1 Thursday, 22 February 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.01 p.m.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Isailovic, you are to continue with your
8 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Hello to everyone. Thank you,
9 Your Honour. Thank you, Judges.
10 WITNESS: JOHN JORDAN [Resumed]
11 Cross-examination by Ms. Isailovic: [Continued]
12 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Jordan. We will continue with
13 what we had started yesterday. If you remember, we ended the day on a
14 photograph, a photograph that had been published in the Providence Journal
15 in November 1994.
16 A. Yes, ma'am.
17 Q. I don't think we need to display it. So after coming to The Hague
18 on January 18, 2007, in view of your testimony here, you talked to the
19 Prosecutor. Do you remember talking to the Prosecutor on that day?
20 A. Yes. I spoke with the Prosecutor on Saturday and Sunday.
21 Q. I have the notes and the report on this talk you had, and about
22 this incident that occurred on November 18, 1994, you said that:
23 [In English] "Dzenana and her son were walking towards the town
24 when they were shot from the right from Serb positions."
25 [Interpretation] Do you remember having said this?
1 A. I remember having conveyed that my personnel's report to me was
2 that they had been shot from the right, from the Serb positions. Again, I
3 wasn't there so I was only saying what my personnel on the scene had told
4 me what they thought happened.
5 Q. Yes, like the entire incident actually was relayed by a third
6 party to you.
7 A. Yes, ma'am, several third parties. Again, I was not present, only
8 my personnel.
9 Q. So for the purposes of my cross-examination, I will show you a
10 document that was tendered by the Prosecutor and that relates to this
12 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Could my case manager please call
13 up document P107.
14 Q. So this is a medical report, medical document. It's a physician
15 that actually drafted this, and he testified here and he certified that
16 these documents were authentic, the documents that are in this affidavit.
17 Do you see on number 9 in that chart -- maybe read the description that we
18 have here, on number 9.
19 A. "The patient had wounds caused by bullet in the part of
20 abdominal." That's number 9 here.
21 Q. But then before that there is the description. The description,
22 that's the previous column. Could you read it, please.
23 A. That would be number 8?
24 Q. No, no, not number 8 but this column "Description," the column
25 that's right before the one that you read.
1 A. Yes, ma'am. "Health record certificate issued by the medical
2 centre for Dzenana Sokolovic, University Medical Centre, Sarajevo."
3 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] If we could move on to the next
4 page now, please, on the same document.
5 Q. And you see number 10?
6 A. "Health record certificate issued by medical centre for Dzenana
7 Sokolovic, University Medical Centre, Sarajevo."
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Isailovic, may I just ask, how much more time
9 would you be spending on your cross-examination?
10 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I will try to be
11 extremely brief, as far as possible, of course. I will finish with this
12 incident and then I will move to another topic which would take me about
13 ten minutes, and I need a map. And then there are a few questions I would
14 like to ask to the witness that are closely linked to the statement.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: But you haven't answered the question. You have
16 given me a narration but not an answer.
17 MS. ISAILOVIC: Your Honour --
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, we'll give you 45 minutes, if you need that
20 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
21 Q. Mr. Jordan, do you remember that name, Dzenana Sokolovic?
22 A. No, ma'am.
23 Q. But you mentioned it when -- oh, at least we can see that in the
24 report on the talks you had with the Prosecutor.
25 [In English] "Men who worked for him as firemen were present in
1 front of the museum when Dzenana Sokolovic and her son were shot."
2 A. I don't remember the name of Dzenana Sokolovic. I don't remember
3 talking to her. Maybe I just knew her as a doctor or something. It just
4 doesn't seem familiar to me. I've never seen these documents before. We
5 didn't have anything to do with the administration. We picked up
6 casualties, dropped them at the hospital, and that was the end of our end
7 of it. This is administrative stuff that I would have had nothing to do
9 Q. Maybe I was not clear. Dzenana Sokolovic was not a doctor.
10 A. I don't know the woman.
11 Q. It's the victim, the victim of this -- the mother of the kid that
12 you talked about, you know, in your declaration, in that statement.
13 A. I often did not know the names of folks, ma'am. I could have very
14 well given a description of an incident and not known the folks' names.
15 Q. So in that case, let's move to the evidence we looked at
17 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] We need document D19; the 65 ter
18 number is 1484. Could we please have that on the screen. If we could
19 please have page 10 of this document. In the Prosecution's file, this
20 document is separate.
21 Q. We have the document here on the screen. So this is for Dzenana
22 Sokolovic, who is the mother of that child we talked about yesterday. On
23 the screen, in the middle of the document, we have a passage starting with
24 "Entry point ..." Do you see it?
25 A. Yes, ma'am, I see it.
1 MR. WHITING: I'm going to object to this line of questioning.
2 We tried to present these medical records to a doctor and have him
3 interpret them and the Defence objected and the objection was sustained by
4 the Trial Chamber. Now the Defence is trying to present medical records
5 to somebody who, number 1, was not at the scene himself, number 2, had
6 nothing to do with the medical treatment of this patient, and, number 3,
7 is not a doctor. And so to cross-examine him with medical records under
8 those circumstances seems to me to be far afield and inappropriate.
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: We sustain the objection.
11 Move on, Ms. Isailovic, to another matter.
12 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Okay.
13 Could my case manager please call up map P194, 65 ter number 2927.
14 Q. While we're waiting, Mr. Jordan, could you please take your
15 statement. I believe it's lying in front of you.
16 A. Mm-hm.
17 Q. And look at paragraph 26.
18 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] And could the court officer please
19 zoom in on the map so that we can have the Miljacka right in the middle of
20 the map, the river Miljacka.
21 Q. Mr. Jordan, yesterday you were talking about the army of Republika
22 Srpska, but you said "the people in the hills." That's the way you
23 referred to them.
24 A. Yes, ma'am. I used that term because I didn't particularly want
25 to label a whole people. I don't know anybody in Belgrade, but, you know,
1 I just kept the whole thing local. That was the issue to us. So I didn't
2 use the term "Serb"; I tried to avoid that.
3 Q. In your statement, on paragraph 26, you say:
4 [In English] "... from the heights they could drop a round
6 [Interpretation] Do you see that? It's on the fourth line.
7 MR. WHITING: I'm sorry, I couldn't catch what -- something got
8 mixed up in the translation. I couldn't catch which line was being read
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Pardon me, there was a glitch in the
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: What is the line being referred to? Is it the
13 fourth line?
14 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. It starts on the third
15 line. It starts with "In spite ..."
16 Q. [In English]"In spite of random shells landing anywhere in the
17 town ..."
18 [Interpretation] Do you see that?
19 A. Yes, ma'am.
20 Q. Well, we have a map on the screen. Just ignore what is written on
21 the map, except for the basic geographical concepts. Can you find your
22 way on this map, Mr. Jordan? Do you recognise this?
23 A. Yes, ma'am. The general region is familiar to me.
24 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] So could the usher please come and
25 help you with the electronic pen. We're going to spend some time on this
2 Q. Mr. Jordan, could you draw a line along the Miljacka, the river
3 that runs through Sarajevo.
4 A. [Marks].
5 Q. Thank you. In your statement you mentioned Mount Trebevic several
6 times. Could you locate this on this map, Mount Trebevic.
7 A. The contour lines aren't quite as visible as they could be, but
8 Trebevic was a height to the south, if I remember right. I remember it in
9 general terms, Trebevic being to the south, Zuc to the north, and Mojmilo
10 hill down near Dobrinja. I mean, if the map was a smaller scale I'm sure
11 I could find it; but anything else is just a random guess after 11 years.
12 I remember it being to the south.
13 Q. Did you ever climb or go up Mount Trebevic?
14 A. I'm sure we were on it at one time or another, heading to Pale or
15 somewhere else. We were up and down most of the hills to a degree, as
16 long as there were population centres near them or anything that could
17 burn that we could put out. We would have to go around Zuc on occasion to
18 get to Vogosca auto plant when there were fires there, and up and down the
19 different hills within BiH territory to get to fires. And to get to fire
20 on the BSA side, we generally would have to go around the airport, through
21 Lukavica. The bridge over there was only opened intermittently, so we
22 couldn't always access that.
23 Q. You know the city well, so can you tell us what area, what
24 neighbourhood, of Sarajevo was located at the foot of Mount Trebevic?
25 Maybe that might help to locate Trebevic on the map. So what
1 neighbourhood was at its foot?
2 A. Well, I lived mostly in Skenderija and they'd point up the hill, I
3 believe it was towards Trebevic, which would also make it above Grbavica.
4 I don't know what the area above Bistrik was called. That was also high
5 ground. And then, like I say, across the river to the north, there was
6 Zuc, which was BiH-held. The other side was --
7 Q. I apologise. Let's just stick to Trebevic for the moment, if
8 possible. Do you know that Trebevic has several peaks?
9 A. Most of the hills around Sarajevo had -- most of the hills
10 anywhere have more than one peak. There's the highest part and then
11 there's what's called the military crest, and it's just -- like I say,
12 this is what maps are for, not memory. We don't -- you know, to be
13 precise, you have to have the map in front of you. I wouldn't venture to
14 guess. That's why we make maps.
15 Q. Yes. So you knew, then, that the peaks at Trebevic were Debelo
16 Brdo. Did you know that?
17 A. No, I'm not sitting here remembering that now. No, ma'am. Again,
18 that's why I would need a more detailed map. I probably knew it at the
19 time, but again, that's when I was seeing it and it was a threat to myself
20 and my personnel every day. You know, I knew the streets in Beirut pretty
21 well; I wouldn't venture to say I knew them now.
22 Q. The peak called Colina Kapa, does that ring a bell?
23 A. No, ma'am.
24 Q. What about Vidikovac?
25 A. No. We identified things mainly by sights or -- you're asking me
1 to use a pen here, but when we made maps for my personnel's use, we
2 basically used a brush and said, "This is an area to avoid, this is an
3 area to avoid" and didn't break it down to the name of a peak or a grid
5 Q. What about Grad?
6 A. Lots of Grads in Sarajevo. Novi Grad. "Grad" was kind of a
7 generic term, if I remember right.
8 Q. But you don't recall Grad as being one of the peaks in Trebevic?
9 A. No. No, I don't, ma'am.
10 Q. Then, Mr. Jordan, I can only infer from this that you don't -- you
11 weren't too familiar with the hills around Sarajevo.
12 MR. WHITING: Objection.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was familiar with --
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: There's an objection.
15 MR. WHITING: I think the witness has been clear in his answer
16 about what he might remember now versus what you knew then and how he knew
17 it. So to characterise his testimony like that I think is inaccurate.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: What is it that counsel said? She said she can
19 only infer from this that he wasn't too familiar with the hills around
21 MR. WHITING: Right, which I think misstates his evidence, because
22 he has been clear -- without repeating what he's said, he's been, I think,
23 clear about what he knew at the time versus what he knows today and how he
24 knew things at the time.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, but I think the witness can comment on that.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, sir.
2 I knew what I needed to know at the time. I didn't speak the
3 language fluently. I knew my way around on the ground very well. This
4 was acknowledged by the UN who often asked us to guide new troops in over
5 Igman mountain. The fact is, the only time the US embassy ever brought
6 its own people over the mountain, unescorted by us, they lost people.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.
8 Yes, proceed.
9 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Fine.
10 Q. Let's move to Mount Zuc, then. You mentioned Zuc earlier. Do you
11 remember where Zuc was located?
12 A. It was right across from where we built the station. It had that
13 large radio tower on top. It was a target. Just a big radio tower on the
14 hill to the north, more or less in the centre.
