1 Monday, 19 February 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.01 a.m.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Today, Judge Harhoff being absent, Judge Mindua
6 and I sit pursuant to the provisions of Rule 15 bis.
7 Would you call the next witness, Mr. Sachdeva.
8 MR. SACHDEVA: Good morning, Mr. President. Good morning, Your
9 Honour. The next witness is protected witness 137.
10 [The witness entered court]
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let the witness make the declaration.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
13 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
14 WITNESS: WITNESS W-137
15 [Witness answered through interpreter]
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: You may sit.
17 And, Mr. Sachdeva, you may begin.
18 MR. SACHDEVA: Thank you, Mr. President.
19 Examination by Mr. Sachdeva:
20 Q. Good morning, Witness 137.
21 A. Good morning.
22 Q. I just want to inform you, firstly, that the Court has granted you
23 protective measures and therefore I will refer to you as Witness 137. And
24 the first thing I want to do is I'm going to show you a piece of paper
25 with your personal details on them and I would like you to confirm that
1 for the Court.
2 Are those details on that piece of paper correct and accurate?
3 A. Yes, they are correct.
4 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I ask that it be tendered under
5 seal, with your leave.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
7 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P249, under seal, Your Honours.
8 MR. SACHDEVA:
9 Q. Witness 137, I just want to ask you some question about your
10 personal background.
11 MR. SACHDEVA: And, Mr. President, with your leave, may we go into
12 private session for this part of the examination?
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
14 MR. SACHDEVA: And I also ask leave to lead the witness through
15 these issues.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
17 [Private session]
11 Page 2409 redacted. Private session.
9 [Open session]
10 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
11 MR. SACHDEVA:
12 Q. When you joined the KDZ, Witness 137, briefly describe to the
13 Court your main role for that unit.
14 A. Counter-sabotage protection as part of the police, practically had
15 the same purpose and role as in peacetime, that is to detect, deactivate
16 and disarm all lethal explosive devices. In wartime, we adopted our
17 procedures accordingly, but the principle was the same. We were supposed
18 to detect, disarm, and deactivate an explosive or make an analysis after
19 an explosion of the fact conducive to confirming what had happened. Also
20 at an enormous risk, we dismantled some of these device. Sometimes we
21 extracted the charge from the devices and passed it on to the army for
22 further use.
23 Q. You said that you would also attempt to confirm what had happened
24 in these incidents. What sort of -- what sort of roles did you play when
25 you went to an incident, an on-site investigation, what sort of things did
1 you look for?
2 A. At the time, it was generally believed that what we were doing was
3 fruitless; however, we believe that if we examined documents and prove
4 after a thorough analysis, each specific case of explosion, especially
5 were it caused casualties and huge damage, that this proof will at some
6 time in the future be of use to demonstrate the character of these actions
7 and it proved to be true. Our KDZ team consisted of highly educated,
8 electronic engineers, chemical engineers, military experts because
9 Sarajevo was one of the military centres. And I think it is important to
10 note that there were more Croats and Serbs than Muslims on this KDZ team.
11 Q. Witness 137, just a small thing, we have limited time for
12 examination, so I would ask you to confine your answers to my questions
13 and if I require further information, I will ask you for that. Thanks for
15 Now, I want to stick to shelling incidents. Did you conduct
16 investigations into incidents from mortar fire within Sarajevo during your
17 time at the KDZ?
18 A. Yes, we conducted these on-site investigations.
19 Q. And with respect to the mortar incidents, was it your role to
20 determine, firstly, the direction of fire of a mortar?
21 A. Yes. That was the primary goal, to establish the direction of fire
22 and to determine the angle of impact, if possible.
23 Q. Yes, actually you moved on to my next question. And with respect
24 to the angle of impact, was that also your direct role in these
1 A. Yes. Both mine and everybody else who was on the on-site
2 investigation team, for a specific case.
3 Q. Was it also your role to identify the type of weapon or projectile
4 that had been employed?
5 A. Yes, it was.
6 Q. When you went to an on-site investigation, who else in your team
7 would accompany you?
8 A. There were a few of us in the sense of enormous need for
9 investigation because Sarajevo was impacted by more than a million shells.
10 Sometimes there were two or three colleagues of mine with me, some other
11 teams were composed in a different way because it was dictated by urgency
12 of the specific situation.
13 Q. Now, let's concentrate on the establishment of the direction of
14 fire generally.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Before you do that, Witness, could you tell us,
16 typically, who would those two or three other team members be and their
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I said, our team had very
19 sophisticated expertise. We had all undergone training in recognising
20 basic elements which are not basically difficult to grasp. And as I said,
21 each team was set up by our boss who would send us to the ground for the
22 investigation, from the people available at time at the KDZ. So at all
23 times, teams were different because that's what the circumstances
24 dictated, the circumstances of a specific on-site investigation.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, just take one particular on-site
1 investigation as an example. I'd like you to tell me the qualifications
2 and the training of those other two or three members. Just take any one
3 that you went on with two or three other team members.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Specifically, when we did what was
5 known at Markale II, I was some place on Tito Street near the national
6 bank when I saw many cars with open boots and with dead -- and injured
7 people inside. I immediately returned to the base because I realised that
8 an on-site investigation would be pending. My boss told me to take a
9 compass and with an another member of the team, who was a mechanical
10 engineer, and there were also people from the security services centre in
11 Sarajevo and others who participated in the investigation, and it was
12 minutes for making decisions. That is how the two of us conducted this
13 main investigation.
14 At the same time, there were also UNPROFOR members who were
15 interested in this investigation. There were from the French contingent
16 and it lasted for about two hours, the analysis of the event, I mean.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: In that particular case, the other person from
18 the bomb squad team was the mechanical engineer.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is correct.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Please continue, Mr. Sachdeva.
21 MR. SACHDEVA: Thank you, Mr. President.
22 Q. Witness 137, just a quick question. You told us that you are an
23 expert in chemistry. Did your qualifications render you competent and
24 effective to undertake crater analysis of mortar incidents?
25 A. I believe that I and other KDZ members were even overqualified for
1 these kind of things. During my university studies, I passed a few math
2 exams that far exceed the need for these purposes; also physics, an
3 another engineering subject as well that were far beyond the needs for
4 analysis of the cases that we are discussing here. So we very quickly
5 adopted our experience and expertise to the specific need after undergoing
6 a very brief course for investigation. This has been demonstrated by the
7 fact that none of our findings had been disputed because we never
8 established or asserted anything unless we were completely sure.
9 Q. Can I take it from your answer, therefore, that the investigation
10 into -- well, to conduct a crater analysis is a relatively uncomplicated
11 process, is that right?
12 A. With certain theoretical introduction and study of showcases and
13 the experience that we had in more than abundance, probably the best
14 experience in the world in this particular area at the time, because as
15 far as I know, in no war had the traces of shelling been so thoroughly
16 analyzed as it was the case in this war.
17 Q. Can you say roughly, during your time at the KDZ, how many mortar
18 crater analyses did you conduct?
19 A. Roughly speaking and from memory, I think a couple of hundred.
20 Most of these analyses were made into official reports and some of them
21 were just briefings that we did on a daily basis. After examining the
22 craters, we just instinctively investigated the direction that they had
23 come from.
24 Q. So, generally, with respect to the direction of fire, briefly
25 explain to the Court how you would go about conducting such an
1 investigation. What sort of steps would you take in doing that?
2 A. If there are different fires, and different weapons in -- with
3 mortar shells, it is very typical that if they hit a hard ground they
4 leave a very clear and in most cases very clear trace which practically is
5 an image of the angle, or rather, the azimuth of the shell and the impact
6 angle of this shell. As a result of a very precise and sophisticated
7 structure of the shell, its spreads explosion horizontally with regard to
8 the trajectory and the longitudinal axis of the shell. That is how it has
9 been structured in order to destroy as much lives as possible and the
10 shrapnel is scattered around the impact place.
11 So the first thing what we did was to find, if it was a mortar
12 shell, to find the stabiliser, the fin, of the shell which will indicate
13 which kind of type it was, whether it was 62, 120, or some other. Most
14 cases we found a marking that it had been manufactured in Serbia. There's
15 a KV marking on it which means Kraljevo in Serbia. Sometimes the fin was
16 on the side but sometimes it penetrated the ground, depending on the type
17 of the ground. And then we also collected as many as possibly of the
18 rubble of the shell for further analysis. We secured the area around it
19 in order to be able to carry out all the necessary measurements to
20 establish the azimuth and, as precisely as possible, the impact angle of
21 this grenade or shell.
22 Q. When you use the word "azimuth", do you mean the direction?
23 A. Yes, the direction from which the shell came.
24 Q. So let's take the example where we have a mortar explosion on
25 asphalt or hard surface. What kind of implements, or let's say
1 instruments, would you use to determine the direction of fire, given that
2 you would have mechanical traces on the ground?
3 A. We used a military compass which is specifically designed for
4 these purposes and we made good use of it. It has a cover with a mirror
5 on it and a string down which you look. You aim it towards the direction
6 that you estimate according to the shape of the trace from which the shell
7 had come and after that, as precise adjustment as possible of the compass,
8 we look at the azimuth angle and read it directly on the compass meter,
9 clockwise, counting from the north.
10 Q. Now you mentioned earlier on in your testimony that you were
11 involved in the investigation into the Markale II incident and I'm going
12 to ask you specific questions about that incident and show you some
13 photographs where you can explain the process of determining the direction
14 of fire and the angle of descent. But before I get to that incident, I
15 just want to ask you: What do you know about the accuracy of mortars,
16 generally in -- when they were deployed in Sarajevo during the war?
17 A. It is common knowledge that in all armys that mortars are very
18 precise, both in terms of direction and in depth, the direction of aiming
19 and the depth, which means the specific location that you wish to hit. So
20 those who studied mortars and who were in the army and those who fired
21 shells, there's a saying that a mortar shell can be fired into the chimney
22 of a house provided you wish to do. That means they are extremely
23 precise. If they are probably used, if you use your sites properly on the
24 mortar and take into consideration the elevation or the difference between
25 the two points and if you use properly the tables, firing tables. So I am
1 convinced that mortar fire is one of the most precise activities or
2 operations conducted by artillery weapons.
3 Q. When you say firing tables, just explain to the Court what you
4 mean by that?
5 A. That's practically a book containing very detailed tables. It's
6 probably about two or three centimetres thick. And those who fire look
7 parameters in these tables that they want to apply. They have all the
8 information about the difference in height, what charge should be used and
9 what the range with that charge can be achieved. So these are very
10 sophisticated tables, very sophisticated for the use by those who fire
11 mortars, in order to make them, I cannot say absolutely precise, but to be
12 as precise as possible, that is technically possible and feasible to be
13 accomplished by this mortar.
14 Q. If mortar positions are -- have remained there for one or two
15 years, in other words, the base plates have been dug into the ground for
16 one or two years, does that render the -- does that render the accuracy --
17 does it make a mortar more accurate or less accurate?
18 A. That makes it is more accurate. The crew gathers increasing
19 experience being at a certain position and they have now had time to
20 monitor the results of their firing for quite sometime.
21 Q. In such situations, is it possible to engage your target with only
22 one round?
23 A. If the crew has a great deal of experience, in that case, yes.
24 Q. Now let's move to the Markale II incident. Firstly, after the
25 incident occurred, what time did you end up on the investigation site?
1 A. It took perhaps less than ten minutes.
2 Q. And when you got to the investigation site, just describe briefly
3 the scene that you saw there.
4 A. It was the last deepest circle of Dante's hell. Huge pools of
5 blood, severed body parts, panic, fear, all of them civilians to the
6 extent that I could see.
7 Q. When you got there, were you able to detect a crater that had been
8 caused by the mortar?
9 A. Yes. It was across a rail. It was relatively close to the
10 pavement and there was a lot of blood all around it. It was along one
11 lane of the road in front.
12 Q. Did that crater appear to you to have remained undisturbed? In
13 other words, did the crater show any visible signs of tampering, when you
14 got there?
15 A. Given the large number of people who came to help carry the dead
16 bodies away and the wounded, it was absolutely impossible for anyone to
17 try and tamper with the crater, since dozens and dozens of people who were
18 there would have spotted that attempt.
19 Q. Now I want to show you a document.
20 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I would like to call up 65 ter 891
21 and --
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Sorry, may I just examine the answer given to the
23 last question.
24 Do I understand you to say that because of the large number of
25 people who were there to help to carry the dead bodies away, it was
1 impossible for anyone to try and tamper with the crater. Or are you
2 saying that because so many people were there, anyone who attempted or who
3 did in fact tamper with the crater would have been detected?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the way I see this,
5 both your questions boil down to the same thing. The change -- any change
6 to the crater would require heavy work. It would require work by hammers
7 and by metal tools which would lead to a lot of banging sounds around the
8 scene, which doubtless would have attracted a lot of attention. I didn't
9 notice myself that anyone was trying to do anything like that and I very
10 much doubt if anyone did. The crater was there up until perhaps two years
11 ago. It remained intact for years and years after the actual shelling.
