1 Tuesday, 20 February 2007

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.01 a.m.

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, please continue your

7 cross-examination. Can I have an indication, Mr. Tapuskovic, of how long

8 you will be?

9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I thank you for

10 giving me the floor. Yesterday afternoon and this morning, I used my time

11 to keep cutting back my questions, and I think I will take a lot less time

12 to complete my cross-examination than the Prosecutor originally took to

13 examine the witness in chief.

14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Proceed.

15 WITNESS: WITNESS W-137 [Resumed]

16 [Witness answered through interpreter]

17 Cross-examination by Mr. Tapuskovic: [Continued]

18 Q. [Interpretation] Witness, sir, yesterday the last thing we spoke

19 about was the UNPROFOR report dated the 18th of June. Some other

20 questions related to that report before I tender the document as a Defence

21 exhibit.

22 Is it true what the report says, that the UNMOs were not allowed

23 to visit the hospitals since the 15th of June, 1995? Is this true, sir?

24 A. I know nothing about any ban on UNMOs visiting hospitals. It's

25 the very first I hear of it, sir.

1 Q. It's not me claiming it. It's the UNMO report. It's the UNPROFOR

2 report; it's the UNPROFOR people who are claiming this, not me.

3 A. First I hear of it, as I said before.

4 JUDGE ROBINSON: He said he knows nothing about it, so please move

5 on.

6 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

7 Q. Can you confirm that the BH army offensive, along all

8 confrontation lines, got off the ground on the 15th of June? Can you

9 confirm that, sir?

10 A. No, I can't confirm that. I didn't deal with things like that.

11 My job was an entirely different one.

12 MR. SACHDEVA: Excuse me, Mr. President. I just want to ensure

13 that counsel turns off his microphone when the witness is answering.

14 That's all.

15 JUDGE ROBINSON: I believe there is a system in place for it to be

16 turned off automatically, is there not?

17 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

18 JUDGE ROBINSON: I understand the primary control remains with

19 counsel, although the AV booth can override. So it is your

20 responsibility, Mr. Tapuskovic, to turn off the mic when you're not

21 speaking.

22 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

23 Q. Witness, I'm putting it to you that that was not allowed because,

24 for the most part, victims of the armed conflict were in hospitals?

25 A. Victims of the armed conflict in Sarajevo, as never before in

1 history, were for the most part civilians. The greatest number of

2 casualties was among the civilian population, and that's the extent of my

3 knowledge.

4 Q. Given the fact that you conducted an investigation of the Simone

5 Bolivar school incident, you must know that on this particular occasion

6 UNPROFOR were granted permission to access the hospital and inspect the

7 victims of the June 18th incident.

8 A. As for this permission or the fact that they went there and

9 inspected the victims, I know nothing about that. We had nothing to do

10 with that. We just determined the equipment and the weapons used and the

11 azimuth; that is, where the shells were coming from.

12 Q. Thank you.

13 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can 65 ter document 00532 please

14 be admitted as a Defence exhibit. Thank you.

15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

16 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D73, Your Honours.

17 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

18 Q. Witness, sir, yesterday I showed you 65 ter document 113. This is

19 an official report. I read back to you the following portion: "All the

20 evidence found was preserved and photographed. The scene of crime was

21 sketched and photographed."

22 Is that true?

23 A. Yes. I saw many of those sketches and photographs.

24 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have photograph

25 P257 brought up for the benefit of the witness.

1 Q. These are the two photographs that the Prosecutor showed you

2 yesterday.

3 A. Indeed.

4 Q. Is it true that in this first photograph you marked the spot, the

5 exact point of impact of the projectile, and then the shrapnel flew back

6 towards the positions that you marked hitting a considerable number of

7 people, blowing their heads off. Many of them were killed and some were

8 seriously wounded. Isn't that right?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Look at this place, sir. There's some white surface there,

11 something white on the ground. I see some glasses. Could that possibly

12 be paper, sheets of paper? There is not a single blood-mark in this

13 place. Can you explain that, sir?

14 A. Whenever you had mass murder and massacres, blood-marks would be

15 removed once the investigation was over, or maybe it had to be removed for

16 the traces of the shell to be identified. So this is no paper and no

17 paper sheets. This is light coming from outside. And these are not

18 buckets; these are jerrycans that people used to fetch water.

19 Q. Therefore, you are saying that did you not take any photographs of

20 those persons as you found them, nor did you take any photographs of the

21 horror that you found, having arrived at the scene.

22 A. I found a lot of blood and body parts before they were removed,

23 but the victims themselves were removed before my arrival. I did not take

24 any photographs myself. I wasn't the one using the camera. I don't know

25 how many photos were taken or who took them, but it was a team from the

1 security services centre who were performing this on-site investigation

2 along with our team.

3 Q. You say that when you arrived there were no blood-marks or human

4 bodies for that matter, were there?

5 A. Yes, there were. It was cleaned up the first time around. Most

6 of it was cleaned up in the first go, so to speak, same as was the case at

7 Markale. They tried to remove the bodies, but some blood-marks always

8 remained.

9 Q. At Markale, even those people who were killed were taken away

10 immediately. Their bodies were removed; right?

11 A. Yes. There were a lot of cars, mostly Golf vehicles with their

12 boots open. Bodies were placed inside, two or three bodies at a time, and

13 they were taken away as soon as possible, or taken to the clinical centre

14 if they were still to be treated. Those collecting the bodies were never

15 entirely certain whether a body was dead or still alive. They just picked

16 up the bodies as quickly as they could, all of them.

17 Q. At any rate, can you confirm that at the time this occurred on the

18 18th of June, the school as such had not been operating in that building

19 for a long time. There were no children there. Can you confirm that?

20 A. Yes, because right at the outset of the war, the aggressor bombed

21 the school deliberately and used incendiary devices on the school. Not

22 just this one, another school at Dobrinja as well. One was further to the

23 west and the other was further to the east.

24 Q. Do you know who removed the blood-marks so that we perhaps might

25 be able to identify witnesses?

1 A. I don't know, but I assume that, as is normally the case, it was

2 the people who ran over to help, the people who took away the bodies.

3 There someone -- there someone fetches some water and they try to clean up

4 and remove the blood-marks. It's a perfectly normal, natural human

5 reaction.

6 Q. In your statement, Official Note, which shows that you were

7 involved --

8 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can 65 ter document D13 please be

9 shown. It's an official report. D13. I have to go back to that report,

10 Your Honours, after what I've just heard. Yes, that's the one.

11 Q. There, sir, the second-to-last paragraph, the previous one

12 says: "The UNMOs were informed about the incident and they did not

13 inspect the scene."

14 Is that right?

15 A. Yes. We said yesterday they came two hours later and they

16 strongly objected about us doing anything. They said we were supposed to

17 wait for them. If we'd waited for them all the time, we'd probably no

18 longer be alive.

19 Q. Next paragraph, and that's the reason I'm going back to this. You

20 say: "The crime scene was secured by Sarajlija Hasan and Fuad Begic,

21 members of the police."

22 Is that true, sir?

23 A. They are police officers, members of the security services centre

24 of Novi Grad, and they were the closest to the scene and they could secure

25 it and inspect it. The Novi Grad police building was two buildings away

1 from the actual crime scene, and this was part of Dobrinja, in purely

2 administrative terms.

3 Q. Can you explain to the Chamber how anyone at all was allowed to

4 touch any evidence that was found at the site, such as blood-marks and the

5 great number of people who were killed and injured there, since these

6 people were securing the scene, as you say? Especially washing away the

7 blood-marks - blood-marks, probably the single most important piece of

8 evidence to be secured at any crime scene.

9 A. I really don't know how to reply. There was a huge shock, human

10 bodies blown to bits. Now to imagine that someone was to keep in mind

11 things such as preserving evidence, not washing away the blood, keeping it

12 just for all the world to see what we had been made to go through. Well,

13 that spells a huge offence to the honour of the victims themselves.

14 That's at least what I think.

15 Q. The Prosecutor refrained from showing photographs of any dead

16 bodies yesterday in order to avoid causing shock. I think that was

17 entirely justified. However, those photographs were taken at the morgue;

18 right?

19 A. Yes, I think the photographs were taken where the bodies were

20 being held.

21 Q. Nobody clicked a camera; nobody took a single photograph at the

22 actual site, did they?

23 A. I had nothing to do with the photographs. I didn't see anyone

24 taking photographs. My job was a different one.

25 Q. You say that your team did the sort of job that is normally done

1 in cases like these; right?

2 A. Whatever investigators do at a crime scene is always an error. If

3 they photograph dead bodies at a crime scene, they're accused of

4 photographing dummies that were made to look like dead bodies. If the

5 bodies were taken away, why were they taken away. If the blood-marks are

6 washed away, why are they washed away. Why is there 12 litres of blood

7 only? Why is there not only as much as -- as many as 5 litres.

8 So what you're suggesting very much like sounds like causing

9 offence to the honour of the dead victims to me, sir. Let me suggest

10 that.

11 Q. I was pursuing my line of work throughout the war. I was greatly

12 affected by the sufferings of the people of that country. But you have to

13 explain some things. Those investigating the crimes should do what is

14 necessary so that now this Court could reach a judgement that would be

15 reasonable and justified. That's all I am asking you about.

16 A. I can only tell you what I did. I can only speak on my behalf. I

17 was highly professional in doing my job. We determined the equipment and

18 the kind of weapon used in each of the incidents that we handled; the

19 point of impact, the angle of descent. Whatever happened to be our job,

20 we did it in a highly professional manner. As for this UNPROFOR report,

21 it's not true that they removed any evidence. The wall that the shell hit

22 remained there for years, completely intact.

23 The next day, in 10 days, in 15 days, you could always go back and

24 check where the shell had come from as well as the direction stated in the

25 report. Whatever is in that report is just so, so, biased that I would be

1 hard put to identify a single report that I've seen in my life that was

2 less competent and more biased.

3 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could the speakers kindly

4 be reminded to observe a pause between questions an answers and also,

5 please, to slow down for the benefit of the record. Thank you.

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: I will remind them.

7 Did you hear that? The interpreter is asking you to slow down.

8 You are speaking too fast and you're overlapping. You must observe a

9 pause between question and answer.

10 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I keep in mind the

11 instructions received from His Honour Judge Mindua. I wait for the last

12 letter on the screen to appear before I ask my question. So this time

13 it's not my fault, thanks to the instructions previously received from His

14 Honour Judge Mindua. If the witness is speaking fast, I think he is the

15 one who should be cautioned and told to slow down.

16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let's move on.

17 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

18 Q. Witness, all of this happened on that spot on that same day. Was

19 it not the case, in fact, that same day Sarajevo and the entire world

20 watched a school get hit on their TV screens; people being killed, over 20

21 people being killed? Everybody knew. This piece of news was broken to

22 everybody that a great crime had taken place and this was something that

23 had been done by the Serbs.

24 A. Yes, I think so. Even on our TV it was said that the shell had

25 arrived from Lukavica. It was not true. That was erroneous. That was an

1 error made by the journalists. After the evening news, the next day, I

2 went there again. I conducted an analysis again, once again to ascertain

3 the facts. However, the news of this horrible crime went around the

4 world, and rightly so, I would say.

5 Q. Witness, can we please have a look at 65 ter 533. This is another

6 UNPROFOR report in relation to Sarajevo.

7 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] There is no B/C/S translation of

8 this document. I would like to have page 2 of the English.

9 Q. I have a translation and I will read it to you. Page 2, indeed.

10 Do you see that witness? All right. You don't speak English, or do you?

11 A. It's fine. I'm sure that we'll have no trouble understanding each

12 other. Just cite the relevant portion and zoom in.

13 Q. I don't know. I have to translate this into B/C/S. But the

14 passage marked as "A," halfway down the passage, the first word of the

15 relative portion is "Total" Can you see that? Can you see that?

16 A. Halfway through?

17 Q. Yes. The sentence begins with the following words.

18 A. "The Sarajevo airport was opened shortly today ..."

19 Q. No. Take the word "Total." There were a total of -- but you

20 don't speak English, so that's why I am reading from the B/C/S

21 copy. "There were also a total of 305 explosions."

22 Can you see, sir? It reads: "There were also a total of 305

23 explosions reported." Can you see that? "Most in the areas of Igman,

24 Butmir, Osijek airport, Ilidza, Nedzarici," and a number, "the 18th of

25 June, 1995. A 120-millimetre mortar shell impacted in Dobrinja in an area

1 where civilians were collecting water, killing seven civilians and

2 wounding 11."

3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Has the witness found it? It's near the top.

4 It's actually the second sentence in paragraph A, or the third sentence in

5 paragraph A.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I see it. "A 120-millimetre shell

7 impacted in Dobrinja in an area where civilians were collected water.

8 Seven civilians were killed ..." and so on and so forth. I see the

9 sentence. "The Sarajevo airport was opened shortly today to allow a

10 French soldier ..." I see that.

11 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

12 Q. I read that. Is that what it says? This is a report dated the

13 18th.