15 Q. So for you, this radio antenna or TV antenna was located on Zuc?
16 A. Yes. That was a big antenna up there on the mountain, if I
17 remember right.
18 Q. Did you go up Mount Zuc?
19 A. No. One of my personnel did once and he was fired for that,
20 because we had no business up there.
21 Q. At the time, did you know of a neighbourhood in Sarajevo called
22 Vogosca? That would be located at the foot of Zuc.
23 A. Again, ma'am, if you say so. I remember some areas more
24 distinctly than others because of them having small fire stations in
25 them. But, again, it's 11 years ago. I don't remember all the
1 neighbourhoods like I did when I was there.
2 Q. But, Mr. Jordan --
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Isailovic, it doesn't appear to me that
4 you're getting anywhere with this line of questioning. The witness has
5 clearly said what he knows and what he doesn't know. So you must decide
6 whether -- how much longer you will spend in cross-examination. I'd said
7 45 minutes, and that's 45 minutes from the beginning of this session, but
8 it appears to me that you may have exhausted your questions.
9 Do you have other pertinent questions to ask of the witness?
10 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, there was a comment I
11 wanted to make. The witness made this statement on August 22nd, 23rd, and
12 24th, 2006. It's a very detailed statement.
13 Q. Do you agree with the date of the statement, Mr. Witness, August
14 2006? You agree with the date of the statement?
15 A. Yes, ma'am, if you say so. I don't remember the dates I was here
16 exactly, but ...
17 Q. Could I infer from this that everything you say in this statement
18 is quite broad and according to your recollection, which wasn't any better
19 than it is today just a year after this statement?
20 A. I'm afraid I didn't understand the question, ma'am. I knew the
21 city very specifically when I was there. I think I probably still know
22 more about it than most folks who haven't been there now. The fact
23 that --
24 Q. Witness, I'm not challenging this; of course not. We saw the
25 video clip; we saw that you were on site. What I'm challenging here in
1 this courtroom is, well, maybe the authenticity of your statement, the
2 truth of the statement, because it dates back eight months. You made this
3 statement eight months ago, and there's a lot of details in the
5 I have 15 more minutes and I will ask a few questions about the
6 statement in these 15 minutes. But there are 50 paragraphs to your
7 statement. You go into detail. And today you're telling us that your
8 recollection is vague --
9 MR. WHITING: Objection. Objection.
10 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. -- which is normal because so much time has elapsed since then.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Isailovic, you must put a question to the
13 witness instead of making a speech.
14 MR. WHITING: I think counsel just misstated the evidence. The
15 witness has not said his recollection is very vague. He has said with
16 respect to pointing things out on a map, locations, only with respect to
17 that has he -- did he say that today it's difficult for him to remember
18 exactly where things were and to point them out on a map. But he has not
19 said as a general matter that his recollection is vague. So I think that
20 counsel has misstated the witness's evidence.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: That's a fine distinction, but I think it is well
23 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] May I proceed with my question?
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
25 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Let me finish with this.
1 Q. Witness, do you agree that your recollections today do not enable
2 you to talk about what happened to you in detail when you were a fireman
3 in Sarajevo?
4 A. No, I would respectfully disagree with that. I remember very well
5 what happened to me over two and a half years of doing fire and rescue
6 work in Sarajevo. The authenticity and truthfulness of anything I had to
7 say is authentic and truthful in my own mind, and anyone else can decide
8 in their own mind if I cannot answer a pop quiz of where things are --
9 that I had nothing to do with, are on a map, if I did not know Sarajevo.
10 That's up to them, if they want to do that.
11 Q. Mr. Jordan, this is nothing personal against you. You do what you
13 So let's move on to paragraph 22 of your statement. I would like
14 to spend some time talking about the weapons that were used in Sarajevo at
15 the time. Can we agree that you used a sniper when you were in Sarajevo?
16 A. The rifle that myself and my personnel carried in Sarajevo was a
17 standard issue rifle in the US, in the late 1950s, early 1960s and even
18 into the 1970s. It was only a sniper rifle if one put a scope on it. I
19 did not always do that. Sometimes I just used it in its normal battle
20 configuration. But yes, I used a sniper rifle in Sarajevo.
21 Q. From what I understand, you weren't a member of UNPROFOR.
22 UNPROFOR were the sole people entitled to carry weapons.
23 A. I do not know that they had an exclusivity on the carriage of
24 weapons. I understood that they were called United Nations Protection
25 Forces and did not do that job, which was why I wound up carrying a weapon
1 or I wouldn't be sitting here today.
2 Q. Mr. Jordan, we have heard a number of UN military observers here,
3 and according to their statements, we know that they were not entitled to
4 carry weapons, which was not very convenient for them. Did you know that,
5 that the UN military observers were not armed?
6 A. I knew that UN military observers were traditionally not armed. I
7 know some, on occasion, did carry handguns, but that is actually neither
8 here nor there. Their policy was to not be armed. That's their call.
9 That has nothing to do with me.
10 Q. But you were a fire-fighter, you and your friends. You,
11 nonetheless, were carrying arms.
12 A. Our mission, as has always been stated, was to assist, improve and
13 protect. On the protect end, we were basically operating in an advanced
14 form of, say, fire marshalls who are armed and arrest arsonists who are
15 dangerous felons, which in this case, in Sarajevo, was a very advanced
16 version of the armed, dangerous felon who was also an arsonist. We just
17 considered it a major extrapolation of one element of fire-fighting.
18 Q. Yes. I live in France. I have never seen armed fire-fighters,
19 but maybe this is a broad view of things and a broad view of what a
20 fire-fighter is. From what I understand, you reckoned you were something
21 like a sheriff or a fire marshall. This is the word I heard in the French
23 A. "Sheriff" would probably be incorrect. "Fire marshall" would be
24 correct. We did not arrest folks, per se, because we often could not
25 access the folks who were assaulting firemen, which is a crime in just
1 about any country, from what I understand.
2 Q. Mr. Jordan, can we agree and say that in Sarajevo at the time, it
3 was very difficult to control who was carrying arms and who wasn't?
4 A. I would respectfully disagree. The locals on both sides were very
5 circumspect about who carried arms. A lot of citizens on both sides
6 carried handguns for protection, but the carriage of military arms was, in
7 general, restricted to military or paramilitary personnel on both sides.
8 Both sides frowned on somebody just running around with a gun unless they
9 were part of some unit or another. So while it may look quite loose to
10 outsider, it as quite structured, actually, by local standards.
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: May I just seek a clarification, Mr. Jordan.
12 Did you have the power to arrest arsonists or anybody who was
13 committing a misdemeanour in relation to the cause of a fire?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That issue actually never came up,
15 sir. We talked about it a lot. But I will say that if somebody assaulted
16 one of my firemen and we could detain the person, I would do it, the same
17 way that I tried to detain a group of men who decided to rob everybody on
18 the train coming into Paddington Station a month ago. I mean, that's what
19 a citizen does. You maintain civil order even if you're not in uniform.
20 So, yes, I would. It just didn't come up.
21 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. In your statement, in paragraphs 47 and 48, if you could kindly
23 turn to those paragraphs in your statement. If you could have a look at
24 this, please.
25 In your statement you talk about tourist shooters. After that,
1 you talk about burgermeisters who would pay money to go to Sarajevo to
2 shoot people from the Serb side.
3 Mr. Jordan, do you remember having said that in your statement --
4 A. Yes, ma'am.
5 Q. -- in August of last year? And could you tell us where you got
6 this information from at the time?
7 A. I had witnessed on more than one occasion personnel who did not
8 appear to me to be locals by their dress, by the weapons they carried, by
9 the way they were being handled, i.e., guided around by the locals. I saw
10 this in Sarajevo on a number of occasions. Some of my other personnel had
11 seen it in the Mostar area.
12 The term "burgermeisters" is a slang term that refers to the fact
13 that Croatia, being allied, friendly, i.e., Germany, that's where the
14 tourists came from on that side. Up by us, kind of hard to get a tourist
15 into Sarajevo to shoot uphill, so the tourists shot downhill.
16 Q. I understand that you established a visual distinction between the
17 locals and the foreigners in Sarajevo. This is what I can conclude on the
18 basis of your statement. Is this true? Did you actually establish this
20 A. You can assume from my statement that I am a trained observer and
21 can tell when one guy, who is obviously not familiar with an area, is
22 being led, literally almost by the hand, around an area by people who are
23 familiar it. This is where the term "tourist shooter" came from. The guy
24 was not from the neighbourhood. He did not carry arms that were typical
25 of the neighbourhood.
1 Q. Precisely. You saw these people doing the job.
2 A. I saw -- I never saw one of these tourist shooters take a shot. I
3 just saw them being handled and moved around known sniper positions. I
4 never actually saw one take a shot. But, again, it was clearly obvious
5 that the person being led by men who were familiar with the ground was
6 completely unfamiliar with the ground, and his manner of dress and the
7 weapons they carried led me to believe they were tourist shooters. It was
8 an expression that I ran into for the first time in Beirut where we saw
9 the same thing happening around the green line.
10 Q. Yes, precisely. How were these tourist shooters dressed?
11 A. The fact that they wore civilian/military combination-type
12 clothing, but mostly it was the weapon. Anyone can go to a surplus store
13 and outfit himself to look like anybody else's army. But the locals
14 carried certain weapons, and when a guy shows up with a weapon that looks
15 more like he ought to be hunting boar in the Black Forest than in urban
16 combat in the Balkans, you know, when you see him being handled and you
17 can obviously tell he is a novice at moving around rubble, you know, if it
18 walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it's a duck.
19 Q. Just one last question. Where did you see these people walking
20 around with their weapons? In which neighbourhood of Sarajevo?
21 A. On a couple of occasions I saw individuals that fit that profile
22 while I was visiting the Serb firemen in Grbavica, and on a couple of
23 other occasions I saw them in different areas on BSA territory from
24 various over-watch positions that I would take up to maintain over-watch
25 of my fire-fighters.
1 Q. We are still talking about the same subject. Let's turn to
2 paragraph 42.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: And you must be bringing your examination to a
4 close now. We have been more than generous with the time allocated to
5 you, Ms. Isailovic.
6 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I shall
7 put my question straight away.
8 Q. Have you had time to look at your statement, Mr. Jordan? Amongst
9 other things, you mentioned targeting here and you say that if a family
10 was walking, it was always the youngest. In a crowd of girls, it seems
11 that the most attractive would be shot.
12 My question is the following: According to you, what selection
13 criteria did the shooters have? Why was it that they chose the most
14 attractive girls?
15 A. God only knows, ma'am. With reference to killing of children, we
16 responded over the years to a number of scenes where one member of a
17 family, in the course of going about their business, was shot. We very
18 often noticed that it was the youngest. One thing a person is taught as a
19 military sniper is killing is not necessarily the end result; destruction
20 is the end result. You kill a man, it's over. You wound a man, four have
21 to carry him out.
22 When you're targeting civilians like this, particularly families
23 who may or may not be Muslim, shooting the child has the effect of
24 literally disemboweling the whole family. In the more devout Muslim
25 families, some of which existed in Sarajevo, even if a round came out of
1 nowhere and killed your son, it would have the effect of gutting the
2 family. The man would -- one of the worst insults you can give somebody
3 in Sarajevo is, "You are not a man." If somebody kills your child, even
4 if they do it from 800 metres away with a rifle, you have not defended
5 your family, you are not a man. That one shot has gutted that family.
