1 Wednesday, 14 February 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.16 p.m.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: There are some decisions that I'd like to give.
6 First, in relation to the question of time for
7 examination-in-chief, cross-examination, the Prosecution will be given 30
8 minutes for examination-in-chief of 92 bis or 92 ter witnesses, unless the
9 testimony relates to a witness who is a combination of 92 bis/ter evidence
10 and viva voce evidence.
11 The time to be allocated to the Defence for cross-examination of
12 92 bis and 92 ter witnesses will be based on several factors, including an
13 evaluation of the significance of the witness's testimony, the original
14 estimate of the Prosecutor of the time required as provided in the 65 ter
15 list, the length of the witness's prior statement, and the number of
16 exhibits to be tendered through the witness.
17 In order to facilitate the parties in their preparation, the
18 Chamber will review the list of witnesses for the week follow and based on
19 the factors mentioned will set times for the examination and
20 cross-examination of each scheduled witness. The parties will be notified
21 of these times. The Prosecution is requested to be as precise as possible
22 in its estimates. In all cases, the parties may make an application for
23 variation of the time periods set.
24 Now, on Monday, the 12th of February, the Prosecution sought to
25 admit into evidence a document with a 65 ter number 02287. This is a
1 report by Kemal Buco, concerning a sniping incident on the 23rd November
2 1994, discussed with that witness on the 2nd of February, 2007. The
3 Prosecution had at that time inadvertently omitted to seek the admission
4 of this document into evidence. The Trial Chamber hereby admits this
5 report, 65 ter number 02287 into evidence.
6 On the 5th of February, the Prosecution filed a motion for
7 admission of the written statement of witness John Jordan, pursuant to
8 Rule 92 ter. The Defence responded yesterday that it had no objection to
9 the Prosecution's request. The Trial Chamber hereby grants the
10 Prosecution motion and admits the witness statement of John Jordan into
11 evidence upon fulfillment of the conditions set out in Rule 92 ter.
12 The Trial Chamber notes that the time originally estimated for
13 this witness's testimony was three hours and that the Prosecution
14 estimates that as a partial Rule 92 ter and partial viva voce witness, the
15 estimated time required will be two hours. The Trial Chamber also notes
16 the significance of the testimony of this witness and the number of
17 exhibits intended to be tendered. The Trial Chamber will allow one hour
18 for the examination-in-chief and one and a quarter hour for
19 cross-examination subject to an application for more time should either
20 party consider that necessary.
21 Now, I understand that a party had a matter to be raised. Is that
23 MR. WHITING: It's not us.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Not you.
25 Mr. Tapuskovic, yes. Yes.
1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this issue is of
2 great importance. Perhaps it is the most important issue out of all of
3 the problems that the Defence faces, and it relates precisely to the issue
4 of translation of our documents. Our Defence team has not yet gained
5 access to the CLSS to the translation service to this day, and although we
6 wanted to get some documents even before the beginning of trial, we still
7 have no access to the translation service. We have already omitted to
8 confront some witnesses with some documents.
9 Now, in the period that follows, I am facing a very difficult
10 problem. Mr. Whiting is showering me with e-mails from which it
11 transpires that presenting documents in B/C/S is absolutely unacceptable.
12 And many months may pass before I get my documents translated. I really
13 need you to appreciate this problem, and I will try to minimise the number
14 of documents that I present in B/C/S. I have very important documents for
15 foreign observers and foreign commanders that concern issues that I have
16 tried to reserve so far, because they haven't been translated yet.
17 If it is impossible to get these translations from the service
18 that is working for us and for you, then something has to be done. All
19 last afternoon I had to deal with e-mail messages from Mr. Whiting instead
20 of preparing for the hearing. Some documents are in B/C/S, they were not
21 presented in a timely manner, and they were accessible to the Prosecution
22 at the time that the witness concerned took a solemn oath. It was a
23 mountain of papers that I had to deal with, and I received them the day
24 before the witness appeared.
25 Your Honours, all I'm asking for is equal treatment and a correct
1 attitude. Maybe in our Defence case I will find myself in the shoes that
2 Mr. Whiting is in now. But when Mr. Whiting does not show a certain
3 witness a single document, I have to show him a number of documents.
4 That's -- we have to deal with this problem and that's the only thing that
5 I'm really interested in.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you very much. We'll consider that.
7 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, if I may.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Whiting.
9 MR. WHITING: This actually touches on a problem which is very
10 serious for us. I was going to raise it after the direct examination, and
11 it has a problem that has several parts to it, only one of which has been
12 identified by Defence counsel. I think it is a bit of an exaggeration
13 that I showered Defence counsel with e-mails. It was just four e-mails
14 about the exhibits, and there are actually two issues.
15 The first is that we are receiving these long lists of exhibits to
16 be used in cross-examination that are not translated. The list I received
17 for this witness has 15 documents that are not translated, that are in
18 B/C/S. That, obviously, causes us serious difficulty in preparing for --
19 it's really no use in preparing for the cross-examination or any possible
20 re-examination if we're running around trying to figure out what the
21 documents say.
22 I don't know what the problem is behind that. I don't know when
23 it was requested that these documents be translated. I don't know what
24 the issues are, but it's also not apparent to me that many of these
25 documents are of particular relevance to this particular witness. Nearly
1 all of them are military documents, and this is a policeman but that is
2 for Defence counsel to resolve.
3 There is a second part to this, and that is that-- and this has
4 happened more than once and it happened on this occasion. We're getting a
5 list shortly after the witness begins testifying, and that's what happened
6 yesterday. I got a list. I stayed here last night, looking at the
7 documents, preparing. This morning I got a completely new list and from
8 the new list four documents have been dropped, and there were 13 new
9 documents on it.
10 And all of these, again, in B/C/S, so I have to prepare all over
11 again. And that has happened on more than one occasion. That happened
12 with witness Fraser. Midway through, we received another list doubling
13 the amount of documents. I had understood the Rule to be that we would
14 receive the list of documents at the -- when the witness began testifying,
15 with the understanding that if something arose during the direct
16 examination, another document might become relevant.
17 It seems surprising to go me that so many documents are relevant
18 during the examination and also, you know, this problem about untranslated
19 documents. We would object generally to witnesses being shown documents
20 in B/C/S that we do not have a translation for. There may be -- may be
21 exceptions to that where it is necessary. If it happens once, once in a
22 while, okay, I understand that. But to receive 13 -- 15 documents which
23 are in B/C/S, that, in our view, is not workable.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: If it's a very short document, the practice has
25 been to put it on the ELMO.
1 MR. WHITING: Well, the problem is that these are not necessarily
2 short documents; and then with the 15 of them, the accumulation is that
3 they are not short. And also we need to see -- Defence counsel in a
4 number of cases already in this trial has just read out one sentence of a
5 document, and the issue becomes clarified in another part of the document;
6 or when it is put into context, it takes on a different meaning. And so
7 we need to be able to understand what the entire document says.
8 The only way we can do that is if we have a translation of it. We
9 can handle it if it happens once in a while. We can sit down with an
10 interpreter. But if it is 15 documents for a small witness like this,
11 happening routinely, that becomes unimaginable. We do not have the
12 resources to translate all the Defence documents while the witness is
13 testifying and trying to prepare for that. That is impossible; we can't
14 do that. And it's not fair to the Prosecution that documents are being
15 shown to a witness that we cannot understand, that we don't understand
16 what they mean. That's not fair.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.
18 [Trial Chamber confers].
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, there's the two problems that have been
20 identified by the parties. The first is the problem encountered by the
21 Defence in having its documents translated sufficiently speedily for the
22 purposes for which they require them. We've had this problem in other
23 cases. It's not a new problem. I will cause an investigation to be made
24 with the CLSS and have the CLSS present a status report on the documents
25 submitted by the Defence in this case for translation, so that status
2 And I would like the court deputy to note this because it's the
3 court deputy who will transmit this instruction to the CLSS. The status
4 report from the CLSS will tell us how many documents have been presented;
5 the volume, the pages, and the precise stage that they are at in the
6 translation. Of course, the time when they were presented is important.
7 But here I'd like both parties to note that the documents to be
8 presented for translation should be as brief as possible and should really
9 be confined to those areas that are relevant to the purposes for which
10 they are sought. There's no point presenting for translation a 20- or
11 30-page document when you're only going to rely on one or two pages in it.
12 So I'd like the parties to note that.
13 The second problem raised is the time when the parties notify the
14 other party and the Chamber of the documents to be used in
15 examination-in-chief and cross-examination, and we had made a ruling on
16 this and we intend to apply the ruling strictly and both parties are to
17 note this. But the problem raised by Mr. Whiting is more applicable to
18 the -- to the Defence in this case; and the ruling that we made was that
19 at the beginning of examination-in-chief, the Defence is to notify the
20 Prosecution and the Chamber of the documents that it will use in
22 And I have it precisely here. It orders the Defence to provide
23 the Prosecution, the Registry, and the Trial Chamber with a list of
24 exhibits it intends to use in court during cross-examination at the
25 commencement of the examination-in-chief of that witness and after he or
1 she has made the solemn declaration pursuant to Rule 90 (A) of the Rules.
2 So that once that time has passed, strictly speaking, no change or
3 addition should be made to that list of documents notified; at any rate,
4 not without the leave of the Trial Chamber.
5 Mr. Tapuskovic.
6 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I was probably not
7 clear enough. To this day, the Defence team has no electronic access to
8 translation. We have met all the requirements. We have filled in all the
9 forms. We have done all that is necessary to again, but we have to
10 electronic access to the translation service. That is one thing.
11 Second, Your Honours, we have tendered all the evidence, and all
12 of it was accessible to the Prosecutor at the moment when the witness took
13 oath. That is the most important thing. In addition, if you allow me, I
14 can reduce my cross-examination to two briefest documents that the
15 Prosecutor has had for two years now. The Prosecutor mentions 13 or 14
16 documents, but most of them were only a half page long. I really took
17 care about this. So far, the Prosecutor has never once found himself in a
18 situation where he has to deal with evidence that we did not supply in
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Explain to me what is meant by "not having any
21 electronic access to translation." What do you mean by that?
22 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Somebody more expert could
23 explain that to you. It's just that the documents that we presented,
24 we're not able to be included in the electronic translation system. I
25 really can't explain this to you, because my only grasp of this -- these
1 things is not very good.
2 Anyway, I'm told that we have no access to the TTS system. We
3 have documents that we have prepared. We have filled in the proper forms,
4 and we cannot place this -- these documents into the TTS system, as far as
5 my colleagues have explained to me. And if they are not in this TTS
6 system, they can't be translated. It has to do with this new system that
7 is introduced. We had to invest an enormous effort for our documents to
8 enter this TTS system.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Does that mean that the CLSS would not have
10 received the documents that you wish to have translated?
11 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I am honestly
12 telling you, I don't understand these things. They did not give us access
13 to this system. I went to see the chief of that service directly. I have
14 all of the documents ready. I can give them to that service this very
15 moment, but it's a system that doesn't function if you don't log in. I'm
16 honestly telling you, I don't understand this at all.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let me consult with my colleagues, because they
18 have a better understanding than I do.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: If I understand you correctly, then, the problem
21 is not with the CLSS. It is that you're saying you -- you have no access,
22 electronic access to the system. So the CLSS has not received the
23 documents, indeed, you haven't been able to send them.
24 Well, I think what we'll have to about done is that I will
25 instruct you to consult with the court deputy, who should have at his
1 disposal the services of the technical staff to resolve that problem.
2 Well, Mr. Tapuskovic, if you have had this problem all along, I'm
3 surprised that you're only raising it now, because we're about five, six
4 weeks into the trial now.
5 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, I would note that it's only being
6 raised because I complained about it, because I complained in these
7 e-mails, and I told the counsel that I was going to raise this today. We
8 find it a little distressing to learn now that this has been an ongoing
9 problem, and it hasn't been addressed. It hasn't been raised, only when
10 we complain about it.
11 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I don't want to
12 justify myself or to defend myself. I told you earlier that my greatest
13 problem was to receive the documents that I had selected in the archives
14 of Bosnia-Herzegovina sometime ago where I worked. For half a year, I was
15 almost living in those archives. And only 15 days after the beginning of
16 the trial on the 2nd of February, I received finally the documents. I
17 went to see the chief of the translation service directly, and I addressed
18 them very courteously to discuss the problem.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: My instruction remains the same. You are to be
20 in touch with the court deputy immediately after the session ends, and the
21 court deputy tomorrow will avail himself of the services of the technical
22 staff and have this problem resolved and report to me by the beginning of
23 the session tomorrow. And I am to say that the session tomorrow will take
24 place in Courtroom III, in Courtroom III.
25 Well, let us have the witness brought in.
1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, while the witness is being brought
2 in, I just wanted to say that exhibit 65 ter number 02287, which was
3 submitted pursuant to your oral decision, will become Exhibit P112.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, thank you.
5 [The witness entered court]
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, please continue, Mr. Whiting.
7 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.
8 WITNESS: BOGDAN VIDOVIC [Resumed]
9 [Witness answered through interpreter]
10 Examination by Mr. Whiting: [Continued]
11 Q. Good afternoon, sir.
12 When we stopped yesterday, you told us about an occasion in the
13 Autumn of 1994 when you were investigating a shelling at the Holiday Inn.
14 You were on top of the National Restaurant and sniping came from the
15 direction of Grbavica. I just had one last question. What was the
16 weather like on that occasion, if you recall?
17 A. Well, it was cloudy, sort of. It was raining, as a matter of fact
18 not right at the time. But it was cloudy and foggy, the way it can be in
20 Q. Okay. Thank you. Now, I'm going to ask you some questions about
21 an event that occurred at Cobanija Street number 7, on the 16th of June
23 MR. WHITING: For your benefit, Your Honours, this is scheduled
24 incident number 13, shelling incident.
25 Q. Sir, did you investigate an incident that occurred on that date at
1 that location?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. What happened there? What were you investigating?
4 A. There was a shelling, and the boiler room that heated those
5 buildings on that street was hit.
6 Q. Now, did -- to your knowledge, did Cobanija Street have another
7 name before it was called Cobanija Street?