14 A. We all see that that is what it says.

15 Q. Is that true, what it says? That's what I'm asking.

16 A. I can't confirm. I have no knowledge of that. I'm under oath. I

17 can't just extemporise. I'm not sure if this many shells fell on these

18 areas. I don't have accurate information indicating that and I simply

19 can't say. Simple answer: I don't know.

20 Q. What about this bit about the shell hitting the school at

21 Dobrinja? You can confirm that, can't you? "... in an area where

22 civilians were collecting water. Seven civilians were killed and 11

23 wounded." That's what the report says, and it's dated the 18th. Is that

24 right?

25 A. I don't see the date of the report. Perhaps it's somewhere at the

1 top of the page. If everybody else can see it, then that's all right, I

2 suppose. That's what it says, but that's as far as I can go.

3 Q. Can you please look at page 1 of that document.

4 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can that please be shown to the

5 witness.

6 Q. You see the date is the 18th; right?

7 A. It says "2359B, June 95." Is that it? Is that what you mean?

8 Q. Yes, that's what I mean.

9 A. It's a very weird method of writing down a date. "182395BJUN95,"

10 never seen a thing like that in my life.

11 Q. You can't say whether it's the 18th of June, can you? And you do

12 speak English, or at least that's what you claim.

13 A. I have never before set eyes on this document. It says page 201

14 in the upper right corner, and then the 19th of June, 1995. That's what

15 it says, not the 18th, in the upper right corner of the page. There,

16 right there, the bit that is zoomed in.

17 Q. If you look further down the page, there's talk of the 18th there.

18 A. Yes, but it says, "Date: 182359B June 95." It's a code that they

19 used. I can't comment on it. I have never seen a date written down like

20 this.

21 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I don't want to

22 waste any more time. I need your assistance here. I don't know how to

23 proceed in this situation. The witness disagrees in a certain way that

24 this is the 18th of June.

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: I don't think he disagrees. He just says that he

1 is not familiar with that way of writing the date. But what is the

2 question that you want to put to him?

3 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] My question was:

4 Q. First, the UNPROFOR report that I showed you yesterday, dated the

5 19th, you completely disagree with it.

6 A. It was totally incompetent.

7 Q. This report was dated the 18th, before the UNPROFOR report that

8 you disagree with was prepared. Now, what I would like to present to you

9 is on pages 6 and 7 of this report that you have in front of you.

10 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, that's the page.

11 Q. Can you see it, where it says "UNPROFOR ..." first, second, third,

12 fourth, fifth -- please look at paragraph 6, and I'm going to read it out

13 to you.

14 "Bosnian media reported that as many as nine civilians were killed

15 and 16 were injured in the Dobrinja area when two BSA shells impacted

16 where they had gathered to collect water. UNMOs were able to confirm that

17 seven were killed in the incident and were informed that there were ten

18 wounded. (UNMOs are still unable to have free access to hospitals given

19 present BiH restrictions). In reaction to the shelling, Bosnian Prime

20 Minister Silajdzic reportedly stated his intention to once again press to

21 have the armed embargo lifted."

22 Is that what it says here? And can you confirm what we just said

23 a while ago that the Bosnian media took this course of action and that

24 Silajdzic made this statement publicly?

25 A. At the moment I don't know anything about this kind of statement

1 given by Mr. Silajdzic, but I do know that he repeatedly said that the

2 arms embargo should be lifted from Bosnia-Herzegovina, the arms embargo,

3 that is, because we were the only ones subjected to these embargoes. For

4 four years we were disarmed an attacked. By this, he wanted to emphasise

5 the right to self-defence, which is a primary right which overrides all

6 other rights. Every tree has a right to defend itself from insect. Every

7 animal has a right to self-defence. Why shouldn't a human being have it?

8 That is as far as self-defence is concerned.

9 Concerning the media, they often portray distorted pictures. I

10 told you that on the news that night it was said that the shell had come

11 from Lukavica, that is, from the west, and that was wrong information.

12 The shell had come from the east -- I apologise, from north-west, and the

13 UNPROFOR report that you refer to denies itself in the sentence where it

14 says that the shell had probably come from the west or from north-west.

15 This kind of ambiguity is totally unacceptable when it comes to a serious

16 UNMO officer's report. For that reason, I don't take this report to be a

17 relative piece of evidence.

18 Q. At this point in time, after everything you said about the

19 direction from which the shell had come, I'm not going to ask you any

20 further questions. In my view, this should be done by somebody who had

21 more expertise than you.

22 But I would like to ask you and suggest to you --

23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just proceed to do your job. Leave out the

24 comments.

25 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] You're right.

1 Q. And my suggestion is that there were no seven people killed in

2 this incident, nor 20, as originally reported, injured people, as it is

3 stated in the report. I put it to you that this is not true, and I would

4 kindly ask you to tell me what you think about this.

5 A. There is a saying in Bosnia about this war which says that all

6 shells that did not kill or wound anyone were fired by the Serbs. All the

7 shells that killed people and maimed people were fired by the Bosnians.

8 This is a paradox and this was part of the crime and part of the pattern

9 of this war of intimidation. However, all the denials relating to victims

10 I personally deeply feel as being offensive and something that kills these

11 people for the second time. I deeply believe in that, and I'm very sorry

12 that we didn't see these photographs yesterday, because that was something

13 that occurred on a daily basis.

14 JUDGE ROBINSON: In future, I want shorter answers from you,

15 Witness.

16 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

17 Q. Can you confirm the fact that the photographs were taken in the

18 morgue rather than on the scene where they were allegedly killed?

19 A. I'm telling you for the sixth time that I know nothing about who

20 took the photographs, what was photographed, et cetera. I had nothing to

21 do with that.

22 Q. Are you saying that the Prosecutor was wrong yesterday for

23 suggesting that we do not look at these photographs from the morgue?

24 A. I think we would have grasped the situation better and understood

25 what actually happened had we emotionally travelled back in time and seen

1 these photographs.

2 Q. At any rate, after all this, these casualties were presented and

3 portrayed in the world as victims of the Serb shells; is that right?

4 A. Yes, it is.

5 Q. Thank you. I have no further questions regarding this document.

6 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] And I move that 65 ter 533 be

7 admitted into evidence as a Defence exhibit.

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we admit it.

9 THE REGISTRAR: As D74, Your Honours.

10 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

11 Q. A respectable officer of NATO, General Nicolai, has been examined

12 here in this courtroom and, according to the transcript, page 1004, line

13 13, he confirmed the following, and I'm going read it out to you. It read

14 as follows:

15 "One of the examples of the attitude taken by the Bosnians was

16 when Minister Muratovic complained about the sniping of the water

17 distribution point and requested protection from the UN. When I asked him

18 where this point was, my interpreter explained to me that it was on the

19 Square of Heroes, near the confrontation line, and it is completely

20 visible to the VRS. I said to Muratovic that in that way sniper

21 activities could be provoked, and suggested to him that this point be

22 moved to a safer location."

23 Now, my question to you is: Did you know about these tactics

24 pursued by your minister, because at the time you were employed with the

25 Ministry of the Interior, which was conducive to provoking sniper

1 activities?

2 A. I'm sorry --

3 THE REGISTRAR: I'm sorry for the interruption, but I've been

4 notified by the AV booth again that counsel's microphone is not being

5 turned off on a regular basis. It might also be helpful to suggest to the

6 witness that he not speak if he sees that the red light of counsel's

7 microphone is on.

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, you must turn your mic off when

9 you're not speaking because the witness is a protected witness.

10 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Has everything that I've said

11 been recorded?

12 Q. So can you confirm that your superior pursued these kind of

13 tactics and that he had been first warned about it by UNPROFOR and then --

14 do you know anything about that?

15 A. I believe that this is a very cynical interpretation of the

16 situation in which civilians, by the very fact they existed and needed

17 water to survive, irritated sharp-shooters. What were the snipers doing

18 there? They were just sitting there and shooting randomly at densely

19 populated places, and 90 per cent of the civilians were killed by them. I

20 was wounded by a sniper to my leg. Luckily there were no serious

21 consequences. And that was the place where the sharp-shooter was active

22 all the time in order to sever Dobrinja from the rest of Sarajevo.

23 Whatever was moving, an old man, a woman, a child, was the target. Anyone

24 showing any signs of life --

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Next question, please.

1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

2 Q. I'm asking you straightforwardly, did the BiH army fire from such

3 positions as to provoke the activity of the VRS that was obliged to

4 protect their men and fighters? There were civilians there as well.

5 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President.

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Sachdeva.

7 MR. SACHDEVA: I'm sorry, but I don't know how the witness is able

8 to answer that. He was not in the military; he was in the police during

9 the time of the indictment.

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, let us hear his answer.

11 Short answer. What's your answer to the question?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can answer. It was

13 technically impossible for Minister Muratovic to say or determine how

14 water was to be fetched and how the people should behave there. Had he

15 given such an order, nobody would have folded. So these collection points

16 were part of their right to life, and even that was being -- tried to be

17 taken away from people in Sarajevo.

18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, just try to answer the question as

19 straightforwardly as possible. The question was: Did the BiH army fire

20 from such positions to provoke the activity of the VRS? And what is the

21 answer to that?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not at all. It was impossible.

23 That's an insane idea.

24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Next question.

25 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

1 Q. Can you tell me, on that day were this fierce fighting from both

2 sides during this offensive in those days? We are talking about the 18th

3 of June. Was there intense activity on both sides, on both warring sides,

4 that they were firing from heavy artillery?

5 A. I cannot confirm that because I really don't remember.

6 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I wanted to present something to

7 the witness, but I'm aware of the time constraints.

8 Q. Yesterday you spoke about air bombs; is that right?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. I'm not going to go back to what you said yesterday, but every

11 time the victims of these bombs were mentioned a position was immediately

12 taken and it was spread all over the world that these bombs killed many

13 people and inflicted huge damage; is that right?

14 A. Yes. When they hit the densely populated area, that was true.

15 But sometimes they fell in fields and other unpopulated areas, creating

16 only a huge crater there.

17 Q. I'm going to put to you again the statement given by the witness I

18 mentioned yesterday. His name was Hansen and he was supposed to testify.

19 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] It's DD00- --

20 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please repeat the number of

21 the document.

22 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] It's D72.

23 Q. Can you please look at page 3. I think it's page 3 in both

24 versions. Please look at the third paragraph from the bottom, which

25 reads: "An UNMO informed me that he had seen the shelling of the TV

1 building." That's the incident of the 28th of June, 1995. Do you

2 remember that incident where the TV building was hit by a shell?

3 A. I don't remember the incident described in this way, but we are

4 talking again about the report that I commented on. This is not a report

5 compiled in proper military language. This is like hearsay or rumours;

6 this person said this and that person said that. In the way, how it's

7 written, its style and its arguments, this report, unfortunately, does not

8 merit any attention.

9 Q. You are protesting even before I read anything to you. Let me go

10 on. I don't know how you know what I'm going to read.

11 A. Yes, I can see it.

12 Q. "This shell that hit the TV building was fired by the BiH army."

13 What do you have to say to this?

14 A. I repeat again: This report does not resemble any proper military

15 report or expertise. This is like old wives sitting around and having

16 coffee and commenting on the incidents. This is my general view about

17 this document.

18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, could the witness

19 please give me shorter answers. I am just putting to him what is written

20 in this report. I didn't even ask him a question --

21 JUDGE ROBINSON: I have already asked him to give short answers.

22 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

23 Q. Please look at what it says onwards.

24 "Another UNMO who heard the bomb told me that the bomb only flew

25 for a short period which fitted with the findings of the first UNMO that

1 the bomb was fired from BiH-held territory. I sent my report about this

2 event to my superiors by secure means."

3 My question is: You know that the BH army or, before that, the

4 MUP of Bosnia and Herzegovina had at their disposal these kinds of air

5 bombs, and that in this particular instance, a group of MUP members

6 launched this bomb at the TV building.

7 JUDGE ROBINSON: There are two questions there. The first

8 question is: Do you know that the BH army or, before that, the MUP of

9 Bosnia and Herzegovina had at their disposal these kinds of air bombs?

10 Yes or no?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, we definitely didn't have these

12 kind of air bombs. But the question was put to me with the underlying

13 claim that I know anything about this, and I'm saying that this is not

14 true.

15 JUDGE ROBINSON: The second part of the question was --

16 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, for the President.

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: The second part of the question was that in this

18 particular instance, a group of MUP members launched this bomb at the TV

19 building. Do you know anything about that?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't confirm that.

21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Do you know anything about that?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I know nothing about that.

23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Next question.

24 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

25 Q. Witness, yesterday, in response to the Prosecutor's questions, you

1 said that when investigating these kind of events, no one had such

2 experience anywhere in the world as you and your team had when it comes to

3 these kind of incidents?

4 A. Precisely. There is no information, historical information, that

5 any city had been under siege for such a long time and been shelled, so

6 that's our experience. And also military surgeons had enormous experience

7 working in Sarajevo because there were wounded people coming in on a daily

8 basis.

9 Q. I never questioned or doubted medical conscience, and I know that

10 the doctors in Sarajevo were very busy. I never doubted that.