6 They are all completely affected.
7 Q. Thank you, Mr. Jordan. But do you remember a specific example of
8 this, where somebody was shooting at a crowd of people but where the most
9 attractive girl was shot?
10 A. Yeah, on more than one occasion I remember that kind of thing. We
11 just -- I don't know how -- I don't know how to describe two years of
12 seeing these things over and over again, and I can't remember all the
13 dates and things like that. This was just daily life in Sarajevo for two
14 and a half years.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.
16 That is the cross-examination, Ms. Isailovic.
17 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Re-examination?
19 MR. WHITING: I have no questions. Thank you, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
21 Questioned by the Court:
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Jordan, you told us that you did not have a
23 licence to carry your weapon and that you had no formal, legal authority
24 to arrest people by virtue of your business in Sarajevo. I'm not going to
25 go into that, but I just want to be sure that I have understood this was,
1 in fact, the case.
2 A. The Bosnian government forces gave me a gun permit. I asked the
3 folks over in Lukavica if they wanted me to carry one, too, because they
4 knew full well that I was armed. They told me, "Don't wore about it,"
5 so ...
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: Very well, thanks.
7 Now, my question was to know, then, whether you ever used your
8 weapon. Did you ever at any occasion shoot at somebody who attacked you
9 or your people?
10 A. Yes, sir.
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: How many times, and under which conditions?
12 A. There would have to be a very overt threat or attack on my
13 personnel. We didn't do punitive; we didn't do preemptive. We only dealt
14 with active threats. I have, after the war, lectured extensively at the
15 US Marine Warfighting Laboratory, in Quantico, and at the US Naval War
16 College, in Newport, Rhode Island, on not killing snipers in these
18 I guess if I wanted to make a name for myself, it was a
19 target-rich environment and I could have done that. But in a local
20 environment, these kinds of urban peacekeeping/civilian war type of
21 environments, when a foreign group comes in, you do not want to make
22 yourself the focus of violence.
23 Going after the snipers specifically would have done that to us.
24 There were plenty of capable of men who could have ended our antics in
25 short order. What we did was drive them off. If I saw a position that
1 was firing on my personnel, I would basically engage it as close as I
2 could, without specifically going for a body shot. Most of the snipers
3 lacked -- the kind of snipers who shoot women and children lack intestinal
4 fortitude. They aren't going to stay up under countersniper fire, which
5 is basically what we did, countersniping work.
6 I am sure that on a number of occasions somebody probably died as
7 a result of my actions. It would be intellectually dishonest to say
8 otherwise. But most of the time, you drop enough bricks on a guy's head,
9 he leaves. He's out there to kill -- he's out there to kill and leave and
10 not do it up against any resistance. This was typical among the snipers
11 on both sides. I didn't find them particularly effective, particularly
12 skilled, or particularly determined, which is probably the only reason we
13 got away with what we did without being targeted by each side.
14 We drove off -- we drove off cowards, and it wasn't that hard.
15 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you. Can you give us just an impression how
16 many times during your two and a half years in Sarajevo you, yourself,
17 actually used your weapon; and in addition to that, how many times, just
18 as a general estimate, did any of your folks use their weapons? To give
19 the Bench an impression of how often was fire resistance or firing --
20 scaring off, as you say, used by the GOFRS.
21 A. Right. The one thing I would like to point out is that the
22 casualties on the Bosnian government fire-fighting side when we arrived
23 were almost 20 per cent; approximately 15 killed and 55 wounded out of
24 300. I don't know the casualties on the BSA side. They said that was a
25 military secret. That's fine. I do know their men took casualties, too.
1 Because of the lack of aggression against the BSA fire-fighters I
2 can't really say we protected them. They basically protected themselves.
3 On the Sarajevo side, they did not lose a plan at a fire to violence after
4 we arrived and instituted this programme after September 1993. They
5 didn't lose anybody. Their casualties dropped to zero. People were still
6 shot and killed in the streets all the way up to the end of the war. No
7 Sarajevo fireman was killed after we arrived.
8 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thanks. But can you give me an indication of the
9 number of shots that was --
10 A. I fired hundreds of shots, sir. Hundreds. It would be a lie to
11 say anything other than that --
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: And your people did the same.
13 A. -- on scores of occasions.
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: And your people did the same.
15 A. Not all my people were qualified. A number of my personnel, in
16 addition to being firemen and medics, were qualified to use that. It
17 wasn't across the board. Several of our personnel would not carry arms at
18 all. That was fine, because it wasn't our primary duty; it was not
19 something I insisted that everybody be able to do. Other than be familiar
20 with weapons so as to -- in fighting fires in the Balkans, it's a lot like
21 America; it's a gun culture.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: I understand.
23 THE WITNESS: When you fight a fire in a building, you may come
24 across weapons. You have to clear them and get them out of the way. You
25 have to be able to handle them safely. So everybody took what we call
1 dissimilar weapons courses so they just wouldn't get hurt by them in the
2 course of getting them out of the way.
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you. One last question. When you were
4 assisting in fire-fighting on the Serb-held territory, were you ever in a
5 position where you had to scare off a sniper on the Muslim side, on the
6 Bosnian Muslim side, the BiH side?
7 A. I will admit to a certain amount of childishness at this point.
8 There was one time where somebody fired a couple of very random rounds at
9 us and I think he got two or three rounds back and that was the end of
10 it. They didn't really -- the violence threshold in Sarajevo was
11 basically shovelled downhill and spooned uphill, if I could explain it
12 that way, and there were reasons for that.
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
14 JUDGE MINDUA: Mr. Jordan, I have a question. Regarding the
15 incident which took place in November 1994, during which the son was
16 killed and the mother wounded. I can read in your statement, paragraph
17 12, you said:
18 "There was a Newsweek article about that incident which was
19 erroneous in that it said that there were two shots; one which killed the
20 boy and one which wounded the mother. In actuality, there was one
21 well-aimed shot which hit them both."
22 My question is: Do you have any foundation to affirm what you are
23 saying, that there was one shot and not two?
24 A. Yes, sir. I have the reports of my personnel which I consider
25 reliable, who saw a mother and son go down at the same time as a result of
1 one shot. The article I referred to was, to me, symptomatic of the
2 problem in the whole conflict. You had folks who -- it wasn't bad enough
3 that some child got shot in the head. Some reporter had to somehow
4 extrapolate the terror. It was the other side of -- there were people who
5 said that the BiH were constantly shelling themselves; there were people
6 who said the Serbs are particularly cruel and first they shot the boy and
7 then they shot the mother. There was plenty of this crap on both sides.
8 And that was an element of the war.
9 It bothered me that an American publication with the esteem of
10 Newsweek would give the whole back page of their paper to a reporter from
11 one side of the conflict or another who had an agenda, because I thought
12 the extrapolation of an existing horror was, in itself, intellectually
13 dishonest and didn't help the problem for anybody. It pissed me off.
14 JUDGE MINDUA: Thank you.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Jordan, did your group go into Sarajevo on
16 the basis of agreement with the Bosnian government?
17 THE WITNESS: No, sir. I went pretty naive. It took a couple of
18 weeks to figure out what the score was there. I went to Sarajevo to help
19 a fire department based on what I saw in the media. The media didn't say
20 there were two fire departments that needed help --
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: No, what I'm trying to find out is, was there
22 anything that set out the terms of your operation, how you would operate
23 in the work that you were doing, or were you just left to do as you would?
24 THE WITNESS: We were given a pretty free hand. The BSA side was
25 always pretty fair with us. I never had a problem on their territory.
1 The Bosnian side was very fragmented. The higher -- I shouldn't even
2 say "higher." One section of the Bosnian government approved of our
3 actions and didn't mind that we also helped the Bosnian Serb firemen.
4 Then there were elements on the BiH side who said, "You're helping our
5 enemies," which is why we got so much more movement problems on BiH
6 territory than we did on BSA. Again, that goes back to command and
7 control. The BSA had it; Bosnians didn't know who was in charge.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Okay. Thank you very much.
9 Mr. Jordan, that concludes your evidence. We thank you for giving
10 it and you may now leave.
11 [The witness withdrew]
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Your next witness, Mr. Whiting.
13 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honours. The Prosecution calls
14 Witness W-28 who has protective measures of face distortion and pseudonym.
15 This witness is a 92 ter witness, and what I plan to do is put in
16 his statements, ask a few background questions, put in a few documents,
17 and then bring it to a close, a rapid close.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: Much appreciated.
20 [The witness entered court]
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let the witness make the declaration.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
23 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
24 WITNESS: WITNESS W-28
25 [Witness answered through interpreter]
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: You may sit. You may sit.
2 And you may begin, Mr. Whiting.
3 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Mr. President.
4 Examination by Mr. Whiting:
5 Q. Good morning, sir. As you know, you have been granted protective
6 measures of face distortion and we will be using a pseudonym instead of
7 your real name. So to begin the proceedings, I'm going to ask the usher
8 to show you a document and I'm just going to ask if you can confirm that
9 this is in fact your name on the document. Please don't read it out.
10 Just say yes or no, whether it's your name.
11 A. Yes.
12 MR. WHITING: If that can be shown to Defence counsel and then to
13 the Bench and entered into evidence under seal, please. And the pseudonym
14 for the witness is W-28.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we'll admit it.
16 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P274 under seal, Your Honours.
17 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honours.
18 Q. Sir, now I'm going to show you two statements which you made, and
19 the copies I have you'll see there's one on 22nd February 1996 and one on
20 11 March 1997, and there's both the English and the B/C/S with each one.
21 MR. WHITING: I have copies of these statements for the Bench and
22 for Defence counsel, if that's necessary.
23 Q. Sir, did you give these two statements?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Did you have an opportunity to review them before coming to court?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Are they true and accurate, to the best of your knowledge?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. If you were to be asked about these topics today that are
5 contained in the statements, is it the evidence that you would give here
6 in court?
7 A. Yes.
8 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, could these two statements be entered
9 into evidence under seal. Just for the benefit of the registrar, the
10 statement of 22 February 1996 has 65 ter number 2867, and 11 March 1997
11 has 65 ter number 2973.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we admit them.
13 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P275 and Exhibit P276 respectively,
14 both under seal, Your Honours.
15 JUDGE HARHOFF: Which?
16 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter number 02867, the statement of 22 February
17 1996, will be P275, and the next, 65 ter number 02973, the statement of 11
18 March 1997, will be P276, both under seal.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thanks.
20 MR. WHITING: Can we go into private session, please.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes
22 [Private session]
11 Page 2707 redacted. Private session.
7 [Open session]
8 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
9 MR. WHITING: Thank you.
10 Q. Sir, did you -- in 1994 and 1995, did you investigate sniping and
11 shelling incidents in Sarajevo?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Did you investigate cases where so-called modified air bombs hit
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Could you tell us briefly what the investigation procedure was for
17 a sniping or shelling or air bomb incident, and what your role was in an
19 A. As soon as we received word that there had been a sniping attack
20 or artillery attack, my duty was to immediately inform an investigating
21 judge and make sure a team was put together that would inspect the scene.
22 A team was normally made up of a forensic technician, members of the bomb
23 squad, and most of the times there was ballistics expert involved.
24 Once I put together a team, we would go to the crime scene, and
25 once we had assembled there, the judge would distribute our assignments.
1 Sometimes the judge would not be there, and in these cases I would be the
2 one to take over his role. Therefore, my job was, right at the outset, to
3 make sure that the scene was secured by the local police and to make sure
4 that all those who were members of the team did their job properly.