12 Cars would drive over it without modifying the shape of the crater in any
13 way. So the tracer -- the trace, the crater itself remained intact for
14 years afterwards.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: And did you say how -- how soon you got there
16 after the impact?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think about ten minutes later.
18 The actual place is very close to the bomb squad HQ.
19 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Witness, please, Witness 137, in
20 the French translation, if I understood you correctly, you said that the
21 shell that fell on Markale hit the ground next to a rail. Is that what
22 you said, next to a rail? It's a track? Is that what it is, a railroad
23 track, a rail?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said road. One lane of the road.
25 A lane of the road next to the pavement facing south, opposite the
1 pavement -- there are tram tracks, that's true, but I haven't really
2 mentioned them.
3 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Witness. So the shell
4 hit the sidewalk. It did not fall through the roof of the market or
5 through some kind of wall?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have to set the record straight.
7 It didn't fall on the pavement. It fell on one lane of the road running
8 parallel to the pavement. It impacted against the road directly without
9 hitting anything along its trajectory. Otherwise, there would have been
10 some sort of damage to one of the roofs or one of the buildings.
11 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] [Previous translation continues]...
12 if you have a shell, which instead of hitting the tarmac directly, hitting
13 it direct -- directly a surface, would first fall through the roof of a
14 building and then hit the ground. When you examine the impact on the
15 ground, would it still be possible to determine with some accuracy the
16 direction of the fire? Is that possible?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think that is
18 entirely impossible. The shell was built in such a way that it explodes
19 at once. If a shell goes off in a treetop or it falls on a roof that's
20 where the explosion occurs. It doesn't continue to travel from there.
21 Once it explodes, once it hits an obstacle, it explodes, it goes into
22 pieces and it stops being a shell, in the proper sense of the term.
23 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you. So unless there is a
24 ricochet. Because we had an expert here who talked about bullets or
25 shells that ricochetted. Isn't it possible to have ricochet?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is possible. If we're talking
2 about the -- a missile fired from a Howitzer or a gun, a delayed action
3 projectile, it can go on ricochetting, hitting against other surfaces
4 depending on the situation. But when have you a mortar shell, the
5 important thing is the way it is built. The fuse is protected but when
6 there is even the slightest amount of contact or impact, even if a shell
7 hits as treetop, for example, that's where it ends up. That's where its
8 trajectory ends. It stops being a single body. It fragments into
9 shrapnel and it stops being a shell in the proper sense of the word. The
10 way it is built is made to ensure this: Once it hits against something it
11 goes into a thousand splinters.
12 MR. SACHDEVA:
13 Q. Witness, I was going so show you a photograph, but I want to ask
14 one or two questions following on from His Honour Judge Mindua's question
15 to you. Firstly, do you -- in your work, did you ever experience working
16 on weapons called modified air bombs?
17 A. Yes. There was a period of time during which there was frequent
18 activity using modified air bombs and yes, I did carry out on-site
19 investigations in incidents involving modified air bombs.
20 Q. And with these modified air bombs, is it, as opposed to a mortar,
21 is it possible to -- to have them ricochet off a surface before they
22 eventually explode?
23 A. The modified air bombs are makeshift projectiles. They are not
24 standard issue weapons, in a manner of speaking. They were built on the
25 spot improvised. They were makeshift weapons, homemade sometimes. This
1 was an air bomb with a huge mass, a very massive weapon. Rocket motors
2 were used. Those were taken from multiple rocket launchers, so this was a
3 combination of a huge bomb that was used and the rocket motors that drove
4 the bomb. Launching pads were used too. Charges were also produced that
5 were not particularly aerodynamic, the symmetry of these charges or
6 warheads were adjusted in a relatively simple way. Therefore, the weapons
7 were no high-precision weapons. The general direction would normally be
8 right, but as far as the -- the depth of the targeting was concerned, they
9 were relatively imprecise in accurate weapons.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Did you also in your work determine the direction
11 from which modified air bombs came?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Given the sort of marks that they
13 normally left, given the sort of crater they would produce, it would be
14 slightly difficult to determine the direction, unless of course it impacts
15 against a vertical obstacle. For example, there is a very tall building
16 at Alipasino Polje, near the Nedzarici student dormitory. There is still
17 damage there caused by just such a bomb which shows clearly that the
18 building was hit from a westerly direction, in this case, specifically,
19 from the direction of Ilidza.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: If you were able to determine the direction from
21 which a modified air bomb came, and there were two opposing forces in
22 relatively close proximity to each other in that particular area, would
23 you be able to identify the particular force that fired that air bomb?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The BH army had been disarmed before
25 the war even began. All the weapons and equipment remained in the hands
1 of what used to be the JNA. As for any Territorial Defence weapons, and
2 those were substantial amounts of weapons as well --
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm not asking you to use other factors than
4 the -- the technical ones which relate to the firing of an air bomb.
5 Don't use the knowledge that you have of who had weapons and who didn't
6 have weapons. Would it be technically possible to say that the air bomb
7 was fired by force A when force B was in relative close proximity to force
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I understand your question
10 correctly, Your Honour, I was in no position to actually establish that
11 this was indeed fired, but I have heard witnesses say that these
12 projectiles that were fired from Ilidza, their flight would normally be
13 slow and they would normally be very noisy missiles. There were other
14 people who saw these things fly through the air, the simple reason behind
15 this being that they were not normally very slow missiles and they caused
16 a lot of noise.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.
18 Mr. Sachdeva, what is the time estimate for this witness?
19 MR. SACHDEVA: Four hours, Mr. President.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Four hours. Because I understand that it is
21 essential that we finish his testimony today and I see no reason why we
22 shouldn't. Of course a witness comes to give evidence in a trial like
23 this. His testimony is important and that must be given consideration.
24 But if we can accommodate the witness who has a particular need to travel
25 then we will, as long as it is not inconsistent with the administration of
2 MR. SACHDEVA: Yes, Mr. President. I actually intend to finish
3 hopefully in the first session.
4 Q. Witness 137, I just want to go back to my initial question on the
5 air bombs and if you could just listen very carefully and answer it.
6 His Honour Judge Mindua was talking to you about mortars and
7 whether it was possible for a mortar to ricochet and then explode. In
8 other words, not explode on first impact. And my question to you: With
9 respect to modified air bombs, is it possible for a modified air bomb to
10 not explode upon first impact, in other words, ricochet and then explode?
11 Is that possible?
12 A. I think with this sort of device it would be possible, depending
13 on the angle of impact, when the actual fuse is not the first thing that
14 is struck so it doesn't activate the projectile. That is my opinion.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 MR. SACHDEVA: Now I would like to bring up 65 ter 02 -- 02595 and
17 these are photographs.
18 And if we could go to the second page, please.
19 Q. Witness 137, do you see a photograph on your screen there?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And do you recognise what's depicted in that photograph?
22 A. Yes. I think this is Markale II.
23 MR. SACHDEVA: And if we could move to page 5 of this exhibit,
24 please. May that be zoomed up, please.
25 Q. 137, do you see -- well, what do you see there?
1 A. I see the marks produced by the fall of a mortar shell, by the
2 impact of a mortar shell. It did not fall under a 90-degree angle, that
3 much is certain. And that affects the symmetry of the crater itself. So
4 the angle of descent was further away from where I stood, towards the
5 bicycles and the building right there next to the pavement.
6 Q. Just so we're clear, when you say you see an impact of a mortar
7 shell, is this the mortar shell that landed or Markale, Mustafa Begovic
8 Street on the 28th of August 1995?
9 A. Yes. This is a 120-millimetre mortar shell, instantaneous. It's
10 an artillery weapon and it's used to destroy manpower. It is built in
11 such a way that it doesn't spray its deadly shrapnel all over
12 symmetrically, but rather, in a horizontal fashion. The easiest way to
13 explain this would be to liken it to the blades of a helicopter. Most of
14 the shrapnel is sprayed within an area that is perpendicular to the axis
15 of the shell itself, which is relatively low down, simply because the
16 manpower which is usually targeted by a weapon like this is not high up
17 but rather closer to the ground.
18 Q. If -- well, from this photograph, are you able to make out the
19 locations of north and south?
20 A. South is from the centre of the crater, nearly perpendicular to
21 the pavement and the building that you can see at the far end of the
23 Q. So the building is in the south. If you could just take a pen and
24 put a S by the building, please.
25 A. [Marks].
1 Q. Now, with this photograph of the crater, just take us through the
2 steps that you took to determine the direction of fire. In other words,
3 where did you use your compass and where did you determine the direction
4 of fire from that crater, from the mechanical traces you see there?
5 A. Just a small correction of the direction before I start with that,
6 given the symmetry, because I can see the print, the impression of the
7 impact. You can see that this is due south and once you get there,
8 there's a shell landing at an angle that is not a 90-degree angle. We
9 tried to establish which side it came from by using this indicator. Some
10 of the shrapnel where the explosion is at its most powerful, which is the
11 centre of the explosion itself, is sprayed over the ground in such a way
12 that -- towards this area that I marked by this dotted line that's where
13 the azimuth lay. So I would place this opposite the dotted line where I'm
14 sitting now. I point my compass in that direction. It has a rope just
15 like this pen, a very similar one, a string. And then I use my
16 experience, with full respect for the symmetry of that side of the dotted
17 line, and then I establish the direction in such a way. I do it by
18 reading the angle from the compass that represents the azimuth. And in
19 actual fact, this is the direction from which the shell arrived.
20 Q. Let's try and take this slowly. The spot that you have drawn
21 beneath the dotted line, does that mark the centre of the explosion?
22 A. No. The centre of the explosion is the dot that I marked in red.
23 That is the place where the shell actually landed. The centre of the
24 explosion is at the point of balance within the shell, within the
25 explosion itself. From that centre outwards the explosion -- the point of
1 the greatest impact, the explosion spreads vertically in relation to the
2 axis of the shell. It's like when you open an umbrella. So that's how
3 the explosion spreads. The -- the spokes of an umbrella in relation to
4 the handle. So that's how you discover this other marking, which is the
5 dotted line. If you place that umbrella on the floor and suddenly opened
6 it, it would lean in one direction and the canvas of the umbrella would
7 touch the floor. This is a very rough analogy but it explains what I am
8 talking about. This is the direction of the greatest impact because the
9 explosion carries horizontally and in relation to the angle at which a
10 shell landed it leaves an area which is the area that I marked by using
11 this dotted line. This sort of symmetry is used for determining the
12 azimuth which is the direction the shell came from, as well as the angle
13 of descent of a given shell in relation to the main horizontal given,
14 which is the ground itself.
15 Q. When you talk about the explosion spreading, on the photograph, do
16 the mechanical traces illustrate the way the explosion spread and do you
17 see more mechanical traces towards the south than you do towards the
19 A. There were obvious mechanical traces, both in terms of the depth
20 and their number between the point that I marked to the south, which means
21 that to all practical intents, the shell came from the south, roughly
22 speaking. The more precise definition of the direction from which the
23 shell came is provided by the azimuth.
24 Q. Are you able to, with your pen, from the crater you see here to --
25 to draw the line that reflects the direction on this crater? In other
1 words, to draw the azimuth?
2 A. The line that I have drawn is perpendicular to the dotted line
3 that I had earlier marked. Therefore, this line would be the azimuth
4 because it's 90 degrees with respect to this dotted line.
5 Q. And --
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, why couldn't it be said further to the
7 right? I was asking why couldn't the direction be further to the right.
8 I'm asking the witness.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because when you analyse this kind
10 of traces, you take the line of the most dense distribution of shrapnel or
11 rather the traces of shrapnel on the asphalt that I marked with a dotted
12 line. So this distribution of marks, which here is rather clear,
13 indicates the basic direction which is marked by the dotted line, and at
14 90 degrees is the azimuth, which indicates the direction from which the
15 shell came.