11 I questioned here a few very young people who were part of your

12 teams, among others, an 18-year-old boy. Is that correct?

13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Sachdeva.

14 MR. SACHDEVA: I object, because when counsel is talking about

15 part of his team, he has to be more specific. The witness's team is the

16 KDZ.

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, there's merit in that. The 18-year-old boy

18 was not a part of his team.

19 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] He already confirmed that there

20 were young members of the team.

21 Q. I can ask him if there was any young person in his team.

22 A. Yes, there were young people, but at the time they were all over

23 18 years of age. I repeat again: There were young people, but there were

24 no 18-year-olds or under-18-year-olds.

25 Q. Well, I don't understand now. First you said that there were

1 young people. Now you denied it. What is the truth, the first thing or

2 the second thing?

3 A. Your question was not clear. You said that you had questioned an

4 18-year-old man. If you questioned him here, then he must have been 8

5 years old during the war, so that's not clear to me at all.

6 Q. Yes, I was not very precise. At the time, during the war when he

7 was working there, he was 18, when he was a member of the investigation

8 team.

9 A. I know nothing about such person.

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Sachdeva.

11 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, in my submission, the witness'

12 answer is very clear. He has said there were no 18-year-olds or

13 under-18-year-olds on his team. That leaves open the possibility there

14 was a 19-year-old, I admit. But the question, in my view, has been

15 answered.

16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

17 Let's move on, Mr. Tapuskovic.

18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Very well.

19 Q. I'm not allowed to comment on this, but let me ask you this: I'm

20 asking you, at the time when the war broke out, what did you know at all

21 about weapons, given that you were an expert in a certain field? What did

22 you know about weapons that existed at the time in the world in various

23 armies, including the JNA, including the BH army and the VRS army? What

24 did you know about those kinds of weapons?

25 A. Our army learned so much during the war that they became much more

1 versed in weapons than some of the professionals. Those who have to

2 defend themselves learn very fast about weapons, how they operate, et

3 cetera, and the level is very quickly reached. What I knew before that,

4 my father was a hunter. As a child I read a lot about it and probably I

5 knew quite a lot about the subject.

6 Q. I know nothing about hunting weapons. I'm asking you about heavy

7 weaponry, about serious things that every army in the world used. What

8 did you know at all about how certain weapons operate under certain

9 circumstances? Did you have any basic knowledge; and if you did, where

10 did you acquire it?

11 A. I knew nothing about heavy weapons but you saw the math involved

12 in calculating the angle of descent. That's secondary school level

13 mathematics. That's when trigonometry is taught. It's basic maths, you

14 might say. You can find the same thing in the textbooks used in the JNA

15 for operating mortars, how exactly it works. This sort of knowledge is

16 acquired in a perfectly simple way.

17 Q. I'll take your word for it, but let me ask you this: Why did none

18 of your teams ever include any top-qualified military experts who know

19 about each and every weapon?

20 A. There were no such military experts to be used. Wherever there

21 were any, they were at the front line where their presence was badly

22 needed to protect their people. Some of them in Sarajevo were experts for

23 military production and they were always available to our investigation

24 units to consult in order to resolve any problems that we came across.

25 Q. Witness, I'm putting it to you that they refused to accept your

1 methods, the methods that you, the Bosnia-Herzegovina MUP, used in your

2 work; isn't that true?

3 A. If you're asking me that, I have to say I disagree. They were at

4 the front lines where their presence was most needed.

5 Q. What about the reports that we've gone through involving you? I

6 never found a single opinion by an investigating magistrate. How do you

7 explain that, sir?

8 A. We had magistrates running or being in charge of many of these

9 investigations, but in -- many times it was the case that an investigating

10 magistrate simply could not physically be in charge of everything. Many

11 of these reports begin by the following wording, "The Investigating

12 Magistrate such-and-such conducted an analysis to the extent that ..."

13 However, in Sarajevo, we would have needed to have thousands and thousands

14 of investigating magistrates for them to be in charge of everything. This

15 was war, not peace.

16 Q. I'm asking you about the incidents that you investigated. There

17 is not a single opinion proffered there by an investigating magistrate; is

18 that true?

19 A. I don't know about that. I know that in many of the cases, Zdenko

20 Eterovic, who for a while was an investigating magistrate in Sarajevo,

21 would join us quite a number of times on our way to a crime scene, and the

22 team would, as a rule, be coordinated by this investigating magistrate.

23 Q. No, I'm asking you precisely about the incidents that you

24 investigated, the Simone Bolivar school, the Markale incident and some

25 other incidents. Why no opinions there?

1 A. I can't answer that. It wasn't down to me whether an

2 investigating magistrate would be present or not. I think there were

3 opinions offered by those and I think there must be other documents that

4 reflect the fact.

5 Q. You spoke many times yesterday about the fact that

6 Bosnia-Herzegovina was under the protection of the United Nations. Do you

7 know about any country that is under the protection of the United Nations

8 where investigations are conducted without the expertise of investigating

9 magistrates? I'm talking about any country that is under UN protection.

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Sachdeva.

11 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I object because the witness is only

12 going to have to speculate on this. How is he to know what are the

13 internal workings of the legal systems in other countries under UN

14 mandate? What's the basis of his knowledge for that?

15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, let him say.

16 Do you know any knowledge of this? Short answer.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I see it this way: Bosnia and

18 Herzegovina was recognised by the UN, but it was left to its own devices

19 in a way that no country had ever been. It was left to do or die.

20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Next question. This is not getting us anywhere.

21 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, there can be no

22 legal system without courts. That lies at the heart of my question. I

23 have received my answer. It is not my intention to dwell on this.

24 However, DD00-0843, that is the document that I intend to show

25 now. These are the proofing notes for Witness 137 by Mr. Sachdeva on the

1 14th of February, 2007. These notes have been translated. DD00-0843.

2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Sachdeva.

3 MR. SACHDEVA: Can I just, Mr. President, ensure that this is not

4 broadcast.

5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Court Deputy?

6 THE REGISTRAR: I've informed the AV booth not to broadcast it,

7 Your Honours.

8 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] We can't see the witness's name

9 anywhere.

10 These are notes that I received from Mr. Sachdeva. This was

11 produced on the 14th of February; that's the one I'm talking about. The

12 Prosecutor should have the document. Nevertheless, can I please be

13 allowed to question the witness on this?

14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Of course. Go ahead.

15 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I would like for the Chamber to

16 have the document in front of it. 847. It's not 843; it's 847.

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Is that the document on the screen now?

18 Mr. Sachdeva.

19 MR. SACHDEVA: Now it's on the screen.

20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, it's now on the screen.

21 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: Yes.

22 Q. [Interpretation] You see that, sir, don't you? You talked to the

23 Prosecutor on the 14th of February, to Mr. Sachdeva; right?

24 A. Yes, that's right.

25 Q. Here is what the first sentence says:

1 "With respect to possible bias within the French UNPROFOR troops,

2 the witness related a story regarding a massacre in 1994 in which two

3 children were killed."

4 Is that what you said, sir?

5 A. Yes, that's right.

6 Q. "UNPROFOR conducted their investigation whilst the witness and his

7 team conducted theirs."

8 Is that right?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. "The UNPROFOR report stated that there was shelling from Serb and

11 BH positions."

12 Is that right?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. "The Serb shelling did not injure anyone whilst the BH shelling

15 was responsible for the casualties."

16 Wasn't that what the UNPROFOR report said?

17 A. Yes, that's what the UNPROFOR report said, and thank you very much

18 for asking me.

19 Q. Is that true?

20 A. True.

21 Q. It goes on to say:

22 "There was this agreement as to the distance which the shell would

23 have travelled. The witness states that he spoke to two French UNPROFOR

24 soldiers who were using a Vietnamese range table which had insignia from

25 the Vietnam war. This table was based on 82-millimetre mortars with

1 different parameters to the 82-millimetre mortars used in this incident.

2 The Vietnamese table shows a much shorter firing range which would suggest

3 the Bosnian government was firing on its own people. The actual mortars

4 used had a much larger firing range."

5 My question, sir: The French soldiers were wrong and you were

6 right?

7 A. Yes, that's right. The French soldiers were, as I believe,

8 deliberately wrong in order to present evidence in an erroneous light and

9 to mislead everyone. The thing is, both mortars had the same calibre;

10 however, all they had to go on were two poor photocopies to determine the

11 firing range. The entire range turned out to be much shorter as opposed

12 to the weapon that was used in this area. It's, for example, as if you

13 had a Volkswagen car and you were using a maintenance book for a Citroen

14 car. The thing is, the table of ranges showed totally erroneous values

15 and did not correspond with the weapon that was used in the area. This is

16 one of the many cases where the French UNPROFOR soldiers provided

17 erroneous information. Even when their own soldier was hit by sniper,

18 they wouldn't allow the case to be investigated, nor did they submit his

19 shirt for analysis, which would have proven beyond any doubt at all that

20 he had been killed by a shot that had been fired from positions held by

21 the Serbs.

22 Q. Why, then, would the French soldiers, being members of one of the

23 most honourable armies in world history --

24 JUDGE ROBINSON: I stopped you because the interpreter was having

25 a very difficult time. You started your question before the

1 interpretation was concluded. So just let us have the question again.

2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

3 Q. Why, then, would the French soldiers, being members of one of the

4 most honourable armies in the history of civilisation let themselves down,

5 counteract what their own conscience would tell them to do and do

6 something different?

7 A. Only they can say. I'm a witness to the fact that they had tables

8 that did not correspond, were not consistent, with the mortar weapon from

9 which the shell was used. It's not that they were ignorant. They were

10 told to do it that way. Who instructed them to do just that, I don't

11 know. You should go and ask them. Only they can answer that question. I

12 cannot.

13 Q. The last sentence of your interview with Mr. Sachdeva reads: "He

14 suggested that this reflected a French policy bias towards the Serbs."

15 Is that your position, sir?

16 A. There were, unfortunately, many cases in relation to which this

17 was the only possible interpretation.

18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this was tendered

19 as D66 MFI, our Exhibit DD00-0681. Can I please have the Court's

20 permission to show the witness the document? This is what the President

21 of BH, Alija Izetbegovic, found out from the French ambassador.

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

23 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I have to read the entire

24 document.

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: And how long is that?

1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] There. Have a look.

2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Sachdeva.

3 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, might I inquire if there's a

4 translation available?

5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Do you have a translation? If not, it's a

6 relatively short document. Go ahead, read slowly, and we'll have the

7 interpreters ...

8 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

9 Q. Have a look, sir. Do you see that this is from the main logistics

10 centre of the BH army? You see that; right?

11 A. Yes, I do.

12 Q. You see the following paragraph, Presidency of BH -- this is being

13 sent to General Delic, the commander of the General Staff of the BH army.

14 Isn't that what it says?

15 A. Yes, that's what it says.

16 Q. Further down:

17 "General, just this morning, the French Ambassador Henri Zakolen

18 visited my office and, among other things, shared this with my advisor

19 Memija: France makes it official that it is furious over the murder of

20 one of its soldiers at Dobrinja. Military expertise has shown that the

21 soldier had been hit from a position held by the Bosnian army. We have

22 not been allowed an inspection which gives rise to doubt and suspicion.

23 The Chetniks have, in this particular incident, displayed an unlimited

24 willingness to cooperate by allowing UN investigators to enter every flat

25 in each and every position along their own line. Our men, on the other

1 hand, have refused each form of cooperation by not allowing access to any

2 of the numerous locations from which our soldier could have been hit."

3 He said:

4 "Once the BH army has allowed the UNPROFOR commission access to

5 the buildings from which the bullet could have been fired at the French

6 soldier, we shall be able to speak of a normalisation of relations between

7 Paris and Sarajevo. The French ambassador caused us an unpleasant

8 surprise by saying that he had evidence that over half of the 24 murders

9 of their soldiers from the UN troops, not counting those killed in the

10 traffic accident at Igman, were committed by the BH army."

11 He goes on to say: "General Gobillard complained to him that for

12 weeks our own commanders had been refusing contact with UNPROFOR."

13 He went on to add:

14 "We do not understand this kind of behaviour and we do not see

15 what can possibly be achieved in this way. Of course, some of these

16 statements should be taken with a pinch of salt, but it's also necessary

17 for you to know what their objections are. Remove any obstacles to

18 cooperation wherever these are not indispensable from a military point of

19 view. Salam, Alija Izetbegovic, Sarajevo, 21 April 1995."

20 Witness, in view of what you said about the French soldiers a

21 while ago, the fact that you didn't trust them, in view of your belief

22 that they had a pro-Serb bias, can we therefore say that this constituted

23 a reason why French soldiers came under fire by the BH army?

24 A. I have never seen this report before. I have to repeat something

25 that I was personally involved in and I can vouch for its truthfulness.

1 Whatever this report says, it means nothing to me since I have never seen

2 it before. I'm not involved in anything that concerns this report, and I

3 can't testify to any allegations contained therein.

4 I have to say again that I nearly clashed with them because they

5 were using erroneous tables, indicating that we had been killing our own

6 children, to all practical intents.