8 A. Yes. It used to be called -- well, the name escapes me right now,
9 but --
10 Q. If I said a name, might it refresh your recollection?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Are you familiar with the street name Tome Masarika?
13 A. Yes, yes. Tome Masarika; that's what it was called.
14 Q. That was the name of Cobanija Street in the past, before the war?
15 A. That's right.
16 MR. WHITING: Could we see 65 ter exhibit 213, please.
17 Q. Do you recognise this document, sir?
18 A. Yes. It's the report that I compiled and completed, the on-site
20 Q. Now, under point 4 of the report, it gives -- it states the
21 direction that the highly destructive projectile was fired from. Can you
22 tell what it says there, what direction?
23 A. It says that it flew in from a north-easterly direction.
24 MR. WHITING: Okay. I would note from the Trial Chamber and
25 Defence counsel, there is a mistake on the English translation of that.
1 Q. Sir, did you review other reports and documents concerning this
2 event which talked about the direction that the projectile came from?
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, Mr. Whiting, what is the mistake that -- is
4 it north-west?
5 MR. WHITING: Yes. What it actually says is north-east in the
6 B/C/S. There's a mistake in the translation. The witness just testified
7 what it was in B/C/S, and it was translated as north-east.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, I'm just a little concerned because the
9 directions are quite important in this case.
10 MR. WHITING: It's -- I'm happy to have it confirmed and reviewed,
11 but it's --
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'd like to have it confirmed, yes.
13 MR. WHITING: That's fine. We can submit it to CLSS to have it
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: They can just look at the B/C/S and tell us what
17 the what the --
18 MR. WHITING: That's fine. That's what I tried to do. The
19 witness read what it says in the report, and it was translated.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let us have the interpreter give us the
22 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter can confirm what Mr. Whiting has
23 just said.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you very much.
25 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] May I be of assistance. It does
1 say north-east. That is precisely what it says in the B/C/S.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.
3 MR. WHITING: Thank you.
4 Q. Sir, did you review other reports regarding this incident where a
5 similar translation errors were made with respect to the direction?
6 A. Yes. I looked at my own photofiles, and there were some
7 mistranslations there. It was the photo files that I compiled. It was
8 supposed to say north-east, but I think the translation actually read
9 north-west which was erroneous.
10 Q. In all of the reports that you reviewed regarding this incident,
11 was the direction -- in the B/C/S language, was the direction always
12 identified as north-east, as it is here in this report?
13 A. Indeed.
14 Q. Now --
15 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.
17 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] We should go through all these
18 documents, each and every one of them. We can't speak in general terms
19 like this. We do realise that an error was made in this particular
20 incident, but I'm not sure which other documents Mr. Whiting has in mind.
21 I think he should just display the whole lot to us.
22 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, I'm going to put all of the documents
23 into evidence, and we can review it later. I don't think it's worthwhile
24 to spend the time to go through --
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: No. I don't think it's necessary to review them
1 individually. Of course, the -- the Defence may make a reference in
2 cross-examination to any of them --
3 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: -- If it has a doubt about the accuracy of the
6 MR. WHITING:
7 Q. Now, Mr. Vidovic, do you know how it was determined that the
8 projectile came from the north-east?
9 A. It was based on the point of impact where the projectile hit the
10 boiler room. That's what indicated the direction from which the missile
11 had arrived.
12 Q. Did the investigation determine what the projectile was that
13 struck the boiler room on that day?
14 A. Yes. Later investigations were carried out, which ascertained
15 that the projectile in question had been an air bomb.
16 Q. Do you know who in particular made that determination; that is,
17 which group, and how they made that determination. What was it based on?
19 A. Bits of the projectile were collected and submitted for analysis
20 to the KDZ department in what used to be the state ministry of the
21 interior, which is the federal ministry of interior now. Their own
22 experts conducted analysis. I'm not sure which specific methods they
24 Q. Do you know if witnesses were able to provide any information
25 which contributed to the determination that this was an air bomb?
1 A. Yes. According to witness statements, it produced a very peculiar
2 sound during its flight. The way they described it, it sounded very much
3 like a lorry flying through the air.
4 Q. Have you, yourself, ever seen an air bomb, an unexploded air bomb?
6 A. Yes. I've seen one on one occasion. It had been brought over
7 from someplace or other. It was unexploded. It was taken apart and
8 simply left behind near the building in which I worked.
9 Q. Do you know where it came from? You said it was unexploded. Where
10 did it come from?
11 A. I don't know exactly where it came from, where it was found, or
12 where it landed.
13 Q. Let me put my question a little differently. Do you know if this
14 air bomb that you saw came from the -- the Serb army, or did it come from
15 the Bosnian army, or do you not know?
16 A. It wasn't from the Bosnian army. It was most probably fired by
17 the Serb side. One thing I do know is that it was entirely cracked up by
18 the time it reached us, because it had landed already and smashed against
19 the ground.
20 Q. So just I'm clear about your testimony, this was an air bomb that
21 was launched and landed and it was smashed. It was damaged, but it had
22 not exploded. Is that correct?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. Can you describe for the Trial Chamber what it looked like. What
25 does an air bomb look like; or at least the one that you saw, what did it
1 look like?
2 A. As far as I remember, it was made up of two component parts. One
3 of the components was made up of four rockets or what I assume to have
4 been rockets, and the other part was made up of the air bomb proper.
5 In my estimate, it could have weighed anywhere between 200 and 250
6 kilos. It's difficult to tell just by looking at it. It looked quite
7 big, and the two component parts were welded together.
8 Q. How big were the rockets?
9 A. In my estimate, two, maybe three metres.
10 Q. Now going back to the report that you wrote --
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Whiting, the witness should be asked why he
12 concluded that the air bomb came from the Serbian side and not from the
13 Bosnian side.
14 Why did you say that?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, that was what I was told by my
16 colleagues. I had asked them how the bomb came to be there in the first
17 place. I simply wanted to the know who had done it, what exactly occurred
18 and how it got to be there in the first place.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.
20 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.
21 Q. Now, going back to this report that you wrote, does the report
22 indicate wether anyone was injured in this air bomb attack on this date?
23 A. In this case, on Cobanija Street, three persons were injured.
24 Q. And the names are indicated there on the report.
25 A. Yes, the names are there.
1 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, could this document be admitted,
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
4 THE REGISTRAR: As P113, Your Honours.
5 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.
6 Could we please look at 65 ter 2872. It's the map of Sarajevo.
7 And if we could zoom into the right-hand part of the map where the
8 river is, just below the river on the right-hand side. If you can zoom in
9 -- do that again.
10 Q. Sir, you're going to know this map better than I do. Can you see
11 Cobanija Street on there, or do we need to zoom in some more?
12 MR. WHITING: If we can zoom in between Skenderija and Bistrik.
13 There we go, perfect.
14 Q. Do you see it?
15 A. Yes.
16 MR. WHITING: Could the witness be given the pen to mark where it
17 is, please.
18 Q. And if you could mark where -- where, to the best of your
19 recollection, this occurred, Cobanija Street 7, on the map?
20 A. [Marks].
21 MR. WHITING: Okay. The witness has drawn a dot and a circle
22 around it.
23 Q. Sir, were there any military facilities near this location, to
24 your knowledge?
25 A. No, no.
1 Q. Do you know how far the closest military facility was to this
2 location, in terms of metres or even kilometres or ...
3 A. No. I'm sorry, but I can't say. The only military facility that
4 I can remember right now was the headquarters at Bistrik, but that's where
5 UNPROFOR was stationed at the time.
6 Q. Can you put an X where that was.
7 A. [Marks] Around about here.
8 Q. Okay. And you said that it was a boiler room that was struck and
9 I think also some garages. Was that -- is that part of a residential
10 complex or building?
11 A. Yes. This entire section of Cobanija Street is residential.
12 Q. To your -- did you learn in your investigation if there were any
13 military -- any soldiers present at the location when it was hit by the
14 air bomb?
15 A. No, not that I heard of.
16 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, could this be made an exhibit, please.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
18 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be admitted as Exhibit
19 P214, also a registry correction. The last two exhibits were admitted as
20 P112 and 113. They should have been 212 and 213.
21 MR. WHITING: Thank you. If we could look at 65 ter Exhibit 136,
23 Q. Mr. Vidovic, do you recognise this document, or can you tell us
24 what this document is?
25 A. Yes, I do recognise it. As far as I can tell, this is the header.
1 This is the first part of the expert analysis of part of part of the
2 projectile that landed on Cobanija Street.
3 Q. Did you have an opportunity to review this document before coming
4 into court today?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. From its appearance, does it appear to you based on your
7 experience to be an authentic document?
8 A. It does.
9 MR. WHITING: Could this be admitted into evidence, please, Your
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
12 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P215, Your Honours.
13 MR. WHITING: Could we look at exhibit 65 ter 138, please.
14 I don't think we need the -- well, no, that's fine. Are you going
15 to put up the translation. Okay.
16 Q. Do you recognise this, Mr. Vidovic?
17 A. Yes. These are photographs that I took at the actual site,
18 Cobanija Street.
19 Q. And did you write the captions?
20 A. Yes, I did.
21 MR. WHITING: Could we look at the picture at the top, so it's the
22 first picture on this first page.
23 Q. Can you tell us what that is?
24 A. This is what I refer to as the boiler room, the one that was hit
25 by the projectile, and you can see the exact point of impact where it
1 smashed against the building.
2 MR. WHITING: Your Honours, these colour Xeroxes are actually
3 pretty good with the captions. I do -- if it's assistance to either the
4 Trial Chamber or the Defence counsel, I do have a set of -- a printed
5 version of these photographs, if it is of any assistance. But I would ask
6 that these photographs be admitted into evidence along with their
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
9 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P216, Your Honours.
10 MR. WHITING: Could we look at exhibit 65 ter 122, please, and if
11 we could go to page 2 of the B/C/S and page 1 of the English.
12 Q. Mr. Vidovic, can you tell us what this report is?
13 A. This is the official report compiled by officials of the crime
14 squad, those who carried out the on-site investigation at Cobanija Street.
15 Another thing that I can see here is that all of the incidents
16 that occurred on that day are described in this report.
17 Q. Did you have an opportunity also to review this report before
18 coming into court today. And, same question, does it appear to you, based
19 on your experience, to be an authentic report?
20 A. Yes. I have seen this report before. I saw it before I came into
21 the courtroom, and I believe that this is an authentic document.
22 MR. WHITING: Could this be admitted into evidence, please, Your
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
25 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P217, Your Honours.
1 MR. WHITING: Could we look, please, at exhibit 65 ter 137.
2 Q. Can you tell us what this is?
3 A. As far as I can tell, this is a hospital document. I believe that
4 this is a medical finding of some kind.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.
6 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I gave up objecting
7 several times in a row, but this is something for an expert. This is for
8 a medical expert. It's a medical document. We can hardly expect a
9 witness who is not familiar with that field to establish the authenticity
10 of this document. Perhaps a doctor could. A while ago, we had another
11 document where expertise would have been required. He is a witness, but
12 he certainly is no expert, and I think you should take the matter in hand,
13 Your Honours.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, let me hear from Mr. Whiting on this.
15 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, I'm no going ask the witness to comment
16 on or interpret the document at all. He is not an expert. He is not a
17 doctor. I don't think he would be qualified to do that. I'm simply going
18 to ask him if it is familiar to him as a medical document from the time,
19 from the area, from -- and authenticate it that way and put it into
20 evidence. I think that -- in our view, that is sufficient authentication
21 for it to go into evidence.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.
23 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] That is precisely the problem
24 that I think we're facing. I don't think the witness is able to do that.
25 I don't think he can confirm the time the document was produced. We all
1 see that; nobody is trying to challenge that. But the Prosecutor is
2 asking him to also confirm the substance of the document as well as the
3 signature that it bears and whatever else it's about. If it's just about
4 the date being confirmed, in that case, I have no reason to oppose this.
5 [Trial Chamber confers].
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Whiting, what is the value to you of this
7 document? The witness can't speak to its substance.
8 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, if the document is in evidence, the
9 document largely speaks for itself about the injuries that were suffered
10 by the victims of the air bomb on that day. The victims are identified in
11 the report, and these are medical records of what occurred to the victims.
12 They largely speak for themselves, and I can't imagine there is
13 really any dispute about what the injuries are in this case. And if there
14 is, if there's a dispute about what the injuries are, we can take it up
15 with other witnesses. But that's -- I cannot imagine that is a point of
16 contention. This is not a sniping case where the injuries might indicate
17 something about the case itself.
18 [Trial Chamber confers].
19 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll mark it for identification.
21 Mr. Tapuskovic.
22 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I know a bit of
23 Latin, and I have forgotten a lot. All of these are Latin terms. How
24 have a witness, who is testifying only as a witness, say anything --
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: We have ruled. We'll mark it for identification.
1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be marked for
2 identification as P218.
3 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, this may require -- for one thing, the
4 exhibit should have six pages in it. While there are Latin terms, there
5 are other explanations that are not in Latin. If we're going to need
6 another witness to get this sort of evidence into evidence, these sorts of
7 documents, obviously, we're going to have to add witnesses, doctors, and
8 medical experts.
9 I wouldn't think that is necessary, but maybe this is something
10 that we can resolve with Defence counsel. As I said, I can't imagine that
11 these injuries are really a point of contention in the case, but I will
12 move on.
13 If we could lock at 65 ter Exhibit 733, please, and if we could go
14 to page 6 of the B/C/S and page 1 of the English.
15 Q. Do you recognise this document, sir?
16 A. Yes. It is, again, a report of mine concerning an on-site
18 MR. WHITING: For the benefit of Your Honours, this is now about a
19 separate, different incident.
20 Q. What's the date that this occurred and what, briefly speaking,
21 what happened?
22 A. It happened on the 14th of February, 1995 in Zmaja od Bosne Street
23 when a tram going from Bascarsija towards the depot at Alipasin Pole was
24 shot at. One passenger was injured.
25 Q. Does the report indicate the direction from which the fire came?
1 A. Yes. It says the shot came from the south-east.
2 Q. And do you recall how that was determined?
3 A. I think it was the determined based on eye-witness reports on the
4 basis of the direction in which the tram was moving and the damage
5 inflicted on the tram.