16 Excuse me. Of course, when establishing the azimuth, we always
17 take into account certain margin of error, which is plus/minus five
18 degrees, because we cannot say with any 100 per cent certainty that that
19 is the case because this is the statistical density and the total image
20 left by the shell and of course you have to allow for certain subjective
21 errors which is expressed in plus/minus five degrees. However, there were
22 three or four of us on the team who established this direction. We made
23 our individual notes and we compared the notes, and we coordinated
24 approximately our findings. Afterwards, we heard that UNPROFOR had
25 arrived at the same conclusion with regard to the direction that we had
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: So it's absolutely important then to pinpoint the
3 area with the most dense distribution of shrapnel?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is correct.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: And so I take it then if you are to go further to
6 the right, locking at the screen, along the dotted line, you wouldn't
7 start there, because the shrapnel distribution was not as dense as it was
8 at the point that you have actually marked.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If we look at the distribution of
10 shrapnel and we don't take their depth into account, then you can get a
11 wrong picture. However, since the distribution of shrapnel where the
12 depth is most -- the depth of the crater in the hard surface is greatest,
13 it indicates 90 degrees and it leaves the strongest mark, not only the
14 number of shrapnel pieces, but also their depth. When you look at this
15 biggest depth on the pavement -- on the road, and I hope we shall look at
16 some more pictures showing how technically the explosion is dispersed,
17 this will show why we took this particular direction because it represents
18 the deepest holes in the asphalt that I marked with the dotted line.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: So it's vitally important then that the scene not
20 be disturbed before you do your investigation?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct. The investigation
22 didn't last long. I cannot say whether it was an hour or two, but taking
23 into consideration the importance of this event, we stayed longer, about
24 one or two hours, but I know that a French artillery expert was there for
25 about five to ten minutes. They measured all those parameters and then
1 they left. However, we felt that our responsibility was greater in terms
2 of providing and documenting this as best as possible and to remove any
3 doubts or suspicions.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: What I meant was that if, for example, people had
5 walked in the crater or had in some way managed to affect the distribution
6 of shrapnel, then, of course, that would affect your identification of the
7 area with the densest distribution of shrapnel, and you might very well be
8 working from a wrong premise.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have to make a correction here
10 between shrapnels and the holes made by them in a surface. We are not
11 looking at shrapnel here. Perhaps there was not a single shrapnel piece
12 and at that moment it's irrelevant. The hole caused by the shrapnel is
13 such that it is ricochetted further on. We are talking about holes in the
14 asphalt that can only be modified by hard hammering or by use of some
15 heavy object which at the point was totally unimaginable. Even if you
16 walk over this area, you wouldn't change or tamper anything in terms of
17 the shape, the distribution and the depth of those most important craters
18 for arriving at the facts that I'm talking about.
19 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Witness, we understood how from the
20 horizontal line, the dotted line which is the line that was made by
21 shrapnel and you've made a perpendicular line which enabled you to
22 establish the angle. Now my question is the following. If you can
23 determine -- you have determined already the direction, which is very
24 good. But can you tell us, do you know from what distance the mortar was
25 fired. Is that possible, to establish the distance from what you've
1 established here on this scene?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in response your
3 question, I have to go back to the first part of your question in order to
4 avoid any mistakes. We are not talking about shrapnel in this picture
5 that exists there physically. There's no shrapnel there. There is the
6 trace and the hole in the asphalt caused by the shrapnel impact and they
7 flew away along with the piece of asphalt that they chipped, so you don't
8 see shrapnel there. You can see just their impact. It's like an X-ray
9 picture of a person, bones and things like that. So this is the image of
10 how the shell fell, how the shrapnel was distributed and, as such, it
11 speaks a lot about other basic information like azimuth and angle impact.
12 The second part of your question concerning the source of fire, we
13 did very exact measurements. And whenever we were not sure, we wouldn't
14 claim anything. And I must say that about this particular angle of impact
15 of the shell that we established here, there are a few combinations of
16 firing parameters by mortars. It involves the difference in heights
17 between two points, the number of charges, because a mortar shell has one,
18 two, to six charges and the angle of firing. So based on these parameters
19 that we had very precise in front of us, you cannot say exactly from which
20 point the shell was fired, because there are several combinations of these
21 parameters that would give us the same impact angle. However, we were
22 encouraged when we heard on that day that there was a report saying that
23 on that day there was no mortar activity from the positions of the BH army
24 and therefore at that point we suspended our investigation.
25 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you. Witness, you are
1 telling us that that particular day did you not establish or you couldn't
2 conclude from what distance the shell was fired, but today, following some
3 investigations, can you tell us if someone was able to establish from what
4 distance this particular shell was fired? Do we know it today, in other
5 words, following your investigations or did somebody find that out, that
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Concerning the azimuth and even more
8 importantly for the impact angle, there are several combinations. The
9 mortar charge, the distance and the angle at which the shell was fired.
10 So there's a series of possibilities indicating to the position from which
11 the shell was fired. We -- that is why we cannot say precisely, yes, that
12 was this location and no one can say that. Except, unfortunately, there
13 was a radar that arrived to Sarajevo at the beginning of the war but it
14 broke down very soon. It was intended to monitor and follow each
15 projectile and based on the parabola, to identify the right position of
16 firing. As far as I know, the French contingent provided this but
17 allegedly it had already arrived malfunctioning in Sarajevo.
18 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Witness, I'm not quite clear on
19 this. I don't know who would be able to tell us, but as you know, this
20 Trial Chamber will have to render a decision beyond a reasonable doubt.
21 And with what you have told us and the evidence that you have presented,
22 unless the Defence manages to show the contrary, but we could conclude
23 that there is an incident that took place, that is obvious. But until
24 now, you're telling us that no investigation was carried out, which would
25 enable us to determine with precision the distance from which the shell
1 was fired. And you are also not able -- you're not able to tell us who is
2 responsible for it and, according to you and your experience, who could
3 tell this Trial Chamber this so that this Trial Chamber can determine
4 beyond a reasonable doubt who are the authors of this situation, who is
5 espionage for this shelling.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There are many military experts
7 around the world in the most powerful and sophisticated army. These
8 artillery experts could have their say in this case; however, my opinion
9 is that, on the basis of the parameters that I have just shown you,
10 neither of those experts would say be able to give you the precise
11 location of the firing. There are, however, methods that we are not able
12 to use and there are not at our disposal. Probably, had this radar been
13 functioning at the time, it would have given us an almost 100 per cent
14 accurate location. I understand your intention to look for solid
15 evidence, but the only thing I can tell you is that on that day it has
16 been established that the BH army had not been firing any mortars.
17 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Witness.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Of course you and the members of your team, you
19 live in Sarajevo, you have been there for years, you're familiar with
20 the -- with the conflict and you're familiar with the locations where the
21 forces are placed. Would that be true?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wasn't directly involved with the
23 army. And therefore, I was not aware of the exact position -- and
24 positions and demarcation lines. But roughly speaking, it was common
25 knowledge that the slope of Mount Trebevic were occupied and at a rather
1 low altitude from the foot, this leads to us a conclusion by analysing the
2 impact angle, the layout of the buildings, et cetera is that this specific
3 shell had come from the slopes of Trebevic. These were generally
4 long-range shells.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: And who occupied the slopes of Trebevic? Which
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Serbian occupation forces.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: So that's my question then, that all of this was
9 common knowledge where the forces were placed. And the question that one
10 must ask is to what extent that might have even subconsciously influenced
11 the conclusions that you arrived at as to the direction from which the --
12 the mortar came.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that any unconscious
14 influence in our reasoning was excluded. Although it was a deeply
15 emotional moment, we looked death in the eyes on a daily basis because
16 there's an estimate that over a million projectiles of various calibres
17 landed in Sarajevo during the war. From our analysis, you can see that we
18 were dealing only with exact things and we never made any claims if we
19 were not sure, if we did not establish it as a fact.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just one more question. You have drawn the
21 direction from which this mortar came by drawing a line that's 90 degrees
22 in relationship to the dotted line.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is correct.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: What is the scientific basis for choosing 90
25 degrees as against, say, 135 degrees, or 150 degrees?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think there is some kind of
2 confusion. I'm talking about this dotted line representing a
3 characteristic line resulting from the angle of the impact of the shell
4 and with respect to this line at 90 degrees, an azimuth is established.
5 This azimuth is not 90 degrees. It's a different number shown by the
6 compass. So the dystriomatical [as interpreted] drawing that you see here
7 indicates how you arrive at the direction which is azimuth. Whether this
8 line marked at 90 degrees is actually 90 degrees or some other figure is a
9 completely different matter. The azimuth here, if I remember correctly,
10 was 170. Had it been, for instance, 180, then these two sides would
11 coincide and it will indicate a precise southerly direction. So it's ten
12 degrees shorter of a straight line. So you have to make this distinction
13 between the 90 degrees which is just a method of establishing the azimuth
14 and the actual azimuth angle. These are two different parameters.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: But to be more practical, then, why couldn't that
16 line which ends with the arrow be drawn somewhere between itself and the
17 end of the dotted line?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, Your Honours. I must say
19 I don't understand your question.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues]... if I could
21 draw it myself. Just take a diagonal line between --
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You can see this A here.
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I marked the azimuth with A.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Okay, that's A. And let us say at the end of the
1 dotted line to the right, that's C. If you had that marked C, why
2 couldn't the azimuth be somewhere between --
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You mean this one?
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Why couldn't the azimuth be somewhere
5 between A and C, be midway between A and C?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry. Have I put letter C at
7 the place where you wanted me to put it?
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Now I understand your question.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: So the question is, why couldn't the azimuth be
11 midway between A and C?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You asked me why this line cannot be
13 between A and C. Is that your question?
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
15 Mr. Tapuskovic.
16 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your microphone was off and the
17 witness didn't hear your question.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm sorry, my microphone was off. You have put C
19 at the place where I want you to put it. And the question I'm asking is,
20 why couldn't the azimuth be placed between A and C, midway between A and
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe that this is absolutely
23 impossible because the trace left by the explosion on the ground clearly
24 shows the angle under which the shell arrived as well as its direction. I
25 think that this analogy can better be seen from drawings which are part of
1 this file. They show how the grenade was designed. Hundreds of
2 experiments had been made with these shells before the war in order to
3 arrive at the best possible design, which means that its explosion spread
4 as much as possible in this direction and produced as many shrapnel pieces
5 as possible.
6 I mentioned the analogy of the helicopter propeller and the most
7 shrapnel spread radially with respect to the shell axis. Now I'm going to
8 call it propeller and it will create the deepest impression on the
9 ground. It would have to be the same as if the helicopter landed upwards,
10 up side down on its propeller and dug itself into the ground. So the same
11 happens with a shell. If this is the angle, this is where shrapnel go,
12 they go upwards towards the windows of the buildings and on this side
13 downwards, most shrapnel is where they go.
14 There's a prominent line of big shrapnel holes where they were
15 most powerful and fastest and this is what we call this dotted line and
16 that's the rule. This is what the military theory says when these kinds
17 of projectiles are being developed and it has been shown through
18 mathematical formula and other methods. So this is common knowledge these
19 are very exact data and unfortunately we see how they work in practice.
20 This dotted line is the most important one. It is so clear in this -- in
21 this picture and it's much more clear than in other cases because it
22 indicates how the shell was tilted from the centre marked by this big dot,
23 to the side from which it had come. And that's actually the azimuth.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: I see. Well, yes. What I'm trying to get at it
25 is the objective scientific basis on which you work, as distinct from what
1 might be just an initial subjective assessment that is later confirmed by
2 anecdotal evidence as to where particular forces were placed. But thank
3 you. Please go ahead.
4 MR. SACHDEVA: Thank you, Mr. President. I just would like to
5 assist the Trial Chamber by explaining that the Prosecution will be
6 calling a mortar expert, Mr. Richard Higgs, who testified in the Galic
7 case. And it is our submission that many of the questions that you,
8 Mr. President and His Honour Judge Mindua have will be clarified at that
9 stage. And I would also add that it's not the Prosecution's case and
10 never has been that we will be able to determine the precise spot or the
11 precise location of the mortar within a sphere of five to ten metres from
12 where the shell was fired. However, our case is that it came from
13 territory controlled by the VRS or the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps in a
14 general direction and from a general area. It is not going to be possible
15 to determine the precise location of -- for example, where a mortar round
16 was located on the slopes of Mount Trebevic, if it is indeed proven that
17 way. I would just add that.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, please continue. Well, we -- just one more
19 question before the break.
20 MR. SACHDEVA: Yes.
21 Q. Witness 137, you have been clear but I just want to be -- just so
22 that is assists the Trial Chamber. You said that this crater marked on
23 the street here had remains up until about two years ago. Do you remember
24 saying that?
25 A. Yes. For several years it was there. Until two years a new
1 asphalt layer was put two years ago, but there are other traces all around
3 Q. So my question is, with respect to this crater, if, for example, a
4 mortar -- an expert or an investigator had gone to this crater in 2002 and
5 seen -- would that investigator see the same traces that we see here and
6 would that investigator be able to determine, as you said, the 170 azimuth
7 from those marks?
8 A. Many traces of this kind were -- there was huge loss of life and
9 when there was massacre were filled with red paint after the war. So they
10 were literally filled with red paint and they stay there like red roses.
11 After the end of the war, some of them were of course covered.
12 After the paint had been poured into this shrapnel holes, I believe that
13 all the other remaining parameters could probably roughly determine the
14 direction of fire, but that was the moment when everything was most fresh
15 and these were the clearest marks that would enable us to determine the
16 direction which is immediately after the impact. However, this is -- was
17 such a hard surface that it remained unchanged even with cars passing over
18 it. It's a very solid asphalt.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we'll take the break now. 20 minutes.