7 Q. My question was a different one. Yes or no, please.

8 A. What do you mean, yes or no?

9 Q. Yes or no?

10 A. What's the question?

11 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I think Mr. Sachdeva wants to say

12 something.

13 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I have no objection to this line of

14 questioning. However, the specific question that counsel has asked, in my

15 submission, asks the witness to put -- to be able to know what was in the

16 mind of the BH army if and when they did fire upon French soldiers. I

17 don't see how the witness can answer that, answer that specific question,

18 in my submission.

19 [Trial Chamber confers]

20 JUDGE ROBINSON: The witness has denied any knowledge of the

21 document, so no questions should be put to him on the basis of this

22 document.

23 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I'll try to rephrase my question.

24 Q. What about his belief, the belief that existed that French

25 UNPROFOR soldiers displayed a pro-Serb bias? Were those French soldiers

1 ever targeted in the any action that involved any members of his own

2 unit? Yes or no?

3 A. No. I'm deeply convinced that the answer is no.

4 Q. Thank you very much.

5 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, again I can't

6 tender this document as a Defence exhibit. This remains D66 MFI, so I may

7 have to reach for it again.

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, it's marked for identification.

9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

10 JUDGE HARHOFF: Excuse me, counsel. Your line of questioning

11 suggests that it would somehow be possible to identify French UNPROFOR

12 soldiers from other UNPROFOR soldiers from a distance. So could you

13 perhaps clarify with the witness whether, to his knowledge, it was

14 possible to distinguish between a French UNPROFOR soldier and an UNPROFOR

15 soldier from another country from a distance?

16 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] As the trial proceeds, I may be

17 able to show just that. During our defence case, I will also show how

18 certain Serb citizens were picked out by BH snipers and how the snipers

19 were informed about who the Serbs were in the streets of Sarajevo so that

20 they could be targeted. I will prove that in my defence case. I think I

21 will equally be able to prove by using other evidence - and we shall have

22 French generals testify, and we'll hear something about that, too - that

23 would have been a very easy thing to achieve.

24 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you. Counsel, I do not wish to interfere in

25 any way with your line of questioning to the witness, but my suggestion

1 was that you put to the witness the question of whether, to his knowledge,

2 it was possible to distinguish French soldiers from other soldiers

3 belonging to the UNPROFOR.

4 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I'll ask the witness just that.

5 Q. Was it possible for one of the BH army members to inform someone

6 further down the line in some way where the French soldiers were

7 positioned?

8 A. You're asking me about possibilities. Anything is possible. We

9 need to ask ourselves who, where, when, but that doesn't prove anything in

10 itself, does it?

11 Q. I'm happy with this answer.

12 JUDGE ROBINSON: You haven't answered the question. Was it

13 possible for the BH army or anyone else to distinguish between French

14 UNPROFOR soldiers and others? Don't sermonise. Answer as directly as

15 possible.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All UNPROFOR soldiers look very much

17 alike in terms of their general appearance. They each displayed the

18 insignia of their own countries but very small ones. Only those who

19 looked very high perhaps would have been able to distinguish, but to us

20 they were all the same. It was that simple.

21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, next question. Well, we are -- one more

22 question before the break.

23 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have two or three

24 topics that I would like to cover and I will try to wrap up as swiftly as

25 I can after the break. I can't just ask a single question now before the

1 break. I have this many documents to show, there, you see, and ...

2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well. We'll take the break now.

3 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.

4 --- On resuming at 10.51 a.m.

5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.

6 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, thank you.

7 At the accused's suggestion, I was instructed to ask one question

8 of the witness and this concerns the following:

9 Q. Were certain members of certain armies deployed in specific areas,

10 i.e., did they have specific areas that they controlled?

11 A. Can you please repeat the question. I don't understand it.

12 Q. For instance, did the Russian Battalion cover a certain area? Did

13 the French Battalion cover a certain area? Did the Ukrainian Battalion

14 cover a certain area?

15 A. I cannot guarantee you that, but I think that was the case.

16 Q. Were there any specific distinguishing marks? Not only patches,

17 but they also had different helmets. They all wore uniforms of their

18 representative armies.

19 A. It was obvious that there were different uniforms. Some had

20 smaller patterns; some had bigger patterns.

21 Q. Another question in this connection and it's a very important

22 thing. Did you know that members of the police used to check -- ID people

23 in the street, irrespective of their ethnicities, for security reasons?

24 A. I heard about these things happening.

25 Q. Did you hear about instances of IDs being checked, and once it was

1 established that the person was a Serb, after 100 metres, a sniper would

2 kill this person?

3 A. I heard speculations of that nature and even worse than that, but

4 I don't believe that that was the truth.

5 Q. Thank you.

6 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, there were three

7 statements given by this witness, one given in 1995, et cetera, but it

8 doesn't matter. I'm not going to ask him any questions relating to these

9 statements, although there was an interesting one given on the 25th of

10 November.

11 I would move on now to an incident. It's P122, Prosecution

12 Exhibit. If it can please be shown to the witness. That's an official

13 report bearing the name of another protected witness, and if can we can go

14 into private session before I ask him anything. Let's move to page 1 of

15 this official report dated the 22nd of May, 1995.

16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, private session.

17 [Private session]

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 [Open session]

4 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.

5 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] On page 3 of this document,

6 there's no name mentioned there, so in that respect this report, dated 22

7 June 1995, can be shown to witness.

8 Q. Therefore, page 3, report on the forensic examination of the

9 scene, can you see this report?

10 A. Yes, but it's rather unclear.

11 Q. I have a perfectly clear copy in front of me.

12 JUDGE ROBINSON: I have to say that what I'm seeing is not clear,

13 that is, what is on the screen.

14 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I've never received any better

15 copy from the Prosecution.

16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, let's do our best with it.

17 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

18 Q. I'm going to read it now. "Report on the shelling, Goethe Street

19 Number 12, 22nd of June," and at the end it says: "Armedina Burik, a

20 little girl, was killed."

21 Is that what it says approximately here? Is that true?

22 A. Yes, I can see it.

23 Q. Can you confirm this, that everything that is written here is

24 completely accurate as far as you were involved in this investigation?

25 A. As far as I can remember, I think everything is in order.

1 Q. I'm going to be very brief. Can you tell me how this girl was

2 killed? You know that she was killed, according to this report, by an air

3 bomb. Is that correct?

4 A. Yes, that's correct.

5 Q. You know that a wall had been penetrated, as stated by another

6 protected witness, and that this girl was killed in a flat.

7 A. Yes, that's correct.

8 Q. You know that there was no penetration of the wall at all.

9 A. If I can kindly ask you not to tell me what it is that I know.

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, that is the way the question is put. He's

11 putting to you that you know that, and if you don't know, then you say you

12 don't know.

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There were many such cases like this

14 one. I believe that this was an incident in which this girl was in a

15 pyjama in her house and that the father took her out already dead. The

16 walls in this neighbourhood were made of soft concrete that even a bullet,

17 a rifle bullet, can penetrate, let alone shrapnel.

18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

19 Q. That's not what I asked you but what your team established on the

20 spot. Your team established that the wall had been penetrated. Is that

21 correct?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And this protected witness, whose name you just saw in the

24 document, said here that this wall had not been penetrated at all.

25 A. So what are you saying now? What are you asking me?

1 Q. I'm putting to you that this girl was not killed at this specific

2 location at all. How long are we going to stare at each other?

3 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Why isn't he answering?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You know better about everything

5 that happened, and you were never in Sarajevo at the time. You just don't

6 believe us who were in Sarajevo. I don't know what you want me to answer

7 you.

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: He has put to you that the little girl was not

9 killed at that specific location at all. What's your answer to that?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I remember correctly, there were

11 many cases. One cannot remember what you had for lunch three months ago,

12 let alone cases like this. However, when we visited the scene, I remember

13 that the girl's father took her out; he carried her in his arms. She was

14 in pyjama. So what else do you want me to say? He carried her out,

15 crying and screaming. Are we going to insult this man now by claiming

16 that he had killed her?

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, next question.

18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

19 Q. Since your team carried out the investigation, did you establish

20 what happened in that flat? Did you photograph this punched wall and did

21 you see any traces of the killing?

22 A. Myself and my team didn't go to that flat.

23 Q. No member of your team photographed the traces of this horrendous

24 crime in this flat?

25 A. In order to respond these kind of questions, I need to see the

1 entire report. This is just a detail about the casualties.

2 Q. I received this document and other documents from the

3 Prosecution. There is not a single photograph relating to what you just

4 said. How do you account for the fact that there were no photographs

5 taken in the room where this little girl was killed?

6 A. I have no explanation for that. We didn't always carry a camera

7 with us. My team almost never had a camera with us. This was to be done

8 by the security services centre. We dealt with explosive charges and by

9 establishing who was killed, who was wounded, and what damage was

10 inflicted. Other forensic evidence was collected by the security services

11 centre, and I believe that you will have an opportunity to ask them how

12 they processed the scene, why they didn't take any photographs, et cetera.

13 Q. Witness, I'm not asking you about any case. I'm asking about this

14 specific case presented here by the Prosecution and the investigation in

15 which you took part.

16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Sachdeva.

17 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I apologise for raising late.

18 However, I have had to check the transcript. And I just want to point

19 out, just for clarity, that the protected witness that counsel has been

20 talking about in fact said the following, if I may, with your leave.

21 My question to the protected witness was this: "That damage to

22 the facade that you speak of, was it caused by the projectile that

23 exploded at the impact point that you've indicated with figure 1 on the

24 sketch?"

25 The answer was: "That's right. This damage was caused by a

1 fragment of the projectile that tore through the wall and hit the little

2 girl who was lying in her bed."

3 In my submission, this is different to what counsel has put to the

4 present witness, suggesting that -- suggesting that, and I quote his

5 question, "and this protected witness, whose name you just saw in the

6 document, said here that this wall had not been penetrated at all."

7 I think that needs to be clarified.

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic, reformulate the question.

9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, that's correct. That's

10 what he said in response to the Prosecutor's question. When he was

11 presented with all this during cross-examination, he was asked to look

12 carefully at the wall. I don't have it in front of me, but this part of

13 the transcript, he said very decisively that after he had looked at the

14 photograph carefully, the wall had not been penetrated. So the answer he

15 gave to the Prosecutor is one thing; however, what he said during

16 cross-examination is a different thing. And he did confirm, and he said

17 it very firmly, that the wall had not been penetrated.

18 JUDGE ROBINSON: And what portion of the transcript is that?

19 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] In the portion of the

20 cross-examination. I cannot look for it now - that is why I have

21 curtailed my examination - but if it becomes necessary to explain this,

22 I'm going to do that. So maybe if my -- if this question of mine is not

23 being admitted, then I agree with that.

24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, what I'll do is I'll have the legal officer

25 check the transcript and we can come back to that.

1 But how much time -- how much more time are you planning to

2 spend? You have now utilised the same amount of time, if not more, than

3 the Prosecutor did in examination-in-chief.

4 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I do not agree, but I will try to

5 make it as brief as possible. I will not tackle these three statements

6 that the witness gave.

7 Let me now move on now to Markale, if possible.

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Did you say you didn't agree? What didn't you

9 agree with?

10 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I cannot be sure, Your Honour,

11 because yesterday the Prosecutor took all three sessions yesterday and I

12 only started my cross-examination during the last session. The Prosecutor

13 took up two and a half sessions and that's what I remember. I started my

14 cross-examination after ten past 1.00.

15 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'll just check with the court deputy. Please go

16 ahead. I'll ask the court deputy to give me the times.

17 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I will stop the

18 moment you tell me that I have exhausted my time, and rest assured that I

19 will not object to that.

20 [Trial Chamber confers]

21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Court Deputy.

22 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, we won't get into that now, but the court

24 deputy said that the Prosecutor spent two hours and 24 minutes. He didn't

25 count the 45 minutes of Judge's questions.

1 We're not going to get into a discussion on time, because I'm not

2 a time-keeper. And I really resent that I have to resort to a

3 time-keeping exercise in a court of law, but it's a necessity.

4 Yes, Mr. Sachdeva.

5 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I don't intend to get into such

6 discussion. I just want to -- for the benefit of the Court, the issue

7 with respect to the wall and the penetration or not, my submission is

8 answered by the protected witness that the counsel has identified on

9 page -- it actually stems from a question from His Honour Judge Harhoff,

10 1389, 1390, 1391, those are the pages, and the date of the evidence is 1st

11 of February, 2007, just for the benefit of the Court.

12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.

13 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

14 Q. Witness, yesterday you spoke at length about Markale and the

15 incident that happened there on the 28th of August, 1995. Can you tell

16 me, first of all, from the place where the shell landed - and we're going

17 to look at the photographs again - to Markale, there's more than 100

18 metres.

19 A. Are we going to look at the photographs, as you said?

20 Q. Yes, we are, but that's my first question.

21 A. Let me make it clear: There's a closed market and there's an

22 open-air market at Markale. That was the same at Markale 1. So you are

23 talking about the distance between the two? Is that what you are

24 interested in?

25 Q. If you can specify the distance between the impact spot of the

1 shell to either of the markets.