5 Furthermore, my job was to take statements from eye-witnesses, and
6 once all of this was done, I would proceed with writing my report.
7 Q. In a shelling case, whose job was it to determine the direction of
8 fire of the shelling?
9 A. That was the job of the bomb squad, and they were the ones who
10 determined the direction.
11 Q. And would they write a report?
12 A. They would provide information to me or to the judge on the spot
13 about the direction that a missile had come in from. It was at a later
14 stage that they would get any shrapnel or remaining bits of missiles and
15 use these to analyse and eventually compile a report.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 MR. WHITING:
18 Q. In a sniping case, whose job was it to determine the direction of
19 fire? How would that be done?
20 A. That depended on how many ballistics experts were available.
21 There weren't too many to go around, to be frank. If none could make it
22 to a scene, then this was normally a job done by one of our forensic
23 experts, who were not properly trained to do that sort of thing.
24 Q. Did you yourself ever have occasion to make a determination of
25 direction of fire in a sniping case?
1 A. Yes, I did face a situation like that, along with a number of
2 ballistics experts.
3 Q. More on that later. In a sniping case, do you know what kind of
4 information would be relied upon to determine the direction of fire? What
5 sort of factors would be relied upon, if you know?
6 A. Well, that very much depended on the kind of incident. There were
7 on-site investigations of sniping incidents involving residential
8 buildings. Sometimes these involved residential buildings; sometimes
9 persons were hit out in the street or vehicles. It also depended on the
10 sort of evidence found at a particular crime scene. It was based on all
11 of that that one would determine the direct examination of fire.
12 When dealing with residential buildings, if two different places
13 were found where damage had occurred, based on that, you could determine
14 the direction of fire. Also there were incidents involving vehicles that
15 were hit and damaged. In my investigations, these were usually trams. We
16 needed to locate two different points where damage had occurred, and based
17 on those, we could determine the direction of fire.
18 In addition to any damage we found, we received a lot of
19 assistance from eye-witnesses.
20 MR. WHITING: With the assistance of the usher, I'm going to show
21 you a document which I'd ask be placed on the ELMO but not broadcast.
22 Actually, if we could pull out a little instead of zooming in
23 because -- yes. Perfect, perfect. Thank you.
24 Q. Sir, do you recognise this document?
25 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, are we supposed to see
1 that on the ELMO or the e-court?
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: ELMO, I think.
3 MR. WHITING:
4 Q. Sir, do you recognise this document? Have you seen this before?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. In particular, do you recognise the marking at the bottom in blue
8 A. I do. That's my signature and the date that I added.
9 Q. Did you have an opportunity to review the nine documents which are
10 identified on this spreadsheet?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Were you the author of many of those documents?
13 A. Indeed, I was.
14 Q. Were the document -- those nine documents that you reviewed, were
15 they, to the best of your knowledge, authentic investigative documents?
16 A. Whatever I signed is authentic. The other documents that I saw
17 were not documents that I signed, but they have a familiar form and
18 familiar stamps. They also appear to have been signed by people I knew,
19 people I still know, and I believe those documents to be authentic.
20 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, at this time I would ask that this
21 spreadsheet be admitted into evidence under seal, and that the nine
22 documents be admitted into evidence under seal given -- and then can be
23 given separate numbers later. These, of course, have all been made
24 available to Defence counsel. This chart was made available and Defence
25 counsel was aware that we would be employing this procedure.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: You appear to be anticipating something. But let
2 us hear from Ms. Isailovic.
3 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, what Mr. Whiting has
4 just said is true. I did get this list, and we discussed it yesterday,
5 but I think it is an appropriate to draw your attention to the fact that
6 this is a 92 ter witness and his statements were tendered into evidence
7 evidence. On looking at this chart, I have just noticed that two
8 incidents are mentioned, if I'm not mistaken, two incidents which are
9 mentioned in his statement. So according to me, this goes against the
10 provisions of Article 92 ter, to Rule 92 ter, i.e., to discuss matters
11 which are not contained in the statement.
12 The Prosecutor had a choice and had a choice of dealing with these
13 matters in relation to this particular witness.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a second.
15 MR. WHITING: I do have a submission on it, if it's helpful,
16 but ...
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: All right. We'll now hear you.
19 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.
20 With respect to all of our 92 ter witnesses, we have always in our
21 motion made it clear that we would seek to tender exhibits and documents
22 or relevant documents in through the witness. We have done that with
23 numerous 92 ter witnesses to date, and that's the procedure we're
24 following here. This is -- and I'm doing in the most expeditious, narrow,
25 specific way possible.
1 But this isn't -- this is not inconsistent with how we have been
2 proceeding with respect to 92 ter.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Isailovic, let me see if I understand your
4 point. You're saying that the 92 ter statement alludes to two incidents,
5 and yet we have an application to admit exhibits that go beyond those two
6 incidents. Is that correct?
7 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. Five incidents
8 are mentioned in the statement, and these five incidents were included in
9 the list which we were given. But on reviewing the new list we have been
10 given, three incidents have been dropped. One of the incidents is
11 mentioned by the current witness in his statement and only two were kept
12 and then another seven were added on, which the said witness does not
13 mention in his statement, even though he is a 92 ter witness.
14 The incident of the 22nd of December, 1994 is still in there, as
15 well as the incident of the 26th of May, 1995.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Whiting, if I understand the point being made
18 it is this: Under Rule 92 ter, we're allowed to admit the evidence of a
19 witness in the form of a written statement. Now we have that written
20 statement, and that written statement identifies two incidents, or is it
21 five? Well, whatever number it is, the principle is it identifies a
22 number of statements. You seek to have the Chamber admit exhibits that go
23 beyond those incidents mentioned in the statements. So you're seeking to
24 have the Chamber rely on evidence that is strictly not part of the -- of
25 the written statement which we are admitting.
1 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, this is -- this is what we've been
2 doing with every 92 ter witness and we have stated this in every single
3 motion for 92 ter and we've done it with virtually every 92 ter witness
4 that we put in the -- and that is why we have the 30 minutes, or even
5 more time, if it's necessary, but 30 minutes to seek clarifications in the
6 statement but also to put in relevant exhibits, relevant documents that
7 can go into evidence through the witness. And so with respect to these 92
8 ter witnesses, they are always -- it's the statement that goes in and then
9 we always put in exhibits, and these exhibits are both relevant to the
10 trial --
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: But the abbreviation doesn't relate to the
12 statement. It is to the procedure in court. So the statement which you
13 seek to have admitted should be as full as possible, as comprehensive as
14 possible as to the evidence that you want to have admitted. When a
15 witness comes to court, there is an abbreviated procedure by which we
16 simply admit the statement, but the point that is being made and which I'd
17 like to you consider over the break is whether as a matter of principle it
18 is proper or permissible to introduce exhibits, the effect of which would
19 be to have the Chamber rely on evidence that is properly not part of the
20 92 ter statement.
21 MR. WHITING: Well, Your Honour, I would say just three things in
22 response to this. First of all, the 92 ter statement is broad enough to
23 capture these documents, because the witness says in his 92 ter statement
24 that he investigated a lot of sniping and shelling incidents and these are
25 some of the -- these are all incidents that he investigated, and there are
1 only nine of them. He does talk specifically about several incidents but
2 he talks about having investigated a lot of sniping and shelling.
3 The second point is, I suppose what we could do is when the
4 witness comes and we've identified the documents and any new information,
5 we could take a new statement of the witness and then have that introduced
6 via 92 ter. There are tremendous logistical difficulties with that which
7 I submit make it almost impossible to do, because the new statement then
8 has to be sworn, it has to then be translated under the Rules, disclosed,
9 and then -- and all of that process within the couple of days during which
10 the witness is here. And so what we're done instead is to just do a very
11 short, abbreviated version in court of this.
12 The Defence knew last week that we were going to use these
13 documents. They had this list of documents, so there's no notice issue.
14 I have narrowed the list. I have dropped some things, but I've not added
15 to it. It's -- they have had the list of exhibits and known what was
16 going to go in since last week, and again, this is a practise that we have
17 followed with each 92 ter witness. I would submit it's the most efficient
18 process and if we cannot put in documents this way, then we're going to
19 have to drop doing 92 ter witness and do them live because these documents
20 are essential to our case, and so I think this is it a fair practice of
21 combining 92 ter with a little bit of life evidence to put in documents.
22 The Defence has plenty of notice. It's a practice we have followed in
23 this case, and it's been followed in many other cases.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: But in this case you may not have a problem,
25 because, as you say, in the witness's statement he does say: "I
1 investigated in Sarajevo a lot of sniping and shelling."
2 The point that I'm making - and I'm not sure whether you're
3 disagreeing with it - is that the exhibits that you seek to tender through
4 a 92 ter witness should be "terminus" in content with the statement. I
5 believe that must be correct. I don't think they can go beyond. They
6 should not introduce, as it were, new incidents or new evidence or
7 evidence other than that which is referred to in the statement.
8 MR. WHITING: I think that --
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: If that is so, then, well, a question of notice
10 may arise, although you say that the Defence was notified. But there is
11 also the question of principle as to whether it is in keeping with the
12 provisions of the rule.
13 MR. WHITING: Right, though I think there's nothing in the rule
14 that prohibits us from doing this combined procedure, and I think the rule
15 allows that, it's been done, and we have done it in this case.
16 I do take the Court's point and we will seek to address it. If we
17 think that -- if we intend -- we will try to limit the exhibits to what's
18 in the statement, and if we seek to go beyond that, then we will try to
19 resolve the problem, either by taking a new statement or speaking with the
20 Defence to achieve some resolution. But I do take -- I take that point,
21 but I think in this case the statement -- the documents are narrow,
22 they're within the statement, and they should be admitted.
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: We admit the statements.
24 MR. WHITING: Thank you. Under seal.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll take the break now.
1 --- Recess taken at 10.37 a.m.
2 --- On resuming at 10.55 a.m.
3 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the spreadsheet that was tendered
4 before our break will be admitted as Exhibit P277 under seal, and the nine
5 documents contained within the spreadsheet will be assigned exhibit
6 numbers out of court which will be announced on Tuesday morning, and those
7 will also be under seal.
8 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honour, but I
9 did not feel -- according to what you said, I did not understand that this
10 list with that document was actually tendered.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 MR. WHITING: Your Honours, I did tender the list, and the reason
13 I did so is because the witness testified about it. In order to make a
14 complete record and to understand how the things fit together and to
15 confirm that he said these documents are authentic, you need to have the
16 list into evidence.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we admit the list. Based on the discussion
18 that we had prior to the break, we will admit the list.
19 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honours.
20 I just have a few --
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Oh, I see. You are still leading.
22 MR. WHITING: Yes, I am. Thank you, Your Honour. If I could just
23 have a moment.
24 Q. Mr. Witness, did you have occasion to investigate a sniping on a
25 tram where the investigation included looking through the sniping holes
1 with tubes?
2 A. Yes, I did. Once, by applying this method, along with ballistic
3 experts, we attempted to determine the direction of the shot. We put the
4 tube by fixing two damages caused by the projectile and thereby we
5 established the approximate, or, rather, we established the direction from
6 which the shot had come.
7 Q. Now, I'll ask you one or two questions about that in a moment.
8 But before I do, did you ever face any difficulties when you were
9 investigating sniping incidents?
10 A. I would kindly ask you to be more specific about what difficulties
11 you're referring to.
12 Q. Well, was there ever any -- when you went to a scene where a
13 sniping had occurred, was there ever any problem that you faced to go to
14 the specific spot where the sniping had occurred? Was that ever impeded
15 or made difficult in any way?
