at the Novi Grad police
25 station. I had to perform several investigations following explosions on
1 that day.
2 Q. You said several investigations on that day. What was the first
3 investigation that you undertook on that day?
4 A. On that day there was several explosions. The first investigation
5 I conducted was near the radio television building.
6 Q. What happened at the radio television building on that day?
7 A. There was an explosion in the -- in a courtyard of the TV building
8 between studio C and the building across the way from the studio.
9 Q. Do you know what type of projectile exploded in the courtyard of
10 the TV building on at that day?
11 A. It was one of those modified air bombs.
12 Q. Okay. I will show you some documentation regarding this incident,
13 but just very briefly, can you tell the Trial Chamber how did you come to
14 get involved in that investigation of the TV building?
15 A. Word reached us that an explosion had occurred or, rather, I had
16 actually heard the explosion myself. The duty officer in charge of
17 passing information along to the security services centre informed us of
18 what had occurred. A team was set up headed by an investigative judge and
19 including an inspector from the security services centre. There were one
20 or two of them. I can't quite remember, but you should be able to find
21 that in the report. There was a member of the bomb squad from the
22 security services centre and a number of other experts. I can't remember
23 who specifically, but there must be a list of the people who were actually
24 involved in the original report.
25 I was a member of the team myself. I had to wait up for them to
1 reach the Novi Grad police station from the downtown area first.
2 Q. When you say that you actually heard the explosion yourself, at
3 the time you heard the explosion, did you know that the explosion was at
4 the radio television building?
5 A. At first I didn't know because I was in a room and I couldn't hear
6 from the walls. When you have an explosion like that, it's difficult to
7 say exactly where it comes from, the direction. But the sound was clear,
8 and after awhile we had received word from the policemen who were on the
9 ground about this explosion and the duty officer who was in charge of the
10 station at the time also subsequently told us that an explosion occurred
11 at the TV building.
12 Let me say something else. In addition to this explosion, there
13 were another two roughly at the same time. This was sometime in the
14 morning and I can't say right now with certitude whether this was the
15 first, whether this one occurred before the other two that occurred on
16 that same day. However, if you go back to the original reports, the exact
17 times and the entire time line is stated accurately.
18 Q. Very well. Just for organisation's sake, let's stick with the
19 incident at the TV building. When did you eventually get to the TV
20 building to conduct your on-site investigation?
21 A. I'm sure that an hour and a half or two hours had passed. It's
22 specified in the report when the on-site investigation started. I had to
23 wait for the investigating team to arrive from the town, and when we all
24 met up there we went to the radio television building to conduct an
25 investigation. It may have been an hour and a half, two hours after the
1 actual explosion. I can't tell you with any certainty now.
2 Q. Sticking to what you did when you got to the incident side,
3 briefly take us through the steps that you took in your investigation.
4 A. We went into the radio television building. This happened behind
5 the main building. It is a multi-storey building. The first thing we saw
6 in this inner courtyard was that there was a great deal of damage. It was
7 clear at first sight that this was not a mortar shell.
8 After arriving there we approached the impact site of this
9 projectile, and it was right next to the wall of the studio C. It caused
10 a great deal of damage to the wall itself, and the wall is 60 centimetres
11 thick or so, and it's made of reinforced concrete.
12 This was the first case that I encountered of this kind of damage
13 caused by an explosion of this strength.
14 As for the walls facing this wall where the explosion actually
15 took place, you could see other damage caused by concrete fragments from
16 the wall and broken glass. And there was also a burn mark there. It's
17 difficult for me to explain now, but you would be able to see that on the
19 We determined at a later stage, because we could not -- we could
20 not figure out how this explosion occurred, how this projectile hit the
21 inner courtyard, but when we went up to the roof and when we were able to
22 find some other marks there, indicative of how the projectile flew in,
23 that made us conclude how the explosion actually occurred.
24 Q. All right. I'm going to get to the -- to the diagrams and the
25 photographs in a moment. I just want to ask one or two questions from
1 your answer just to clarify.
2 When you said that you were not used to this kind of -- this kind
3 of damage caused by an explosion of this strength, what do you mean by
5 A. Up until that time I mostly dealt with mortar shells or maybe
6 shells fired from artillery. That kind of shell did not cause this kind
7 of damage. The damage caused to this call was too great to have been
8 caused by a mortar shell or a small-bore cannon. It was a 60-centimetre
9 thick wall made of reinforced concrete.
10 Q. Okay. At the conclusion of your investigation, that is the team's
11 investigation, did you establish a sequence of how the explosion occurred
12 at the TV building? First, tell the Trial Chamber if you were able to
13 establish that.