2 A. If you are referring to the case that we call Markale 1, the shell

3 hit the open area. As for Markale 2, the distance between the closed

4 market and this place, roughly speaking, is about 200 metres.

5 Q. No, no, I'm not asking about Markale 1 at all. I'm asking you

6 about the incident of the 28th of June, 1995, because that is the subject

7 that is being discussed her.

8 A. What distance are you referring to?

9 Q. I'm asking you --

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Sachdeva.

11 MR. SACHDEVA: Just so we clear up any confusion, the transcript

12 has 28th of June - and that's what I heard in the interpretation -

13 however, the Markale incident was on a different date.

14 JUDGE ROBINSON: What is the date that you are putting to the

15 witness, Mr. Tapuskovic, for the Markale incident?

16 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] This is obviously a slip of the

17 tongue. I'm not sure what I said. I was dealing with Markale 2, and that

18 happened on the 28th of August, 1995. If anyone heard me saying "June,"

19 that could only have been a slip of the tongue.

20 Q. So I'm asking the witness about the incident of the 28th of

21 August, 1995.

22 A. Can you please repeat the question. Which distance specifically

23 are you interested in?

24 Q. I'm interested in the distance between the place where the shell

25 hit the pavement to Markale 1 open-air market and the other market, which

1 is at a different place.

2 A. I'll partly answer your question. The shell, first of all, did

3 not land on the pavement but it landed on the driving lane. And the place

4 where it landed, in the case of Markale 2, to the place where the shell

5 landed in open-air market known as Markale 1 --

6 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I need your

7 assistance. I'm not asking him about Markale 1 at all. I'm asking him

8 about Markale 2, but the witness keeps mixing these two things and wasting

9 our time.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But you are mixing the open-air

11 market --

12 JUDGE ROBINSON: You are being asked about Markale 2, the 28th of

13 August, 1995. Would you answer the question as directly as possible.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Sir, I will do my best, but I must

15 remind the Chamber that Mr. Tapuskovic is mixing up the open-air market

16 and the closed market, and that is probably why he is not putting the

17 question rightly and therefore I cannot understand his question.

18 JUDGE ROBINSON: The question was: What is the distance between

19 the place where the shell hit the pavement to Markale 1 open-air market

20 and the other market, which is at a different place?

21 Was that the question, Mr. Tapuskovic?

22 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, let me just be very

23 precise, if you'll allow me.

24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, reformulate it.

25 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

1 Q. You explained where the shell hit. Can you tell at which market

2 were people killed by this shell on the 28th of August, 1995?

3 A. Those were the people who were in the street. Some were on

4 motorcycles; some were pedestrians. And there was -- there's always a lot

5 of people there as if it were a marketplace. They were all in the street

6 in front of the gate to the closed market, which is the second most

7 crowded selling point in Sarajevo.

8 Q. So they were killed in front of this closed-roofed market; is that

9 what you're saying?

10 A. Those were the people in the street. Yes, these people were in

11 the street.

12 Q. In front of the market or on the street itself where the shell

13 landed?

14 A. Mainly on the street in front of the market. But there's about

15 200 metres between the two markets, so there's always a large crowd of

16 people, because that's the main market in Sarajevo where people come to do

17 their shopping.

18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have the

19 following photograph brought up, the first photograph: 65 ter number

20 2595, page 2, photograph 1.

21 Q. You see that, sir, don't you?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Can you please show the spot in this photograph where the shell

24 impacted. And mark it, please.

25 A. The image is not that clear, but I think this should be the spot.

1 Q. Can you please use an arrow to indicate how the shrapnel spread.

2 A. The bits closer to the pavement went down and the remaining shards

3 flew in a circular motion and spread that way, roughly speaking. The

4 direction is not right because it flew over the building. And if can I

5 just make a small correction there.

6 Q. All right. Explain the direction in relation to this roofed-over,

7 closed market.

8 A. It's just in front. It's this building right here.

9 Q. You say that there were over 150 people in this place, 120.

10 A. What I'm saying is if right now, as we speak, you called Sarajevo,

11 told them to block the traffic and count all the people there, you would

12 find about 100 people there between the spot where the shell landed and

13 the open-air market, which is over here, roughly speaking.

14 Q. What is the distance between this place and the open-air market?

15 A. It's the 200 metres that I told you about, 200 metres in this

16 direction, where the arrow points. Open-air market, "OM." The open-air

17 market and the indoor market, the one over here, constituted the greatest

18 concentration of shops with food in Sarajevo at the time. I went on a

19 monthly basis here. I carried the cigarettes there, since I didn't smoke

20 myself, and I exchanged those for food. A kilogramme of sugar was 100

21 German marks, and so on and so forth. This was a place that ensured

22 survival. People exchanged goods there, and this was the greatest

23 possible concentration of living human beings in an open area in the

24 entire town.

25 Q. Can you show the Chamber, what is the distance between the place

1 where the shell landed and impacted and the corner of this building here?

2 A. You mean this car, behind this car? Is that what you mean?

3 Q. My question was clear, wasn't it? The place where the shell

4 impacted against the ground and the corner of this yellow building to the

5 right.

6 A. Is this the one you mean? Here, I'm marking it for you. Maybe

7 some 7 metres, but that's just a very rough estimate based on me looking

8 at this photograph. It's nothing else.

9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, at 11.15 you had used two hours

10 and 34 minutes, ten minutes more than the examination-in-chief. We will

11 give you until 12.00 noon to conclude the cross-examination.

12 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I will be sure to finish by then,

13 Your Honour.

14 Q. Witness, I wasn't asking you about that corner. I'm asking you

15 about the corner up front here which can't be seen because of the car

16 that's parked there. The yellow building, what is that distance? You

17 keep doing something that is not what I'm asking you to do.

18 A. No, you're saying things the other way around. I asked you about

19 the corner behind the car and you said no. I said the corner behind the

20 car? You said no, so I drew the other one. So you must be asking me

21 about this corner. 8 metres, perhaps, 13 years later, but based on a

22 memory that isn't as clear as it used to be. It could be anything between

23 6 and 8 metres.

24 Q. My question is crystal clear. I said the building behind the car,

25 not the corner. I wasn't asking you about that. I'm asking about the

1 distance between the place the shell hit the building behind the car, its

2 corner. That's what I'm asking.

3 A. The building has two corners. This is one of the corners, the

4 blue dot, and the other one is behind the car. I can't see the other

5 corner. Which one do you mean? There are two on the southern side of the

6 building and four more up on the roof. So, please, can you try to be a

7 bit more specific.

8 Q. I can't possibly be more specific, Witness. I'm asking about the

9 distance between the impact of the shell and the dot you drew on the car.

10 What's the distance?

11 A. 6 metres, 8 metres, perhaps. Nobody knows the respective

12 distances with the possible exception of the architects who built the

13 building and maybe dwelled on these specific distances. My shot would be

14 between 6 and 8.

15 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please go into closed --

16 private session, please.

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, private session.

18 [Private session]

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 [Open session]

18 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.

19 JUDGE ROBINSON: I believe you indicated when we were in private

20 session that you wanted to have this admitted.

21 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Just another moment, Your

22 Honour. I would like to ask something else.

23 Q. Honourable Witness, you say it was possible for a shell to be

24 timed in such a way as to impact between these two buildings, each about 4

25 or 5 metres long, and land exactly in the spot where it landed.

1 A. What I'm saying is that shells are even more accurate than that.

2 And if you have an artillery expert, they will tell you that he can hit a

3 kitchen plate at quite some distance or target the opening of a chimney.

4 That's how they describe the accuracy of a shell. Hitting a street that's

5 at least 8 metres across is no great deal at all.

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, I'm very upset at what you did.

7 Let us go back into private session.

8 [Private session]

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 [Open session]

23 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.

24 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Could this please be admitted as

25 a Defence exhibit.

1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

2 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D75, Your Honours.

3 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

4 Q. Esteemed Witness, you said yesterday that you'd only heard a

5 single explosion. Is my understanding correct?

6 A. There were five explosions in this particular incident.

7 Q. How come you were there ten minutes later and not in any of the

8 other four locations?

9 A. I was off with one of my colleagues from the bomb squad to this

10 particular location, and then on the main street, 200 metres to the west,

11 I saw a huge number of cars sounding their horns, with human arms and legs

12 sticking out of the cars. We knew that something horrible had happened.

13 We went back to the bomb squad unit, which was three or four minutes from

14 there. We collected our equipment and went back to this same place, which

15 took about seven or eight minutes altogether. The respective distances

16 are several hundred metres in each case. The bomb squad headquarters was

17 near the central bank office of Sarajevo, the national bank with the

18 statues and everything. If you walk fast, it takes about seven or eight

19 minutes.

20 I was halfway there not when the shell landed, but rather, I with

21 my colleague, we had been off to the market to exchange some cigarettes

22 for some food coupons. I saw a large number of cars and deafening noise

23 of the horns being sounded, carrying bodies of dead and wounded people,

24 arms and legs sticking out of the boots of those cars, blood all over the

25 place, taking them to Kosevo. We were there in no time at all because

1 that was our place, that was our headquarters.

2 It was God's will that I wasn't there myself five or ten minutes

3 earlier, because had I been there five or ten minutes earlier, I would

4 have come to grief as well.

5 Q. You know about Markale 1, right, the 5th of February, 1994? A

6 single shell was fired which led the experts to doubt the accuracy of the

7 targeting, how it was possible to target so accurately with a single

8 shell. You remember that?

9 A. Yes, I remember that, but I'm deeply convinced that NATO experts

10 will tell you that was no problem at all. If you had a mortar position

11 and emplacement, if it had been there for a long time, they would have had

12 the coordinates, they would have had all the necessary parameters, and

13 they would have been perfectly able to target any grid reference in

14 Sarajevo with a very high degree of accuracy.

15 Besides, their positions were high up in the mountains surrounding

16 the town, and that would have made it even easier for them to target

17 specific locations inside the town, because Sarajevo was virtually in the

18 palm of their hand.

19 Q. The town was in some sort of a valley, a hole; I know that. But

20 the claim here is that this came from Trebevic. Colina Kapa is part of

21 Trebevic, yet it's 1.000 metres high. In theory, the shell could have

22 come from Trebevic, couldn't it? From Colina Kapa; right?

23 A. It came from an azimuth that we determined, and I still stand by

24 that assessment. The direction was determined with great accuracy. Even

25 the UNPROFOR artillery men determined the same identical angle in relation

1 to that shell that landed right there.

2 Q. Nevertheless, I'm putting it to you that at least five shells

3 should have landed in order for you to be able to claim with certainty

4 that what happened was a result of something that the army of Republika

5 Srpska had done. And then there would no objections being raised about

6 the possible accuracy of a single round being fired.

7 A. Unfortunately, the forces of Republika Srpska were very

8 experienced and they were extremely good at targeting what they wanted to

9 target. I'm sure that this dilemma can be clarified by the Chamber if

10 NATO artillery experts are brought in to confirm the incredible accuracy

11 of angles of descent in case of shells. It is not used for horizontal

12 targeting, as guns usually are. A shell is a weapon that is used for

13 vertical targeting.

14 Q. You did not hear the sound of these five incoming shells, did you?

15 A. No, I didn't.

16 Q. You said yesterday that at the time the radar equipment was very

17 poor, right, the radar equipment that was used.

18 A. No, that's not true. What I said was that the radars brought into

19 Sarajevo by the French forces at the beginning of the war, promising that

20 each projectile fired would be photographed in the air indicating the

21 direction and source of firing, so this radar, five days later, was

22 declared officially to be out of working order. Obviously, any

23 information produced by that radar was later used for just filing away,

24 but it certainly wasn't used for any other more helpful purpose.

25 Q. A well-regarded expert on weapons, radars, and other types of

1 technology testified before this Court, General Nicolai. At page 1023

2 through 1024, General Nicolai spoke about the fact that at the time of

3 this incident - I have to do this the way the Prosecutor thinks I should,

4 and it's the normal way to do it - General Nicolai stated that at the time

5 of this incident, which occurred on the 28th of August, 1995, there was a

6 cutting-edge Dutch device for monitoring what was going on in the Sarajevo

7 area. Likewise, the English Battalion had very up-to-date radar

8 technology to monitor the Sarajevo area. He said that those radars had

9 registered nothing at all, no shell flying, and not even those five shells

10 fired allegedly from territory under the control of the BH army -- I mean

11 the army of Republika Srpska, or the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina for

12 that matter.

13 My question is: Why is it that you're saying that there was no --

14 there were no radars?

15 A. It is not my duty to know what sort of equipment different

16 sections of UNPROFOR are using. That would probably be confidential

17 information anyway. Report G2, all right, I see what the source is of

18 this security. I see that there no radar -- artillery activity from

19 positions held by the BH army on the day in question.

20 Q. What I really want to know is nothing was registered as being

21 fired from the area under the control of the Republika Srpska army. The

22 radars never clocked anything. How can you explain that? How can you

23 explain the fact that the radars would never clock a thing?