16 A. Well, from the moment we arrived at the scene, there was danger,
17 both on the way to the specific location where we were supposed to do the
18 on-site investigation, coming from fire from any kind of weapon. So at
19 all times that was a problem.
20 At the very scene, while we were conducting the investigation in
21 the incident with the tram that you mentioned, it was risky to perform our
22 procedures in the way we did. There was always a possibility for this
23 location to be fired at again, the place where we were.
24 JUDGE MINDUA: Mr. Whiting, excuse me one minute.
25 [Interpretation] Witness, please, before the break, when asked by
1 the Prosecutor who was determining where the shots came from in the
2 sniping incidents, you answered by saying that you were calling on
3 ballistic experts; and when they weren't available, you called on the
4 members of your own team. You talked about these ballistic experts once
6 So this is my question: I would like to know first whether those
7 ballistic experts belonged to your own police services or to other police
8 service, whether they belonged to the army, for example. And secondly,
9 whether your mission, the mission of your team with the -- the mission
10 that you had as well as the ballistic experts were interchangeable. You
11 said that when ballistic experts were not available, you were able to
12 determine where the shots came from, which is essential for us, of course,
13 to know where these shots came from.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Talking about all these people that
15 I mentioned being part of the team conducting investigations, we were
16 solely members of the civilian police. There were never any members of
17 the military or any other organisation with us.
18 As for the fact that was mentioned when it was impossible for a
19 ballistics expert to visit the scene, our technicians, who were trained to
20 do that, were able to establish the direction of fire.
21 My role was to attend the investigation and to compile an Official
22 Note to be sent afterwards to the prosecutor's office.
23 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you.
24 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.
25 Could we look, please, at 65 ter 2825; it's a photograph.
1 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Ms. Isailovic.
3 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Maybe I'm wrong, but on the list I
4 was given, I cannot find this photograph. I can't find the 65 ter number.
5 It's 2825; is that it?
6 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, I communicated a list last week of all
7 the documents I would use with the witness, and in that -- when I
8 communicated the list, I said in addition we would notify Defence counsel
9 of any maps or photographs that we would use. I then sent an e-mail to
10 counsel, I believe it's two days ago - I could find it - in which I
11 conveyed the additional information that this witness would talk about
12 with respect to this photograph, and I said that we would use this
13 photograph -- he would mark it on this photograph. So notice has been
14 provided that I would use this photograph for that specific purpose.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: But, in principle, that should have been notified
16 at the same time, when you sent in the photograph -- when you sent in the
18 MR. WHITING: Well, I sent in the list long before I had even met
19 with the witness and so I didn't even know about this incident. And it
20 was sent -- the additional information was sent -- excuse me, I believe
21 well before the deadline . I think it's well -- well before 48 hours. So
22 I think it satisfies the rule.
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well.
24 MR. WHITING: Thank you.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: But, Ms. Isailovic, your case manager says that
1 she hasn't received it? Is she saying that?
2 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Anyway, I looked and it was not on
3 the list, but if this is this photograph that we're very familiar with
4 now, we can see it on the screen. It is a shot of Sarajevo, I believe, so
5 I think it's okay.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Let us view the well-viewed photograph.
7 MR. WHITING: May I proceed?
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
9 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.
10 Q. Witness, do you recognise this photograph?
11 A. Yes, I do.
12 Q. Is the -- you were speaking a moment ago about the investigation
13 of the tram incident. Is the location where the tram was fired on shown
14 on this photograph?
15 A. Yes, it is.
16 Q. I'm going to ask, with the assistance of the usher, that you mark
17 where the tram was fired on with a circle and then mark with a line where
18 you determine the firing to have come from.
19 A. The tram was approximately here, and the shot came from this
21 Q. Thank you.
22 MR. WHITING: Could that photograph be saved and admitted into
23 evidence, please.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
25 THE REGISTRAR: As P278, Your Honours.
1 MR. WHITING: Could we now please see 65 ter 877A. This is one of
2 the documents that has been admitted into evidence. It's a report of the
3 witness. And if it could please not be broadcast. And if we could have
4 page 1 of the B/C/S and page 2 of the English.
5 Q. Witness, can you just take a moment to look at this document, and
6 do you recall this incident?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. I would draw your attention to the last paragraph on the page you
9 are looking at in B/C/S, and in English it is the middle paragraph that
10 starts with: "Following the examination of the scene ..." There's
11 information there about the direction of fire. Can you recall how it was
12 determined, the direction of fire, in this case?
13 A. The direction was established based on the damage caused by the
14 projectile, the penetrating projectile through the window which had a
15 plastic sheet on it, and at the other end there was damage caused by the
16 same projectile in the curtains. So we had two reference points that we
17 were able to connect and, in that way, establish the direction from which
18 this shot had come.
19 Q. And the windows of this apartment building faced which direction?
20 A. They were facing the part of the neighbourhood where the Bosnian
21 Serb positions were.
22 Q. Do you recall if you learned during this investigation if there
23 was any fighting going on at the time, any combat?
24 A. I believe that it was night-time when this incident happened. We
25 had no reports about any combat operations going on.
1 Q. As a general matter, did you -- do you recall incidents where
2 civilians were killed by snipers during combat activity, while there was
3 combat activity or military fighting going on?
4 A. I cannot remember any such incident, given that during combat
5 operations civilians, for the most part, took cover or shelter in order to
6 avoid being exposed to shooting. Therefore, as far as I was involved,
7 there was not a single sniping incident that took place in the course of a
8 combat operation.
9 Q. Thank you, sir.
10 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honours. I have no further
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.
13 Ms. Isailovic, how much time do you plan to spend in
15 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. Microphone.
16 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, since this witness's
17 statements are now part of the file and of the evidence accepted here, I
18 have to take some time to ask about the incidents that are mentioned.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, but tell me how much time, and you must be
20 prepared to do that so the Trial Chamber will make a determination on the
21 basis of that.
22 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] It's a bit difficult for me to
23 assess the time I need. I believe about two hours. About two hours.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, well, you must focus your cross-examination,
1 Ms. Isailovic. We'll give you an hour and a half.
2 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
3 Cross-examination by Ms. Isailovic:
4 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Witness. I'm Branislava Isailovic;
5 I'm an attorney-at-law with the Paris Bar, and I represent the interests
6 of General Milosevic, the accused in these proceedings.
7 Before coming to The Hague, you took a look at the statements that
8 were given on February 22nd, 1996, and March 11, 1997; right?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. In these statements, you were talking about five incidents. The
11 shelling of the flea market in Bascarsija on December 22nd, 1994. Is that
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Then you talk about the shelling at Markale on August 28th, 1995.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. The air bomb that fell on the TV building on June 28th, 1995.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. The air bomb that fell on May 26th; in your statement there is no
19 date. Do you remember that it was Safeta Hadzica Street in Srakino Selo.
20 Do you remember what date this occurred, this incident?
21 A. I believe it was in 1995. I'm not sure.
22 Q. And you are also mentioning an incident that occurred on June 28,
23 on Geteova Street at number 5, in Alipasino Polje.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Witness, please, in these investigating teams, if I understood you
1 right, your role was to come up with a summary report. That's what we
2 would call it in France.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Is it fair to say that in this report there is a summary of all
5 that has been done by the different members in the investigating team?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Then, when the job is finished, you would hand over your summary
8 report to the security services centre in Sarajevo, who then drafted what
9 we would call the complaint, the actual legal criminal complaint,
10 "krivicna prijava," in your own language.
11 A. Yes. My report was an integral part of this criminal report or
12 criminal charges, along with all other reports.
13 Q. If I understood you right, in B/C/S you said that this was in
14 addition to the criminal report and to the criminal complaint.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And at the end of everything, we see the name Enes Bezdrob as the
17 person who signed those criminal reports, the criminal reports that were
18 drafted after your investigations. Is it true?
19 A. Yes. He was a chief of the centre and under the law he was the
20 only person authorised to sign criminal reports to be forwarded to the
21 prosecutor's office.
22 Q. If I understood you right, this security services centre in
23 Sarajevo was the central body in Sarajevo and the only entity able to go
24 to the prosecutor, engage the prosecutor.
25 A. For this type of incident, yes.
1 Q. Witness, you're saying for this kind of incident. Could you
2 explain to us what kind of -- type of incidents would actually fall into
3 that category, where there was a need to go through the security services
5 A. Those were mostly criminal offences committed against life and
6 limb and which carried sentences of imprisonment exceeding five years. As
7 for other criminal offences against property, and minor offences, such
8 charges could have been submitted and filed by local police stations.
9 Q. But this is my question: This summary report that you drafted was
10 not sufficient to seize the prosecution?
11 A. No, not only on the basis of my report. There were other reports
12 as well, of the people involved in the investigation, and it was up to the
13 Prosecutor to assess whether there were enough elements to proceed with
15 Q. Witness, at the time of reference, 1994/1995, you always applied
16 the Criminal Code that was valid in former Yugoslavia?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. So I guess that you have legal competencies?
19 A. I'm not an expert, but I'm aware of that.
20 Q. Within your team, I'm sure -- was there someone who was a legal
21 expert and who was able to explain what the stipulations of the Criminal
22 Code were?
23 A. The team was led by an investigating judge, and that person was a
24 lawyer by profession, and he or she was the one who assigned tasks to us
25 be carried out at the scene.
1 Q. So if I understood you right, you said earlier that the -- that
2 the investigating judge did not always take part in the investigation, and
3 in such a case you would step in and replace him. Is that true?
4 A. Yes, it is.
5 Q. So my -- I have a question on those occasions where he wasn't
6 there. I believe that within your team there must have been someone with
7 some legal capacities that could -- that would know of the Criminal Code
8 and its provisions?
9 A. I stood in for him. I was versed in the criminal law provisions,
10 and it was my duty to abide by those provisions.
11 Q. Could you tell us what your training is, what your background is?
12 MR. WHITING: I'm sorry.
13 A. High school or administration.
14 MR. WHITING: If this gets too specific, I think we need to go
15 into private session, if we're going to talk specifically about training
16 and background. If it gets specific and could identify, it's just --
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, yes. If you're going to proceed along those
18 lines, I agree, because we have to be careful about identifying the
20 Are you going to follow that line?
21 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't mind if we
22 move to something else. But --
23 THE INTERPRETER: No. I'm sorry. The interpreter apologise.
24 MS. ISAILOVIC: I wouldn't mind going into private session,
25 because I do want to establish what the background of the witness was.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Private session. Let's move on
2 [Private session]
11 Page 2729 redacted. Private session.
17 [Open session]
18 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
19 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Let me just resume.
21 In other words, you were the person who was controlling the work
22 conducted by the local police; is that correct?
23 A. Yes, but only from the moment I arrived at a given crime scene.
24 Q. So I can reasonably conclude that you arrived when the local
25 police had already started investigating the site; is that correct?
1 A. The local police never started the investigation. They just
2 secured the scene, and we would normally come as soon as we received their
3 call. They would guard the crime scene until our arrival.
4 Q. If I have understood you correctly, therefore, every time you
5 reached a site, potential evidence to be recovered from that site had not
6 been investigated by anyone yet?
7 A. I don't know what could have been going on before we arrived. It
8 really depends on the incident; right? Something could have been tampered
9 with. In this way, for example, some people were killed, some people were
10 injured, so they were taken away from the actual scene to hospital to be
11 helped. It is possible that whatever movable items had been found at the
12 scene were eventually moved. My job was to talk to the scene-of-crime
13 officers and try to ascertain with anything had been tampered with,
14 changed or moved prior to our arrival.