14 A. Yes. On the basis of the evidence we were able to locate during
15 our investigation, we actually found enough evidence to determine where
16 the projectile had come from, and of course it was quite obvious where it
17 had impacted.
18 Q. At this point just -- just briefly tell the Trial Chamber the
19 sequence of the -- the incident, and then we'll move to the visual aids.
20 A. The projectile flew in from the same direction as the one in the
21 previous case, the number 12 Geteova Street. In its trajectory, the
22 projectile probably -- or, rather, definitely lost some energy, and it
23 fell on the roof of the radio and television building. It ricochetted off
24 it and continued along its trajectory. It flew over a low wall on the
25 roof of studio C building, hit the building opposite this wall. It was
1 actually taller than studio C building. It ricochetted off this wall and
2 fell right next to the wall where it actually exploded.
3 Q. When you say that the projectile flew in from the direction as the
4 one in the previous case, what direction is that?
5 A. It flew in from a westerly direction approximately.
6 Q. Upon completion of your investigation, did you produce a report
7 for this incident?
8 A. Yes. I produced a forensic report, and then I also produced a
9 photo file and the sketch of the scene.
10 MR. SACHDEVA: Might the witness be shown 65 ter number 185 and
11 the ERN is 00358713 to 8714. And, Mr. President, may we move into private
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
14 [Private session]
11 Pages 1247-1250 redacted. Private session.
24 [Open session]
25 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
1 MR. SACHDEVA:
2 Q. Now, Witness 138, do you see a sketch on your screen?
3 A. Yes, I do. The sketch, it is a sketch that I myself made.
4 Q. Now, I want to try and take you through this sketch and explain a
5 few things for the Court.
6 On the upper left-hand side of the sketch there is a -- a circle
7 with an arrow just behind it. Do you see that there?
8 A. Yes, I do.
9 Q. Can you just point to that with the -- with the stick, please,
10 just to be clear.
11 A. [Marks]
12 Q. That's fine. You've marked it. That's okay. So what is that
13 marking? What does that marking depict?
14 A. This is a mark indicating the damage to the roof caused by the
15 impact and the ricochet of the projectile.
16 Q. Now, in terms of the sequence, was that the -- well, where does
17 that impact point come in the sequence of this -- in the sequence of the
18 explosion in this incident?
19 A. This is the damage to the roof of one section of the radio
20 television building. I don't know what's underneath this roof, but the
21 projectile flew in from the left-hand side, and you can see this arrow
22 that's marked here. This is where it ricochetted off, and then it
23 continued along this trajectory, which is a little bit hard to see on this
24 photograph. And then it hit here, flew other studio C and hit right here
25 at this wall, ricochetted off, fell down to the floor, and that's marked
1 with AA on this drawing.
2 Q. Thank you, Witness 138. Please don't mark the sketch unless I ask
3 you to, because I want to get through this as clearly as possible.
4 So that red -- that circle that you have made on the left-hand
5 side of the -- on the left-hand side of the picture of the impact point,
6 does that represent the first impact point of the projectile on the
8 A. Yes, that is correct. As I've already said, the projectile flew
9 in from the left-hand side. This is the first point of contact with the
10 RTV building. It ricochetted off right back into the air and continued
11 along a new trajectory.
12 Q. Very well. Can you please mark -- can you please write on top of
13 that circle the letters F, I for India, and P for Papa.
14 A. [Marks]
15 Q. And just to be clear, is that first impact point on the roof of
16 the building?
17 A. Yes. That is the first impact on the building. It first hit the
19 Q. Did it explode at that point?
20 A. No, it did not explode here. It just ricochetted off and then
21 continued on.
22 Q. Where did it ricochet off to? In other words, try and follow
23 the -- follow the sequence of the projectile. Where did it go from this
24 first impact point?
25 A. You can see it quite clearly on this sketch. There's this broken
1 line with the arrows on it, and that's the trajectory that this projectile
2 took. The broken line continues to the right from the first impact point,
3 and you can see the arrows indicating the direction in which this
4 projectile was moving.
5 Q. Can you please with your red pen follow the line of the --
6 indicating the direction in which the projectile was moving up until the
7 second point of impact.
8 A. [Marks]
9 Q. Now, where the line has stopped on the -- on the wall, what
10 happened there?
11 A. After it had ricochetted, the projectile continued its trajectory.
12 It hit the wall here. It bounced off the wall and continued on to the
13 wall of studio C.
14 Q. Just to be clear, when you said, "It hit the wall here," please
15 mark that position.
16 A. [Marks]
17 Q. And is that the second impact point?
18 A. That's right. This is the second impact point.
19 Q. Can you please put the letters SIP next to that circle?
20 A. [Marks]
21 Q. And just to be clear, did the projectile explode at that point?
22 A. No, it didn't. It ricochetted yet again.
23 Q. Where did it go after that?
24 A. The spot that I marked with the letters SIP, you can see an arrow
25 there leading back to the left. It's a broken line. There's an arrow
1 pointing at the wall of studio C, and that's where the projectile
2 eventually came to a halt and exploded.