20 --- Recess taken at 10.32 a.m.
21 --- On resuming at 10.56 a.m.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Please continue, Mr. Sachdeva.
23 MR. SACHDEVA: Thank you, Mr. President.
24 Q. Witness 137, let's just stick with this photograph. Is the
25 photograph still on the screen?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Where you have drawn the A for the azimuth, can you just on top of
3 the A write, because you have mentioned in your evidence, 170 degree,
4 please. Just put the figure 170 there.
5 A. [Marks].
6 Q. Now -- right. If I were to ask you to draw a line that goes in
7 the direction of 220 degrees, would you be able to do that?
8 A. [Marks]. 220?
9 Q. Yeah, that's right.
10 A. This is plus 50. Approximately like this.
11 Q. Now, you said -- well, you've also indicated on the photograph
12 that the margin of error in determining the direction of fire is plus or
13 minus five degrees. Is that right?
14 A. That's right.
15 Q. In your experience, is it possible that from looking at this
16 crater one can come to a determination that the direction of fire was 220
17 to 240 degrees?
18 A. I think the likelihood of that having been the correct angle is
19 very low. I wasn't the only one who determined this angle. There was a
20 colleague with me, a lot of people who were experienced in this sort of
21 thing, and then we compared our results and this is the result that is
22 based on most of the evaluations carried out.
23 Q. Now just --
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, who made the final decision? Whose
25 responsibility was it to make the final decision as to the direction?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This report was signed by two
2 persons, myself and another colleague of mine as well as the boss of our
3 department, the bomb squad. There's three signatures, but despite these
4 signatures, we kept on analysing this for a long time after. Having
5 filtered all the information, the final decision is made by the boss, the
6 head of our unit, and he is the one who signs the final assessment.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: The other colleague of yours who also signed, was
8 he on the spot?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
10 MR. SACHDEVA:
11 Q. Witness 137, just so that we're clear with the terminology, in
12 your previous answer to my question, you stated that I wasn't the only one
13 to determined this angle. And you speak about angle. I just want to be
14 clear that we're talking about the angle that depicts the direction of
15 fire and not the angle that represents the angle of descent; is that
17 A. Well, the way this is determined, who actually determines it and
18 how we agree on it, that's in reference to both these angles. These are
19 the two typical angles that one studies each time a shell falls. The
20 first one is the azimuth, which is the position or the direction that the
21 shell came from and the angle of descent, that is the angle at which it
22 hit the ground. And what I mean is, both of these, we did both of these.
23 We compared our results. We analysed our margins of error. So this is
24 the result of a lot of discussion and the degree of certainty for this
25 being accurate in terms of both the azimuth and the angle of descent is
1 very, very high.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: So just let me understand. The line which you
3 have drawn there ending in A, with an arrow, represents both the direction
4 of fire and the angle of descent.
5 A. The line that ends with the letter A is the line showing the
6 azimuth, or rather, the direction from which the shell came, the
7 geographical direction, if you like.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Have you represented the angle of descent?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You can't see it in this diagram.
10 Conditionally speaking, that would be this, the Alpha that I've just
11 drawn. But that shows the angle at which the arrow, A, is to the
12 building. However, it's difficult to show that by using this diagram. If
13 we look at it from the side, from a lateral view, the image might be
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
16 MR. SACHDEVA: Excuse me, Mr. President. I just wanted to inform
17 you that with respect to the angle of descent, I'm going to be showing the
18 witness aids that would assist in that, assist for the Court to understand
19 that. This is primarily related to the direction of fire.
20 Q. So, Witness 137, let's just confine ourselves at the moment to
21 direction of fire. I want you to explain to the Court, using the
22 mechanical traces that you see here in the photograph, why would it not be
23 possible for this mortar to have come from a direction 220 degrees; in
24 other words, from the direction that you have depicted with the vertical
25 line going upwards to the south?
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.
2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I think at least the Prosecutor
3 should explain to the Chamber why he is putting this figure of all figures
4 to the witness, 220, since it's difficult for us to understand. I don't
5 think it's easy for the Chamber to understand. Why 220 degrees? The
6 witness himself never referred to that particular figure, did he?
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: But I don't think it's for the Prosecutor to
8 explain this.
9 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Excuse me. But in the transcript
10 there is a error; it's not 2230 but it's 220 degrees. And the question is
11 why choose this 220 out of all angles?
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: As I was saying, I don't think it's for the
13 Prosecutor to explain. If he does something which is meaningless then we
14 can't make any sense of it.
15 Is there a significance, Mr. Sachdeva, in the choice of 220?
16 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, there indeed is a significance for
17 that choice, and I can answer that, if you want me to. But perhaps...
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, you must introduce it through evidence.
19 But I don't wish to disturb the way you're presenting the evidence.
20 MR. SACHDEVA: And that figure will be introduced through
22 Q. Witness 137, do you want me to repeat the question or do you
23 remember what I asked you?
24 A. If I remember correctly, you asked why the line marked as A is not
25 the S line, if memory serves. Could you please repeat the question.
1 Q. Yes, I will. You have drawn there on the photograph 170, with the
2 A, and that is your evidence from this crater of the direction of fire.
3 Is that right?
4 A. That's right.
5 Q. And I asked you to draw or to identify direction of fire of 220
6 degrees and you have done that with a dotted line to the right, which is
7 positioned to the right of the arrow with the A. Do you see that there?
8 A. That's right.
9 Q. So my question is this: Strictly sticking to the -- without
10 marking the photograph for the moment, please, sticking to the mechanical
11 traces that you see here on the photograph, I want you to explain to the
12 Court why it is not possible that the direction of this mortar was 220
14 A. I think the answer would be as follows. The geometry, the image,
15 the imprint made by the shell against this horizontal surface, the tarmac,
16 and the symmetry of that imprint as it were, of the impact, indicates the
17 direction that I have just drawn which is the dotted line, the broken
18 line, if you like, which shows a typical line of the maximum impact from
19 the centre of the explosion spreading in a vertical direction in relation
20 to the axis of the shell itself. The impression on the ground in terms of
21 its depth and distribution shows the greatest certainty in relation to the
22 direction of firing or rather --
23 Q. Yes, just so we're clear, you used the phrase "dotted line." Are
24 you talking about the horizontal dotted line or the vertical dotted line
25 pointing towards 220, just so we're clear?
1 A. I mean the line marked as C, the horizontal line marked as C.
2 Q. Very well, okay. Please continue.
3 A. That is the reason why, by looking at this symmetry, we use
4 symmetry when we slice an apple in half. We know exactly where we are
5 going to slice it. And then we see the impression made by this shell in
6 terms of the north/south direction and it can be clearly discerned what
7 the angle of the shell was in relation to the centre, which is the thick
8 dot that I drew where it hit against the ground, went off and then the
9 concentration of dots, which is shrapnel, closer to the pavement. That's
10 what it shows. The line leaning further to the left or further to the
11 right is the average type of image, the average type of symmetry that
12 occurs when you use a compass to mark this. And this is a widely --
13 universally, you might say, accepted method of taking this type of
15 Q. If you look at the -- if you look at the shrapnel marks in the
16 area where you have drawn the dotted line that points to 220, in other
17 words, to the -- on the right-hand side of this photograph, is there
18 anything about the shrapnel marks there or the mechanical traces that
19 enables you to say that the direction of fire is not 220 degrees?
20 A. There's a hint but a very vague one.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic.
22 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] If I understand this correctly,
23 the witness is being asked to confirm a negative fact. Back from where I
24 come from, in my country, in our system, this would be referred to as a
25 negative fact. Maybe it is just me finding it difficult to find my way
1 around. How is this witness to confirm something that is a negative, to
2 begin with?
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, it seems to me that he is simply asking him
4 to say what are the -- the reasons for concluding that the direction of
5 fire was not 220 degrees. I see nothing wrong with that.
6 Yes, Witness, what are the reasons? What are the indicators?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I understand the question, one of
8 the reasons for me to rule out the 220 degree angle, is that the question?
9 It's as follows. The previous image that I drew contains the following
10 elements. What I marked. As to your question, we would need to have
11 emphatic marks which I drew like this, roughly speaking. However, you
12 can't see those on the ground. And that's why I put the question marks
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: So I'm not sure I understood. What are the
15 reasons for ruling out 220?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You see these fields that I have
17 drawn, the two elliptical shapes, and I put the question marks there to
18 the left and to the right. There, I should be able to see marks that I
19 did see at these other elliptical shapes that I'm about to mark
20 additionally which was not the case. This is -- is an image that has now
21 been multiply marked and it may be a bit unclear. Perhaps if we have
22 another copy then I would be able to mark this more clearly.
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Is that feasible?
24 MR. SACHDEVA: We can -- sorry, Mr. President. I think we can get
25 a clean image of the photograph and maybe the witness can explain it.
1 Then, however, I would like to tender this -- tender this still.
2 I'm wondering whether I could ask the witness to remove the question mark,
3 elliptical diagrams and then they can then be marked on a separate, clean
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
6 MR. SACHDEVA:
7 Q. Witness 137, the elliptical image, shapes that you have drawn with
8 the question marks, can you please erase them.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Didn't he also mark something under the dotted
10 lines? No, I'm asking whether he did not also just mark -- make a mark
11 under the dotted line, whether that should not also be removed.
12 MR. SACHDEVA: No. As I understand it, that circle, that dot
13 under the dotted line is the centre of the explosion.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: No, that is not what I'm referring to. The --
15 the -- to the -- to the -- both to the left and right of the direction
16 line. Under the dotted line, there are some marks there. Was that
17 recently done?
18 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Yes, Prosecutor. Because the
19 ellipsis were filled in red. Maybe it would be better to have them empty
20 again and just take out all the red that was in the ellipsis so that way
21 we can still see the impact trace, the mechanical traces on the photograph
23 MR. SACHDEVA: Yes. I would be happy to ask the witness to do
25 Q. Witness, those two elliptical shapes that you have drawn on the
1 horizontal line marked C, can you erase -- can you erase it -- not the --
2 hold on, please. Hold on, please. I want you to erase the part that is
3 inside the elliptical shapes; in other words, just the red -- the red part
4 that obscures the mechanical traces but leave the circles, so to speak, as
5 they are.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: In other words, just go back to the dotted line
8 MR. SACHDEVA:
9 Q. All right. If we can just go back to the dotted line.
10 A. [Marks].
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, very well.
12 MR. SACHDEVA:
13 Q. And just one last thing on this photograph. Where you have drawn
14 the dotted line that says towards 220, can you just put "220 degrees" on
15 the top of that dotted line.
16 A. [Marks].
17 MR. SACHDEVA: And I would ask that that photograph be admitted
18 into evidence, please.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we admit it.
20 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P250, Your Honours.
21 MR. SACHDEVA: Can we now have a clean copy of this photograph on
22 the screen, please.
23 Q. Witness 137, on the previous photograph you drew two elliptical
24 shapes with question marks. In your -- in your answer to explain why it
25 was not 220 degrees, can you continue to do that?
1 A. [Marks].
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Does he now have to redraw what was there before?
3 MR. SACHDEVA: Well, I could ask the witness to --
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, you lead him in the way that you think is
5 most appropriate.
6 MR. SACHDEVA:
7 Q. Okay, Witness 137, just remember what we're trying to do here.
8 I'm trying to ask to you use the traces that you see on the photograph and
9 explain why the direction of fire is not 220 degrees. So, firstly, let's
10 start by identifying again the centre of the explosion.
11 A. [Marks].
12 Q. Then, with a dotted line, draw the direction of 220 degrees.
13 A. In the previous image, I just marked 220 in a very approximate
14 way. It should have been -- we should have added 30 plus 20 which makes
15 50 and here in the corner -- and well that doesn't matter, but I will show
16 it anyway. This is 90 degrees and half of that would be 45, right?
17 The previous direction, we know that to be 170. One should add a
18 little more than these 45 here. There. I will show you. That would make
19 it further to the right. That means this is a very rough sketch, but if
20 we had something to measure the angle, we could have a more accurate
21 representation of it. But roughly speaking, this would be further to the
22 right. And what was your question now? Which are the lines that confirm
23 the 170 azimuth? Was that the question? Is that what I'm supposed to
24 show you?
25 Q. Just -- sorry. We'll get there. Follow my instructions carefully
1 and one at a time. So you have drawn now a dotted line that depicts 220.
2 Just put 220 on top of that dotted line for the moment.
3 A. [Marks].
4 Q. Now, in the previous photograph you drew a horizontal line which
5 you marked as C which allowed you to determine the direction as 170. If
6 the direction was 220 degrees, where would that horizontal line be drawn?
7 And I want you to draw it, please.
8 A. [Marks]. Or, rather, it should be up here. Because we should
9 expect to see the marks of the angle itself. And now I'll erase these.
10 So this is where the line should be showing the marks. Again, just for
11 the sake of a rough analogy, I will mention the blades of a helicopter.