15 Q. In your summary reports, did you include any of these
16 observations, i.e., namely, whether the offence or crime had been
17 committed in another spot?
18 A. If we received that sort of information, we would certainly record
19 it. Otherwise, the only thing that would be included in a report was what
20 we found at a crime scene when we came there.
21 Q. Can we agree that it was the local police who was, so to speak, in
22 charge of the crime scenes before you actually reached them?
23 A. They were the closest to wherever the incident occurred. Their
24 duty was to go there as soon as possible and try to secure it, to the
25 extent possible.
1 Q. So, Witness, if I have understood you correctly, your reports are
2 being drafted once you reach the place but do not report anything that
3 happened between the moment the crime was committed and the time you
4 reached the site; is that correct?
5 MR. WHITING: Objection. That misstates the evidence. The
6 witness clearly stated just the opposite. It's at line 12 to 13 of page
7 52. At least that's how I understood it.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: At line 12 he says: "If we received that sort of
9 information, we would certainly record it. Otherwise, the only thing that
10 would be included in a report was what we found at a crime scene when we
11 came there."
12 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. I'm putting this question to you because, on reading your reports,
14 I realised that you did not do, for instance, what one typically does when
15 a crime has been committed; namely, to plot with a piece of chalk where
16 the bodies were located. I have never noticed this in any of your reports
17 or sketches, in any of the photographs which we have had the opportunity
18 to see. Am I right in saying that you have never done this?
19 A. I wrote the reports. As for the sketches and photographs, this
20 was the job of forensic officers.
21 Q. But you were preparing a summary report, and I'm sure you had an
22 opportunity to see the appendices that were attached. In other words, in
23 these you could find all the photographs. I'm putting this question to
24 you because you were an eye-witness to all of this: The location of the
25 bodies, of the wounded, found on the crime scene, was this location ever
1 marked, or not?
2 A. Normally we found no wounded persons or dead bodies once we
3 arrived at a scene. They would normally be taken away before we arrived.
4 So what we would typically do is mark any points of impact where missiles
5 had exploded.
6 Q. Sir, is it true that 40 or so bodies and 100 wounded people, if we
7 are to evacuate these people, that takes at least an hour and could even
8 take several hours? Isn't that true?
9 MR. WHITING: Objection. That calls for pure speculation. I
10 mean, it depends on how many people are evacuating, under what
11 circumstances. It's purely a speculative kind of question. I don't see
12 how it could possibly be answered.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: I agree. Ask another question, Ms. Isailovic.
14 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Witness, according to what you know, it takes a while to evacuate
16 the victims and the bodies from the crime scene. Notwithstanding the
17 number, it takes as while, doesn't it?
18 MR. WHITING: Objection. It's the same question just rephrased.
19 And it's even more vague.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: No. This time she's asking him whether it takes
21 a while, which I presume means that sometimes it takes a while to evacuate
22 the victims and their bodies from the crime scene. Notwithstanding the
23 number, it takes some time. And I feel that I am of the view that the
24 witness can answer that.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It certainly takes some time. The
1 question is how long, and I can't answer that.
2 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Witness, in all these reports that the Prosecutor has shown you,
4 do any of the reports mention the fact that you arrived on time and
5 actually saw the victims?
6 A. I think there's only this one incident where we found a body, but
7 I'm no longer positive. For the most part, the bodies would be removed.
8 Those wounded would be taken to a hospital to receive assistance.
9 Q. Is it fair to say that all the artifacts you found were put under
10 seal; namely, everything you found on the crime scenes?
11 A. I don't understand the question.
12 Q. The criminal procedure provides for the fact that anything found
13 on the crime scene should be put under seal. Are you familiar with this
14 provision of the Criminal Code?
15 A. Yes, as long as we are talking about items and not human bodies.
16 Q. I talked about artifacts and I was thinking more specifically
17 about projectiles that you may have found on the crime scene. These were
18 put under seal, weren't they?
19 A. Yes. Bits of projectile, for example, or anything else found at
20 the site.
21 Q. And then the seal is lifted, is it, or ...
22 A. I can't answer that one. My job was not to guard those items.
23 Q. Well, precisely. Who in the security services centre is in charge
24 of the custody of these seals?
25 A. Items from a crime scene would be put away in a warehouse
1 belonging to the forensics department, and once analysis has been
2 conducted they would be stored with the forensic department.
3 Q. Now, in terms of the role of an investigating judge, who decided
4 where he was to go and when?
5 A. Investigating judges took the decision themselves. They decided
6 themselves whether they would go to a crime scene or not.
7 Q. Now, part of your duties was to identify the victims; is that
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And I assume you identified the bodies by picking up the ID cards
11 on the victims; is that right?
12 A. It wasn't just based on that. It really depended on the
13 incident. This normally involved a number of different actions,
14 identifying a body. We got relatives to identify bodies whenever we
15 could, whoever knew the victim, and depending on the condition of the
16 body, sometimes that wasn't possible. Our procedure was decided on a
17 case-to-case basis.
18 Q. Precisely. When some people had no ID cards, you drafted
19 something like an ID report, didn't you?
20 A. The only thing I did was draw up a record and list anything I
21 found at a site. I also gave grounds for identifying a body. Once our
22 job was done, the actual IDing of a body would be done by my colleagues
23 from a different department.
24 Q. Just a comment I would like to say. An ID report, line 16, I
25 don't know. That doesn't mean a thing to me. I assume it's the same for
1 the Bench. I used a technical word, [Foreign language spoken] -- would be
2 minutes but minutes of an ID, ID report. It's a legal deed, which is
3 mentioned in, I assume, a number of criminal codes.
4 I don't know what translation you got, so I -- sort of "zapisnik"
5 in your language or "identificacija."
6 A. The question I heard was based on an identifying document, an ID
7 card or something like. Whenever an ID card was found, there was no need
8 to compile any further records. This was something that was done later
9 once our work had been done, once we had inspected a site, and I didn't
10 write those. There were other people belonging to a different department
11 doing just that, and the medical expert was also in charge of that.
12 Q. Precisely. It's -- I'm being technical here. I'd like the
13 interpreters to be careful.
14 In the case of the ID cards -- in the event that the ID card was
15 missing, the minutes or record of identification was then mentioned in the
16 report which you sent off to the public prosecutor. Is that right or not?
17 A. What I said is I didn't write those. It was done by police
18 officers belonging to different departments with the assistance of a
19 forensic medical expert.
20 Q. Witness, can we agree on this: The identity of a victim is an
21 essential point when dealing with a criminal investigation.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Therefore, my question is a very simple one. In your capacity as
24 a person drafting this summary report, did you ever see this ID report or
25 minutes of a person whose ID was not found and in which case it was
1 impossible to prove the person's identity?
2 A. What I said is this was normally done by police officers belonging
3 to a different department, and they forwarded their reports that were then
4 attached to the criminal report. I didn't have the time or the
5 opportunity to look at their documents.
6 Q. Witness, you took part in the drafting of the report following
7 what happened on the 28th of August, 1995, the incident on that date. Yes
8 or no.
9 A. I wrote my own report.
10 Q. Would it not be the case, Witness, that in your report you
11 summarize anything pertaining to the crime allegedly committed at this
12 spot. Is that how you conduct your investigation?
13 A. I wrote my report about the incident. We didn't qualify this as a
14 crime. We just wrote a report on what we found at the scene. We tried to
15 describe what we found, what we saw, and possibly what we took from the
16 scene, how we inspected the scene. In addition to my report, you have a
17 report from the on-site investigation that was written up by the
18 investigating judge. So I'm only talking about my own report. It wasn't
19 a report that also included information on what others did or what they
21 Q. In this particular case, the case of this particular incident,
22 here we have documents that have been disclosed to us by the Prosecutor.
23 I assume that these documents pertain to this particular incident. As
24 part of it, we have a list of the victims. This is document 65 ter. The
25 number of the exhibit is 891.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Isailovic, where is this taking us? What is
2 it that you're trying to demonstrate?
3 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm trying to
4 demonstrate that the reports we have in front of us have been drafted in
5 violation of the -- of criminal law, criminal procedure, and therefore,
6 one would ask for this to be rescinded. This is a legal issue. This has
7 got nothing to do with any kind of suggestion whatsoever.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: If, assuming they are drafted in breach of the
9 domestic legal procedure, would you be going further to contend that on
10 that basis, the information in the report should not be considered by this
12 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: And why is that? On what evidential or other
14 rule would you be relying for that submission?
15 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in the indictment
16 there is allegation of a number of murders, crimes which have to do with
17 the qualification of crime against humanity. That is an element of
18 crime. If there is no evidence which are legally established, then there
19 is no foundation for the qualification of crime against humanity if we
20 cannot prove the crimes that are -- an element of the crime, and in the
21 interest of justice, I believe that we have to base all the proceedings on
22 legally sound documents. And here we have a witness which was doing more
23 or less a mixed job between that of an instructing magistrate and -- so
24 I'm trying to explain that there are a number of elements that are
25 missing, elements that I believe are absolutely indispensable to establish
1 that an offence had been committed, and a crime even more.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: What are the elements that you say are missing?
3 Because this gentleman was doing a "mixed job." What elements are missing
4 from the crime because of that? It's not clear to me.
5 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm afraid that I'm
6 not well understood because of the translation. I mean, it's not
7 personal, of course, but it is a problem.
8 The identification of victims is part and parcel, is an essential
9 part actually, of establishing the foundation for the commission of an
10 offence. If there's no victim, if there is no person murdered, then there
11 is no crime. And when reading these reports, I was drafting some
12 statistics according to victims, for example, and that noticed that for
13 most of the victims -- I'm not referring here to this incident -- here in
14 this incident I'm not referring to the dead. Of course the dead cannot
15 prove their identity, even though there are ways to do that. But I'm
16 talking about the wounded, the casualties, the wounded.
17 Among the wounded, here we have 65 people, and out of those 65, 20
18 have an ID card, whereas the others, I don't know. Maybe somewhere there
19 is some kind of -- there is something, but it seems that their identity
20 has not been established, and I believe that it's a prerequisite if you
21 want to have a sound procedure, to establish the identity of the victims.
22 This is why I'm asking the question, because I'm quite curious, I
23 would like to know how the identity of these people was established,
24 people that do not have an identification card, and then there is no
25 identification report that is drawn up after the fact. Of course,
1 sometimes people don't have an ID card, and the witness told us that there
2 is a -- that the identity is actually established, but it's another
3 department that is in charge of that. And I would like to know what --
4 where we have traces of the work done by this other department, whether we
5 could get them.
6 So I just hope that my meaning was correctly conveyed by the
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: So your submission is that in the incidents that
9 are alleged in the indictment, the Prosecution must establish the identity
10 of each and every victim.
11 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, I believe that it's the
12 least you can do in a serious investigation, and here we're talking about
13 very serious charges.
14 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, if I may. I don't think that's an
15 element of the offence, and in most cases it's not pleaded in the
16 indictment, so I don't -- I would take issue with that view. But perhaps
17 it's not something that will be resolved right now.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, I'd like to resolve it, because if I find
19 that it is not pertinent, I will stop this line of questioning.
20 MR. WHITING: Well, certainly with respect to the incident that's
21 been talked about or alluded to, which is shelling number 23, the
22 indictment alleges that 43 persons were killed and 75 were injured. There
23 is no list of specific people who were killed or injured. And I don't
24 think that the elements of the offences that are charged in this case
25 require that the Prosecution prove the specific identity of the person
1 killed. It's just not an element of the offence. We just have to prove
2 that -- if it's murder, you must prove that a person was killed. So I
3 don't see how this question about identity is relevant.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: That has always been my understanding, too.