6 Q. In addition to this document that you wrote, did you have an
7 opportunity to review several other documents pertaining to this incident
8 that were together with this document, and did those documents appear
9 authentic to you?
10 A. Yes. I have seen some other documents, and I believe that it is
12 MR. WHITING: Could this exhibit be marked and put into evidence,
13 Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be admitted as Exhibit
17 MR. WHITING: Could we look at 65 ter Exhibit 1170, please, and if
18 we could go to page 4 of the B/C/S and page 1 of the English.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: This is sniping incident number what?
20 MR. WHITING: No, I'm sorry. This is an unscheduled incident, the
21 last one and this one, and they are not dropped incidents. They were
22 always unscheduled.
23 JUDGE HARHOFF: But have we heard other witnesses on this incident
25 MR. WHITING: Not my knowledge, but I could be mistaken about
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Will we be hearing other evidence on this
3 unscheduled incident.
4 MR. WHITING: I can't say for certain, but perhaps not. And it's
5 part -- part of the Prosecution to put in reports of unscheduled
6 incidents, which, taken together, support the counts in the indictment.
7 Not -- obviously, with respect to every unscheduled incident, we cannot
8 call the victims and all of the witnesses and so forth. But we will put
9 in investigative reports which contain that kind of information, as does
10 this one.
11 Q. Sir, do you recognise this report?
12 A. Yes. It's another of my reports from an on-site investigation, in
13 this case, of a shelling incident.
14 Q. And what is the date of this incident and where did it occur?
15 A. On the 11th of July, 1995, in Omla Dinska Street.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic is on his feet.
17 Mr. Tapuskovic, yes.
18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] This incident that we are dealing
19 with now, is it also covered by the indictment as one of the scheduled
21 MR. WHITING: This is not a scheduled incident.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: It's unscheduled, yes.
23 MR. WHITING:
24 Q. Again, in connection with this incident, did you review other
25 reports before coming to court today, and were you able to determine
1 whether those reports appeared authentic to you?
2 A. Yes. I have seen some other documents and they appear authentic
3 to me.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic, yes.
5 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I really cannot
6 understand this line of questioning. If the intention is to speak of some
7 documents that he has seen, the witness, then we should all look at them
8 together. He was just asked whether he has seen some other documents and
9 whether he can confirm their accuracy; that's something that I have never
10 encountered my practice before this Tribunal.
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, I think that will be a matter for you to --
12 to raise in your cross-examination, if you -- if you think it will go to
13 the credibility of the witness, the witness's testimony.
14 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour. It's merely to establish
15 that there are other documents that pertain to these incidents which, of
16 course, have been disclosed to the Defence, and the Defence is well aware
17 of them.
18 Could this document be admitted into evidence, please.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
20 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P220, Your Honours.
21 MR. WHITING:
22 Q. Thank you, Mr. Vidovic.
23 MR. WHITING: I have no further questions.
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: Can I just ask the witness -- could we have
25 Exhibit P217 back on the screen, and I apologise in the being quick enough
2 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, for some reason, although your
3 microphone was on, it was hard to hear you.
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: I will ask you again, if I could ask you to bring
5 become Exhibit P217, which was the crime squad report of 17 June, 1995.
6 And as I said, I apologise for not being quick enough to react while it
7 was on the screen in front of us. But it disappeared so quickly, so I
8 thought I should wait with my question.
9 And my question is: While we're waiting for the document to
10 reappear, that I thought I saw that in the report the direction was given
11 as coming from north-west and not from north-east as we had just
12 established. And I want to verify this and bring it up with the witness.
13 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, you will recall that with this exhibit
14 that the witness testified that it was about -- that this exhibit covered
15 a number of incidents on that date, and so that may be the source of the
16 confusion. The --
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes. You see in the last paragraph: "A survey of
18 the scene confirmed that a modified aircraft bomb was fired from the
19 aggressive position," so the north-west on the 16th of June. It may be
20 that this is not referring to the same incident as the one in which we
21 established that the bomb was fired from north-east, but I thought it was,
23 MR. WHITING: There's one at 1000 hours and that's not the same
24 one, and I don't know -- and that is north-west. But if we turn to the
25 second page in the English, and I don't know about the B/C/S, the first --
1 no. We have to go to the top of the document. The first paragraph refers
2 to our incident, and there it does say north-west. And there we could
3 ask, again, the witness, it's -- if we can find it in the B/C/S and give
4 the translation -- yes. It's midway in the page on the B/C/S, where it
5 says 16th at 1710 hours and then -- and the witness can read the
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: Could the witness please do so.
8 MR. WHITING: If he can read it, if he can see it.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Should I read it?
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes, please. Because I would like to know where
11 did the bomb actually come from. Was it north-east or was it north-west?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I see here it's written from
13 north-west, but in my report it says north-east.
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: That's what I want to bring up. Because now I
15 think -- you know, the Chamber needs to be reassured where did the bomb
16 come from and can we be shown on the map where that was, who held the
17 territory in the north-east or north-west. How are we to ascertain which
18 side fired this bomb? Can you please assist us, Mr. Prosecutor?
19 MR. WHITING: Well, we can go back to 65 ter 2872, the map. And
20 while that is coming up --
21 Q. I'll ask this: Mr. Vidovic, you reviewed your reports and other
22 reports related to this incident. Now that it's been drawn to your
23 attention that in this report it identifies the direction as north-west,
24 does that cause you to change in any way what you put -- what you
25 represented in your report that it came from the north-east?
1 A. I would not change anything, especially now that I'm thinking
2 about it. This axis, north-east, leads to a crack between buildings; and
3 to the north-west, the entire area is densely built up and the bullet
4 would sooner hit one of those buildings than go this way here.
5 Q. Let me see if I can -- if I'm clear about what you're saying. Are
6 you saying that given where the bomb hit, its point of impact, and the
7 layout of the buildings around it and the openings around it, that it --
8 it -- that causes you to determine that it came from the north-east as
9 opposed to the north-west. Because if it had come from the north-west, it
10 would have hit another building before hitting this point. Is that your
11 testimony? Did I clarify it?
12 A. Yes, that's correct. It was the bomb squad team that determined
13 the direction from which the projectile came, also on the basis of the
14 location of the impact. At the time there were also military observers
15 present on the on-site investigation, and they determined the direction
16 where it came from to be north-east as I wrote in my report. And this is
17 -- what I recently mentioned is also one of the ways in which you can
18 determine where it came from.
19 Q. And the report that His Honour Judge Harhoff showed you a moment
20 ago, which is Exhibit 217, P217, that is a report that summarized, as you
21 testified, all of the incidents that occurred that day. How is -- do you
22 know how such a report is prepared?
23 A. I suppose that the report was drafted at the end of the day. The
24 colleague who was writing it at the end of the day and after all the
25 on-site investigations were performed for the day simply wrote an
1 aggregate report.
2 Q. So it's an aggregate report which is written after the
3 investigative reports are written, is that a fair summary of your
5 A. Yes, yes.
6 Q. Now, I'll ask then if we could look at the map.
7 MR. WHITING: If we could zoom in again on that location on the
8 right-hand side, and it's between Skenderija and Bistrik.
9 That might be good.
10 Q. Are you able to see, Mr. Vidovic, where -- okay. There you can
11 certainly see.
12 Can you take the pen, mark again where the point of impact was and
13 the direction that you believe it came from. Are you able to do that?
14 A. [Marks] .
15 Q. Now, just so the record is clear, the witness has drawn a dot with
16 a circle around it and an arrow pointing to the upper right of the map.
17 Now, sir, is it in your capacity to provide any information to the
18 Trial Chamber about where the air bomb was fired from, or are you only
19 able to tell the Trial Chamber the direction that it came from?
20 A. I could only say the direction. I don't know the exact location.
21 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, I -- I think I have exhausted this
22 subject with the witness. But if there are further questions you'd like
23 me to address, I'm happy to do so.
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: No, not as far as the witness is concerned. He
25 can testify no longer than this, but you would still need to persuade the
1 Chamber that it was fired from either one or the other position-- side.
2 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, you will recall that it's the
3 Prosecution's position that only the, and there's been evidence on this,
4 that only the Bosnian Serb army had these weapons. And that the -- the
5 Bosnian army did not have these weapons.
6 But before we move on and before it gets lost, could just mark
7 this -- unless further markings are required on this map, I would ask that
8 it be made an exhibit.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
10 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P221, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Could we keep this on the system;
12 it would help us a lot.
13 I would refer to the last exhibit, P220. We have spoken of the
14 shelling on the street of Cobanija, on Cobanija Street number 7, on the
15 11th of July, 1995, you said that the sound came from the north-west, the
16 bomb came from the north-west. Obviously, you understand that we wish to
17 understand who is responsible for this shelling in order to establish who
18 is responsible. And if there has been shelling, what sort of bomb was
19 used or shell was used. I would, therefore, like to know what sort of
20 shell was used in this incident concerning Exhibit 220. This is my first
21 question. Could you say what sort of a shell it was?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot say that exactly now,
23 because we collected pieces of the projectile and forwarded -- forwarded
24 them for expertise, and the expertise later established which projectile
25 it was.
1 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] And do you know now what sort of a
2 shell it may have been?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I remember, it was a
4 mortar shell.
5 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Very well. And how did you reach
6 the conclusion that the shell came from the north-west?
7 And another question: Your conclusion or your report, was it
8 corroborate the by other reports such as the reports of the UNMOs, for
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was not the one who determined
11 on-site the direction where it came from. It was the whole team,
12 especially the bomb squad team; plus in addition to my report, there was
13 also a judge present, an investigating judge present from the Sarajevo
14 district court. I think there is a report from the investigating judge.
15 Otherwise, I don't think UN observers were present on this particular
17 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] This is where you will be
18 particularly helpful for the Chamber, as an expert, specialist of these
19 matters. According to you, what -- which forces would be responsible for
20 this shelling? Do you have a way of knowing or not? What forces, what
21 army, what group would be responsible for this shelling?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can only say what we determined at
23 the on-site investigation; namely, which direction it was fired from.
24 Further expertise to determine the location and the position is something
25 that I cannot speak to.
1 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] All right. Thank you. I don't
2 need the map anymore. Thank you so much.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Vidovic, you told Mr. Whiting that a
4 colleague wrote an aggregate report based on all the on-site
5 investigations. Would you plain explain what is meant by an aggregate
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That would be his daily report, his
8 report for the day. In addition to that, he writes a report for each
9 particular incident, and this daily report is forwarded on for
10 information. So in addition, there should be an individual report for
11 each incident.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: I see. There is an individual report and an
13 aggregate report. Now, in the aggregate report, it is stated the
14 direction from which the fire came, from which the weapon came. Now,
15 would that mean that the direction identified in the aggregate report
16 reflects the direction stated in all the individual reports or perhaps
17 only some of them?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Only some of them. If you mean what
19 is written in that part of the text, that particular bit relates only to
20 one incident.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: The conclusion in the aggregate report as to the
22 direction from which the weapon was fired, what I'm asking is whether that
23 direction is the direction that would be identified in all the individual
24 on-site reports. So that if it said north-west in the aggregate report,
25 did it say north-west in all the individual on-site investigations or
1 perhaps in -- in nine out of ten, it said north-west; and in another one,
2 it might have said north-east. That is what I'm trying to ascertain.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It should be, in relation it that
4 incident, one, and not all of them.
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Vidovic, just following up on President
6 Robinson's question, as I understand was the case in this particular
7 report, if there is a difference between what is written in the actual
8 incident report, first, and then in the aggregate report at the end of the
9 day, if there's a difference between these two report, which I understand
10 there was- in the incident report, it said that it came from the
11 north-east and in the aggregate, certainly, it says that the bomb was
12 fired from the north-west, which of the two findings would then be passed
13 on to -- to the next step in the -- in the procedures, I mean, in the
14 reports that went on to the headquarters?
15 No, you don't understand my question.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I don't.
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: There is, obviously, a difference in the two
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right.
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: Which of the two findings would be -- which one
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's difficult to say. If you ask
23 me, both are equally important. I don't know where the error was made as
24 far as my colleague who wrote down north-west was concerned. What I
25 learned on the spot I wrote down immediately in my own report. That's as
1 much as I can say.
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you very much.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, it's -- I see. No, we are beyond
4 the time for the break. So we'll take the break now.
5 --- Recess taken at 3.50 p.m.
6 --- On resuming at 4.10 p.m.
7 MR. WHITING: Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Whiting.
9 MR. WHITING: If I may, and Defence counsel has no objection; I
10 asked them. If I may just put a few more questions to the witness, it's
11 in aim of trying to further clarify this issue about north-west,
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, you may.
14 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.
15 Could we look at Exhibit P215, and if we could have the B/C/S.
16 Q. Now, Mr. Vidovic, you testified earlier about this exhibit, that
17 it was the ballistics or the bomb squad expert report; do you recall?
18 A. Yes, I do.
19 Q. And are you able to -- well, now we've --
20 MR. WHITING: Okay. We've lost the English. It's being flipped.
22 Q. I'm going to draw your attention to, I think it's the third
23 paragraph after -- it's -- and do you see on this document, what direction
24 does this document say the projectile was fired from?
25 A. North, north-east -- north-west.
1 Q. North, north-west. It's in the third paragraph. It's translated
2 -- in the translation, it's north-west. It doesn't have north, it just
3 says north-west.
4 So, now -- now, we have -- your report said north-east. This bomb
5 squad expert report says north, north-west. The aggregate report said
6 north-west. Which -- which would -- which report in your mind --
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: I see Mr. Tapuskovic on his feet.
8 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] As far as I can tell, in the
9 B/C/S, it doesn't say north, north-west -- my mistake, I'm sorry.
10 MR. WHITING: Okay.
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well.
12 MR. WHITING:
13 Q. So if I could put my question again. Your report, your on-site
14 investigation report says north-east. This bomb squad expert analysis
15 report says north, north-west, and the aggregate report says north-west.
16 Which of those reports should prevail? Which is the better report or are
17 you unable to say.
18 A. The expert analysis --
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic.
20 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I don't think this
21 is a proper question. It's not proper to ask this witness to assess this.
22 He either knows something or he doesn't. I think it improper to expect
23 this witness to assess the accuracy of these documents. What he can give
24 us is his opinion, but he can't be expected to judge these documents as an
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Whiting.