12 If it leaned one way, it would hit the ground. And that's the line we
13 should be looking for. For example, this broken line, the line marked as
14 G, but these marks are not there. I can't see them.
15 Q. That is what I want to ask you now. The marks that you talk
16 about -- well, you've actually answered it, but again, to be clear, in
17 this photograph, are there marks there that -- that would enable you and
18 other experts to draw that horizontal line as you have drawn it now? Do
19 you see those marks?
20 A. For the line marked as G to have a foundation for being drawn.
21 Q. That's right. Are those marks there?
22 A. That's right. The line marked as G doesn't show any of the
23 typical traces, horizontal ones, spreading from the centre of the
24 explosion, and they should display a gentle curve of these prints on the
1 Q. And where do you see on this photograph again the typical traces,
2 the typical horizontal traces spreading from the centre of the explosion?
3 I want you to mark now -- I want to mark the last thing that you
4 have drawn. Perhaps you can mark it as maybe -- M, did you say M?
5 A. [In English] Yes.
6 Q. Mark it HM, as in horizontal marks.
7 A. [Marks].
8 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I would like to tender that into
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
11 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P251, Your Honours.
12 MR. SACHDEVA: Could I ask the court deputy to bring up 65 ter
13 891, and I'm interested in pages -- in the B/C/S, 22 to 30, and on the
14 English version, the pages are 15 to 23.
15 Q. Witness 137, on the right-hand side of your screen, do you see a
16 document in your language?
17 A. [Interpretation] Yes.
18 Q. And what is that document?
19 A. This is a typical document studying a certain incident, no matter
20 what kind of incident. First it addresses the reason and the request that
21 reached us for an analysis to be conducted. We were the bomb squad unit
22 attached to the ministry and we covered the entire territory that we were
23 in charge of, not just Sarajevo, and in full compliance with the
24 hierarchy. The Sarajevo bomb squad, or rather, the CSB as can you see in
25 the header, asked us to conduct an analysis. Of course they did, too, but
1 officially they requested us to compile a report of our own.
2 Q. And this report, does it relate to the Markale II incident? Can
3 you see that there?
4 A. Yes, that's right.
5 MR. SACHDEVA: If we could go to page 4. And could we arrange
6 that that page is not broadcast since it has the witness's name on there.
7 Q. Witness, do you see your name there?
8 A. Yes, I do.
9 MR. SACHDEVA: The B/C/S version seems to have -- okay.
10 Q. And is that your signature?
11 A. Yes, that's my signature.
12 Q. And on this page, do you see the determination of the direction of
14 A. Yes. There's an azimuth of 170 degrees plus/minus 5 degrees.
15 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I would like to tender this
16 document, that is pages 1 to 4 of this ter number into evidence under
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
19 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P252 under seal, Your Honours.
20 MR. SACHDEVA: Now, sticking to the same 65 ter number, can we go
21 to page -- I think it's page 22. Sorry, page 29 of the B/C/S version.
22 Excuse me.
23 Q. Witness, do you see a diagram there on the screen?
24 A. Yes, I do.
25 Q. Did you produce this diagram?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Could you very briefly explain what this diagram shows.
3 A. After establishing the descent angle, based on the marks on the
4 ground that we calculated to be 70 degrees, we measured the distance of
5 the shell impact from the building and the height of the building. This
6 diagram shows theoretically, the least possible angle under which the
7 shell could have come. And based on these dimensions here, through very
8 simple trigonometry, you can reach a conclusion that this degree could not
9 have been less than 67 degrees, because otherwise, as you -- Their Honours
10 asked me earlier in my evidence, this shell would have hit the roof of the
11 building because that is a contact-fuse shell, it would have exploded
12 there. So the possible descent angle, theoretically, is 67 or more. And
13 independently of this diagram, we calculated the angle to be 70 degrees.
14 We wanted to double-check this, that's why we remained there for a longer
15 time measuring the distances from the building and by putting in these
16 triangles as the basis for our calculation in order to prove that we
17 were -- that we were correct and to rule out all other angles less than 60
18 or -- 70 degrees that were impossible.
19 Q. I just want to make a clarification. I heard on the
20 interpretation that it was less -- you said less than 60 or 70 degrees.
21 Do you mean less than 67 degrees?
22 A. I meant less than 67, because the geometry of this area, the
23 building, the pavement indicates that this angle was impossible if it was
24 less than 67. It is possible to be 67 or more, but in case of a smaller
25 angle, under 67 degrees, the shell would have landed on the building.
1 Q. Now you see the figure there of 480. Do you see that figure
2 there, 480?
3 A. Yes, I do.
4 Q. And what does that signify?
5 A. 460 is the distance from the place where the shell landed and was
6 activated to the building itself, the edge of the building. And that's
7 the basis for this geometrical calculation. To draw the angle that you
8 see on the left, we just transposed this length as one part of the angle,
9 the height was the other hand of the angle and then you have Alpha degree
10 and that is on what our calculation was based.
11 Q. Yes, we'll move to a diagram that should assist you there. But I
12 just want to confirm, when you say the place where the shell landed, do
13 you mean the centre of the explosion?
14 A. I mean the place where the fuse contacted the ground and I'm
15 referring also to the axis. The centre of explosion is the centre of the
16 mass of the explosive charge of the shell. If you wish me to show you, I
17 can do that with the red marker, even here.
18 Q. No, we'll get to another diagram for the moment?
19 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I would like to tender that into
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, it's admitted.
22 THE REGISTRAR: For clarification, can we have the page range you
23 wish to tender?
24 MR. SACHDEVA: There's no range, it's just this page, which would
25 be page 29.
1 THE REGISTRAR: This will be admitted as Exhibit P253, Your
3 MR. SACHDEVA: And can we move now to page 30, please.
4 Q. Okay, Witness 137, do you see a diagram on your screen?
5 A. Yes, I do.
6 Q. And what does this -- yeah, what does this diagram signify?
7 A. This diagram illustrates the principle of how the descent angle is
8 calculated. We made this drawing in Corel, and by entering data that we
9 gathered on the spot, it should have provide the descent angle by a
10 calculation. The centre of the explosion that you asked me a while ago is
11 this circle in the centre of the shell and that's the explosion centre and
12 the place of impact is the place where the fuse hit the ground and
13 activated the shell.
14 Q. Can you please mark that.
15 A. [Marks]. What I marked here is the centre of explosion. The
16 charge in the shell has its centre of mass. Since the charge is activated
17 by a hydro-dynamic wave all through -- round. So it's not like when you
18 light a fuse or a cigarette. But a high dynamic wave is sent from the
19 fuse, which is here. The whole mass of the charge is activated at once.
20 Where the mass is most dense, geometrically speaking, is where the centre
21 of the explosion is and I marked it with this red dot. To the right and
22 left of the centre of explosion, most shrapnel spread and that's where the
23 most impact power of the shell is.
24 What I'm marking here, red, is actually the line in a vertical
25 cross-section where you can find the deepest traces of shrapnel and that
1 is how they are recognisable, not only by the width but by the biggest
2 depth. Of course, there are traces here as well, what I'm adding here now
3 in the drawing. But this recognisable line is there showing the strongest
4 impact from the explosion because it spreads by -- in terms of kinetic
5 energy of shrapnel in these two directions that I marked with these two
6 arrows. Hence, there's this analogy that I keep repeating with the
7 helicopter blades. However, there are other directions, but their power
8 is not so big and there's fewer shrapnel that spread if these directions.
9 So if we approximate all this, the strongest impact on the -- the
10 biggest trace that is left in the ground is shown here by this line and
11 that is this elliptical shape that I drew in the previous photograph. And
12 that's a very typical occurrence for this type of shell. So this is the
13 place of impact, the centre of explosion is here, and the most marked
14 traces are in the direction of these two arrows to the left and to the
15 right. This is where the kinetic energy is stronger and this is where
16 there's most shrapnel and they kill most people there. That's how they
17 are distributed in the space and they leave the deepest trace apart from
18 the place where the direct hit by the shell was made. This is a common
19 known geometry.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, thank you.
21 Next question.
22 MR. SACHDEVA:
23 Q. Witness 137, on what basis do you say that the dot you marked with
24 C is the centre of the explosion?
25 A. The explosive charge in the shell explodes. The strongest impact
1 is in the centre of its mass. And it's marked with C. That's the point
2 of gravity both geometrical and physical of the charge, explosive charge.
3 So from this point C, spreading into the area around, is when actually the
4 explosion happens.
5 Q. And can you mark with the letter F where the fuse goes into the
6 ground on this diagram.
7 A. [Marks]. That's the tip of the shell marked with the red dot here
8 and the letter F.
9 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I tender this into evidence.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we admit it.
11 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P254, Your Honours.
12 MR. SACHDEVA:
13 Q. Witness 137, I just want to ask you, when you went to the scene on
14 that day, did you -- were you able to see the fuse in the ground when you
15 went there?
16 A. The tip of the shell is actually its fuse. It was not the subject
17 of our investigation because it was an irrelevant element. The stabiliser
18 at the other end of the shell was important and I don't remember us
19 finding this fuse, because it was not relevant for any further
20 investigations; therefore, I don't remember.
21 Q. Given the ground that this shell exploded on, in your experience,
22 would the fuse have been intact or would it have been disfigured, so to
24 A. Since this was a very hard surface, the detonation blast of the
25 shell disfigured it, flattened it, and it flew somewhere. I don't
1 remember that we found it. But as I said, at that point in time, it was
2 irrelevant for our investigation.
3 MR. SACHDEVA: Can I now bring up, again from 65 ter 891, pages 6
4 to 16. Actually, sorry, 6 to 10. And perhaps this should not be
5 broadcast either.
6 Q. Okay, Witness 137, let's try and move quickly here. Do you see a
7 document there?
8 A. Yes, I do.
9 Q. And do you see your name on that document?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. What is this document?
12 A. This is an official report compiled by the security services
13 centre of the ministry. It contains the names of all those participating
14 in the investigation of this specific event.
15 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I tender this document; that is,
16 pages 6 to 10 into evidence, under seal, if I may.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, it's admitted.
18 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P255, under seal, Your Honours.
19 MR. SACHDEVA:
20 Q. Witness 137, do you recall investigating an incident in Dobrinja
21 at Mustafa Kamanica Street?
22 A. If you're referring to the line for water inside the school yard
23 where the pump was, yes, I did.
24 Q. Do you recall when that was, roughly?
25 A. I think it was spring or summer. It was warm anyway. I have
1 difficulties with establishing dates because there was so many events
2 condensed and we were unable to remember the dates but we just remember
3 the effects of these incidents.
4 Q. With respect to this incident, did you perform an on-site
6 A. If you're referring to the queue for water inside the school yard
7 in Dobrinja, yes. We investigated it in detail because it was an
8 extremely tragic event.
9 Q. Just explain very briefly with respect to this incident in
10 Dobrinja, what did you find when you got to the scene?
11 A. We found huge pools of blood. It was a kind of concealed water
12 pump because most of the time Sarajevo was without water because that was
13 a sort of blackmail and people came with jerrycans to whatever pumps they
14 could find to get the water and take it home.
15 There was the pump inside the school yard that -- and it was in
16 the area that didn't have a roof. It was an open area in the school
17 possibly the size of half of this room where we are size now. The shell
18 hit the window of the gym and luckily if it had been activated 10
19 centimetre to the other side, it would have come directly through the
20 window. It was activated 10 centimetres above peoples' heads and there
21 were many, many dead people and people injured in their upper bodies
22 because the shrapnel rain virtually fell on the people there.
23 Q. What kind of school was this?
24 A. That was an elementary school.
25 Q. Was the water pump used by civilians or by the military?
1 A. Look, everybody needs water. Everybody needs water and it's
2 impossible to live without it. Since groundwaters in this area are very
3 close, you just need to stick a pipe into the ground one or two metres and
4 then you can use a mechanical pump to pump it out. As far as I remember
5 in this particular incident, all of the people who were killed were
7 Q. And in your investigation, did you find any evidence of military
8 facilities or military persons in the vicinity of this incident?
9 A. This school at the very outset of the war was completely burned
10 and destroyed. It had no furniture, no windows or doors, and it was
11 rendered useless, other than a sort of shelter where people installed a
12 pump where people can wait for a long time in a queue in safety to get
13 their water and to take it home. There were no military facilities around
14 or any military strongholds built near the school.
15 Q. Upon your investigation, did you produce a report?
16 A. Yes, we did. We determined which explosive was used, from which
17 direction it had come. The descent angle was not possible to establish
18 because it hit the very edge of the window of the gym. So we didn't have
19 the same situation as we had previously with the asphalt, but based on the
20 dark stains and the marks left, we were able to establish the exact
21 azimuth and the direction from which the shell came.
22 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I would like to bring up 65 ter
23 0018, and I'm interested in -- no, actually, that's fine. And if it could
24 not be broadcast.