5 If, for example, Ms. Isailovic, a tram was shot at - and we have
6 evidence that the tram was shot at - and say 15 or 20 persons were injured
7 and five killed, if that were charged, you're saying that to substantiate
8 the charge, the Prosecution must prove the identity of the 15 or 20
9 injured and the identify of the five who were killed? That's your
11 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Not necessarily, Your Honour. It
12 depends on accounts against the accused. If we're talking about murder,
13 an act against humanity, then you have to establish that there's been
14 murder, that there's been violence, and to do this I believe that it's
15 absolutely necessary to have a victim. But for other cases using
16 indiscriminatory armed force, then that's not necessarily --
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Stop. I think you have it absolutely right. You
18 must have a victim. The question is, what is the evidence that will
19 satisfy the Chamber that there was a victim in a case like this? That is
20 the issue.
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: Can I just add that there is a fundamental
22 difference between domestic criminal law and international criminal law in
23 these matters.
24 The offence, as specified in the Statute, is, for instance,
25 indiscriminate attacks, and if you can prove that the attacks were such as
1 to target civilians and military persons indiscriminately, then the case
2 is made. I don't think that the question of identity goes any further
3 than just founding or establishing the fact that someone was killed. And
4 if you're interested, then we can, in some cases, prove the identity of
5 that victim. But it cannot be and it is not a requirement that for these
6 international crimes to be committed you have to identify the identity of
7 each victim.
8 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Judges, Your Honour, I fully agree
9 with you regarding Article 3, but as far as Article 5 in the Statute,
10 crime against humanity - and maybe this is what you reject - but the
11 elements that are listed in Article 5 must be proved in order for the
12 proceedings to continue and somebody to be found guilty of a crime against
13 humanity. So the main elements of this crime -- and here maybe we're back
14 to the regular Criminal Code. There's murder, which is the case that we
15 have in the indictment, and also violence. But this is qualified in legal
16 terms --
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Stop. Stop. Let us take murder under Article
18 5. Let us take murder under Article 5, a crime against humanity. There's
19 a charge of murder of 500 people killed by a bomb. This is a mass crime,
20 and there is evidence from witnesses of the bomb and there is evidence of
21 people being injured by the bomb. Some died as a result of the bomb.
22 Police officers go or other witnesses go to the scene and they can testify
23 that they saw some 500 people there dead immediately after the bomb. We
24 have the names of some; we may not have the names of all. That's enough.
25 Are you saying that in these proceedings we need to identify each
1 and every one of those 500 victims? It's a question of the evidence. You
2 need evidence of a victim, but it will satisfy the Chamber if there is
3 evidence along the lines that I have set out.
4 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, justly so, I fully
5 agree with you. But we have no one who saw those victims. There are
6 policemen who come after the fact and who draft a report on the crime
7 using statements made by some people, and I believe that the least we
8 could ask for is to verify -- you know, this is it not something that the
9 witness saw, because the witness came after the fact, once everything had
10 been cleaned up. There's no bodies, no wounded.
11 So, I mean, this goes beyond what I know in terms of criminal law,
12 and I do a lot of criminal law. How can it be established in another
13 way? How can you establish what happened in another way?
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: It seems that you're taking another point then,
15 perhaps, that the crime was not committed or that the bodies were not
16 there or, as your colleague has been suggesting, that they were brought
17 there. That's a different issue.
18 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't know. We're
19 here to establish the facts. I don't want to speculate one way or
20 another. You know, I'm a legal expert; I deal with facts and what I'm
21 interested in are facts. And I believe that is exactly the same for you.
22 I believe it's the only way that we can actually come to the truth, the
23 legal truth; maybe not the material truth but the legal truth. What I
24 want to do is to establish the evidence that will actually prove what
25 really happened, which is why I'm asking that question. Maybe the witness
1 will say that he knows nothing of this, but maybe we can find people who
2 are able to tell us how the identity of all these people was eventually
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: None of it is relevant.
5 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] I'm trying to think with you and
6 reflect on all this with you, and I believe that your logic is quite
7 relevant. There is no murder; there's no body, there's no victim. And we
8 have to establish the identity, whether the reality of that killing.
9 So I am following you and I'm hearing you. But at the same time,
10 please look at Article 89 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, (1). In
11 terms of evidence, the Chamber applies the rules that are in this section
12 and is not bound by the domestic rules that have to do with the
13 establishment of evidence. Please read paragraph 89, Rule 89. Because in
14 your logic you are saying that the witness's reports are not correct, as
15 far as you're concerned, because they were not directly sent to the public
16 prosecutor, which should have been done according to the law of the
17 country, but were handed over to his boss, his administrative boss.
18 So this is the question I'm asking: If you are challenging what
19 is in these reports, and if you want the Chamber to disregard them because
20 internal rules were not followed correctly, if that's the basis of the
21 regulations, don't you think that goes against the general provision that
22 I just read to you? Unless you can demonstrate and prove that those
23 reports were fundamentally biased. Because, having been through the hands
24 of the administrative director, there would have been, for example, orders
25 that came from the executive branch to modify them. Are you following
1 me? So you are holding on to the internal rules of country to establish
2 that what the witness has done is not correct, but you're forgetting in
3 the meanwhile the international law and its provisions.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: In which case, Ms. Isailovic, if you are saying
5 that the reports were collected in a manner that make them unreliable,
6 then that's a different matter. Are you familiar with Rule 95? Rule 95,
7 that's the rule that is really relevant here. It says:
8 "No evidence shall be admissible if obtained by methods which cast
9 substantial doubt on its reliability or if its admission is antithetical
10 to, and would seriously damage, the integrity of the proceedings."
11 So if you're going that far, then you should let us know.
12 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Judges, this is what
13 I was trying to do with this witness: I was trying to have an opinion on
14 all this, because I was hoping that the witness would tell us about the
15 evidence which I believe are missing in his report. If that's the case
16 and if those additional reports do not exist, then we will --
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: It seems to me that he has told you as much as he
19 We will adjourn. When I return, I will rule on this line of
21 --- Recess taken at 12.22 p.m.
22 --- On resuming at 12.43 p.m.
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Isailovic, the Chamber has determined that
24 you have spent sufficient time on this issue and you should move on to
25 another matter.
1 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, if I could raise an issue that arose
2 during the break, and I've raised it with Defence counsel. The
3 interpreters have informed me that they have a dispute among themselves
4 about the interpretation of a particular sentence, about what the witness
5 said. One interpreter thinks he said one thing; the other interpreter
6 thinks he said something else. And I shared this with Ms. Isailovic.
7 It relates to the question and answer at page 30 of the
8 transcript, and I think the only way to clear it up is to put the question
9 to him again and ask the witness to clear it up. It's page 30, line 5 --
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Which line?
11 MR. WHITING: No, I'm sorry, line 3. My question was: "In a
12 sniping case, whose job was it to determine the direction of fire? How
13 would that be done?"
14 And the answer the transcript is: "That depended on how many
15 ballistics experts were available. There weren't too many to go around,
16 to be frank. If none could make it to a scene, then this was normally a
17 job done by one of our forensic experts ..." and it's the end of the
18 sentence that's in dispute, "... done by one of our forensic experts who
19 were not properly trained to do that sort of thing." One of the
20 interpreters heard him say "not properly trained" and the other
21 interpreter heard him say that they were properly trained.
22 So it's obviously an important issue, and I wonder if I could just
23 put the question to the witness to ask him to resolve it, if you think
24 that's the best way to do it.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, put the question.
2 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.
3 Mr. Witness, when I was asking you questions, I asked you this
4 question: In a sniping case, whose job was it to determine the direction
5 of fire? How would that be done. And in your answer, you said: That
6 depended on how many ballistics experts were available. There weren't too
7 many to go around, to be frank. If none could make it to a scene, then
8 this was normally a job done by one of our forensic experts."
9 And then did you say "who were not properly trained to do that
10 sort of thing" or did you say "who were properly trained to do that sort
11 of thing"?
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Before he answers, I think the value of his
13 answer, I think, will be somewhat diminished by the fact that you
14 disclosed, in his presence, the disputed translation.
15 MR. WHITING: Well, it's one or the other. I mean the question is
16 what he said. I don't think it's leading in any way.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, let's hear your answer.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that our forensic technicians
19 were skilled to do the job.
20 MR. WHITING: Your Honour --
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.
23 MR. WHITING: -- in any event, if there is any further dispute
24 about it or further question, the Trial Chamber has -- we could also ask
25 to listen again to the original tape.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: No. I think we should move on. We have spent
2 enough time.
3 Yes, Ms. Isailovic.
4 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
5 Q. Witness, please, is it fair to say that when you were drafting the
6 summary reports intended for the public prosecutor, you never consulted
7 the military authorities of the BiH army?
8 A. Yes. We wrote our reports for the prosecutor's office.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Isailovic, is this the same line of
10 questioning? Because I've told you to move on.
11 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't know what's
12 happening here. In English, everything is correctly translated, but the
13 witness is talking about something else.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. I meant move on to a different topic.
16 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] I am talking about another topic.
17 I'm still looking at the reports, because here we have a witness that can
18 tell us about the procedure.
19 Q. This is what I would like to know: Before drafting your final
20 summary report, did you consult with the military authorities of the BiH
21 army in Sarajevo?
22 A. No, I didn't consult them. I wrote my report myself, and whatever
23 is said there is only my product.
24 Q. Witness, please, can I infer from this that for you, the military
25 situation between the warring factions in Sarajevo was not an element that
1 you would include in your report?
2 A. No. The report contained only what I saw with my own eyes and
3 what I found at the scene.
4 Q. So you did not take into account whatever military activity had
5 been going on when a crime had occurred.
6 A. No. I was not even familiar with the military activities. We did
7 the job that we were assigned to do, and that was to examine and to see
8 what happened at the scene.
9 Q. But, Witness, often members of UNPROFOR were part of your
10 investigating team; isn't that true?
11 A. Yes. These were UNPROFOR military observers.
12 Q. So, in other words, they were with you doing the same job that
13 members of the investigating team would be doing?
14 A. No. They were present there, but they had no contact with us.
15 They did their part of the job and we did our job. Practically they were
16 simply observing what we were doing, but what they wrote in their reports,
17 I wouldn't know.
18 Q. When, in your report, you're saying that such-and-such a member of
19 UNPROFOR was there, it means that he was just there as a mute witness
20 during the investigation?
21 A. It says in the report that they were present there. It does not
22 say that they were members of the team.
23 Q. Thank you. Now, when writing this final summary report, did you
24 ever take into account any reports that had been drafted by UNPROFOR?
25 A. Provided they told us something relevant or made any comments, we
1 would note it down.
2 Q. But earlier, Witness, when talking to the Prosecutor, you talked
3 about a tram incident which occurred on October 8th, 1994; do you remember
5 A. Yes, I do.
6 Q. This incident occurred on the 8th of October, and the report is
7 dated the 10th of October, 1994. Can we agree on this?
8 A. I can't see the report.
9 Q. Do you need to see it?
10 A. Yes.
11 MR. WHITING: If I can be of assistance, it's 65 ter 641A, and if
12 it could not be broadcast.