3 Q. Very well. Please continue with the -- with your marker and mark
4 the direction after the ricochet on the second -- from the second impact
5 point to where the explosion occurred.
6 A. [Marks]
7 Q. And just beside where the explosion occurred, can you please put
8 the letter E.
9 A. [Marks]
10 Q. Now, on the right-hand corner of the sketch there's a circle
11 there, a large circle. Do you see that?
12 A. Yes, I see that. I drew it.
13 Q. Please explain what that is.
14 A. Sure. Right here you can see the arrows, and it says AA. So that
15 is a view from here to the place where the damage is apparent on the wall.
16 Since this was drawn as a bird's-eye view, and you can't actually see
17 the shape or the dimensions of the damage to the wall, I call this view
18 AA, and I drew separate sketch of this.
19 What you see in the upper-right corner of the sketch is a view of
20 the damage to the wall of studio C and its dimensions.
21 Q. And when you say damage to the wall of studio C, do you mean where
22 the explosion occurred?
23 A. That's right. The damage occurred as a result of the projectile
24 exploding. This is the spot where the explosion occurred.
25 Q. And where the explosion occurred, what -- how would you describe
1 that area where the explosion occurred, that -- that physical structure?
2 A. It's a courtyard. It's an open area between the two buildings,
3 and it didn't have a roof. This is where the projectile landed, and it
4 eventually exploded next to the wall of studio C. There was a hole in the
5 ground 2.4 metres deep. That was the hole in the ground.
6 Q. Okay. Now I'm going to show you some photographs, and we'll try
7 and conduct the same exercise so as to get a clear picture of what
9 MR. SACHDEVA: If the witness can be shown --
10 JUDGE MINDUA: One minute, Mr. Prosecutor.
11 [Interpretation] Witness, please. I would like things to be
12 clear. On the same picture, on the same sketch, we have studio C that's
13 on the left. In the middle there's another room, and on the right another
14 room again. So you're saying that the bomb exploded in studio C, but how
15 did it enter there, because there's a wall. So did it go through the wall
16 after having ricochetted elsewhere? It went -- it went through the
17 studio's wall and then exploded in the wall, or how exactly did it happen?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My sketch clearly shows studio C.
19 So that's a bird's-eye view.
20 To the right there is the building of which the projectile had
21 ricochetted. Part of the building is drawn. Between the two buildings
22 there's an area with no roof. This building and studio C do have a roof.
23 The projectile flew over the roof, ricochetted off the roof and
24 handed in this area. This is not a separate building with a roof such as
25 studio C or the building to the right of studio C. This is an empty lot,
1 an empty area, a courtyard, if you like.
2 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Yes, I understand, but how did the
3 bomb enter into the studio to explode in the studio? It went through the
4 roof of studio C? Is that what happened?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You're right. I did not answer your
6 other question.
7 Once it had ricochetted off the wall of the other building across
8 the way, it did not enter studio C. It hit the outer wall of studio C and
9 that's where the explosion occur. The damage was outside, but also an
10 opening was created on the wall of studio C. I put the letter A there,
11 and I put it inside the studio, but I only did that in order to avoid
12 obscuring any of the other features that are marked. The letter E should
13 actually be outside studio C because the explosion occurred against the
14 outer wall.
15 Therefore, the explosion did not occur inside the studio, inside
16 studio C; it occurred outside.
17 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you.
18 MR. SACHDEVA: Before I move to the photographs, might that still
19 be -- I'd like to offer that into evidence, Mr. President.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
21 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P127, Your Honours.
22 MR. SACHDEVA: Now, for the purposes of this exercise, could I --
23 could I do what I did last time and keep a copy of the sketch on the ELMO
24 so that we can see the sketch in conjunction with the photographs?
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
1 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, might I just ask for 30 seconds to
2 inquire of the 65 ter number of these photographs?
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Go ahead.
4 [Prosecution confer]
5 MR. SACHDEVA: It's Exhibit number 65 ter 194.
6 Q. Witness 138, while that's being put on the screen, just tell the
7 Trial Chamber, did you take photographs of the incident in your
9 A. Yes. I took the photographs, I compiled a file, I sketched the
10 scene, and I produced the report.
11 Q. Now, do you see a photograph on your screen right now?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Did you take that photograph?
14 A. I did.
15 Q. And what is that photograph?
16 A. This photograph shows the view that I found when I came to the
17 courtyard, and it shows the scene of the explosion.