24 A. I'm facing a very unpleasant situation here. It seems that there

25 were no dead. It seems the whole war was not real. It was just a very

1 bad nightmare. The radars didn't catch it; therefore, we just dreamt it.

2 Is that what you're saying?

3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Next question. Next question, please.

4 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm waiting for the time.

5 Q. No. People did die; people were killed; lives were lost on both

6 sides. But what I'm talking about here - that's what I'm putting to you -

7 is these were explosions that were planted and activated by telecommand,

8 teleactivated, and there were no victims at all when these explosions

9 occurred. That's what I'm saying.

10 A. This is the blackest lie I have ever heard in my life. This is

11 the third time these same victims get killed. The first time, they're

12 physically killed; the second time around, they are denied; the third time

13 around, this is made a laughing matter on TV where the victims are

14 mocked. So all this achieves is an endless mockery of Sarajevo's victims,

15 which included over 1.500 children under 12 years of age, and go figure

16 what the rest of them were.

17 Q. There were both Serbs and Croats among the victims, as well as

18 Muslims; would that be a fair statement?

19 A. It's true that many Serbs stayed back in Sarajevo. Many of them

20 joined the ranks of the BH army. As for my own bomb squad unit, there

21 were more Croats and Serbs than Bosniaks. They were all loyal citizens,

22 honourable citizens, who tried to get on with their lives. But an

23 exploding shell does not distinguish along ethnic lines. Those up on the

24 hills who were targeting everybody else took everybody else down in the

25 valley to be their enemy. So they just killed indiscriminately. That's

1 what they did.

2 Q. I know that, don't I? But there's this one shell that I'm talking

3 about all the time. This shell killed members of all the different

4 ethnicities living in the former Yugoslavia indiscriminately, didn't it,

5 including Muslims, Serbs, Croats. The victims of this shelling included

6 all the different ethnicities, didn't it?

7 A. I think so. I think the names of the victims that I saw at the

8 time included Serb and Croat names as well, so it seems that you are

9 right.

10 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please look at P250.

11 Q. Do you rule out the possibility that the shell hit the roof?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. You do, don't you?

14 A. I do, because people went up to the roof in order to be high up

15 and look down.

16 Q. Had it hit the roof, the shrapnel would have spread wide; right?

17 A. Had it hit the roof, no one would have been killed, most probably.

18 Q. Explain, please. I see a lot of blood here. It's not a joyous

19 sight exactly. The shell hit right here, it impacted right here. How is

20 it possible that those two bikes leaning against the wall are not

21 blood-spattered? Not a single spot of blood, and the bikes are still

22 there, standing upright. How can you possibly explain that?

23 A. There's a perfectly simple and logical explanation. Those bikes

24 were being used elsewhere at the time. When the road was cleared of the

25 dead bodies and the injured, the two things that were found in the way,

1 obviously, these two bikes, were pushed aside so that they weren't in the

2 way of passing traffic. It's as simple as that.

3 Q. The President, Judge Robinson, asked you about that. So the

4 traffic just got on with it and the bikes were there.

5 A. I didn't pay any attention to the bikes at all, but what I'm

6 saying now is what I think to be the most probable thing. They were

7 probably taken onto the pavement in order for them not to be in the way.

8 But UNPROFOR forces arrived, other cars arrived; ambulances had been

9 called. The road had to be open. If you have a bike lying upside down in

10 the middle of the road, this is normally something that you need to remove

11 in order to make sure that the traffic flow remains unhindered.

12 On the right-hand wheel of this bicycle, you can see a lot of

13 blood. If you zoom in on it, you can see there's a lot of blood there.

14 Q. I won't go back to this because I have very little time left.

15 This is a self-explanatory photograph.

16 Answer me this: If there were thousands of shrapnel pieces

17 produced by this shell -- tell me first, do you know, how much does this

18 shell way?

19 A. As far as I can remember, around 12 kilos altogether. I think

20 there is about 2.5 kilos of TNT inside it, approximately.

21 Q. As far as I know, that's the weight of the shell, and it produced

22 mass shrapnel. Were there any shrapnel hitting the walls of these

23 buildings, since so many people were killed? And can we see on any

24 photograph that can -- the Prosecution can provide showing traces of

25 shrapnel on the wall?

1 A. I absolutely clearly remember there were lots of damaged places in

2 the walls of the buildings. And we also examined the distribution of this

3 damage, because you can see that most of the shrapnel fell on the pavement

4 and on the opposite side, to the north. The damage was a few metres high

5 up from the ground on the windows and the walls, which confirms our theory

6 about the geometry of the dispersion of shrapnel. So there is a lot of

7 damage visible on the buildings surrounding this location.

8 Q. My last question about Markale in order to make it possible for me

9 to put some more questions to you. Some other witnesses are going to

10 testify about this. I do understand that over 80 wounded people were

11 removed from the location immediately, and this is something that must be

12 done. But for the sake and the truth of investigation, was it not

13 required for these wounded people -- or for the people who were killed,

14 why were they so hastily removed from the location?

15 A. In this instance as well as in other instances, civilians run

16 there to offer help, who were on the shot, or the passers-by and the

17 cars. All these people were laymen. If people don't show any signs of

18 life, it does not mean necessarily that they were dead. However, people

19 passing by tried to help. Cars stop. They packed the people inside

20 without thinking about it, took them to the hospital. They just followed

21 their instinct, their human instinct to bring those people to hospital

22 where possibly - and laymen cannot say that - these people can be given

23 help and assistance.

24 Q. I'm sorry that the Prosecution didn't show the photographs of

25 these people. It was evident for at least 10 or 15 people that they were

1 already dead. You went there as experts and you were supposed to provide

2 conclusive evidence about everything. Why did you permit the people who

3 were definitely dead to be removed from the site?

4 A. I'm reminding you that I said that some 200 metres from that

5 place, I was headed for the market and I saw for myself already a large

6 number of cars driving people there. There was no police there, no

7 authorities, no officials. People were just taking away the casualties.

8 That's what I saw.

9 I went back to our HQ and then I returned there. Everything that

10 was done there was done spontaneously. Keeping the dead on the spot in

11 order to do the measurements, to measure how much blood is required, how

12 many litres of blood -- how much do you need, 200 litres? Thirty people

13 times 5 litres of blood, that makes 150 litres of blood, and that's only

14 from the dead. I am not counting the blood from the wounded.

15 Q. Sir, I still put it to you to that they were not killed in this

16 place. What do you say about that?

17 A. That's absolutely untrue. In the wide area, pieces of brain, of

18 skulls, of fingers, were found. The shrapnel travelled downwards from

19 this place and they severed off people's feet completely. And there was

20 so much of that stuff there that had this been planted, it would have been

21 noticed by hundreds of witnesses. So both theoretically and practically

22 it was impossible.

23 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.

24 JUDGE HARHOFF: Counsel, can I ask you, is it your allegation that

25 the blood we see on the frame here was not coming out of the victims of

1 the shell but was put there deliberately by someone else afterwards; is

2 that your allegation? And do you have any foundation for that?

3 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] What I'm suggesting with full

4 responsibility, not only for Defence counsel for Dragomir Milosevic, that

5 at this location of the explosion there were no casualties at all; that

6 those who were killed were absolutely killed elsewhere and then brought to

7 the location and quickly removed again in order to preclude any proper

8 investigation there. This is what I'm claiming, and I stand behind this,

9 and I believe that these proceedings are going to demonstrate that.

10 JUDGE HARHOFF: I understand. But could you help the Chamber to

11 lay some foundation for this allegation? What is the evidence that you

12 are relying upon in putting this to us?

13 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] A series of evidence that has

14 already been presented, including the fact that the flight of this

15 projectile had not been registered. Also, there was no sound registered

16 of the shell flying and a series of other things that will later be

17 established. But primarily, there is no fact to support that these shells

18 landed where they exploded, but that they were rather explosive devices

19 planted at the time when there were no casualties in other locations and

20 then these casualties were brought to this location. And this was proven

21 in other incidents as well. This is why I left Markale for the end. The

22 same happened in the case of Simone Bolivar school; the same happened with

23 this little girl who was never killed in this place.

24 So it's based on this evidence, and that's why I left Markale for

25 the end, to question this witness about. But I believe that other events

1 will show this, and this is the basis for my argument and for my putting

2 this claim.

3 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.

4 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, since the time is

5 almost up, if I may just present one more document to the witness and

6 thereby conclude my cross-examination.

7 Q. Yesterday the witness said that a million shells landed in

8 Sarajevo and other projectiles as well. Is that correct, Witness? Is

9 that what you said yesterday?

10 A. I heard many times this estimate. This estimate was made by a

11 military expert who monitored the activities on a yearly basis, and that

12 includes all kinds of projectiles, not only mortar shells. In this case,

13 Your Honours, there are lots of survivors, thank God, who can verify and

14 describe to you the situation and each and every incident that happened.

15 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, let me show to the

16 witness, although I have about a dozen other documents. But I have one

17 piece of evidence provided from the archive of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It

18 refers to July 1995 and the consumption of, as they call it, "MTS" that

19 is, ammunition, for the month of July. It's DD00-0733. It's not been

20 translated yet. It refers to the consumption of the ammunition used and

21 spent by the BH army in July 1995. DD00-0733.

22 Q. Witness, do you see that this is a report pertaining to July 1995;

23 is that correct?

24 A. Yes, it is.

25 Q. Look at it towards the end, which speaks about the consumption of

1 MTS.

2 A. Yes. Someone is scrolling it down. I can see it now.

3 Q. "July, consumption of MTS, 287.831 rounds of bullets," and then

4 again "7.62 rounds of bullets," 16.000 and something. Then further

5 on, "Shells, 60-millimetre shells, 82-millimetre shells." A total of

6 around 500.000 mortar solely in July.

7 I have no time to add these figures up, but at first glance you

8 can see that in July the BH army fired at the positions of the VRS army

9 this amount of various calibre ammunition. What can you say to that? Did

10 you notice that there was so much firing in July at the Serbian positions?

11 A. I can say that this report that we're all looking at on our

12 screens is construed totally wrong. You said 500.000 shells. This huge

13 number refers to bullets. And there is a very small number of shells.

14 The comparison would be the same as if a fisherman caught a whale or a

15 million of sardines. This refers to shells and rounds of all calibres.

16 That includes only heavy artillery weapons. However, the ordinary bullets

17 cannot be added to this total figure.

18 Q. I agree.

19 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we have the next page,

20 please.

21 Q. Here, it says "TRM." What does that stand for? "3.230 pieces."

22 Can you see that?

23 A. That's a tromblon mine.

24 Q. And then later on, "MB98, 201.850."

25 A. I don't know what this D2 is. "P/GD2," I don't know what that is.

1 Q. "MB98, 2.394"?

2 A. There is no such thing as MB98.

3 Q. My last question is: What's the range of the tromblon mine?

4 A. It's launched from a rifle, and at best it can reach a couple of

5 hundred metres.

6 Q. Thank you very much.

7 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] With this I conclude my

8 cross-examination. Can we please have this document DD00-0733 tendered

9 into evidence.

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

11 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D76, Your Honours.

12 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm terribly sorry. With your

13 leave, Mr. President, could I leave the courtroom for just a few minutes

14 before the break?

15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

16 Mr. Sachdeva.

17 MR. SACHDEVA: Just very briefly, Mr. President. Can I ask that

18 P255 be brought up, and if it could not be broadcast.

19 Re-examination by Mr. Sachdeva:

20 Q. Witness 137, this is a document that I showed to you in my

21 examination-in-chief. Can you just remind the Court what this document

22 is, please. And there should be an English translation as well.

23 A. I believe this refers to the case of Markale, 28th of August,

24 11.30. Yes. I think that's an authentic document referring to the

25 Markale case.

1 JUDGE ROBINSON: May we have the English translation on the

2 screen.

3 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, if we could be given the page

4 reference, it would help greatly.

5 MR. SACHDEVA: Yes, that's the one.

6 Q. Witness 137, if you go to the name that is listed, the first name,

7 do you see the name Asim Kanlic there?

8 A. Asim?

9 Q. Right, the first name there, Asim Kanlic; is that right?

10 A. Yes, that's correct.

11 Q. Can you just tell the Court what -- next to the name there is

12 something there which reflects his job description. What is that?

13 A. Asim Kanlic is a judge of the high court in Sarajevo, and

14 immediately after him, in order to anticipate your question, we have the

15 prosecutor of the high public prosecutor's office in Sarajevo; therefore,

16 we have legitimate officials here present directing the whole

17 investigation.

18 MR. SACHDEVA: I have no further questions, Mr. President.

19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Witness, that concludes your evidence. Thank you

20 for giving it. You may now leave.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if you'll allow me to

22 say a few words?

23 JUDGE ROBINSON: It's not the practice. I think you should just

24 leave.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

1 [The witness withdrew]

2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Next witness.

3 Mr. Docherty.

4 MR. DOCHERTY: Your Honour, I'll be taking the next witness. If I

5 may suggest, I had asked leave to present an oral motion concerning

6 protective measures in between the two witnesses. May I suggest that we

7 take that up and also one other motion that I have reason to believe that

8 is uncontested, and then break so that we can make -- I think it will go

9 far more efficiently.