25 Q. Witness 137, do you see a document there on the screen?
1 A. Yes, I do.
2 Q. And is that a report related to the incident at the water pump?
3 A. Yes, that's the report.
4 MR. SACHDEVA: Can we go to the next page, please.
5 Q. Do you see your name on that page?
6 A. Yes, I do.
7 Q. And is that your signature?
8 A. Yes, that's my signature.
9 Q. In your investigation, did you determine the type of weapon that
10 was used?
11 A. Yes. We concluded that based on the stabiliser or the tail of the
12 shell which was found on the spot, it was the same shell that had been
13 fired at Markale II, contact fuse 120-millimetre mortar shell.
14 Q. Is the direction or the azimuth stated in this report that you
16 A. Yes, we determined the azimuth and direction pointed directly from
17 that location to Nedzarici that was in the hand of the occupation forces,
18 so north-westerly from the place of impact.
19 Q. When you say occupation force, which army are you talking about?
20 A. I'm talking about the Bosnian Serb army. And I'm using this term
21 because a long time before this shell fell, our flag was hoisted in New
22 York representing an internationally-recognised, sovereign country.
23 Q. Yes, please, just answer the questions that I asked and if I need
24 more information, I will extract that from you.
25 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I tender this document into evidence
1 under seal.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Is there an English translation?
3 MR. SACHDEVA: Yes, there is. There should be.
4 THE REGISTRAR: There isn't an English translation in e-court,
5 Your Honours.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Does this apply to the one that we admitted
7 previously? Because if there is no translation, it will have to be marked
8 for identification pending translation. But you say there is a
9 translation, Mr. Sachdeva.
10 MR. SACHDEVA: Absolutely, Mr. President. Because I --
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Because we haven't seen the translation on the
13 MR. SACHDEVA: I don't know what has transpired in terms of being
14 in e-court, but I understand it was detailed in the list of exhibits. In
15 any event, I have the ERN - maybe that can assist - of the English
16 translation. It's 00646548.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: No, that's still B/C/S.
18 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I apologise. But in the spreadsheet
19 that we sent to the Defence ant to the Court, I have indicated with ERN,
20 the English translation, so I don't understand what has happened here. In
21 any case, I have a hard copy if you'd like to...
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: No. Can I ask you? We admitted, I think, one or
23 two other documents like this, and I don't believe we had an English
24 translation on the screen.
25 So I'll ask the court deputy to check that and he doesn't have to
1 give me the information now; we can deal with it later.
2 MR. SACHDEVA: I understand --
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: The way to deal with this, then, is we'll mark it
4 for identification, pending production of the translation.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be marked for
6 identification as P256.
7 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, do you want me to answer your
8 question about the previous document?
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Yes, if you can.
10 MR. SACHDEVA: I understand that they have been translated and the
11 images were shown on the screen, from what I can recall.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, if -- in that case, then, we need not worry
13 about that.
14 Please continue.
15 MR. SACHDEVA: Thank you, Mr. President.
16 Can we move to 65 ter 00119. These are photographs. Actually,
17 the pages I want are pages 8 to 18.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: May I say at this stage that I hope we will
19 finish with the witness today since I have received an indication that he
20 would like to be able to travel as soon as possible. But I would like to
21 assure Mr. Tapuskovic that I will not allow that to prejudice the time
22 that he has for cross-examination.
23 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I -- I have been attempting as much
24 as possible to take this examination as swiftly as possible. I would,
25 with respect, submit that some of the questions that Your Honours had
1 asked required follow up questions on my part, and therefore it has not
2 been as swift as I would have liked, but I'm endeavouring to do so.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 MR. SACHDEVA: Can we move to page 10 of this document, please, 65
5 ter 119.
6 Q. Witness, do you see photographs on your screen there?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. What are those photographs?
9 A. In the upper photograph you can see that the school was totally
10 destroyed and could no longer be used for anything at all.
11 In the lower photograph you see this closed area, a hidden area,
12 if you like, were there was a water pump. You can see it right in the
14 MR. SACHDEVA: And can we move to the next page, please.
15 Q. Witness, does this photograph -- or do these photographs show
16 where the shell landed?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And can you -- can you point that out, please, or mark it?
19 A. There's an arrow showing just that. A shell landed here. We
20 found a fin of the shell behind this wall. Because there should be a
21 window of the gym but it's not there, and the shell hit just the edge of
22 that. And had the shell flown on for about 10 or 15 centimetres, it would
23 ended up in the gym and nobody would have been injured. But it went off
24 at an altitude of maybe about two and a half or three metres above the
25 ground which the upper photograph shows. And can you see the water
1 vessels. So that's where people were standing.
2 Q. And you earlier used the phrase "the shrapnel rained -- rained
3 down." What is it about the way that the shell hit the wall that enabled
4 the shrapnel to do that?
5 A. This is the silhouette of the shell; that's what I've drawn. As
6 seen previously in Markale 2, this is how the shrapnel spreads,
7 statistically speaking in most cases. So if you look at the upper
8 photograph, you look at the place it landed. You see that the
9 distribution of the shrapnel was like this from an altitude and down on to
10 the persons standing there. There were a great many injured persons,
11 which only goes to show that it was shrapnel smashing their heads. Some
12 people were missing half of their crania with brains spilling all over the
13 place, just because the shell landed where it did. On account of the
14 geometrical distribution of the shrapnel, this was precisely what
15 happened. The shrapnel blew off peoples' heads.
16 Q. Just in both photographs where you have drawn the shell hitting
17 the wall, can you just put the letter S on top of them, or beside them.
18 A. [Marks]. I'm sorry. At this point in time, I must say that my
19 signature now and the signature that you saw on these documents 13 years,
20 me having used it for a long time, it's difficult, of course, but the
21 signature that I confirmed on those documents is my signature. The simple
22 fact is that after a very long time, my signature has changed.
23 Q. Yes, perhaps there was a problem with the translation. I don't
24 remember asking you to put your signature. Actually, so we don't confuse
25 the photographs, can you erase your signature, please.
1 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I tender these two photographs into
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: We admit them.
4 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P257, Your Honours.
5 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, these photographs are part of a
6 range of photographs, and I'd like to have this range of photographs
7 admitted, and I submit that it would not be in the interests of time to go
8 through each and every page. But the witness has already given evidence
9 that these photographs relate to the incident that he investigated.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: What's the range of photographs?
11 MR. SACHDEVA: The range is 65 ter 00119 and it's pages 10 to -- I
12 think it's 10 to 19 or 10 to 20.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic.
14 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] One thing we didn't hear was when
15 these photographs were taken, just to avoid returning to it. When were
16 the photographs taken?
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Can you answer that, Witness? When were the
18 photographs taken?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Are you asking me?
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't take them myself. I just
22 saw the photographs. Can they please be shown again and then I will be
23 able to tell you whether they were taken on the spot or in the morgue.
24 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, these photographs
25 which the Prosecutor has just tendered.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: I believe the witness was answering the question
2 in relation to these two photographs, and he has asked to be shown the
3 other photographs and then he would be in a better position to say when
4 these two were taken.
5 Am I right, Witness?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let us see the other. And that would represent
8 the range of photographs that you are seeking to have admitted?
9 MR. SACHDEVA: Yes, Mr. President. It's just that it was -- I can
10 go one by one. It would take time. And also, they do show images that
11 are not -- just not pleasant.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, the question raised by Mr. Tapuskovic is an
13 important one.
14 MR. SACHDEVA: Perhaps we can go to the first page, which is, I
15 understand, page 10 of this range.
16 The page before that, please.
17 Q. Witness, do you see a date there that says when these photographs
18 were taken?
19 A. It's quite illegible. It looks like the 10th of June, 1995. It's
20 a bit clearer now. The 10th of June, 1995.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Is it the 10th or the 18th?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, once it has been zoomed in,
23 this might be an 8.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Next one.
25 Well, would that be -- would that be true then? Would that help
1 him? Do you wish to see the others?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, the question was, where were
3 the photographs taken?
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Not where, when. The question is when, not
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know because I wasn't the
7 one who took them, nor were any of my colleagues. So I think it was done
8 by the security services centre of Sarajevo.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well.
10 MR. SACHDEVA:
11 Q. Well, Witness 137, can I just ask you this, then, do these
12 photographs appear -- does this photo documentation appear to you to be
13 authentic records from the Sarajevo police?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And do these photographs relate to the incident in Dobrinja that
16 you investigated?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And on the first page of these photographs, did you see the date
19 there, 18th of June, 1995?
20 A. I must say that I couldn't distinguish if that was a 0 or an 8 and
21 I don't think anybody could tell with certainty based on this photocopy.
22 I had nothing to do with the making of these photographs. Therefore, I
23 can hardly say when they were made.
24 Q. Yes. And you did say, in fact, in your answer: "Yes, once this
25 has been zoomed in, this might be an 8."
1 Do you remember saying that?
2 A. Yes I do remember that --
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Sachdeva, I don't think you can take it any
4 further without cross-examining your own witness.
5 MR. SACHDEVA: Very well, Mr. President. I would still ask that
6 these photographs are admitted into evidence.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: You're now speaking about the range.
9 MR. SACHDEVA: Yes, Mr. President.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we admit them.
11 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P258, Your Honours.
12 MR. SACHDEVA: Can we move to --
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: How much longer do you have?
15 MR. SACHDEVA: At the most.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: It looks very doubtful as to whether the witness
17 will be able to leave today, unless the cross-examination will take less
18 than a session.
19 It's time for the break, so we'll adjourn.
20 --- Recess taken at 12.18 p.m.
21 --- On resuming at 12.42 p.m.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Sachdeva.
23 MR. SACHDEVA: Thank you, Mr. President.
24 Before I move on, I just would like to inform the Court that the
25 translation for MFI P256 is now, I understand, uploaded and therefore I
1 would like to tender the document into evidence.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we admit it.
3 MR. SACHDEVA: Can the court deputy bring up 65 ter 00113.
4 And before I -- with respect to the last document, I would ask
5 that it's admitted under seal.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Just to be sure, that was 65 ter 00119, pages 10
8 through 19. Admitted as Exhibit P258. That will be admitted under seal,
9 Your Honours.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: The Prosecutor has confirmed.
11 MR. SACHDEVA: Yes. Excuse me.
12 Firstly, am I understanding correctly that the image is not being
13 broadcast? Thank you, Court Deputy.
14 Q. Witness, do you see a document there on your screen, in your
16 A. Yes, I do.
17 Q. And what is this document, please?
18 A. This is a typical official report on an incident like this one.
19 Q. And do you see your name there?
20 A. Yes, I do.
21 Q. Does this document relate to the incident that you investigated in
23 A. Yes, the Simone Bolivar elementary school. Yes, that is the
25 Q. And does this document appear to you to be an authentic report
1 from the Sarajevo police?
2 A. Yes, I think it is.
3 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I ask that this document be tendered
4 under seal.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we admit it.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As Exhibit P259, under seal, Your
8 MR. SACHDEVA:
9 Q. Witness, did you also, in addition to mortars, undertake
10 investigations of modified air bombs?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And your role in the investigation of modified air bombs, would it
13 be the same as that with respect to mortar incidents?
14 A. More frequently than not, our task was to collect the pieces found
15 at a site and to identify what this was. I was a member of a team several
16 times, teams set up to investigate incidents like these.
17 Q. Were there times that you were involved in an investigation but
18 did not actually go to the site?
19 A. Yes, that is precisely what I said. We would be given
20 components. We were supposed to analyse those and decide where they came
21 from. They were normally component parts of rocket motors. Within a
22 month, sometimes a room as big as this courtroom would be filled up with
23 these. That's how many kept coming in.
24 Q. Do you recall conducting an investigation in respect of an
25 incident at Savica Zajika Street, number 43.
1 A. Could I please see the document. As far as I remember, this is
2 near the TV building, but I'm not certain. If I get to see the document,
3 I'm sure that I can authenticate it.
4 MR. SACHDEVA: If the Court Deputy can be bring up 65 ter 00013,
5 and I'm interested in pages 22 to 24.
6 Q. Witness, do you see a document on the screen in your language?
7 A. Yes, I do.
8 Q. And what does it relate to, please?
9 A. I think this is about a modified air bomb, given the fact that the
10 pipes that were brought in, submitted for analysis, are somewhat big, and
11 the pieces of tin. That's what usually can be found at the site of an
12 explosion of a modified air bomb. You describe these parts and you try to
13 ascertain where the parts came from. In this particular case, I think we
14 were dealing with a modified air bomb.
15 MR. SACHDEVA: Can we move to page 24, please. And I understand
16 it's still not being broadcast.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: That has been confirmed by the court deputy.
18 MR. SACHDEVA:
19 Q. Witness, do you see your initials on this page?
20 A. Yes, I do.
21 Q. Can I take it, then, that you produced this report?
22 A. I can't be certain why my initials are there and not my
23 signature. But the report strikes me as absolutely authentic.