18 Q. And that wall that you see on the left-hand side of the
19 photograph, is that the wall that -- that is on the side of studio C that
20 we saw on the sketch?
21 A. Yes. That's the left half of the photograph. There's the damage
22 to the east wall of studio C.
23 MR. SACHDEVA: If we can move to the next page of the photographs,
24 please. May we please stay at the lower photograph for the moment.
25 Q. Do you see that photograph, Witness?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And did you take this photograph?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And what is that photograph?
5 A. This photograph shows the damage caused by the first time the
6 projectile ricochetted.
7 Q. Does that photograph show the roof of the building?
8 A. Indeed it does. The damage that occurred on the roof of the
9 building. I drew a circle around it on the sketch a while ago.
10 Q. And does that -- that mark on this photograph correspond to a mark
11 on the sketch that you have on the ELMO, and if it does, please point to
13 A. The damage in the photograph is exactly what I'm pointing at on
14 the sketch right now. This is how the photograph was taken. I was
15 standing facing the damage. I'm showing you the spot on the sketch. That
16 was my vantage point when I took the photograph.
17 MR. SACHDEVA: For the record, the witness has marked -- not
18 marked, has indicated the small circle on the left-hand side -- upper
19 left-hand side of the sketch that corresponds to the photograph that is
20 being shown on the monitor right now.
21 Okay. If we move back to the photographs and go to the upper one.
22 Q. 138, did you take that photograph?
23 A. Yes, I did, while I was on the roof.
24 Q. And do you see the entrance -- do you see the -- well, the
25 entrance of the courtyard or the atrium in that photograph?
1 A. Well, it's difficult to see it in this particular photograph.
2 This is where it is. This photograph was meant to show the damage that
3 occurred as a result of the explosion, damage to the other parts of the
4 radio and TV building wall.
5 Q. On this still, are you able to mark with an arrow the -- the
6 direction in which the projectile went into the atrium, if you can do this
7 on this photograph?
8 A. [Marks]
9 Q. And where did it go down into the atrium? Can you mark that with
10 an A.
11 A. It's quite difficult. It flew over the wall and landed inside the
12 courtyard. You can't see the inside of the courtyard from this particular
13 vantage point, or, rather, the wall that the projectile later hit and
14 ricochetted off. This is just the general direction. This was behind me.
15 I was facing the other way when I took this photograph, the direction from
16 which the shell came. But the purpose of this photograph was to show all
17 of the other damage that occurred when the projectile exploded. If you go
18 back to the previous photograph, it may be easier to actually see where
19 the courtyard is located.
20 Q. Very well. Let's go back to the lower photograph.
21 MR. SACHDEVA: Can we -- sorry. Can I tender that into evidence.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, it's admitted.
23 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P128, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, yes.
25 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] My apologies. I might have
1 missed something. What about the previous photographs? Those have not
2 been tendered, have they, the photographs with the large-scale damage?
3 Those have not been tendered yet, have they? Is this the first photograph
4 that is tendered for admission?
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Is that so, Mr. Sachdeva.
6 MR. SACHDEVA: That's correct. Since this one has been marked,
7 I'm tendering it as a separate exhibit, and I intend to offer into
8 evidence the series of photographs once the witness has commented upon
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well. Yes.
11 MR. SACHDEVA:
12 Q. Okay, Witness 138, do you see that photograph on the seen where
13 the impact point on the roof is?
14 A. Yes, I do. You can see the courtyard much better than in the
15 previous photograph.
16 Q. Now, are you able to mark with your pen the direction in which the
17 projectile took once it impacted on the roof?
18 A. This is the path. Here it is where it flew over the edge of the
19 wall and continued down to eventually land inside the courtyard.
20 Q. Can you see on that photograph the roof of studio C, and if you
21 can, can you mark it with a C?
22 A. [Marks]
23 Q. Perhaps if you just put the letter P by the -- by the first arrow
24 that you drew and then I will tender it into evidence.
25 A. [Marks]
1 Q. That's P or "projectile." Your Honour, I offer that into
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, it's accepted.
4 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P129, Your Honours.
5 MR. SACHDEVA: Can we move to the third page of the photographs,
7 If it assists, I'm looking for page 00392144.
8 Actually, it's the page before that.
9 I apologise, Mr. President. That's not the one. I have hard
10 copies available if it is more efficient.
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, it's coming up to 7.00. Can we get through
13 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the President, please.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: It's coming up to 7.00 p.m. Can we get through
15 this in a minute or two?
16 MR. SACHDEVA: The series of photographs, no.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: The series. Then we'll adjourn.
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Did I say that we'll resume tomorrow at 2.15.
20 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.00 p.m.,
21 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 31st day
22 of January, 2007, at 2.15 p.m.