13 Just to be clear, I don't believe I asked any questions about this
14 incident. The report was put in, but the incident that I asked about and
15 he marked the map about was not this incident, that he marked the
16 photograph about. Just so that it's clear, because there is some
17 reference to the fact that I had asked him questions about it. But just
18 so there's no confusion.
19 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Now, Witness, can you see the date of this report?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. In your report, you don't mention any military activities.
23 MR. WHITING: I'm sorry to interrupt. I really apologise. In
24 this case it is not his report, the report is not from him, so it
25 misstates the evidence. He is present, but it's not his report.
1 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, the Prosecutor is right.
2 It's my mistake.
3 Q. Your name here is mentioned. It's the third name on the list.
4 You are one of the members investigating the case; is that right? And as
5 you took part in this, did you ever address the question of military
6 activities between you, those military activities that occurred on the 8th
7 of October, 1994?
8 A. I can't remember many details. I didn't write this report;
9 therefore, I don't know if my colleague took that into account or not.
10 Q. I would like to show you a document, which is 00-0918. It's a
11 letter sent to the warring parties by General Michael Rose.
12 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Remove it from the screen.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Does he have anything to do with the letter sent
14 to the warring parties by General Rose? Is there anything in it on which
15 he can testify?
16 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, that's just it. I'm wanting
17 to show the witness that there were military activities that are not
18 recorded in the report, and to my mind this is important. Precisely,
19 General Rose addresses this to the two warring parties who were the cause
20 of the shooting, because this relates to the incident that occurred on the
21 8th of October, which is what is being discussed right now.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, let's hear what he has to say about this.
23 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Witness, were you aware of these military activities that occurred
25 on the 8th of October and that led to this correspondence between
1 Mr. Ganic, Izetbegovic and Karadzic?
2 A. As I said before, I didn't know about any planned military
3 activities that were in progress. This letter is in English and I can't
4 read English; therefore, I don't know what it says or where the military
5 activities actually took place.
6 MR. WHITING: Your Honours, I have read the letter quickly - it's
7 a little hard to read - but I don't see a reference to the military
8 activity on the 8th of October. Maybe I'm missing it.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: What is the section of the report to which you
10 wish to draw the witness's attention and that you say is relevant?
11 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] This is on page 3, I'm sorry,
12 because we're now on page 2. "Our right to protest ..." -- this is
13 addressed to Mr. Izetbegovic. It's dated the 9th of October, General
14 Rose, it says: "I want to protest in the strongest possible terms about
15 sniping incidents that took place on the 8th of October, 1994, in the city
16 of Sarajevo from both sides of the line of confrontation."
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. And you wish to ask the witness whether he
18 knows anything about those sniping incidents that took place on the 8th of
20 What's your answer to that, Witness?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know. I'm not sure what
22 time on the 8th of October. Is this in reference to the incident that I
23 witnessed? Nevertheless, I am not familiar with this letter; I have never
24 set eyes on it. And, as I said, I was not aware of any other activities
25 in any other places across Sarajevo.
1 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] So could we have an exhibit number
2 for this document marked for identification, please.
3 MR. WHITING: I have no objection. I'm happy to have this letter
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we admit it.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, just for clarification, there was a
7 photo marked yesterday by Witness Jordan that was mistakenly tendered and
8 admitted twice as Exhibit D79 and Exhibit D80. That will retain the
9 exhibit number Exhibit D79, and this will be admitted as Exhibit D80.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Please proceed.
11 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Witness, you took part in and even signed the report which is
13 exhibit -- 65 ter number 665. On page 2 --?
14 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Perhaps we should consider issues
15 of protection here. The name might crop up, so maybe we should do
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
18 Private session.
19 [Private session]
11 Pages 2754-2769 redacted. Private session.
4 [Open session]
5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in open session.
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: ZIBA SUBO
10 [Witness answered through interpreter]
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Please sit.
12 And you may begin, Ms. Edgerton.
13 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you.
14 Examination by Ms. Edgerton:
15 Q. Could you tell us your name for the record.
16 A. My name is Ziba Subo.
17 Q. And what's your date of birth?
18 A. 1947, 20th of March.
19 Q. Do you remember at the beginning of April 1995 giving a statement
20 to the Bosnian police authorities about what happened to you, your family
21 and your cousin Mrs. Custovic, on 7 April 1995?
22 A. I remember. I don't forget things.
23 MS. EDGERTON: Could I have ter number 00012E on the screen,
25 Q. Do you have your reading glasses on, Mrs. Subo?
1 A. Yes, I do.
2 Q. Do you recognise the document that appears on the screen in front
3 of you?
4 A. Yes, I do.
5 Q. Is that your statement from 1995?
6 A. Yes, it is.
7 MS. EDGERTON: Could we have that marked as the first exhibit,
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
10 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P279, Your Honours.
11 MS. EDGERTON:
12 Q. Now, do you also recall giving a statement to the ICTY in November
13 1995 about the same incident, at which time I was present?
14 A. I remember.
15 MS. EDGERTON: Could I now have ter number 02964 on the screen,
17 Q. And while waiting for that, perhaps I could ask you, Mrs. Subo, in
18 preparing to testify here, were both of these statements read back to you
19 in your own language?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And did you have any changes or corrections to make to them at
22 that time?
23 A. No, I didn't change anything. Everything remains as it is.
24 Q. Do you recognise the document appears on the screen in front of
25 you now, Mrs. Subo?
1 A. I do.
2 Q. Is that your statement from November of 1995?
3 A. Yes.
4 MS. EDGERTON: Could we have that marked as the next exhibit,
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
7 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P280, Your Honours.
8 MS. EDGERTON: Next, if I could have two photographs in
9 succession, 00012B and, following that, 00012D, please. Can you magnify
10 the photograph. Can you magnify it further for her.
11 Q. Mrs. Subo, do you see a photograph on the screen in front of you?
12 A. Yes, I see it, and I will never forget it.
13 Q. If you recognise it, perhaps you could tell the Trial Chamber what
14 you recognise, then.
15 A. I recognise everything.
16 Q. What is it, Mrs. Subo?
17 A. This is where the family house crumbled down and this is where my
18 cousin was killed and this was where I was with my family. That's our
20 Q. So what I understand you're telling the Trial Chamber is this is
21 your house after it was hit by the bomb on 7 April 1995?
22 A. Yes, it is, at 9.30.
23 MS. EDGERTON: Could I have this marked as the next exhibit,
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
1 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P281, Your Honours.
2 MS. EDGERTON: And can we move to the next and final photograph.
3 I think you might have to make it --
4 Q. Do you see the next photograph on the screen in front of you,
5 Mrs. Subo?
6 A. Yes. Yes, I remember this well.
7 Q. Could you tell us what it is.
8 A. It's a ruin that fell on top of me and my family.
9 Q. Is this the ruin of your house after it was hit by the bomb,
10 Mrs. Subo?
11 A. When the bomb flattened it, yes. This is how it remained in both
12 photographs, the first one and this one. Flattened, razed to the ground.
13 MS. EDGERTON: Could we have that marked as the next exhibit.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
15 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P282, Your Honours.
16 MS. EDGERTON:
17 Q. Now, Mrs. Subo, I just have some very short questions for you. In
18 your statement in 1995, November 1995, you mentioned that there was some
19 kind of military structure about ten minutes' walk from your house but you
20 didn't know what it was. Do you know now what that military structure
21 might have been?
22 A. I don't know. I still don't. It might have been a kitchen or
23 something like that, military, with a -- but I try not to think about it,
24 because on the 7th of April, in Foca, my house was destroyed the same way
25 as this one.
1 Q. Now, in the time leading up to the attack on your house, do you
2 recall ever seeing any soldiers in the immediate area?
3 A. There was a war on. There were soldiers around; I don't know who
4 or why, or what soldiers, for that matter.
5 Q. In the immediate area, do you recall seeing any of those soldiers
6 engaged in military activity? In other words, did you see any shooting?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Did you --
9 A. No. No, I didn't. I was a housewife. I never left the house. I
10 wasn't supposed to leave the house, didn't have the courage. I don't know
11 anything about that. The only thing I do know about is what befell me.
12 Q. Did you see any mortars?
13 A. No, I didn't.
14 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm sorry.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Ms. Isailovic.
16 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] I believe the witness has answered
17 that question and said that she didn't see anything, so I don't see any
18 point in continuing. We're only wasting our time.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
20 MS. EDGERTON: That's fine. I have concluded the questioning in
21 chief, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.
23 Ms. Isailovic.
24 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
25 Cross-examination by Ms. Isailovic:
1 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Witness. My name is Mrs.
2 Branislava Isailovic; I'm a member of the Paris Bar Association. I shall
3 ask you a few questions concerning this incident in which you were a
4 witness and a victim. This occurred on the 7th of April, 1995.
5 On the screen a moment ago we saw the statement that you made,
6 that you gave to the police; is that right? Do you remember that?
7 A. Yes, I remember it.
8 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] This document was presented by the
9 Prosecution. This was number 12. This is a 65 ter document. If we could
10 see it on the screen, please. If Ms. Edgerton could help me find the page
11 of the statement so that we can speed things up a little bit.
12 MS. EDGERTON: 12E.
13 That's not it. 00012E. Isn't that what -- we're asking for the
14 65 ter number, 00012E.
15 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Witness, this is the same statement as the one we've seen a few
17 minutes ago. I would like to draw your attention to this last long
18 paragraph. Could you read it. It starts there, "... who took me to the
19 hospital. In the meantime, I told a young man by the name of Zijo that my
20 sister Ziba Custovic, with her daughter Aldijana, was in one of the rooms,
21 and to please search these in order to find them, find her alive or dead."
22 A. Yes. She was found dead.
23 Q. Is that the truth, Witness?
24 A. Yes. When I escaped from the rubble, I went over and that's the
25 last thing I remember. I only know that I ended up seeing my family
2 Q. Can I infer that after seeing the rubble around your house you did
3 not see your sister again?
4 A. I saw her when I escaped from the ruin. I glanced back. I saw a
5 head cut in half. I don't know what happened later. Maybe I fell down.
6 The next thing I remember is the hospital. I know she was dead. I know
7 that this was a serious misfortune, a heavy blow, but that's all I
8 remember. I don't know what else to say. It's all there in the
9 photographs for to you to see.
10 Q. Well, this is what I mean. There is a slight discrepancy with
11 your statement. What you're saying today is that you saw her or you
12 didn't see her? Because in the statement it says that. In your statement
13 which we have just seen, you state that you heard no noise; is that right?
14 A. No, no noise whatsoever. I just went there to get some coffee to
15 brew. I know that I was enveloped by darkness. There was shooting before
16 that and then I hurried off to the basement with my children and then I
17 was enveloped by darkness. I felt an impact; I felt objects smashing
18 against me and I realised that something must have happened.
19 Q. Thank you, Witness. One last question which has to do with
20 military presence in Hrasnica. Were you accustomed to seeing soldiers in
22 A. Well, they sometimes passed through. Who knows where they were
23 going. They all had uniforms. I didn't know if it was a soldier or just
24 somebody wearing a uniform. I don't know much about these things. I only
25 know about my own problems. I didn't care about anything else.
1 Q. Thank you, Witness.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Any re-examination?
3 MS. EDGERTON: No, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Madam Witness, that concludes your evidence. We
5 thank you for giving it and you may now leave.
6 We'll adjourn until Tuesday, 2.15, and the first matter we'll take
7 up -- let's move into private session.
8 Well, may we have the witness leave.
9 [The witness withdrew]
10 [Private session]
16 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.11 p.m.,
17 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 27th day of
18 February, 2007, at 2.15 p.m.