24 Q. Do you see the name there, Mirsad Jamakovic?
25 A. That's right.
1 Q. And who was he?
2 A. He is the head of the bomb squad department, or was, for as long
3 as I was a member of that unit, too.
4 Q. And on this page, is it indicated that the weapon was a modified
5 air bomb?
6 A. Based on the description of the parts, that seems to be the case.
7 These are rocket motors referred to as Grad, G-r-a-d. There was a huge
8 stockpile of these and they couldn't be used in any other way, except for
9 this way, unfortunately. These were meant to be used for plane travel and
10 now they were used for these bombs. They were -- rockets were launched
11 that were not a standard weapon in any army in the world. But if you
12 modified this and you add very powerful rocket motors, you can make a very
13 powerful weapon that can wreak a lot of destruction, unfortunately.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: In this case, did you go to the site?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could I please look at page 1 where
16 there is a description of a possible on-site investigation. Or was,
17 perhaps, this analysis conducted based on any component parts that were
18 eventually submitted, the page -- the first page, thank you.
19 It says quite clearly that we received from the Sarajevo security
20 services centre material that was submitted to us for analysis, and
21 there's a list of components that were submitted. It was based on these
22 parts that were supposed to produce a report, an expert report. By
23 looking at this, I can conclude that we analysed the parts that were
24 submitted to us for expert analysis.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: So the answer is that you did not go to the site
1 for this one.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. That's what I can tell, based
3 on the document.
4 I would like to remind the Chamber that it has been a very long
5 time and I have not since refreshed my memory in any way, not even before
6 I appeared before the Court. All I rely on is my memory.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Apart from the physical material that would have
8 been sent to you by the Sarajevo security services, what else would you
9 have received from them on the basis of which you would have carried out
10 your analysis and come to a conclusion? In fact, I will just put it more
11 bluntly: Did you receive a written report from them?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We would receive these components,
13 these parts, for analysis as well as a request, a document listing the
14 pieces that are being sent to us and telling us exactly what sort of
15 analysis we're supposed to carry out.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: But somebody from the security services who was
17 on site would have had do some basic work, such as measurements and so
18 on. So what I wanted to find out from you was whether you would have
19 received a written report from the security services with that kind of
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Depending on the case, when they,
22 picked up the pieces, they would provide the description of the scene and
23 provide all the measurements that could be of interest for the
24 investigation and their comments. So in this brief request, they would
25 just give a short description of the event, the most important elements
1 thereof, and specify the pieces sent to us requesting us to analyse it.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Would any of the persons in the security services
3 carrying out that basic investigation have had the kind of qualifications
4 and training that you have had?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] According to my experience, the
6 analysis that they carried out were very fair, and they restricted
7 themselves to the conclusions up to the level that they were able to --
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: That's not the question I asked. I asked whether
9 any of the persons who were on the scene and who would have to had to
10 carry out what I would call very basic investigations, taking
11 measurements, taking photographs, whether any of those persons would have
12 had the kind of qualifications and training that you had.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] More or less, yes. These were our
14 regular briefings in which we conveyed to people our experience. It was
15 teamwork in the broader sense of the meaning, both in terms of the KDZ and
16 the Sarajevo security services centre.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Because I'm particularly concerned to ascertain
18 whether they would know what to look for in the way that you would know
19 what to look for, based on your qualifications and experience.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe that they knew exactly
21 what to look for, that they assessed all the necessary elements
22 professionally, the elements that were required for investigation.
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Sachdeva.
24 MR. SACHDEVA: Can we just go back to page 24 of this document,
1 Q. Witness 137, do you see there on that document where it is
2 written "FAB, 250 M72"?
3 A. Yes, I do.
4 Q. And can you explain to the Court what that means.
5 A. It's an abbreviation of "few gas aerial bomb." 250 indicates its
6 mass and M72 is its specification mark. These were bombs intended to be
7 dropped from an aeroplane, heavy weight. This mass, 250, I think, is in
8 kilograms, and half of this mass is actually explosive.
9 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I tender this document under seal,
10 with your leave.
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we admit it.
12 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P260, under seal, Your Honours.
13 MR. SACHDEVA:
14 Q. Witness 137, just a last few questions now.
15 You told us earlier on in your evidence that prior to joining the
16 police you worked for the Bosnian army deactivating unexploded weapons.
17 Do you remember saying that?
18 A. Yes, I remember.
19 Q. Given your knowledge from that role in the ABiH and your work with
20 the police thereafter, can you answer the question as to whether the
21 Bosnian government forces possessed modified air bombs?
22 A. I'm personally absolutely convinced that they didn't. They didn't
23 have those type of bombs.
24 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, that's the examination-in-chief.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Can you say why are you convinced that the ABiH
1 didn't have modified air bombs?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because the Yugoslav People's Army
3 had all weapons depots under their control. Secondly, the Territorial
4 Defence, organised locally, was practically disarmed before the war, and
5 by its nature it didn't have in their depots these type of bombs.
6 Since all the weapons were practically taken by the JNA, and the
7 huge majority of that quantity was handed over to the Bosnian Serb army,
8 it was practically impossible for us to get hold of these kinds of
9 weapons, especially these kinds of bombs that would have been useless to
10 us. And in those terms it means that we simply didn't have them.
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, I'm not sure that it really explains to me
12 why they wouldn't have the weapons, but perhaps Mr. Tapuskovic may wish to
13 take that matter up with you further.
14 Mr. Tapuskovic.
15 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I'm sorry, may I just ask one
16 question from the witness's previous answer before I conclude?
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: A second bite at the cherry.
18 MR. SACHDEVA: Actually not. I just want to explain something.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Okay, very well.
20 MR. SACHDEVA:
21 Q. Witness 137, you said, "These kinds of bombs would have been
22 useless to us." What do you mean by that?
23 A. What I mean is that as such we could not have used them or
24 launched them because we didn't have those rocket engines that were used
25 to manufacture these devices.
1 MR. SACHDEVA: That is the examination-in-chief.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
3 Mr. Tapuskovic.
4 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
5 Cross-examination by Mr. Tapuskovic:
6 Q. [Interpretation] I probably did not intend to begin with this
7 issue that has just been raised, but in order not to forget it, I would
8 like first to tackle that specific topic.
9 Mr. Witness, I am a Defence counsel of Mr. Milosevic. My name is
10 Tapuskovic, an attorney-at-law from Belgrade. And I will try to ask you,
11 as directly as possible, about the things that you mentioned in your
12 replies to the Prosecutor.
13 Speaking of this particular subject, i.e., the weapon that only
14 the Bosnian Serb army had, on the 15th of February, that is, a few days
15 ago, you told Mr. Sachdeva and it read as follows: The witness said that
16 the KDZ police unit of which he was a member was not part of the army.
17 They didn't go to the front line; they didn't drive tanks; they didn't
18 wear military uniforms. Is that correct?
19 A. Yes, it is.
20 Q. But before you became a member of this special police unit, you
21 had been in the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina and you were in uniform.
22 A. Yes. No.
23 Q. What were you wearing?
24 A. I was wearing civilian clothes.
25 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] It seems that my microphone is
1 switching on by itself.
2 Q. Do you mean to say that you did civilian work for the army?
3 A. Quite simply, we didn't have uniforms. We were not only disarmed,
4 but we didn't have any uniforms at all.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, excuse the interruption. The reason
6 counsel's microphone is being shut on and off is because it is being
7 controlled from the AV booth, because it's essential to have the
8 microphone shut off when the witness is speaking.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Because he is protected.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours.
11 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. So you say that until 1994, the BH army practically had no
13 weapons; that the area where you operated as part of the BH army was
14 completely demilitarised.
15 A. I never said that.
16 Q. Were there any weapons in Sarajevo with the army of
18 A. There were -- there were weapons that were totally ill-matched for
19 the force that we were exposed to. It consisted mostly of small weapons
20 and mortars.
21 Q. And you allege that the BH army throughout the whole war, both
22 while you were a policeman and otherwise, never had any weapons.
23 A. I'm not talking about the army. I'm talking about the periods --
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Sachdeva is on his feet.
25 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, that's not what he is alleging. He
1 actually answered the question and said the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina
2 had -- I think the witness mentioned mortars and small arms, which does
3 not mean "had no weapons."
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, that is so, Mr. Tapuskovic.
5 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I will have to use
6 something that I never uttered before. I'm going to ask you directly --
7 Q. Are you aware that they had heavy weapons including tanks?
8 A. On various occasions we seized guns in depth of the Bosnian
9 territory and on Mount Igman and that is how we got hold of them.
10 Q. Were there any cases that you transported them in pieces like
11 Howitzers through the tunnel that existed there?
12 A. While I was a member of the army and later on the police, I have
13 no experience of that nature or any knowledge of that nature.
14 Q. Did you ever pass through the tunnel under the Butmir airport?
15 A. Many times.
16 Q. Thank you. We'll get back to that later. You said in this
17 information: "However, part of my assignment was to investigate the
18 scenes and that he and his colleagues disarmed the shells that did not
19 explode and subsequently they would hand them over to the army."
20 My question is, those bombs or shells that you handed over to the
21 army, did you do that in order for the army to use them?
22 A. Of course. What else was the army to do but use explosives that
23 they cannot get hold of any other way.
24 Q. And then these bombs were depicted as something manufactured in
25 Krusik factory in Valjevo; was that true?
1 A. No, no, it's not true at all. The projectiles that fell but did
2 not explode were subsequently totally unusable and unlaunchable. By
3 risking our lives, we disarmed these bombs in order for our army to get at
4 least some crumbs of explosive that would be used for defence to which
5 every living creature is entitled.
6 Q. I understand that, but what you want to say is, that at the time
7 when the conflict broke out in Sarajevo between the warring parties, you
8 say between the aggressor - it's fine with me, I respect your attitude -
9 that the BH army in Sarajevo itself did not have enough weapons that had
10 originally belonged to the Yugoslavia People's Army. And not only
11 Sarajevo, that was the case throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina. That means
12 that they had the same weapons, maybe not the same exactly like the
13 Serbian army, but they had weapons that had belonged to the Yugoslav
14 People's Army from the very outset of the conflict?
15 A. The difference between the type of weapons is so huge that one can
16 say that the BH army was practically formed by the Territorial Defence as
17 was actually non-existent. It was Territorial Defence, civilians, and
18 police. The latter give the most contribution at the beginning of the war
19 because they were the only organised force capable of putting up
20 resistance and defence which means that we entered this war totally
21 unprepared and unarmed.
22 Q. You know nothing about 200.000 armed paramilitaries that were
23 there in January 1992 according to documents that have been written about
24 nowadays by very representable members of your army. That in the
25 beginning of 1992, there were 200.000 armed paramilitary. You know
1 nothing about that?
2 A. I know nothing about that, but the country that has its flag in
3 New York and that has been recognised as an independent country cannot
4 possibly have any paramilitary forces.
5 Q. Thank you. I will try to be as efficient as possible and I don't
6 know where to begin in the whole plethora of these matters.
7 But let me, Mr. Witness, start with this particular incident. But
8 let us clarify this incident before the Chamber, who are going to rule on
9 this. Everything that happened in the school that had been destroyed, the
10 school called Simone Bolivar, on the 18th of June, 1995. If I understood
11 you correctly, you just said that these people, seven of them were killed,
12 a large number were wounded, that they were -- became victims in a kind of
13 shelter and that is where they were hit. Some of them lost their lives,
14 some sustained serious injuries as described in your report. So you say
15 that they were in a shelter?
16 A. Yes. That is not a standard shelter. That is a confined area
17 within the school that had glass roof which was then broken. So it was a
18 kind of secluded area within the school which had an open roof, but you
19 may call it a shelter.
20 Q. But the people who were in this shelter could not have been seen
21 by anyone, anyone looking from the outside. And this was all in Dobrinja,
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Is the Dobrinja neighbourhood the part of Sarajevo that was partly
25 under the control of the BH army and partly under the control of the army
1 of Republika Srpska. Is it fair to say that?
2 A. Yes, it is.
3 Q. Is it fair to say that this school was approximately four or 500
4 metres from the confrontation line?
5 A. Approximately, roughly speaking, yes.
6 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown
7 document DD00-871. Page 1 of the document.
8 Q. Mr. Witness, do you see this document in front of you? Is that a
9 dispatch as it says here at the top?
10 A. Yes, that's what it says here.
11 Q. Please look at the contents. I will not dwell long about it. It
12 speaks about the 18th of June. It talks about the victims, the
13 casualties --
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, where is the English translation
15 of this document?