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

11 MR. DOCHERTY: Thank you, Your Honour.

12 Your Honour, yesterday in an e-mail, the -- first of all, could we

13 go into private session--

14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, private session.

15 [Private session]

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Pages 2564-2566 redacted. Private session.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 [Open session]

5 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let the witness make the declaration.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak

8 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

9 WITNESS: SEAD BESIC

10 [Witness answered through interpreter]

11 JUDGE ROBINSON: You may sit.

12 And you may begin, Mr. Docherty.

13 MR. DOCHERTY: Your Honour, for the record, the witness testifies

14 with the protective measure of facial distortion.

15 Examination by Mr. Docherty:

16 Q. Sir, could you begin by telling us your name and what you do for a

17 living, please.

18 A. My name is Sead Besic and I am a forensic technician.

19 Q. Forensic technician. For whom do you work?

20 A. I work for the Sarajevo canton, Ministry of the Interior.

21 Q. Is that a law enforcement or police agency?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Are you a police officer?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. How long have you been a police officer?

1 A. I have been with the police since 1975. I have been in the

2 forensics department since 1987. I took a six-month training course to

3 become a forensic officer.

4 Q. Could you tell the Chamber, please, in general, what the duties

5 are of a forensic officer with the Sarajevo canton of the Ministry of the

6 Interior.

7 A. We go to crime scenes. We take photographs. We video the crime

8 scene, we film it. We collect evidence and submit any evidence found for

9 analysis.

10 Q. Did you attend the scene of a shelling in the Markale market in

11 Sarajevo on the 28th of August, 1995?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Did you go there by yourself or did you go there as a member of a

14 team?

15 A. I was with an on-site investigation team made up of a prosecutor,

16 investigating judge, operatives and myself.

17 Q. When you say "operatives," could you explain what that term means,

18 please.

19 A. These are operatives, operative officers, from the crime squad.

20 They draw up a record at the scene, they take witness statements, and they

21 monitor the whole process.

22 Q. How was it that you and your team went to Markale market on the

23 28th of August, 1995? What were you responding to by going to the market?

24 A. We received word at about 11.00 that a mortar shell had landed

25 outside the entrance to Markale. We were supposed to conduct an on-site

1 investigation. A team was put together, and about 15 or 30 minutes later,

2 we arrived at the scene. This is the sort of thing that is usually done

3 by the cantonal MUP, which was the CSB, the security services centre, at

4 the time.

5 Q. When you arrived at the scene of the shelling in Markale market,

6 did you observe any measures having been taken to preserve the integrity

7 of the crime scene; and if the answer to that is yes, could you describe

8 those measures to the Chamber, please.

9 A. Yes. The crime scene was secured by police officers from Centar

10 municipality. Once they had arrived they did not allow anyone else near

11 the crime scene until the on-site investigation team eventually arrived.

12 Q. Did you obtain any information as to what, if anything, had been

13 done within the crime scene before you and the rest of your team arrived

14 at Markale market on August 28th, 1995?

15 A. Yes. We were told that there had been quite a large number of

16 dead and wounded and that the casualties had been taken to a hospital.

17 Q. Within the team on that day, 28th of August, what were your

18 specific duties? What was your role on that team on that day?

19 A. We were supposed to investigate the crime scene by taking

20 photographs, by filming the scene, by making a sketch, and by collecting

21 any evidence in relation to the incident.

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: You received word at about 11.00 that a mortar

23 shell had landed, and it took you about 15 to 30 minutes to get to the

24 market. Were you able to find out more precisely when the mortar shell

25 actually landed?

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The report came at about 11.00 or

2 five past 11.00. It took us 30 minutes after that to set up a team,

3 including a prosecutor, a judge and some operatives. The place where our

4 station was was about 800 metres away from the scene of the incident.

5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Are you in a position to say whether you received

6 the report immediately after the incident?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. The report reached the

8 security services centre via a radio set and that's how we received the

9 report.

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: What I'm trying to find out is whether you're in

11 a position to say if any time elapsed between the shelling and the sending

12 of the report.

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We received the report after the

14 shell had landed, after the shell had landed. We received the report at

15 five past 11.00, possibly ten past.

16 JUDGE ROBINSON: But how long after the shell landed did you

17 receive the report, or can't you say?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't say.

19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

20 Mr. Docherty.

21 MR. DOCHERTY:

22 Q. Officer, did you take photographs at the Markale market on the

23 28th of August, 1995?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Before coming to court today, have you taken the time to review

1 the photographs that you took that day?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And are those photographs fair and accurate photographs of what

4 you saw at the Markale market on that day?

5 A. Yes.

6 MR. DOCHERTY: Mr. President, the photographs have 65 ter number

7 00129. I'm not -- there are approximately 44 photographs in that ter

8 number. I'm not going to take the witness through all of them, but I am

9 going to ask that all 44 be admitted into evidence so that they are

10 available, if needed. As a single -- as a single exhibit.

11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Are you going to show us at least one?

12 MR. DOCHERTY: I'm going to show you many more than one,

13 Mr. President, but I'm not going show you all 44. And I also want to just

14 put on the record that some of these 44 are of a disturbing nature and I'm

15 not going to display those in court.

16 If we could please have e-court page 1 of 65 ter number 00129

17 displayed, please.

18 Q. While we wait for that, Officer -- oh, never mind. Is this one of

19 the photographs that you took that day?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And can you tell us the name of the street that is going in and

22 out of that photograph and on which the motorbike is lying?

23 A. Mulamustafa Baseskija Street. Once upon a time it used to be

24 called Marshal Tito Street.

25 Q. Did you later take a reverse angle of this view; in other words,

1 looking another way along this street?

2 A. Yes. That is the usual procedure. You photograph a crime scene

3 from both angles.

4 MR. DOCHERTY: If we could see e-court page 2, please.

5 Q. Is this, Officer, the reverse angle; in other words, looking back

6 the way -- from the photograph that we saw before?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Now, later on, after taking these photographs, did you go up to

9 the windows of a building and take some overhead photographs of the scene?

10 A. Yes, I did. I went up to the second floor of the building across

11 the way from Markale, which is the building on the right-hand side of the

12 photograph, and I took an overhead photograph of the entire street.

13 MR. DOCHERTY: At this time I'll ask that e-court pages 3, 4 and 5

14 be displayed one after another to the witness, and then we will have a

15 montage of 3, 4 and 5 that I will have a number of questions to put to the

16 witness about.

17 Q. We've just taken a look, Officer, at three photographs, e-court

18 pages 3, 4 and 5. Did you put these photographs together to make one

19 single large photograph of this crime scene as seen from overhead?

20 A. Yes.

21 MR. DOCHERTY: Mr. Usher, if I could ask, the montage of these

22 photographs is on the ELMO. Could that be displayed, please. That's

23 fine, thank you.

24 And, Mr. President, for ease of presentation, we've also mounted

25 this on -- this way, but I think that would be difficult to display in

1 court. However, given the nature of the cross-examination of the

2 preceding witness about things like shrapnel damage on buildings and blood

3 on bicycles, we thought it important that this be presented in a large

4 format. It will be available for the Chamber, but I intend to use the

5 e-court presentation in questioning this witness. But we can switch to

6 this at any time that the Chamber wishes to do so.

7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well, yes.

8 MR. DOCHERTY:

9 Q. To begin with, sir, can you tell us where on this photograph the

10 impact crater is seen?

11 A. [Indicates].

12 Q. And behind or between this impact crater --

13 JUDGE ROBINSON: I didn't see the indication.

14 MR. DOCHERTY: I'm going to ask the witness to mark it, Your

15 Honour.

16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Oh, I see. Yes, now I see it.

17 MR. DOCHERTY: Just one second while we get a pen for the witness.

18 Q. Sir, could you draw a circle around the impact crater on that

19 photograph, please. Just label that IC for the English words, "impact

20 crater."

21 A. [Marks].

22 Q. Between that impact crater and the wall of the building against

23 which the two bicycles are leaning, were any portions of human bodies

24 found by you and your colleagues?

25 A. Yes, we found parts of human bodies, the lower extremities, most

1 of them.

2 Q. When you say "lower extremities," you mean feet and legs?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Now, is it significant to you as a forensic crime scene technician

5 that what is found between the impact crater and the wall of that building

6 are parts of the lower parts of human body rather than the upper parts?

7 A. Yes, it is significant, the reason being, when the projectile

8 landed the angle was closer to the ground. We can see the traces. It

9 hits the ground and the shrapnel are sprayed very low down, which means

10 that normally they hit people's legs or feet.

11 Q. And when the shrapnel -- if the shell comes in at an angle, is the

12 shrapnel sprayed low to the ground in a complete circle around the point

13 of impact, at only part of a circle around the point of impact; and if

14 it's only part of the circle, could you tell us, please, which part of the

15 circle?

16 A. When a projectile lands, it always causes damage in the section

17 that faces the direction from which it came. So this is the angle and

18 this was the damage.

19 Q. Now, in the area in front, as I will say, of the impact crater or

20 the area towards your pen as you're holding it now, does the shrapnel come

21 out low to the ground or not?

22 A. No, it goes up. It spreads upwards. In the photographs, you can

23 see that the building across the way has sustained damage to its upper

24 parts. In this photograph, you can see damage to the lower part of the

25 Markale building itself, in addition to people's limbs being torn to

1 bits. That's another thing that you can see in the photographs.

2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Docherty.

3 You did ask the witness about his training and qualifications. I

4 believe he said he took a six-month course in forensic matters. Was a

5 part of this course the investigation of mortar shelling and craters?

6 MR. DOCHERTY: I'll ask. I doubt it, but I think that he will

7 have an adequate foundation if I ask a different question.

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. And I'd like to know how much experience he

9 had prior to this in investigation of those matters.

10 MR. DOCHERTY:

11 Q. To ask Judge Robinson's first question first: The six-month

12 course that you took in 1987 when you became a crime scene technician, how

13 much time of that six-month course, if any, was devoted to the analysis of

14 explosions?

15 A. It wasn't necessary, so we didn't do that at all.

16 Q. Where did you learn the things that you've just been testifying

17 about, the way that shrapnel sprays out from an explosion? Where did you

18 learn those things? How did you learn those things? Could you just

19 summarise that for Their Honours, please.

20 A. Well, given the fact that in 1992 we went to a lot of on-site

21 investigations, there were many UN people who came with us. We learned a

22 lot from them about the point of impact, about the type of shell. They

23 helped us a great deal in determining the various directions from which

24 these projectiles were arriving.

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Can you give us an idea of how many

1 investigations of this kind he would have carried out.

2 MR. DOCHERTY: That was my next question, Your Honour.

3 Q. How many shelling investigations had you been involved in before

4 you went to Markale market in August of 1995?

5 A. I had been involved in between 30 and 40 of those, including the

6 Markale 1 incident.

7 Q. And as part of those investigations, was it part of the Sarajevo

8 canton of the Ministry of the Interior's job to determine an angle at

9 which a shell had come in, if that was possible?

10 A. Yes. This was done by experts attached to the security services

11 centre, which has now been renamed as the federal MUP. They would

12 calculate the angle of descent of a given projectile. We didn't do that.

13 That wasn't our job. Our job was to investigate a crime scene by taking

14 photographs, by making sketches, by filming and by analysing evidence.

15 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We can barely hear the

16 witness.

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Witness, please speak into the microphone. The

18 interpreters are not hearing you.

19 MR. DOCHERTY:

20 Q. You say that this was --

21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Judge Mindua has a question.

22 JUDGE MINDUA: One question.

23 [Interpretation] Just one question to clarify a point. We talked

24 about Markale 1 and Markale 2. Those are two different incidents. The

25 Markale 1 is the open market; is that right.

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

2 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. So now,

3 talking about the impact point, where were the people who were buying

4 goods and the people selling goods? Were the stalls the day of the event?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Do you mean Markale 1 or Markale 2?

6 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] No, I'm actually asking you the

7 question: Which Markale are we talking about here? This particular

8 scene, what is it?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Markale 2.

10 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] This is the open market or the

11 closed market?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Open air, both.

13 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] I see. Very well. Then in this

14 particular market, I would like to know, where were the stalls? Where

15 were the people buying goods and where were the people selling goods, with

16 respect, of course, to the impact? Did the projectile fall amidst the

17 people who were buying and selling or were they farther down? Because I

18 imagine that the other market is approximately 200 metres from that point

19 of impact, or from this market.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] People were at the exit of the

21 Markale market, this area over here. And the vendors were over here, to

22 the left and to the right, people selling cigarettes and various goods.

23 People were leaving, coming out this way. This is the exit. And they had

24 the choice of heading left towards the Markale open market, which lies at

25 a distance of some 150 metres from this spot.

1 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

2 MR. DOCHERTY:

3 Q. Officer, is there damage, fresh damage, to the facade of the

4 building against which the two bicycles are leaning?

5 A. Yes. There's damage in the whole area.

6 Q. Thank you. I was going to ask you to circle -- if one was looking

7 on the large photograph for that damage, could you just make some marks on

8 this photograph where fresh shrapnel damage appears for -- as a key to

9 where to look.