2 MR. WHITING: I'm sorry. If you don't -- I mean -- I think this
3 is the same question that the Chamber put to him with respect to two
4 documents, and it's -- all I'm asking is who would know better? Him,
5 based on his on-site report, or the bomb squad expert report would be more
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. In light of the experience that he has had,
8 I think he's able to answer the question.
9 MR. WHITING:
10 Q. You started to answer the question. But if you could answer the
11 question, which would prevail of those reports?
12 A. As far as I know, the aggregate report is an internal document for
13 police purposes, and the other two reports are actually submitted to a
14 Court; the expert analysis, the photo files, and the on-site investigation
15 report. I would be hard put to say which is the most important one.
16 Q. But would you be able to say which one is more reliable or more
17 determinative; your on-site report or the bomb squad expert report?
18 A. Well, in my opinion, it would be my report, the report that I
19 produced at the actual site.
20 Q. Okay.
21 MR. WHITING: Your Honours, I would just state that it is our
22 position that the issue of the direction or origin is less or perhaps not
23 even at all important with respect to air bombs because of our position
24 that -- that only the Bosnian Serb army had these weapons, so that must
25 have been fired from the Bosnian Serb army positions.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: That's your submission. It would remain for the
2 Chamber to access that in light of the all of the evidence.
3 MR. WHITING: Of course, Your Honour. Thank you.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic.
5 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this is something
6 from the indictment, what my learned friend has just said. The trial will
7 answer that question. I'm grateful for the opportunity to examine this
9 Cross-examination by Mr. Tapuskovic:
10 Q. [Interpretation] Witness, sir, I represent the accused in this
11 trial, and I would like to ask you something about the previous question
12 raised by Mr. Whiting. Normally, you would arrive at the scene the next
13 day after the incident, right?
14 A. Yes. In this case, it was the next day after the incident that I
16 Q. Thank you. What could you possibly have established the next day?
17 Whoever had been injured had already been taken away, so what exactly did
18 do you?
19 A. I photographed the scene, and we gathered any evidence found at
20 the scene. The sites would normally be cordoned off by the police before
21 we got there.
22 Q. So the police would wait for you to arrive. They would guard the
23 site throughout the night. The next day you would be there to give your
24 opinion; is that right?
25 A. Yes.
1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I hope you heard
2 this. The witness has just confirmed that the police would guard the
3 scene throughout the night. The next day he would arrive and establish
4 the facts.
5 Q. What about those who were at the scene when the incident occurred
6 and who looked after whoever had been injured? Were there any injured
7 persons in this incident?
8 A. Yes, three.
9 Q. Just injured, not dead?
10 A. No, not dead.
11 Q. The injuries were not serious, were they?
12 A. I can't say.
13 Q. My learned friend, Mr. Whiting, dealt with this a while ago. Did
14 you ever see this sort of bomb actually fly?
15 A. Yes, I did.
16 Q. Does it have a slow flight? Does it make much noise?
17 A. Yes, a lot of noise.
18 Q. How long does it normally travel for?
19 A. I don't know. I would be speculating.
20 Q. At any rate, it's the noise that draws attention to the bomb. The
21 flight itself is slow, so whoever is looking can get away from there and
22 go somewhere safe, has plenty of time to do that, right?
23 A. Yes, I assume that that would be the case.
24 Q. I wasn't going to ask you any questions about your statements. I'm
25 not going to be using the first one, the one that you made in 1995.
1 There's the other statement, too, dated the 15th of November, 1995. The
2 document number is DD00-0673. This is your own statement dated the 15th
3 of November, 1995. I have some questions in relation to this, sir.
4 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] If the document could please be
5 placed before you, I would like to start with page 2.
6 That's the one. I want page 2.
7 Q. Is that your statement, sir? There, Witness, sir, paragraph 2. It
8 reads: "I started on the six-month training course learning about forensic
9 techniques, ballistics, biology, chemistry, and criminal law."
10 You actually managed to master all these sciences over those six
11 months, didn't you?
12 A. No. I didn't master all these skills in sciences. Those were
13 just very basic lectures that we were supposed to use while carrying out
14 on-site investigations.
15 Q. You decided to take up this very serious work, responsible work,
16 should I say, which is to ascertain the circumstances under which a person
17 was killed. After that, you would normally provide your opinion. Did you
18 feel sufficiently qualified to do something like that, sir?
19 A. Yes, I did.
20 Q. As far as I can tell, you go on to state this: "I also attended
21 lectures in photograph, making sketches, and taking fingerprints,
22 investigation techniques raging from traffic accidents up to murder."
23 Did you do that?
24 A. Yes, I did all of that.
25 Q. Do you remember how many Serbs were murdered back in 1992, Serbs
1 but also Croats and Bosnian who were killed; not on account of the war,
2 but rather were slaughtered or shot?
3 A. I don't know the exact figure. Back in 1992, I wasn't working
4 with the police.
5 Q. But you did hear about that, right?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. If we read on you will see this: You talk about dealing with
8 snipers. That's several paragraphs down. If there is a fatal shooting,
9 can you see that section, sir?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. If someone was shot dead, you assumed that those persons were
12 killed by a sniper, right?
13 A. I don't understand exactly what you mean.
14 Q. This reads, "There is a fatal shooting if someone is shot dead."
15 Can you explain to the Chamber what exactly you meant by that when you
16 said this?
17 A. I meant, generally speaking, any on-site investigation where there
18 was gun-fire that resulted in fatalities.
19 Q. Even in cases of the an exchange of fire from both sides?
20 A. Yes, even in those cases.
21 Q. I won't be pursuing this any further. I would just be repeating
23 You did speak of another incident involving a tram. It's the
24 second-to-last paragraph, same statement. You say,.
25 "We also ascertained that the bullet had hit a -- the metal
1 coated- plated radiator to keep people from burning themselves. When the
2 bullet hit the other piece of metal, it must have shattered into pieces.
3 Bits of the bullet and the metal protective layer of the radiator then hit
4 passengers on that tram."
5 Did you take that also to be a result of an exchange of fire, sir?
7 A. No.
8 Q. So you think it was a sniper, right?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. If indeed this was a sniper, how come he hit the radiator with the
11 bullet fragmenting into three bits? He used just one bullet to virtually
12 wound three different persons, right?
13 A. Yes, that is exactly what happened.
14 Q. The next paragraph, or rather, two paragraphs down the page, about
15 the same incident. "The confrontation line at the site of this firing was
16 only about 200 metres away." This is page 3, paragraph 2 of the English
18 A. It says, "about 200." That's what the B/C/S says.
19 Q. 200, about 200. Well, yes, excuse me. I know the language, too.
20 You go on to say: "Our investigation was based on eye-witness
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Including those who came to grief, right?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Did the victims tell you how they were injured and where from?
2 A. Yes. They made statements to my workmates, my colleagues.
3 Q. Even as soon as they were injured, they knew where they had been
4 hit from, right?
5 A. Yes, that's what I assumed.
6 Q. In the second-to-last paragraph, you say in most of your reports,
7 the bullets came from a southerly direction from the Metalka building; is
8 that right?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. So that the witness invariably said to you, that the bullets had
11 come from the Metalka building, from that general direction?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. All right. The first thing I would like to do is to tender this.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Whiting.
15 MR. WHITING: Well, maybe it will be clarified if this is
16 tendered, but I think that it misstates what is said in the second-to-last
17 paragraph. It doesn't say that most of the bullets came from the Metalka
18 building. It says "that this bullet," and it's talking about a particular
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. It says: "We were able to establish that
21 this bullet came from the south, from the Metalka building, which is on
22 the Serb side."
23 MR. WHITING: But I'm happy to have the -- if he's going to
24 exhibit the statement, that's fine. It will be clear then on the record.
25 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] No, please. That's what he said;
1 and then I asked him about all of the sniping incidents that he was aware
2 of. The bullet would invariably come from the Metalka building, and the
3 witness said, yes.
4 MR. WHITING: Your Honour --
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Were you then quoting from the statement, or were
6 you simply putting a question to him?
7 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I asked this
8 question about -- we ascertained in relation to one bullet from the south
9 from the Metalka building, and he said, yes; and then I asked, What about
10 all the incidents that you were involved in? Did you always establish
11 that the bullet, came from the Metalka building? And the witness said,
13 THE WITNESS: From the direction of Grbavica, and I thought you
14 were talking about this incident in particular.
15 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. A while ago, you said, yes,
16 but I'm still happy.
17 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, the -- counsel is misstating the
18 record, again. It is page 44, line 17. The question that he put to the
19 witness was: "In the second-to-last paragraph, you say in most of your
20 reports the bullets came from a southerly direction, from the Metalka
21 building; is that right? And that misstates what's in the report, and so,
22 of course, the witness thought he was talking about this incident, which
23 is what is being discussed in this report.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you for the clarification.
25 Proceed, Mr. Tapuskovic.
1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I won't be returning to that.
2 That was my question, and I'll leave it at that.
3 Just fort transcript following my learned friend's intervention,
4 we would like to have this admitted DD00-0696 -- I apologise, that's not
5 the right number. I was moving on to a difficult different one DD00-0673,
6 the 15th of November.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, it's admitted.
8 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D60, Your Honours.
9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] .
10 Q. Now, this other statement that you made on the 17th of May, 2006,
11 this is DD00-0696. Can we please have a look.
12 Is that your statement, sir?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Could you please now go to page 2?
15 Just to gain time, in item 3, you talk about the Holiday Inn. You
16 were answering a question by the Prosecutor. I won't be reading this back
17 to you, but you said here: "We didn't know where the sniper was shooting
18 from. It was foggy, and there were bullets whizzing past all around us."
19 Is that an accuracy quote? Is that what you said, sir?
20 A. Yes, that's what the statement says. One thing I forgot to
21 emphasise was the fact that the bullets were again arriving from the
22 direction of Grbavica.
23 Q. Very well. Okay. You were born in Sarajevo, right?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. The very heart of Sarajevo lies in a valley. When the weather is
1 foggy, it's impossible to actually see the bottom of the town from the
2 hills around or the house tops?
3 A. It wasn't quite that foggy. It would have been sufficiently
4 visible from the tops of the surrounding buildings, maybe not from these
5 surrounding hills.
6 Q. So this was a foggy day; we agree on that. Even so, you knew
7 where the bullets were coming from. Who told you? Was that your own
9 A. It was our own conclusion where we were being fired at from. We
10 concluded where the firing was coming from. We could hear the bullets.
11 Q. Item number 7 -- it's not normal for me not to have any of my
12 parents left, and I would like to express my sympathy to you because your
13 father was killed. Here it reads: "My father was killed by a shell in
14 1992. He was off to fetch some water; and on his way back, he was killed
15 right in front of the building."
16 Did you give the investigator any sort of document for them to see
17 to be able to tell whether that was, in fact, accurate whether your father
18 was, indeed, killed by a shell, or perhaps there was a different reason
19 is. It could have been a natural death, for all I know. Life can end in
20 all sorts of ways. Was your father a soldier?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Do you have a document that shows cause of death?
23 A. Yes. I don't have it on me though.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: You're both proceeding too fast. And if you look
25 at the screen, you'll see that the interpreter is asking you to slow down.
1 Observe a pause between question and answer. And, Mr. Tapuskovic, do not
2 put three or four questions at the same time. One question at a time.
3 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] .
4 Q. Can you submit that document to the court so that we might be able
5 to ascertain the cause of your father's death, sir?
6 A. I think that I could. Although, the doctor who wrote the finding,
7 Ilijas Dobreca, also died recently. If that means anything, I saw his
8 dead body. I saw the wounds caused by shrapnel.
9 Q. I'm sorry the doctor died. What I'm asking you is whether you
10 have this document and whether the document can be obtained from this
11 medical institution in which your father's death was established?
12 A. Yes. I think that would be possible.
13 Q. Thank you very much.
14 When such investigations are at hand, such that you conducted in
15 Sarajevo, was there a single case that you were involved in that included
16 the most confident report which is one of the investigating judge?
17 A. There should be. An on-site investigation involves usually an
18 investigating judge.
19 Q. Is it anywhere among the documents that we have discussed
21 A. I see that one report quotes that a investigation judge was
23 Q. I put it to you that the investigating judge was not there in a
24 single incident?
25 A. That's not true.
1 Q. Can you show me a document that shows that an investigating judge
2 was on the spot?
3 A. Not here.
4 Q. Was there a single military expert who knows about weapons who
5 assisted you in your investigation at any point; not necessarily in
6 uniform, but maybe in civilian clothes?
7 A. There were some involved in the Cobanija incident, but they were
9 Q. Yesterday, you spoke about the events in Sarajevo and especially
10 about the period of the summer of 1995, which was the worst for Sarajevo.
11 Do you know that this coincided with a fierce offensive of the ABiH
12 against the positions of army of Republika Srpska?
13 A. I know there was a lot of shooting, but who exactly was attacking
15 Q. You were working in the police?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. How many policemen were there, 15.000, 20.000?
18 A. I don't know the exact number.
19 Q. Were they all under arms?
20 A. Of course, policemen carry weapons.
21 Q. And that includes you?
22 A. Yes, I had a pistol.
23 Q. How about that time and generally throughout those events in
24 Sarajevo and around Sarajevo throughout the war, were you sometimes under
25 the command of the army and were you involved there military operations?
1 A. At the beginning of the war, the police did take part in military
2 operations; in fact, it was the only armed force that existed at the very
3 beginning of the war in 1992 and 1993.
4 Q. And later you dealt only with --
5 A. No. I personally was never involved with military operations.
6 Q. Do you know that other people were involved in military operations
7 precisely in that year in the summer?
8 A. I couldn't tell you that.
9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we show the document
10 DD00-0725, dated 6th July 1995. It's a very brief document.
11 Q. And you, Witness, will either confirm it or refute it when I show
12 it to you.
13 It would be even better if you could read it slowly.
14 A. You mean aloud?
15 Q. Yes, with the leave of the Court.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: What is he to read, a particular paragraph or the
17 entire document?