16 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, -- Your Honours, I
17 received this document from the Prosecution. It has its number. I don't
18 have the translation. I have the Prosecution number, and that's the
19 document I received from them. And if it's of any significance --
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues]... your
21 responsibility or some member of your team to ensure that there is a
23 Is there a translation, Mr. Sachdeva?
24 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I think that can be checked. But I
25 just want to clarify that this is not a document that I had put on my list
1 48 hours prior to the evidence of this witness. It may have been
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, I understand that. And Mr. Tapuskovic, you
4 must appreciate that receiving a document from the Prosecution doesn't
5 relieve you of the duty to ensure that it is in order for presentation in
7 Well, there is no translation available here. Let us see whether
8 we can proceed on the basis of the interpretation we'll receive.
9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I made a great
10 effort together with my team to check whether there is a translation
11 available. However, the only thing I am seeking from this document is for
12 the interpreters to say to witness that this dispatch refers to the 18th
13 of June and that it contains the names of the victims.
14 I would like the witness to confirm that.
15 A. I don't see who sent this dispatch and to whom. Therefore, in
16 order to analyse it or confirm any content thereof, I would require more
17 data. It says "MUP RBIH" and it says also "CSB Sarajevo."
18 Q. The security service, right?
19 A. The security services centre of Sarajevo. That's practically the
20 Sarajevo police.
21 Q. Very well. I will not dwell on this longer and I do not seek this
22 document to be tendered at all. I just wanted everyone to know that this
23 dispatch exists. However, there's another document, DD00-0872. Can we
24 first go into private session for me to -- private or closed session?
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, private session.
1 [Private session]
23 [Open session]
24 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
25 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm not going
1 through all of this now. I'm not reading it out. Some of it has been
3 Q. Here, for example, in paragraph 2, you say there was a lot of
4 blood around the pump as well as bits of tissue, brains, bones, crania,
5 pools of blood. Is that what paragraph 2 says?
6 A. I can't see it right now.
7 THE INTERPRETER: The microphone is not on.
8 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] There.
9 Q. Paragraph 2 on that page.
10 A. Yes, that's right.
11 Q. Very well. Two paragraphs down. "All the traces found were fixed
12 and photographed. Pieces of shrapnel and a projectile stabiliser were
13 submitted for analysis."
14 A. Yes, that's right.
15 Q. A while ago, in answer to one of the Prosecutor's questions, you
16 said what you said about finding the fins, the tail-end of the shell,
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And that assisted you greatly, although it bounced backwards in
20 establishing the direction from which the shell came?
21 A. That's not what I said. The tail was found in a room where there
22 were no victims. The shell hit the edge of the window, and then the tail
23 just continued and eventually landed in the gym. But in order to
24 determine the direction, you don't use, in this case, the tail. You use
25 the marks of the explosive that were clearly visible on the wall.
1 Q. What about when a shell impacts against a hard solid surface?
2 Where does the tail usually go? What happens to it?
3 A. That depends on how hard a surface is. When there is a explosion,
4 this creates a huge vacuum and the tail is often sucked into the ground or
5 tarmac, such as was the case in Markale I. The tail drilled into the
6 ground. After some cleaning, a member of UNPROFOR found it and extracted
7 it. Here this was not the case because the shell did not impact against
8 the vertical or horizontal surface. It landed on the edge of a wall,
9 exploded right there and the shrapnel rained down on the persons standing
11 Q. You mentioned this tail in connection with the Simone Bolivar
12 school. That's why I'm asking. Where at Markale was the tail of that
13 shell found, the shell that exploded there. Was in the hole that we
14 looked at a while ago?
15 A. No, it wasn't, it wasn't in the hole. Unlike Markale I, it
16 bounced some distance from the place itself. The surface, the ground is
17 very hard, and the depression it created was very small. And this shell
18 was made to -- was built in a way as to explode instantaneously. It does
19 not have a delayed explosion such as many other projectiles do. It wasn't
20 built that way.
21 Q. In other words, in the case of Markale II, the 28th of August, the
22 tail of the projectile was not found like it normally is because of what
23 you say, right?
24 A. No, it's not like that. We can't call anything normal here. It
25 depends on how hard a surface is. Sometimes it sucks the tail in, such as
1 in the case of Markale I. If it's a particularly hard surface, the tail
2 ricochets, bounces to the left or to the right, carried by the force of
3 the detonation.
4 Q. Very well. Let us now move on to the last page of this document.
5 Can you please confirm who signed this document?
6 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] My apologies to the Prosecutor.
7 I don't know if the signatory of this document is perhaps a protected
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Is this witness protected? I'm asking the
11 MR. WAESPI: Mr. President, he is protected.
12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, I have asked the audiovisual booth
13 not to broadcast this document, so we should be fine.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
15 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] If we could keep the document on
16 our screens but without the signature.
17 Q. Can you look, please, at the second-last paragraph, just before
18 the list. It reads: "At the Dobrinja hospital, while the files on those
19 killed and wounded were being compiled, the UNMO observers arrived; Major
20 Haga from Ireland and Captain Hansen from Denmark, as well as Major
21 Abdulah from Jordan. All of them from the airport sector. They informed
22 the on-site investigation team that they had been to the site and
23 established the same fact as our own team."
24 Is that true, is that what it reads, sir?
25 A. Yes, that's what it reads.
1 Q. The very last paragraph is important to note that the general
2 sector where citizens were harmed there are no firing positions of the BH
3 army; is that right?
4 A. Yes, that's right.
5 Q. What about a radius of 500 metres, a distance of 500 metres?
6 Would that still be within the area affected by military operations?
7 A. Dobrinja was densely populated. It was like an ant hive; it was
8 teeming with people. The school building itself was not a particularly
9 interesting military target because it is much lower than the remaining
10 buildings that surround it.
11 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] First of all, DD00-0872, can
12 that, please, be admitted as a Defence exhibit?
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
14 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: It's already in evidence as a Prosecution
17 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] The next document is DD00-0882.
18 This is a mistake made by someone who was originally on the witness list,
19 Thomas Hansen. Someone that we have mentioned already. He was dropped
20 from the witness list. He gives this testimony. There is an English
21 translation, and I would like to show the witness a portion of this
22 statement. Page 2, please.
23 Q. The paragraph begins like this. "I think we finally..." It's
24 down the middle of the page, halfway down. Can you see that?
25 A. I would like to have that zoomed in. Yes, I can see.
1 Q. This is what it says?
2 A. Yes, now I can see it clearly.
3 Q. "I think we finally arrived on the scene about one to one and a
4 half hours after the impact of the shell. At the time we arrived, the
5 Bosnian Serb police had already carried out their investigation and had
7 Is that what it says?
8 A. Indeed.
9 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters didn't hear counsel.
10 A. The only thing we could see at the scene was a hole on the west
11 wall, west side of the wall about four metres above the ground, some blood
12 marks, bits of brain matter, and body parties."
13 Is that what it says?
14 A. Yes, indeed.
15 Q. By seeing the impact, in my opinion the shell came from the west
16 and possibly from the north-west.
17 A. I see that too but that is entirely incompetence. It is far too
19 Q. The next paragraph. "The Bosnian police had already removed the
20 tail of the shell and the victims were taken to the Dobrinja hospital.
21 Therefore, we were unable to conduct a proper investigation. The way the
22 shell hit the wall it was obvious that the shell had been fired from a
23 more or less westerly direction."
24 A. Yes, that's what it says. But my opinion is this report is
25 inaccurate and incompetent.
1 Q. If the projectile had been fired from the west it would have been
2 from the BH army positions, right?
3 A. No. Because this says that they couldn't carry out a proper
4 investigation. What's a proper investigation? Do we always have to wait
5 for them to arrive on the scene, when in fact very often they don't show
6 up at all.
7 Q. Two paragraphs down the page. "We didn't see the bodies there,
8 but since there were remains of human bodies found at the scene, a number
9 of persons must have been killed."
10 Is that what it says?
11 A. Yes, that's what it says. That's what the document says.
12 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Next page, please. Paragraph 2.
13 Q. "Of course it was impossible to establish whether the tail of the
14 shell was found at the exact -- at the same place where the shell had
15 landed, but there was no reason for --"
16 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters didn't hear this part of
17 counsel's quote.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: The interpreters didn't hear the rest of your
19 sentence following on from what you said "but there was no reason for".
20 For what?
21 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Just to avoid any
22 misunderstanding, I have to read both paragraphs in their entirety, the
23 first two paragraphs.
24 "At the hospital, a Bosnian official showed me the tail of the
25 shell which he claimed to have found at the scene. This was definitely
1 the tail-fin of a 120-millimetre shell. Of course it was impossible for
2 me to find out if this tail-fin had been found at the site of the incident
3 but there was no reason for him to lie to me about this." Is that what
5 A. Yes, that's what it says. But that means absolutely nothing to
7 Q. Two paragraphs further down the page.
8 "When you see the confrontation line, west and north-west, from
9 the point of impact, it is almost impossible to determine whether the
10 shell was fired by BH mortar or a BSA mortar on account of the possible
11 range of a 120-millimetre shell, it could have been fired from any of the
13 Is what it says?
14 A. Yes, that's what it says.
15 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: DD00-0882. I tender this into evidence as a
16 Defence exhibit.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
18 THE REGISTRAR: As D72, Your Honours.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just let me ascertain something, Mr. Tapuskovic.
20 What was the date of this document?
21 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] It was on the 8th of September,
22 1995, as early as 1995, with the clashes still going on.
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: And it was an investigation into what incident?
24 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] The Simone Bolivar school.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Sachdeva.
1 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, just to be clear, this document is
2 not an investigation report or -- or conclusions of an investigation. It
3 is a statement given to an ICTY investigator. It's not -- it's not a
4 report that we've seen in -- during this witness's evidence.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you for that clarification.
6 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this same witness
7 testified about that shell hitting the TV building. He was a witness
8 first and then he was dropped. Here he talks about that too. But my
9 learned friend will be dealing with that in a couple of days and I don't
10 want to place this in connection with this witness. However, speaking of
11 documents, I have two UNPROFOR documents --
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues]...
13 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I don't know whether this is
14 appropriate, but if learned counsel is attempting to draw some connection
15 between this person who gave a statement with respect to the TV incident,
16 in connection between what he has said regarding the TV incident and what
17 is contained in this document with respect to this incident, I submit that
18 there should not be any connection drawn whether advertent or inadvertant.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let us move on. Let us make the best use of the
21 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I am really only using my time
22 for the most pertinent issues.
23 Your Honours, I have two UNPROFOR documents in relation precisely
24 to what this witness has been testifying. One is dated the 18th and the
25 other the 19th of June, that same year. Those are two documents. I can
1 begin if you like, but it will take me some time for me to deal with
2 these. This is UNPROFOR Sarajevo report the 18th of June 1995, 65 ter
3 532, 00532. At page 12 of that document -- and I could read that. I have
4 translated this. I don't have the B/C/S, but can I read that to the
6 Q. In this UNPROFOR report at page 12 -- there. We have it now. It
7 says here, there's this list of Dobrinja incidents and then it reads at
8 page 12: "UNMO team SW 2 carried out investigation of 120-millimetre MOR,
9 origin, approx 320 MAG, difficult to confirm, fragments, removed by local
10 civpol. Difficult to confirm because fragments found at the site had been
11 removed by the local police. Damage could be seen on the concrete wall
12 four metres above ground level. The impact occurred at a water collection
13 point. UNMOs were allowed to visit Kosevo Hospital and the morgue where
14 they could confirm seven civilians killed. They were informed that there
15 were 10 injured casualties. UNMOs have not been allowed to visit
16 hospitals since the 15th of June and are still not allowed to do so, but
17 in this case an exception was made."
18 So, Witness, this report provides no opinion at all, simply
19 because your own team had removed evidence that could still be found at
20 the scene.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a minute.
22 Mr. Sachdeva.
23 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, just to be clear, in the English
24 version at least, the word "because" is not included at all. I don't see
25 the word "because."
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. It's not an unreasonable inference to draw.
2 "Difficult to confirm, fragments removed by local civilian police" and I
3 think counsel is entitled to put that to the witness and ask him for his
4 comment on that. But after this, we have to adjourn.
5 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. So, Witness, sir, based on this, we see that it is not true that
7 UNPROFOR confirmed everything that you had established at the site?
8 A. I never said UNPROFOR confirmed what we had established at the
9 site, but rather a report that was compiled by somebody else, not myself.
10 Secondly, what UNPROFOR are claiming here, this is so unspecific that it
11 merits no attention at all. The text says "I heard from another person
12 that he claimed that the TV building had been targeted." I heard from
13 somebody else this or that. And then this estimate that the shell arrived
14 from the north or the north-west. It is so unspecific that it merits no
15 attention. Please tell me what it means?
16 THE INTERPRETER: And then the witness unintelligibly reads from
17 the original document on the scene. Is this the azimuth? Is this --
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: We're beyond 1.45. We'll adjourn now.
19 We'll deal with that tomorrow, Mr. Tapuskovic. Any other matter
20 will be dealt with tomorrow. Keep it in mind, we are adjourned until
22 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.49 p.m.,
23 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 20th day
24 of February, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.