10 A. Precisely here.

11 Q. And so this shrapnel damage, was it low down on the building or

12 high up on the building?

13 A. This part of the wall is about 60 centimetres, which means up to

14 80 centimetres or 1 metre. But it's concentrated here, in this portion.

15 Q. How does that pattern of shrapnel damage compare to the pattern of

16 shrapnel damage on the building across the street?

17 A. The building opposite had a lot of windows broken and also damage

18 on the facade at about the height of 1 metre or 1.5 metres.

19 Q. Now, I understand you won't be able to give us a compass direction

20 from which this shell may have come, but from the fact that the building

21 against which the bicycles are leaning has shrapnel damage down low, the

22 building across the street has shrapnel damage higher up, and that

23 injuries to people between the impact crater and the building against

24 which the bicycles are leaning were to their lower extremities, what, if

25 anything, can we tell about the general direction from which this round

1 came?

2 A. This shell came from the south towards north, so from the south.

3 Q. Looking at the crater itself --

4 MR. DOCHERTY: Mr. Court officer, if we could see page -- oh,

5 excuse me. I will offer the marked-up document that is on the ELMO into

6 evidence, please.

7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. But is he going to explain the conclusion

8 he has arrived at? Are you moving to that?

9 MR. DOCHERTY: Well, I can. I had thought that I had done that by

10 talking about the way in which the shrapnel comes out low and high, in

11 different directions, but I can do it again.

12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, I overlooked that, but that shouldn't be

13 done because really that's leading on an important question. You should

14 ask him -- to say "What direction did the shrapnel come from, and what is

15 your reason for that," and then he would have provided all of the

16 information that you provided in your question.

17 MR. DOCHERTY: For the record, Your Honour, I believe that all of

18 the information that I incorporated in the question was evidence which the

19 witness had testified to in response to non-leading questions, and I was

20 summing up only for the sake of clarity.

21 Q. But let me ask you this --

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: I would like to have him explain it.

23 MR. DOCHERTY:

24 Q. Officer, the conclusion that you just gave us, that the shell came

25 from the south, can you explain your conclusion, please.

1 A. The determination of the direction of a projectile is based on the

2 impression or the trace left on the ground, and it's like this: The

3 direction from which a shell is coming makes the trace in the form of a

4 paw. At the point of explosion, shrapnel is released. It damages the

5 asphalt or whatever. And by joining these two points, you draw a line and

6 you arrive at the direction from which the shell came, because this is

7 where the damage is.

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: It's as simple as that.

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. It's very simple, and we had

10 been shown how to do that by UN personnel.

11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well.

12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be admitted as Exhibit

13 P261.

14 MR. DOCHERTY: And if we could please, then, move to e-court page

15 8, please.

16 Q. On the monitor in front of you, Officer, there is a photograph.

17 Is this one of the photographs that you took that day?

18 A. Yes. That's the centre of the explosion, marked with number 1.

19 Q. Who placed the number 1 in this scene?

20 A. I did it.

21 Q. And is this crater in exactly the same condition that it was

22 immediately after the shell had landed or has it been changed; and if it's

23 been changed, could you describe what's been done to Their Honours,

24 please.

25 A. Yes, it's been changed, because there's a lot of rubble

1 immediately after the explosion and we cannot make our determinations

2 without clearing up the scene. After removal of the material, we arrived

3 at this pattern of damage, based on which we determined the direction of

4 this shell.

5 Q. Has any part of the crater been outlined in chalk?

6 A. The centre itself wasn't. Only these benchmarks were marked with

7 chalk.

8 Q. Were those chalk markings made by a member of your team?

9 A. Yes. I cleared the scene, and a colleague of mine put these

10 markings to facilitate the identification of the direction and to get a

11 better photograph.

12 Q. And I think you anticipated my next question, which was going to

13 be: What was the purpose of making this chalk outline?

14 A. As I said, in order to make it possible -- as much as possible, to

15 determine the incoming direction. We mark all the visible points on the

16 scene, that is, on asphalt in this instance.

17 Q. Now, moving the rubble and making the chalk outline obviously has

18 changed the appearance of the crater. But my question is: What effect,

19 if any, has moving the rubble and making the chalk outline had on the

20 actual gouges in the asphalt of the road.

21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic.

22 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] My learned colleague was putting

23 a leading question. He said that the removal of this rubble has affected

24 changes. He should have asked this question in a different way.

25 Nevertheless, he said that the removal of the rubble changed the picture,

1 and I think this is a most leading question. He may just ask him what

2 happened with this surface and this area after the intervention carried

3 out by his team.

4 JUDGE ROBINSON: The question, as I see it, is: What effect, if

5 any, has moving the rubble and making the chalk outline had on the actual

6 gouges in the actual asphalt of the road? That's not leading.

7 The witness may answer that.

8 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Then the translation was

9 incorrect.

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Perhaps. I pass no judgement on that.

11 But the witness may answer the question.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no major changes occurred,

13 because this was a hard asphalt surface which suffered no major changes

14 and alterations.

15 MR. DOCHERTY: If we could see e-court page 22 of this ter number,

16 please, Mr. Court Officer.

17 Q. And while that is coming up, Officer, I will ask: Was the

18 stabiliser fin to a mortar grenade found at Markale market that day?

19 A. Yes, it was found.

20 Q. Was it near or far from the impact -- or how far was it from the

21 impact crater, approximately?

22 A. Between 25 and 30 metres from the point of impact, approximately.

23 Q. We're now looking on the screen at e-court page 22. Is this a

24 photograph that you took that day?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Do you see a number 9 and a number 12 that have been written on

2 the photographic print?

3 A. Yes, I do.

4 Q. What is the significance of the number 12?

5 A. Number 12 signifies the stabiliser fin.

6 MR. DOCHERTY: I want to take a look at some close-ups of this

7 stabiliser fin, and that will be e-court pages 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28. If

8 we could start with number 24, please.

9 Q. Is this a photograph that you took that day?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And does this show the stabiliser fin where it was found?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And this number 12 on the small black board, what's the purpose of

14 putting these objects at crime scenes, these numbered placards?

15 A. That's also a standard procedure. When all this physical evidence

16 has to be collected and sent for examination, they are marked with numbers

17 first. And here we also marked the extremities and the damage at the very

18 entrance to the Markale market.

19 MR. DOCHERTY: And if we could move to e-court page 26, please.

20 Q. Did you take this photograph, Officer?

21 A. Yes. This was taken against a ruler in order to give it the size,

22 and these little fields are 1 centimetre each.

23 Q. So just to clarify, each of those squares, whether black or white,

24 is 1 centimetre in length.

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Through your work in Sarajevo, did you become familiar with what a

2 stabiliser fin to a mortar grenade looks like?

3 A. Yes. There are three types, and after an impact -- could you

4 please be more specific with your question.

5 Q. Certainly. Does this stabiliser fin appear to have suffered

6 damage; and if the answer to that question is yes, could you specify what

7 sort of damage this stabiliser fin has received?

8 A. Yes. Upon impact it approximate becomes damaged. In this

9 particular case, the stabiliser was flattened probably by the cars that

10 were passing by there, providing assistance to the wounded and the killed.

11 So one part of it is flattened, as can you see.

12 Q. And you have just offered an explanation as to why the stabiliser

13 fin was flattened. Can you offer any explanation as to why the stabiliser

14 fin was located 25 to 30 metres from the point of impact?

15 A. Since at that moment there were many people offering assistance to

16 the casualties, whether someone wanted to take it as a souvenir or whether

17 it was just kind of pushed under the tires of the automobiles, it's

18 difficult to say how it happened for it to be there where it was, at 25 to

19 30 metres.

20 MR. DOCHERTY: And now if we could see the last two photographs,

21 please, e-court page 27 and e-court page 28. And then lastly e-court page

22 28, please.

23 Q. Did you take this photograph?

24 A. No, I didn't. It was taken on the premises of the police station

25 by a man working in the photo laboratory.

1 Q. And this photograph and the one immediately preceding it, do you

2 note damage to the stabiliser fin of this mortar grenade?

3 A. Yes, they are identical.

4 Q. And again, when you say "it's identical," are you talking about

5 the flattening of the fins that you testified to a few minutes ago?

6 A. Yes.

7 MR. DOCHERTY: If we could now move, please, to e-court 145A.

8 Q. And while that's coming up, Officer, did you prepare a free-hand

9 sketch of the crime scene that day?

10 A. Yes, I did.

11 Q. What's the purpose of making a sketch?

12 A. The purpose is to be able to reconstruct the event at any future

13 point in time.

14 MR. DOCHERTY: May I have a moment, Your Honour.

15 [Prosecution counsel confer]

16 MR. DOCHERTY: And if we could see the third page of this

17 document, please.

18 Q. Is what's on the monitor in front of you, Officer, the sketch that

19 you drew that day?

20 A. Yes, that's the sketch of the scene.

21 Q. There are a number of dimensions on that sketch. How are those

22 measurements taken? And, in particular, what steps were taken to make

23 sure that they were accurate?

24 A. These measurements were taken from the building, the Markale

25 building, from the left-hand side building to the right-hand side

1 building, which constitutes about 10.5 metres' distance. That is where

2 the impact point was. It was about 4 or 4.5 metres away from the wall of

3 the building. Besides, these numbers signify body parts, bicycles,

4 shoes. All the physical evidence found on the spot were photographed and

5 marked with numbers. And the sketch is always part of a photo file.

6 JUDGE HARHOFF: Counsel.

7 MR. DOCHERTY:

8 Q. Who took --

9 MR. DOCHERTY: Oh, I'm sorry.

10 JUDGE HARHOFF: Can you ask the witness to identify the direction

11 of north on this map.

12 MR. DOCHERTY: Yes.

13 Q. Which way is north on this map, Officer, on this sketch?

14 A. Approximately, this is the northerly direction.

15 Q. Okay.

16 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] It would be maybe be useful to put

17 N, Mr. President, because one might think that S means south. That could

18 be a problem.

19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Please put an N.

20 MR. DOCHERTY: Before we mark this, can we tender the unmarked

21 one?

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

23 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the unmarked will be admitted as

24 Exhibit P262, and unfortunately we'll have to remark the exhibit.

25 MR. DOCHERTY:

1 Q. Can you show -- on this map, besides the dimensions, there are

2 number of numbers with circles drawing around them. Is there any

3 correspondence between the numbers in circles on this sketch and the

4 numbers that we saw on the little black placards at the crime scene? If

5 there is a correspondence, can you explain it to the Chamber, please.

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic.

7 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, as far as I was

8 able to locate this document, I wasn't able to do so in the set of

9 documents provided by the Prosecution. However, I have no objections.

10 Let us proceed.

11 JUDGE ROBINSON: But it may be a matter for concern.

12 MR. DOCHERTY: Your Honour, this document was turned over -- I'll

13 check, but last week, I think.

14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, let us proceed. If you have another

15 occasion in which you can't find a document, bring it to our attention.

16 MR. DOCHERTY:

17 Q. The question that was pending, Officer, was: On this chart there

18 are a number of numbers inside little circles, and I'm asking if there's a

19 correspondence between the numbers and the circles on this chart and the

20 numbers on the -- the white numbers on the black placards that we saw in

21 the photographs of the crime scene. If there is a correspondence, could

22 you please explain it to the Chamber.

23 A. There is no correspondence. What has been done in the sketch

24 corresponds to the photographs, and the markings are identical.

25 Q. I'm sorry, the word "correspondence" may not have been well

1 chosen. But, for example, on the far left of the sketch, we see the

2 number 12 circled. What was at number 12?

3 A. Number 12 was the stabiliser fin of the mortar shell.

4 Q. And earlier we saw the stabiliser shell on the pavement and a

5 photograph of it taken, and there was one of those little placards beside

6 it. What number was on the little placard in the photograph?

7 A. Number 12.

8 Q. And the last two markings I'm going to ask you to make on this

9 sketch are -- because the markings are quite small, could you show us,

10 please, the impact crater.

11 A. [Marks].

12 Q. And second of all, just for purposes of orientation, we saw some

13 bicycles up against a wall in some earlier photographs. Can you show us

14 approximately where those bicycles were so that people can correspond the

15 sketch to the photographs.

16 A. [Marks].

17 Q. Thank you.

18 MR. DOCHERTY: And could --

19 JUDGE ROBINSON: May I just ask him, what condition were those

20 bicycles in?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We didn't look at them, but one can

22 see in the photographs whether these bicycles are damaged or not. But I

23 myself cannot say that. There couldn't have been any damage, particularly

24 because body parts of the people who had been there had absorbed most of

25 the shrapnel. Therefore, these bicycles could have been protected by the

1 victims' bodies.

2 JUDGE ROBINSON: I see.

3 We have to take a break now.

4 MR. DOCHERTY: Okay. Can I tender this before we take the break.

5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we admit it.

6 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P263, Your Honours.

7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we'll adjourn until tomorrow.

8 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.47 p.m.,

9 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 21st day of

10 February, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25