18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I can read it to facilitate
20 It says: "Command of the 12th Division. Sarajevo, 6th July,
22 Is that correct.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. On the right-hand side, we see, "Defence of the Republik, Military
25 Secret, Strictly Confidential." Correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. "Engagement of MUP units in the defence of the city of Sarajevo.
3 Order." Is that correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. "In keeping with the current situation on the battlefield and the
6 engagement of the units of the 1st Corps, and in keeping with the
7 agreement of the commander of the Main Staff of the army and the Minister
8 of the Internal Affairs of the 2nd July, 1995, for the purposes of
9 efficiently defending the city of Sarajevo, and its airport as a vital
10 facilitate for the city, and pursuant to the order of General staff of the
11 army of Bosnia-Herzegovina," number so-and-so, "I hereby order, one,
12 continue to engage MUP units in the zone of responsibility of the 155th,
13 102nd, and 105th Mountain Brigades and the 111th Mountain Brigade and use
14 them to defend and secure the area of responsibility of brigades and the
15 airport as a vital facility for the city of Sarajevo."
16 Are you aware of that document?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Thank you. I am not going to deal with this document which is a
19 bit longer, but it makes the same point?
20 A. It's an order. If can you only look at one paragraph, and I would
21 like to tender the previous document as a Defence Exhibit DD00-0725, with
22 the leave of the Court.
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we admit it.
24 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D61, Your Honours.
25 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I would now like DD00-0727.
1 Here is another document, an order issued by Commander Prevljak.
2 Q. Can you please look at the last page to see that this was indeed
3 an order issued by is Commander Prevljak; it's on page 2?
4 A. Yes, I see.
5 Q. Was this signed by Prevljak?
6 A. Yes, it says, "Fikrat Prevljak."
7 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we go back to page 1.
8 Q. Point 1.2. Is it correct that it reads: "Subheading, MUP units.
9 MUP units and Lasta units from the current area of deployment, Butmir.
10 Move to take up positions," et cetera, et cetera. Can you see that?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And another paragraph below. "From the forces of MUP detachments
13 Bosna and Lasta, single out a reserve to the forces of Bosna detachment,
14 one company strong."
15 Do you see that?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Can you tell the Trial Chamber what "Bosna" means?
18 A. It's a special unit of the police.
19 Q. Is it correct to that this special unit of the police was involved
20 in special assignment, special missions, such as sabotage?
21 A. I know nothing about that.
22 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] So document DD00-0727 is a
23 document I would like to tender.
24 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, I have to say I am a little bit baffled
25 now about what the Rules are for getting the documents into evidence,
1 because on direct examination this witness recognised medical documents
2 pertaining to victims of an incident that he investigated. And it's --
3 and I submitted that at that was enough for it come into evidence, and the
4 Defence objected and it was marked for identification.
5 Now, he's being shown military documents he says he knows nothing
6 about. He can't recognise and he can't comment on, and they're coming
7 into evidence. I am happy to have -- my preference would be that these
8 things come into evidence, and they are given whatever weight they should
9 be given later by the Trial Chamber. I think that is the easiest way to
10 do things. However, it seems to me that a consistent rule should apply
11 with respect to documents.
12 [Trial Chamber confers].
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. The general rule that we apply is that if
14 the witness does not acknowledge the proposition put forward by the party,
15 the document is not -- is not admitted. And the previous document will
16 therefore not be admitted. That's the D61.
17 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I am tendering it to be marked
18 for identification. It's a very long document containing a lot of things.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we can mark it or identification.
20 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer].
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: This document will be marked for identification.
22 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, I have document DD00-0725, which was
23 admitted as Exhibit D61, will now not be admitted and will be marked for
24 identification as D61. Document DD00-0727 will be marked for
25 identification as Exhibit D62.
1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I omitted to mention it before,
2 but the statement of this witness, DD00-07 -- 0673, on 15th November is
3 another document I would like to tender.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Did you put that to the witness?
5 D60, the 15th of November, we have already admitted.
6 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] It's probably my own fault. What
7 I meant is the 17th May statement, 0696.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: What is that document?
9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] It's the witness's statement that
10 I questioned him on.
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, the witness's statement will be admitted.
12 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D63, Your Honours.
13 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to ask
14 the witness, since he spoke a lot about sniping, whether the army of
15 Bosnia and Herzegovina and primarily the MUP of Sarajevo had their own
16 snipers and whether they fired on civilians within the city of Sarajevo or
18 A. Would you just repeat the last part?
19 Q. Since you spoke a lot about snipers, were there any men among the
20 MUP personnel who fired from tall buildings and sniper emplacements within
21 the city of Sarajevo on targets within the city?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Were there men in the military, in the army of Bosnia and
24 Herzegovina who did that?
25 A. No, not that I know.
1 Q. Were there any sniping units?
2 A. You mean a special unit consisting of snipers? No.
3 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we have document DD00-0723,
4 dated 19th September, 1995. I would like to show this document to the
6 Q. Do you see this order? It's an order dated the 19th of September
7 signed, again, by Commander Fikret Prevljak?
8 A. Yes, I can see it.
9 Q. Now, I will read it to you very slowly. "Pursuant to the order by
10 the commander of the 1st Corps, strictly confidential," number
11 such-and-such, "and based on certain information gained by the UNPROFOR in
12 the territory of Sarajevo, sniping activities of our units is very strong.
13 And in this connection, the attention of the President of the Presidency
14 has been drawn and a protest addressed seeking immediate succession of
15 these activities."
16 Is that written there?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Was it during the NATO bombing, the date as you see it, the 19th
19 of September?
20 A. I cannot tell you exactly in which period the NATO bombing took
21 place, but it was around that time.
22 Q. And what is this order about? "One, immediately stop fire from
23 all sorts of weapons, especially snipers." Is that written there?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. There is no need for me to read the rest.
1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I would like this document
2 DD00-0723 to be marked for identification.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
4 THE REGISTRAR: This will be marked for identification as D64.
5 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I now have two
6 documents that I was reprimanded about by the Prosecutor, and I received
7 them from the Prosecutor himself two years ago, probably as a potential
8 Prosecution exhibit. In any case, I'm going to show this document, which
9 is 65 ter 01989. It is dated 27th August 1994.
10 Q. Can you see this document, Witness?
11 A. No. I see it now.
12 Q. This document is, again, signed by the then commander of the 1st
13 Corps, Mr. Karavelic; is that correct?
14 A. Yes, I can see it.
15 Q. It has its own reference number, and Karavelic is writing to the
16 minister, Dr. Hasan Muratovic; correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. It reads: "Mr. Minister, further to your letter number 01-021-525,
19 dated 25th August, 1994, I hereby wish to advise you as follows."
20 Next paragraph: "In the building of the executive council, there
21 are no units of the 1st Corps or snipers belonging to our force. The
22 building of the executive council is secured and guarded by the MUP with
23 their own personnel." Is that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. "The said incident was notified by General Soubirou to Mr. Enes
1 Bezdrov, Chief of Security Services Centre, CSB, and we believe these
2 incidents will be avoided in the future. As for the freedom of movement
3 of the UNPROFOR in Radnica, Butmir, and Zokolovic colony, we took
4 appropriate action; in short, complete freedom of movement." Is that
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Is it the case that there were MUP snipers on top of this very
8 tall building, the building of the executive council, and hereby Karavelic
9 is refuting his own responsibility and is assuring the minister that this
10 building is not used as an emplacement of MUP snipers?
11 A. I cannot tell you anything about this.
12 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] 65 ter 01989, I would like to
13 tender this, please.
14 MR. WHITING: I think it's also marked for identification.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Marked for identification.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be marked for
17 identification as D65.
18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Now, can the witness please be
19 shown a document that has been in the possession of the OTP for a long
20 time. It's DD00-0681. DD00-0681.
21 Q. Can you see the document, sir?
22 A. No, not yet -- right, it's there. All right. But needs to be
23 blown up slightly.
24 Q. Yes. Same thing I was about to ask.
25 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Please.
2 Q. You see just below the line, I won't be tiring the Chamber with
3 the header, that reads, "The Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, President of
4 the Presidency." You see that, don't you?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Just below that, it says, "Greetings, Izetbegovic," at the bottom
7 of the document, right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Now, here, I'll read it to you. Alija Izetbegovic is writing to
10 General Delic, the commander of the General of the army of
11 Bosnia-Herzegovina; is that right.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. "General, this morning the French ambassador, Henri Jacquolin,
14 visited my office and told my advisor, Mamija, this among other things.
15 France would like to make it official known that we have very angry
16 because of the murder of one of our soldiers at Dobrinja. Military
17 expertise had shown that the soldier had been hit from a positions held by
18 the Bosnian army, and yet we have not had an opportunity to check this,
19 which means that we can only have suspicions." Is that right, sir?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. "The Chetniks, in this case, have demonstrated endless cooperation
22 and willingness to cooperation by making it possible to UN investigators
23 to enter each and every flat and each and every position along the line
24 held by them." Is that what it says?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. "Our men, on the other hand, have refused any form of cooperation
2 and have not allowed access to them to any of the numerous locations from
3 which the French soldier could have been hit." Is that right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. He stated, "When the BH army allows the UNPROFOR commission access
6 to the buildings from which the bullet could have been fired at the French
7 soldier, it is only then that we willing able to discuss the normalisation
8 of relations between Paris and Sarajevo." Is that right.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. "The French ambassador has caused us an unpleasant surprise by
11 saying that he had proof that the out of the 24 French soldiers killed,
12 who were members of the UN, not taking into account those who were killed
13 in the traffic accident at Igman, more than half of those had been killed
14 by the BH army." Is that right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. He says that, "General Gobillard complained to him that for weeks
17 our commanders had been ruling out each and every contact with UNPROFOR.
18 "We don't understand your behaviour, and we don't see what you are
19 trying to achieve." Is that right?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. "Of course, some of these allegations must be taken with a pinch
22 of salt. But it's also necessary for you to know what their objections
23 are. Remove any obstacles to cooperation wherever no obstacles are
24 necessary from the military point of view. Sarajevo, the 21st of April,
25 1995, Salam Alija Izetbegovic." Is my reading accurate, sir?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Can I have this document admitted as a Defence exhibit, please.
3 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, first of all, I think would be marked
4 for identification, but I would raise a larger issue about what the point
5 of this cross-examination is. This is a policeman, and he's repeatedly
6 been shown military documents and their being read out to him.
7 And now counsel is even abandoned even asking him if he knows
8 anything about it. He just reads it out and then tries to move it into
9 evidence. There is no indication that this witness knows anything about
10 military documents, and that he is going to be of any assistance of these
11 document. And I can tell you, judging from the list, there are a lot more
12 of these.
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: I'm asking you counsel also in the same vein, why
14 are you seeking to introduce these documents through this witness?
15 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I was about to show
16 you why, and this is the very reason I decided to do it through this
17 witness. I would like you to at least mark this for identification. The
18 Prosecution have been in the possession of this document for years.
19 Perhaps not from the date the document was produced, but certainly from
20 sometime after. I'm about to tell you why I'm showing these document to
21 the witness.
22 He says there was no sniping by the MUP that transpires with great
23 clarity from everything that we have been reading, and I will be asking
24 some questions that will shed more light on the entire problem. Mr.
25 Whiting knows about these documents that I'm about to show; he's seen them
1 before. It's his right, I suppose. Perhaps he can stop me from showing
2 these documents. Perhaps it's a right that he has.
3 He was talking a while ago about the position that the Prosecution
4 being jeopardised. The only thing that I see is the possibility that the
5 position of this accused might be jeopardised when discussing this effort;
6 whereas, Mr. Whiting a while ago talked about the Prosecution being
7 jeopardised. I couldn't understand that. The question is through my
8 cross-examination --
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Just one moment, please.
10 [Trial Chamber confers].
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: So far, all the witness has done is to confirm
12 the -- that what you have read is actually in the report. He hasn't
13 spoken to the contents of the report, and the -- what the Chamber will do
14 is to mark it for identification.
15 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D66, Your Honour -- sorry, marked for
16 identification as D66, Your Honours.
17 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I agree with your ruling. He
18 says that the MUP or anyone from MUP never fired at civilians in Sarajevo.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, please continue with your
20 cross-examination instead of rehearsing what we have done.
21 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Fine.
22 Q. Witness, are you familiar with the incident on the 25th of
23 October, 1994 at about 1800 hours, the medical institute. Eight
24 passengers from that tram were admitted. The tram was fired from the PZT
25 Grbavica near the Brotherhood and Unity bridge. Eight people were hit?
1 A. I don't know about that incident.
2 Q. You don't, fair enough. What about this report? It's a report
3 compiled by one of your colleagues dated the 25th of October. I will read
4 it to you just to see whether -- or if you --
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Whiting.
6 MR. WHITING: My objection is that this report was on the list of
7 exhibits, documents that the -- that Defence was going to use. It was on
8 the list that they provided yesterday, and it was dropped from the list
9 that they provided to me today. So I don't understand how counsel is
10 about to use it, particularly in the manner that he is using it. The
11 witness has said he doesn't know anything about it, and now he is just
12 going to try to read from the document.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let me ascertain from Mr. Tapuskovic, did you
14 drop it from your list, the list of the documents that you would be using
15 in your cross-examination?
16 Just now please answer the question.
17 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would never have
18 dropped it. I submitted it in good time. It was disclosed to the OTP at
19 the right time, and there was no way I could have dropped it. The OTP got
20 it the moment the present witness took the oath. Now, as to why the
21 e-court system works the way it does sometimes, that is not my problem. I
22 don't know about technology, but the OTP got the document the moment this
23 witness took his oath.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Listen, I really don't want to spend a lot of
25 time on this, but I'm just going to ask Mr. Whiting if he can very quickly
1 verify what he has said.
2 MR. WHITING: According to my information, that is not correct.
3 It's document 435, I believe, and it's not on the spreadsheet that was
4 provided to me today, which I -- I don't know if that spreadsheet was
5 provided to the court, but today I received it -- I received a spreadsheet
6 today with the documents that were going to be used, and it's not on
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: It's on the --
9 MR. WHITING: It's on the list for yesterday.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: It's on the list for the 13th.
11 MR. WHITING: It was on the list that was provided yesterday.
12 [Trial Chamber confers].
13 MR. WHITING: I have the list from today; it's right here. I'm
14 happy to provide it to the Chamber. It has markings on it, but it was not
15 on the list provided to me today. And I think counsel probably knows
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, did you provide a list, today, of
18 the documents that you are going to use to the Prosecution?
19 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I would be crazy. I would be
20 crazy to do that and break the rules that we have agreed on. That's
21 impossible. Mr. Whiting has been smothering me in e-mail since yesterday.
22 I stopped answering. He has been drawing me to certain things trying to
23 hamstring me in my cross-examination. Why would I do it today? It's
24 machine of been in e-court for at least two or three days. What do I
25 know? I must have submitted that document at least two or three days ago.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Whiting, please pass the document to the
3 MR. WHITING: The document I'm passing up, and if Defence counsel
4 wants to see it first, it's a printout of the e-mail that I received this
5 morning and the attached spreadsheet. There are markings that I made on
6 the spreadsheet.
7 [Trial Chamber confers].
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm just going to ask -- I think we're wasting
9 time, but I'm going to ask the usher to show this document to the Defence.
10 This is the document that Mr. Whiting has passed to us.
11 Mr. Whiting says that is a document which you transmitted today,
12 and it doesn't have this -- a reference to this particular document.
13 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I sent the entire
14 batch I have been showing you about Izetbegovic and all that. It was all
15 at the same time. I can't be looking at these all the time. It's what I
16 have my associates for.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: The document that is in your hand that I just
18 sent to you, did you transmit it to the Prosecutor today?
19 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, no way. You might
20 as well arrest me. I'll give up my job. Please arrest me in that case.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm not going to spend any more time on this.
22 MR. WHITING: Well, the confusion may be that it came from the
23 case manager. It did not come obviously from Mr. Tapuskovic itself. It
24 came from the case manager, and I believe they can confirm that.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Did you or your case manager send it. Because if
1 your case manager sent it, she is sending it on your behalf.
2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I can't shift the blame to my
3 case manager. It's my responsibility. If anybody is to be called to
4 account, it is going to be me. But I submitted this along with the
5 Izetbegovic document. What is happening with e-court? Why is it so late
6 in opening documents sometimes. I'm going into that.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Find out from your case manager right now. Find
8 out from your case manager whether she sent that document to Mr. Whiting.
9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Yesterday, but there must have
10 been a problem with the e-court system for that to be submitted. We
11 looked at that document yesterday.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: You haven't answered the question. Did she send
13 it to the Prosecutor.
14 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, yes. I have been saying
15 that all along, haven't I?
16 [Trial Chamber confers].
17 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Everything has been fair so far.
18 You submit the documents to us on the same day that were going to be used,
19 and we weren't angry with you or anything.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: We are not allowing you to use it in accordance
21 with the rules that we established.
22 Please proceed.
23 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I mean, Your Honours, this will
24 crop up with the next witness anyway. This hurdle shall be easier for me
25 to overcome.
1 Q. Do you know this, Witness, what about the UNPROFOR report drafted
2 by the French generals? Did they not say that nearby buildings were fired
3 at by members of the BiH army? Do you know anything about that?
4 A. No, I don't.
5 Q. Thank you very much. I see this other document. I wonder if I
6 submitted this one in good time. This is 65 ter 1484. D19; one of ours.
7 It runs into quite a number of pages. I will be showing only two of
8 those. Page 203, official report, dated 19th of November, 1994.
9 A number of your colleagues produced this report. This is a set
10 of documents. 65 ter 1484 starts with 199, and what I'm talking about is
11 at 203. It's an official report. Three pages on from here--
12 MR. WHITING: For assistance, the English of that page is
13 RR25-1202 to RR25-1204.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.
15 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] The B/C/S is 251203.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, it appears that multiple translations
17 of this document were submitted. There are four in the system, and we're
18 having a hard time figuring out which one goes with the B/C/S/.
19 MR. WHITING: Yes, that is why I tried to help. It's the one that
20 is 1202 to 1204 that pertains to these pages.
21 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] .
22 Q. Do you see this official report dated 19th November regarding an
23 incident where that boy was hurt. You heard about that? Do you know
24 about that boy who was killed and his mother was wounded. Do you remember
1 A. No. I can't remember this particular incident.
2 Q. The whole world heard about it.
3 A. I can't remember. I just can't recall it now.
4 Q. This is a large paragraph, a large one, a small one, then a large
5 one and the end. "On the pavement of the -- on the Franje Rackog Street,
6 there were no UNPROFOR vehicles. Soon two APCs of the French battalion
7 UNPROFOR came and parked with license numbers, UN-PF 15225 and 15041." Can
8 you see that?
9 And then it goes on to say: "Other witnesses, other eye-witnesses,
10 were not found. On the spot where the woman and boy were injured, there
11 was a bloodstain that UNPROFOR members who later came to the site washed
12 out with water and covered with soil before the on-site investigation team
14 Can you see that?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Since the Frenchmen were most correct in conducting these
17 investigations, were they a particular favourite target of the members of
18 your units?
19 A. I cannot tell you anything about that.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, where is this line of
21 cross-examination taking us, and what is the -- what is its relevance?
22 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] The relevance lies in the fact
23 that this evidence indicates that UNPROFOR soldiers, at the time when this
24 commander was the commander, were being killed by members of the army of
25 Bosnia and Herzegovina and the MUP of Sarajevo, and the blame was always
1 laid in the eyes of the world on Serb units.
2 That is precisely why the document issued by the man who then led
3 the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mr. Alija Izetbegovic, invokes the
4 fact that he was informed by the French ambassador that 12 French soldiers
5 were killed by the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina, precisely because the
6 Frenchmen were the most diligent their on-site investigations.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, I hear that. But can you relate that
8 specifically to the criminal responsibility of the accused? Are you
9 asking us to draw a particular inference from that as to his liability or
10 non-liability; and if so, what would that be?
11 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] The point I'm trying to make is
12 that not a single bullet was ever fired from the positions of the army of
13 Republika Srpska at the UNPROFOR or at a child with a conscious intention
14 to kill the child or a member of the UNPROFOR. Such things could have
15 happened only as part of a major offensive, the major offensive conducted
16 at the time by the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and that is in line
17 with this witness said about the summer of 1995 being the worst.
18 It is my belief, and I don't know whether you will share this
19 belief, that this is very relevant because it allows us to determine that
20 the UNPROFOR was never allowed to investigate properly the murders of --
21 the killings of UNPROFOR soldiers because it would have been easy to see
22 through the deceit that it was the Serb units who did it.
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: The next issue is whether this witness is in a
24 position to assist you, even assuming that you are correct in what you
25 just said. The witness so far has not been able to confirm anything in
1 any of these reports. He simply confirms what you have read.
2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I did not even
3 expect him to be able to confirm something like that. He contested that
4 anybody ever from the police force fired from those sky-scrapers.
5 And even when I showed him that letter from Muratovic, I knew that I would
6 get a negative answer. But a document speaks for itself and I will use
7 the documents for --
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: If you know from before that the witness can't
9 confirm anything in it, why are you putting it to him? Because the most
10 we can do is marked for identification. Wait there is a witness through
11 whom you can properly put it into evidence, or if you have a witness on
12 your list when the accused presents his case, then that would be an
13 appropriate time. But I have to consider with my colleagues whether to
14 allow this kind of questioning to continue.
15 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Just one more word, Your Honour,
16 and then you will decide.
17 That document that contained the relevant information, I was
18 stopped from using that document base Mr. Whiting knew very well that the
19 witness was involved where those eight people were injured in that tram.
20 He was involved as an investigator and, of course, I was not allowed by
21 the Prosecution to pursue it. I will try to use the same document through
22 another witness. It is up to you to decide how to proceed now.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, I'm not going to allow further
25 questioning of this witness in relation to this document. He has no
1 relationship with it. It's not taking us any further. I would, however,
2 wish to see the document which we -- which we disallowed on the basis that
3 you had not notified the Prosecutor that you were going to us it, and that
4 is because you say that it has evidence that is related to this witness.
5 And we would consider allowing you to cross-examine on it, if that
6 is the case. So would you transmit that document to us that we can have a
7 look at it. That is the document which you say this witness knows about,
8 because he -- he knows about the -- he was investigating the tram incident
9 in which eight persons were injured.
10 But shouldn't that have been provided to the Chamber as well? Is
11 this the document on the -- on the ELMO?
12 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, for counsel.
13 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Of course, I did not take with me
14 the entire document, but I will read it. It's part of a very large
15 document that relates to the wounding of those women.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let us be clear what you're going to do. Is
17 there a translation of that document?
18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] No. Maybe the Prosecution has a
19 translation. I believe they do.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: But --
21 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] It's a 65 ter document, 648.
22 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, it is -- this page is part of a larger
23 document which is 65 ter number 648. We do not have a translation of this
24 page or any other page in that substantial document.
25 This particular page, as far as I can tell, as far as I was able
1 to determine before I abandoned any further inquiry on this because I
2 thought it was being dropped, this particular page does not relate to the
3 witness. There are other indications in this larger document that the
4 witness may have been involved in the investigation. But what is at issue
5 involved in this particular page, as far as I can tell, does in the relate
6 to the witness. And this is the one page that Defence counsel indicated
7 that he wanted to use.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let us be clear, Mr. Tapuskovic, the Chamber will
9 allow to you cross-examine on this document to the extent that the witness
10 knows about the contents, and it's only on that basis.
11 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, you just heard from
12 the Prosecutor. He was part of the team who worked on the substantial
13 document. He was on that team. I cannot say what he will state. The
14 Prosecutor himself says --
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well. Let us hear the cross-examination on
16 those parts of the document to which the witness can speak on the basis of
17 his experience.
18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] May I put it to the witness?
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
20 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. It is not the very legible. It's an Official Note drafted on 26th
22 October 1994 on the premises of the Security Services Sarajevo, after
23 attending a site where a street car was fired on, on 25th October 1994
24 around 1700 hours at the intersection of Vojvode Putnika and Sibenska
1 I'm reading on: "On the 26th of October, 1994, around 1715 hours,
2 I attended a site on Vojvode Putnika Street, and my assignment was to
3 observe the work of the UNPROFOR commission who were tasked with
4 inspecting the scene and the tram and determine on that basis where the
5 fire had come from. When I came to the site, I found three members of the
6 UNPROFOR of the French battalion."
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Is that the first paragraph?
8 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] It's all of the document. This
9 is the entire document.
10 Q. "The tram was facing Cengic Vila. The distance between the back of
11 the tram and the tram depot of Pofalici was around 15 metres. At that
12 moment, representatives of the UNPROFOR exited from the tram and passed on
13 its left side in the direction of movement. On that side of the tram,
14 there were clear signs of damage of the body of the tram inflicted by
15 infantry weapons. An UNPROFOR officer pushed a metal bar into one of the
16 holes and said something to those present in the French language.
17 "Other members of the team did not do or say anything. My
18 interpreter told me that the officer had said that the shots had come from
19 the Muslim side from a neighbouring white building in Sibenska Street.
20 The interpreter said that the officer was even able to establish the
21 window from which the shots came from. After noting this, the officer
22 took out the metal bars and together with his team left the site around
23 1745 hours. The driver of the tram took the tram to the depot."
24 Now my question is, since this Official Note was signed by
25 Sulejman Pilav, were you indeed the member of -- a member of that team?
1 A. Possibly.
2 Q. Thank you.
3 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I had more questions, but I'm not
4 going to proceed with them.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Re-examination?
6 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, I just have a few questions, but I
7 don't recall when the next break is.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Oh, it's now.
9 MR. WHITING: Oh, it's now.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll take the break now.
11 --- Recess taken at 5.42 p.m.
12 --- On resuming at 6.01 p.m.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Before you begin, Mr. Whiting, I need to clarify
14 something with Mr. Tapuskovic. It was document 435. It was document 435,
15 which was the subject of a dispute between yourself and the Prosecutor as
16 to whether you had given the proper notification that you were going to
17 use it, and that is the document which I said I would allow -- listen it
18 to me first. That is the document that I said I would allow you to
19 cross-examine on, notwithstanding the fact that the Chamber had earlier
20 disallowed it in accordance it the rules that we had established, because
21 you had not notified the Prosecutor of it in the -- in your communication
22 to him today, the communication that came from your court manager.
23 But it's not clear to me whether that was the document which you
24 most laterally put to the witness. That's the document you wanted to
25 cross-examine on, and I said yes, because you said there was a reference
1 to a tram incident in which eight persons were killed and this witness had
2 investigated it. Is that the document which you put to the witness?
3 Because it does not appear to me to have been that one.
4 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Eight persons were wounded, and
5 that's this entire document that I did not bring with me. I have only a
6 part thereof. And what the UNPROFOR did on site had to do precisely with
7 that tram hit with eight rounds, and the UNPROFOR established it was from
8 the positions of the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: No, just a minute. Didn't you say that this
10 witness could assist you on that, that you had questions to put to this
11 witness about that document? You were fighting to have that document,
12 struggling to have it used by you in court, and I allowed you to use it.
13 But it seems to me that have you not used it, and I want to know why.
14 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, when he confirmed that what
15 is written in that report is possible, that it was fire coming from that
16 building where the ABiH positions were, that was sufficient to me. I
17 thought it was not necessary to burden you with it any longer. I just
18 want that document exhibited, and I forgot to tender it. I didn't see any
19 reason to question him any longer, if he confirmed that it was indeed a
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you for the clarification.
22 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, that is not my understanding of the
23 record. The question that was put to the witness was not "was what is
24 stated in the report possible." "It was were you a member of that team,"
25 and the answer was "possibly." That was the only question that was put to
1 him. I don't think that he confirmed in any way, even that it was
2 possible what was stated in that document.
3 Now, you know, as I said before, this document is a page from a
4 longer report that deals with this incident. It's 65 ter 648; and if
5 counsel wants to show that bigger document, even though it was not on
6 their list, in the spirit of cooperation, which may be needed today, I'm
7 happy to allow that. Of course, it's up to the Chamber to make that
8 decision. I wouldn't have any objection. It's a long document for which
9 there is no translation, and it's obviously a complicated issue. There
10 are ins and outs of this issue, as far as I can tell, based on the
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: Can I just ask a question: What happened to
13 document 65 ter number 435?
14 MR. WHITING: That is not -- it's not 65 ter 435; that's the
15 Defence number 435, so it's not a 65 ter number from our list.
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: So we are speaking about one and the same document
18 MR. WHITING: The document that Defence counsel wanted to use is
19 435. It is the one that he showed it to the witness. He read it to the
20 witness and asked that single question.
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: Very well. Thank you.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic.
23 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, I have already said what I
24 meant. I thought he said it's possible, and he worked on the team. I can
25 continue, but you did not allow me to use document DD00-0432, from which
1 it transpires that it was something that happened a day earlier, on the
2 235th of October.
3 Q. And that document lists the persons who were injured, and you were
4 in the team that tried to elucidate that case, weren't you?
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Would you like to put additional questions to him
6 about 435?
7 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. You said a moment ago that it is possible that what is written in
9 the document is true?
10 A. No, that is not what you asked me. You asked me whether Sulejman
11 Pilav, who signed the document, was in my team and I said it was possible.
12 Q. The team that elucidated that case?
13 A. But I didn't confirm the allegations from that document.
14 Q. I didn't ask you to confirm the allegations from that document. I
15 asked you to confirm that it was done by your team, because you never
16 worked alone?
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. So whatever the team did together is the definitive position of
19 that team?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. That was my understanding. So you were familiar with the whole
22 documentation of that case?
23 A. Yes, with a proviso that this does not relate to the case itself.
24 It relates to what happened during the on-site investigation.
25 Q. But that document that I read out to you, it is directly related
1 to the event from the day before because this document was drafted after
2 the UNPROFOR attended the scene on the 26th?
3 A. This is one Official Note with just notes that the UNPROFOR
4 attended and made a statement.
5 Q. And it's in the framework of your team?
6 A. No. It is not one of the findings from the on-site investigation,
7 and it was not written by the crime technician who did the investigation.
8 Q. It is mentioned in several places in that document that your team
9 does not agree with what is stated?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Thank you.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Whiting --
13 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I suggest that the
14 entire document be exhibited. The Prosecutor knows the number of the
15 entire document.
16 MR. WHITING: 65 ter 648. I have no objection to that, the whole
17 thing going in. It will have to be translated. It's a -- but that's
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, it will very burdensome and, in
21 fact, would be a waste of resources to have the whole thing translated if,
22 in fact, you're only concerned with a particular portion of it. So if you
23 can identify the particular portion that is relevant, we'll admit it and
24 we'll have that portion translated. But to ask the translators to
25 translate, what is it, 600 pages --
1 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, I'm sorry, if I was not clear. It's
2 not 600 pages. It looks like about 38 pages. I think probably it would
3 be prudent just to get it done because I think Defence counsel may be
4 interested in certain parts and, we may be interested in certain parts.
5 This may become an issue with other witnesses. Rather than do this
6 piecemeal, I think the whole thing is important for the Trial Chamber to
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well. If it's 38 pages, we will admit it
9 and it will be translated.
10 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D67, Your Honours.
11 MR. WHITING: May I proceed?
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
13 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: This is re-examination?
15 MR. WHITING: Yes. Could I have Exhibit D60 on the screen,
16 please, and if we could look at page 3 in both the B/C/S and the English.
17 Re-examination by Mr. Whiting:
18 Q. Sir, do you see the paragraph, the second paragraph in the B/C/S.
19 I'm just going to ask you to read that paragraph until the end of the
20 document; and when you're done, I'm going to ask you if you can confirm
21 what's stated there is accurate.
22 While you're reading, however, I do want to, in fairness, signal
23 to the Trial Chamber and to the Defence that this -- what's contained in
24 that part of the statement, which the Defence has put into evidence,
25 pertains to sniping incident number 9, which is an incident that we
1 dropped in December. So it is -- it falls into that category of dropped
3 I did not lead evidence on it, following the Trial Chamber's
4 ruling on this issue. However, I think now the Defence has opened the
5 door to this, by putting in this statement; and in fairness, I think I
6 should be permitted simply to ask him if he can confirm the accuracy of
7 what is in this statement pertaining to this issue?
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Would you explain what you moan by "dropped."
9 MR. WHITING: What I mean is that we -- as you will recall, the
10 original indictment had a certain number of scheduled incidents; and
11 pursuant to the Trial Chamber's order at the beginning of December last
12 year, we were ordered to cut the case by a third and we dropped certain
13 scheduled incidents.
14 Later on the Trial Chamber held that we could not lead any
15 evidence; but pertaining to those dropped incidents, we have filed a
16 motion asking for a modification of the Trial Chamber's order in that
17 regard, allowing us to lead some evidence on that issue. The Defence has
18 not yet responded to that motion and, of course, the Trial Chamber has the
19 not ruled on it; and for that reason, I did not lead any evidence on this
21 But, as I said, now I think the door has been open to it. The
22 Defence put the statement into evidence, so I think I should permitted to
23 ask him if he can confirm, and that's all, I won't take it any further,
24 but if he can confirm what is written there in his statement.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, you may do that.
1 MR. WHITING: Okay.
2 Q. Mr. Vidovic, have you had an opportunity to read from that second
3 paragraph till the end of the statement?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And is what's written in those paragraphs accurate, to the best of
6 your knowledge; true and accurate, to the best of your knowledge?
7 A. Yes, it is.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 MR. WHITING: Could I now look at Defence exhibit number 63, which
10 is the other statement of the witness, and if we could go to the second
11 page, please.
12 Q. If you could look at paragraph 3 and just read paragraph 3 for me,
13 and I'll just have one or two questions about it.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. In the sentence before the last sentence, where it says "the
16 bullets were zipping past us from across the Miljacka river," can you tell
17 us what -- from this position where you were at the National Restaurant,
18 what is located, what neighbourhood is located across the Miljacka river?
19 A. The Grbavica neighbourhood.
20 Q. Thank you.
21 MR. WHITING: I have no further questions. Thank you.
22 Thank you, Your Honours.
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Vidovic, that concludes your evidence. We
24 thank you for giving it, and you may now leave.
25 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
1 [The witness withdrew]
2 MR. WHITING: Yes, Your Honour. The next witness will be handled
3 by Mr. Sachdeva.
4 MR. SACHDEVA: Yes, Your Honour the next witness is Mr. Butt, and
5 might we have a bit of time to manoeuver.
6 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, may I be excused just for a moment.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
8 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 [The witness entered court]
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let the witness make the declaration.
11 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
12 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: You may seat, and you may begin, Mr. Sachdeva.
14 WITNESS: ASAM BUTT
15 Examination by Mr. Sachdeva:
16 MR. SACHDEVA: Thank you, Mr. President.
17 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Butt.
18 A. Thank you, sir.
19 Q. I'm just going to ask some questions about your personal
21 MR. WHITING: Mr. President, with your leave, may I lead the
22 witness through these issues.
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
24 MR. SACHDEVA: Thank you.
25 Q. Mr. Butt, it's correct that you retired from the Pakistani army in
2 A. Yes. I retired from Pakistani army as a lieutenant-colonel in
3 October 2005.
4 Q. And you were a lieutenant-colonel, but you had that position with
5 the emoluments of a brigadier; is that right?
6 A. Yes, that is true.
7 Q. You joined the Pakistani army in 1976?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And your speciality was in communications; is that correct?
10 A. Yes. I am an a telecommunication engineer and that was my
11 speciality and I served in the code of signals of Pakistani army.
12 Q. Now, were you ever assigned to Liberia?
13 A. I was assigned today UN Military Observer mission in Liberia. On
14 31st August, I left the country, 1994. And I was there for about five to
15 six weeks. So I take it you joined towards the middle of July 1994; is
16 that right.
17 A. No. I left on 31st of August, the country for Liberia; and by 2nd
18 or 3rd September, 1994, I was in Mondrovia then the capital of Liberia.
19 Q. Very well. You left Pakistan on the 31st of August. Well,
20 firstly, why did you leave Liberia after six weeks?
21 A. It was because of the deteriorating situation. We could not be
22 declared there. It was decided a mission was curtailed, and then we were
23 redeployed in Bosnia.
24 Q. When did you go to Bosnia and with whom?
25 A. Yes. I along with other three to four UNMOs; a couple of them
1 from Czechoslovakia and two from Pakistan. We came from Liberia to Bosnia
2 via Amsterdam. I still remember that I left Monrovia on 10th of October,
3 and on 11th of October I was in Zagreb, then the UNMO headquarters,
5 Q. So just to be clear, you went to Bosnia with the United Nations?
6 A. Yes. Again, there I was assigned the duty of UN Military
8 Q. And when did you -- can you tell me -- tell the Court roughly when
9 you arrived in Zagreb with the United Nations?
10 A. It was 11th of October when I arrived in Zagreb.
11 Q. In Zagreb, did you undergo any training there?
12 A. Yes, for about ten to 12 days, and after that I was sent to
14 Q. What kind of training did you undertake?
15 A. It started from the introduction about our working deployment of
16 United Nations, it's scenario; how we had to conduct an armoured routine,
17 and some military training related to crater analysis. When I said the
18 military training, it was not the physical training only, but practical
19 training. What we were supposed to do during our tenure of duty with
20 United Nations.
21 Q. When you say crater analysis, can you very briefly elaborate on
23 A. Yes, we were shown -- a small little pamphlet was issued to us,
24 and our instructor, a name I don't remember, trained us, instructed us how
25 to carry out the crater analysis, and how to find the bearing of the
1 weapon from where the fire came and where impact was created.
2 Q. And these craters, the craters that were going to analyse, what
3 were they caused from?
4 A. Mostly, these were from the mortars and, of course, other
5 projectiles we were also taught about.
6 Q. And did the training cover the determination of the direction of
8 A. Yes. In bearing, we were taught to how to carry out -- how to
9 find out direction of that mortar from where that fire came.
10 Q. And is that, indeed, what you did when you arrived in Sarajevo?
11 A. Yes, mostly. As most of the time, we were busy about the impacts,
12 so that knowledge and training was quite handy.
13 Q. When you were posted to Sarajevo, did you join a particular team?
14 A. Yes. It was the Mali Hum team, located just short of -- while
15 travelling from Sarajevo town toward Mali Hum, a small mountain towards
16 the north of the city, there was a communication tower, and just before
17 that was our team location, which also had incidently the observation post
18 in the same communication.
19 Q. For the benefit of the Court, I will show you a map and ask you to
20 mark that location in a moment. But just tell me how many, if you know,
21 how many UNMO teams were there in Sarajevo when you got there?
22 A. There were about fire to six UNMOs once I joined them, but the
23 strength varied from six to 12 UNMOs, sometimes there were five, six,
24 sometime eight. It kept on changing during my tenure of duty.
25 Q. Now, are you talking UNMOs per UNMO team or the total number of
1 UNMOs in Sarajevo?
2 A. No. This was the strength I had talked about for my team, which
3 was located at Mali Hum.
4 Q. How many UNMO teams were there in Sarajevo?
5 A. In Sarajevo, there was one team in Sedrenik; one was my own team;
6 and there was another team for Novo Sarajevo. It was located close to us.
7 Their accommodation was close us to, but their area of responsibility was
8 towards the west of my area of responsibility; also a team in Hrasnica.
9 Of course, there were -- my team was divided into two teams; one part was
10 ours; and the other part was towards the Serb side and it was located in
12 Q. That leads on to my next question. I wanted to ask you at the
13 time that you arrived in Sarajevo, were there United Nations Military
14 Observer in both the Bosnian government territory and the Bosnian Serb
16 A. Yes. There were military observers on both the sides.
17 Q. Do you know how many teams there were in the Bosnian Serb
19 A. I know about other teams. I may not be remembering exactly. I
20 Gradci and Zepa. Our teams were there. Also there observers teams for
21 liaison purposes; we used to call it Lima. It was to carry out liaison
22 with the Lukavica Barracks.
23 Q. So apart from Grbavica, the UNMO had a liaison officer in Lukavica
24 Barracks; is that right?
25 A. Not exactly in Lukavica Barracks because I never visited there so
1 I cannot comment on that. But he was working as liaison officer from
2 military observer side, and mostly he was interacting with Lukavica
4 Q. Do you know who that person mostly interacted with from the
5 Lukavica Barracks?
6 A. Yes. I know Mr. Indic, and probably it was Colonel Indic. But
7 anyway, he was Mr. Indic who was being referred by our observer who was
8 doing as -- as liaison officer from observer side towards the Serb side.
9 Q. And just to be clear, Colonel Indic, was he part of the
10 Sarajevo-Romanija Corps?
11 A. I think he should be because it was a Romanija corps and the Serb
12 side, which was taking care of Sarajevo. So it has to be part of that
13 particular corps.
14 Q. You said that you were posted at Mali Hum. Did you on any
15 occasion work on the Bosnian Serb side within the Sarajevo environs.
16 A. No. But I still remember that on 27th February, I was, by my team
17 leader, asked to go to the Serb side, where my other half of the team was
18 located in Grbavica, as I had mentioned earlier, along with a Nigerian
19 military observer, Major Odidi. We went there on 27th of February,
20 reached team accommodation, and suddenly I received a message from our
21 liaison observer from the Serb, Lima, that Mohammed, as I was referred
22 to - my first name was Mohammed - must leave this Serb side. And these
23 orders or instructions were from Mr. Colonel Indic; otherwise, he would be
25 Soon after these instructions or orders, a Serb soldier was posted
1 on the door of our accommodation and I was given two hours to leave.
2 Q. Let me just stop you there. Firstly, actually in my haste to try
3 and -- to increase the speed of the examination, I forgot to ask you to
4 state your full name and your place of birth, please.
5 A. Okay. I am Mohammed Asem Butt. I was born on 27th of September
6 1957 - and Butt is B-u-t-t - in a city in the Punjab state of Pakistan.
7 Q. Now, you said you were asked by your team leader to go to the Serb
8 side. Why were you asked to go to the Serb side?
9 A. It was because on the Serb side, in our team, there was shortage
10 of observers. So they said me and Odidi should go there and do duty for
11 about seven to ten days, and later on we were to come back.
12 Q. And when you got there, you have told the Court that you received
13 a message from your liaison officer that you must leave. Do you know why
14 you were told that?
15 A. Then didn't give any reason, but they said Mohammed to leave and I
16 was forced to leave. After about one hour, I went back to my team at Mali
17 Hum. It was basically for the reason during my tenure of duty, it was my
18 assessment, and that can be verified by the UN records of that time,
19 Muslims were not welcomed on the Serb side as observer.
20 Q. And again, just to be clear, so you in fact did leave after two or
21 three hours and went back to the Bosnian government side?
22 A. Not two to three hours. After getting the confirmation from my
23 UNMO headquarters, they also confirmed. And after that, I left the
24 accommodation of Grbavica and started coming back towards my team. And,
25 again, on my way to Mali Hum, at the Serb checkpoint, I was stopped and
1 under went every kind of search, and kept on waiting. Again, they got
2 some instructions from somebody, and only then I was allowed to go back or
3 to cross over to the Bosnian side. Again, it took about one hour there.
4 Q. So, in total, how long had you attempted to carry out your work as
5 an UNMO on the Bosnian Serb side.
6 A. This was the only time. As an UNMO, I went there to my team
7 side. But I still remember on a couple of times, I visited a couple of
8 buildings in connection with some investigations along with French people.
9 Q. Yes. I'm going to get to that in a moment, but I just want to
10 stick to this one occasion. You said in February that you had gone to the
11 Serb side. Just to be clear, did you, in fact, stay for the seven days in
13 A. Not as per the instructions of Mr. Indic and the confirmation
14 from the UNMO headquarters. I think it took about 45 minutes or one hour,
15 and I left the accommodation and went through the Serb checkpoint, where I
16 was searched, and stayed until the time they got instructions, and then
17 they didn't allow me to cross over. But after about one hour, I was
18 allowed to go and I then went back to Mali Hum; same day, after about one
19 hour, 45 minutes stay in Grbavica.
20 Q. Now, generally in the work of --
21 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] I'd just like to check witness.
22 There were UNMOs on the Serbian side, not the whole team was sent back,
23 you personally were because you said you were Muslim. Did I understand
24 you rightly?
25 THE WITNESS: It was only me who was sent back, and Odidi who
1 accompanied me to Grbavica stayed there and was not objected. It is my
2 assessment that being a Muslim, I was not accepted there. The situation
3 which was there then was that hardly any UNMO, at least I don't remember,
4 was deployed on the Serb side because they were not accepted there.
5 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] It was a Nigerian major who wasn't
6 a Muslim, was he?
7 THE WITNESS: He was Christian from Nigeria and part of my team
8 which was located at Mali Hum, and he along with me was supposed to stay
9 for seven to ten days in Grbavica. However, once I was objected, I had to
10 leave but he stayed in Grbavica.
11 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
12 MR. SACHDEVA:
13 Q. Mr. Butt, you said that this incident took place in February on
14 the 27th of February. Was that in 1995?
15 A. It was 1994 -- sorry, sorry. I correct myself. February was
16 1995, because I joined the mission in 1994. February, once I went to
17 Grbavica, the year was 1995. I stand corrected. I'm sorry, Your Honour,
19 Q. And you joined the mission in October 1994; is that right?
20 A. That's correct, sir.
21 Q. Generally, in the work of an UN Military Observer, were there any
22 principles or standards that you had to adhere to in discharging your
24 A. It was a total impartiality, irrespective of any religion, any
25 nationality, any faction, any group. It was to be above all and for --
1 Q. Excuse me, sorry. Carry on.
2 A. And for that, the standing operating procedure was -- the practice
3 in vogue was that in any UNMO team, there would be no repetition of
4 nationality. That means that if there is an UNMO in one of teams from one
5 country, it would not be represented by a second UNMO; only one UNMO from
6 one country. And whenever we used to go on parole or for some
7 investigation, it had to be not one UNMO, at least two UNMOs, to ensure
8 that it is carrying out investigations impartially.
9 Q. And the two UNMOs from that patrol team would be of different
10 nationalities; is that right?
11 A. That's true. Of course, it had to be from different nationalities
12 because in one team, there couldn't be two UNMOs from one country.
13 Q. When you got to Sarajevo and when you were deployed to the Mali
14 Hum team, what was your rank, if I may use that word.
15 A. Then I was a major. I joined the mission as a major. And after I
16 was dispatched from the mission in September of 1995, I was promoted as
17 lieutenant-colonel. In fact, the news I got during my tenure of UN was
18 that back home I had already been promoted?
19 Q. Sorry. It was my question perhaps. Within the UNMO team itself,
20 what role did you have when you joined?
21 A. When I joined, as per the UN SOP of the mission, I joined as a
22 member. And after three or four months, I became a member of the half of
23 the team which was located in the Mali Hum, and later on a member of the
24 entire team.
25 Q. So did you, in fact, become the team leader?
1 A. Yes. I became team leader of half of the team which was located
2 in Mali Hum. After about three or four months and after an additional
3 another one to two months, I became team leader of the entire team, which
4 was located as Mali Hum.
5 Q. I wanted to ask you about shelling and sniping within the period
6 that you were in Sarajevo.
7 Firstly, did you investigate sniping and shelling incidents
8 involving civilian casualties?
9 A. Yes. Quite a few shelling and sniping incidents I investigated,
10 along with other UNMOs. These are numerous in numbers, and varied from --
11 it had, in fact, various weapons used. We had shelling of mortars of
12 various calibre. We had shelling investigation of modified air bomb. I
13 still remember only once that I carried out an investigation of an impact
14 in one of the basements where people were collecting water, and it was a
15 different kind of weapon used there. It had a hook-shaped nail back
16 probably in the projectile, which it exploded, and it caused a lot of
17 injuries. Also there were various calibres of rifles and machine-guns and
18 anti-aircraft guns.
19 Q. Right. For the moment, I want to stick to the rifle and
20 machine-gun incidents that you investigated.
21 When you were working on such investigations, what did you do?
22 A. The United Nations had a very elaborate system already in place.
23 We had our headquarters in the PTT building, where a duty officer was
24 there and, of course, a SMO, senior military observer, from Norway. He
25 was a lieutenant-colonel, Mr. Pilan [phoen], if I am right in
1 pronunciation. I don't know. And then we had our teams, as I have
2 already mentioned, on Serb side and also on the BiH side, the government
4 Along with that, at the headquarters, they had a liaison officer
5 from warring factions and also a liaison officer from the troops.
6 Q. Just one moment, Mr. Butt, I'm sorry to interrupt you. I wanted
7 to concentrate on your investigations involving, as you said, rifle and
8 machine-guns and, let's say, small arms fire. What was your role when you
9 undertook those investigations?
10 A. Right. Your Honours, I was supposed to -- on the instruction of
11 headquarters or any information - because I wanted to give the system on
12 how we were working anyway - received from the police or from troops
13 deployed on the ground with the conformation from the headquarters, we
14 would visit the site. And we used to investigate, if it was possible,
15 what are the casualties, death or injured, direction of fire, calibre of
16 fire, type of weapons used. And I make clear here, sir, that we used to
17 only confirm the casualties which we could see in the hospital, if they
18 were not there present on the ground, or in the accommodation. We only
19 confirmed the casualties which we had met or we had seen physically. If
20 we had not seen any casualty, physically, we would not confirm.
21 Q. And when you say, "direction of fire, calibre of fire, type of
22 weapon used," was that ultimately to -- ultimately to enable you to
23 determine where the shots had come from?
24 A. Yes. Mostly, it was possible, but sometime it was not possible
25 because of the lack of evidence.
1 Q. Now, sticking again with sniper fire or small-arms fire, do you
2 recall an incident on the 15th of April in 1995?
3 A. 15th of April, I believe this was a day when a French soldier was
4 killed in front of Holiday Inn, and I along with another UNMO and an
5 interpreter visited the site and investigated. And this was a day I
6 remember vividly that once we went there, we were told it was a civilian,
7 because I was not supposed to carry out investigation in case any UNPROFOR
8 troop casualty is involved.
9 When we reached there, though the body had already been removed as
10 we were told but the French, we come to know it was a French soldier, who
11 had already been killed, working in a fork-lift and fixing anti-sniping
12 screen. But once we reached there, certainly we came under fire and we
13 remained; myself, my colleague the other UNMO, and interpreter for about
14 one hour, one hour, 15 minutes under fire, and later on rescued from the
15 site through the arrangement of my headquarters.
16 Q. Now, if I were to show you a photograph of that area, would you be
17 able to point out or mark where you went to undertake that investigation?
18 A. Yes. I should be able to, if I'm shown that photograph or some
19 map or things like that.
20 Q. And before I do that, you said that the French soldier had been
21 working in a fork-lift fixing an anti-sniping screen. Why was he fixing
22 an anti-sniping screen?
23 A. First, let me be clear, there were a few hot spots and the famous
24 "Sniper Alley." This is the main road running west of the town to east;
25 that is, from the airport to the old part of the town, passing between
1 museum and Holiday Inn. And there were a few spots and there were
2 permanently anti-sniping team of the concerned UNPROFOR battalion were
3 deployed, fully armed in APC. And they were ready to fire back in case
4 they see anyone sniping. And later on, as the things were being analysed
5 and the arrangements were being improved, it was probably decided to erect
6 anti-sniping screens as it would save the commuters from sniping, as it
7 would obstruct the visibility of the potential sniper.
8 Q. You use the word "hot spot" to describe this area. During your
9 time there, did you know or did you see reports that, you said commuters,
10 but civilians being hit at that area.
11 A. Yes. It was quite common. And we had a lot of reports, and I had
12 also investigated quite a few.
13 Q. So who told you to go down to that area to do this investigation,
15 A. It was from my headquarters. The duty officer that day asked me
16 to send the patrol, and I along with another UNMO and interpreter went
17 there, as it was in my area of responsibility. I visited the site and
18 carried out the investigation and came under fire.
19 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, may I show the witness photograph
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
22 MR. SACHDEVA: And that's 65 ter 2825.
23 Q. Mr. Butt, we're just waiting for the photograph to come on the
25 A. Right, sir.
1 MR. SACHDEVA: Yes, if you could keep it at that size for the
3 Q. Do you recognise that area, Mr. Butt?
4 A. Yes, quite a familiar area. It was the centre of responsibility
5 of my area and a very hot spot, so I do remember it.
6 Q. Do you see on that photograph where you were when you went to
7 investigate that incident on the 15th of April, 1995?
8 A. Yes. I don't know how I have to point. Is this red button the
9 cursor or ...
10 Q. No. I'm going to get the court usher to provide you with a
11 marker, and I'd like to you mark the place where you were and where you
12 came under sniper fire.
13 A. Thank you, sir.
14 This was the place where fork-lift was and anti-sniping
15 screens were being fixed here. And behind the anti-sniping screens I,
16 along with my other UNMO and interpreter, took the cover.
17 Q. And how long were you under sniper fire for?
18 A. I was under sniper's fire for about 1 hour, 15 minutes to 1 hour
19 30 minutes. And I was constantly in touch with my headquarter because my
20 soft-skin vehicle was parked somewhere here on the other side, somewhere
21 here, on the green patch. And firing -- it was so much firing that we
22 couldn't reach to our soft-skin vehicle as at this point there was already
23 one French anti-sniping team comprising two APCs. Once firing started,
24 they fled and then we had to take cover. And I still remember that during
25 my transmission with the headquarter duty officer at PTT building, they
1 point out that from where I was being fired upon the building I did make
3 Q. Right. I'm going to get to that in a moment. But just so this
4 photograph is clear and your evidence is recorded properly, the X that
5 you've marked, that's the area where your soft-skin vehicle was; is that
7 A. In fact, on top of X there is a triangle kind of thing I was able
8 to draw and that is point where vehicle was parked. Its door was open,
9 driver door, and we were on this. Again, I am pointing out this was a
10 time -- the area we were pinned down and behind the sniping screen. And
11 also fork-lift was still standing here.
12 Q. Now, I just want you to -- where the X and the triangle is, can
13 you just put a small V on the top of that.
14 A. [Marks].
15 Q. And where you have indicated where you were under sniper fire,
16 please put the letter B.
17 A. B. And B is -- I -- is not at right place. It is little down,
18 because those are already painted in red, so it will not be possible to
19 draw B there. So it is a little on my side, towards the bottom.
20 Q. That's fine. Now, you told us a moment ago that you that you were
21 able to point out from where you were being fired upon. Where were you
22 being fired from -- fired upon from?
23 A. Should I point out the building or the direction?
24 Q. Well, first say where you think you were being fired from.
25 A. I was fired from this direction. This is an arrow, by the way.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: What was the height of the screen?
2 THE WITNESS: Screen, about -- these were being fixed there.
3 These were slabs, kind of things, and about six feet high, if I remember
4 correctly, and these were two or three, because was being placed, if I can
5 draw, in steps, one overlapping with each other, and then the third one,
6 in steps.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, proceed.
8 MR. SACHDEVA:
9 Q. Mr. Butt, may I just ask you not to mark on the photograph unless
10 I instruct you, just so your evidence is properly recorded.
11 A. Right, sir. It was just to give you the direction.
12 Q. I understand. And that's helpful for the Court and I thank you.
13 Now, were you able to see who was sniping at you?
14 A. Yes, I could make out from where the fire was coming. And same
15 was reported to headquarter giving the details of the building which was
16 on the other side of the river. That means under Serb control.
17 Q. And what was that building?
18 A. Do you want me to point out on the screen?
19 Q. First answer the question: What was the name of the building.
20 A. Metalka building.
21 Q. Can you now mark where that building is in the photograph.
22 A. [Marks].
23 Q. Can you just put a M on the top of that building.
24 A. [Marks].
25 Q. How did you know that the sniper fire was coming from that
2 A. Because I could see somebody moving in those windows of this
3 building and then firing. Because it was not single shot. It was much
4 more than that and spread over about one hour, 1 hour, 15 minutes.
5 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, perhaps this is the time to adjourn.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, it is. Yes, it is.
7 We'll adjourn until tomorrow at 2.15 when we will be in
8 Courtroom III.
9 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I'm sorry, may I just have this
10 photograph admitted into evidence.
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. It's admitted.
12 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P222, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: We're adjourned.
14 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.01 p.m.,
15 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 15th day
16 of February, 2007, at 2.15 p.m.