1 Friday, 2 March 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Cannata, you're to continue.
7 MR. CANNATA: Thank you, Your Honour. Good morning to you and to
8 Your Honours.
9 I have just one final question in response to His Honour Judge
10 Mindua's question yesterday to put to the witness.
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
12 WITNESS: WITNESS W-12 [Resumed]
13 [Witness answered through interpreter]
14 Examination by Mr. Cannata [Continued]
15 Q. Good morning, Witness.
16 A. I can't hear you. I'm not receiving any interpretation.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: That is being looked into.
18 MR. CANNATA: May I suggest, while we're trying to fix this
19 problem, to load Exhibit P308, which is the map, as marked yesterday from
20 the witness.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well. Let's see if the channel problem with
22 the interpretation for the witness is solved.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: It has been resolved, yes.
25 MR. CANNATA:
1 Q. Good morning, Witness.
2 A. Good morning.
3 Q. I take you back to the map you marked yesterday, and I wish you to
4 clarify the answer you gave to His Honour Judge Mindua to the question
5 about how you establish or how you assume that the shell fell on
7 Now, let me ask you this: You gave yesterday evidence that you
8 were -- you were located at the place which is marked with the letter A in
9 the map; is that correct?
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. Which direction were you walking to when you heard the shell being
13 A. I was in the Brajkovac area which means I was moving towards the
14 trenches, towards the front line, in other words.
15 Q. So, roughly, you were going south in the map?
16 A. Yes. Yes.
17 Q. So we can say that Bascarsija was on your back and Vidikovac in
18 diagonal with respect to you?
19 A. Bascarsija was to my right at the time. I was heading for the
20 Brajkovac area and then Bascarsija would have been to my right, from the
21 place where I was at the time. The Trebevic area would have been to my
22 left then.
23 Q. Okay. So we can say that -- let me put it this way: With respect
24 to your position which was the direction from where you heard the sound of
25 the shell being fired? Was it on the left?
1 A. Yes, to my left; in the direction of Vidikovac, up there.
2 Q. Very well. And, again, with respect to the position you had at
3 the time, which direction you heard the sound coming from of the shell
4 exploding? Was it the right?
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: No, well, you can't put the answer to him. You
6 shouldn't put the answer, just ask him the question.
7 MR. CANNATA: My apologies.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was on my right-hand side; from
9 my right flank, as it were.
10 MR. CANNATA:
11 Q. Thank you. How long was the period of time between the sound of
12 the shell being fired you heard and the sound of the shell exploding?
13 A. It took a very brief time, a second or two, several seconds; no
14 more than that.
15 Q. So the direction of the sound of the shell being fired along with
16 the direction of the sound of the shell exploding and the fact that there
17 was a short period of time between the two sounds, would those factors
18 might have assisted you in assuming that the shell fell on Bascarsija that
20 A. Yes. Those are the only factors. The time between the sound of
21 the shell being fired and the shell exploding was very short, several
22 seconds perhaps; and that led to us conclude that the shell had been fired
23 from Vidikovac and had landed in the Bascarsija area.
24 MR. CANNATA: Thank you very much. I have no further question,
25 Your Honours.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.
2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
3 Cross-examination by Mr. Tapuskovic:
4 Q. [Interpretation] Witness, I represent the accused, Dragomir
5 Milosevic. My name is Branislav Tapuskovic. I, too, would like to ask
6 you some questions so that we might clarify everything that you have been
7 talking about. The one thing I'd like to ask you is please try to keep
8 your answers as brief as possible.
9 A. Very well. I'll do my best.
10 Q. My first question: Can you confirm what you have already talked
11 about. From the beginning of the conflict and even several months after
12 the conflict had ended, you had been a soldier of the BH army; is that
14 A. Yes, that's right. From June 1992 to sometime after Dayton, back
15 in 1996. It might have been April, I think.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Cannata.
17 MR. CANNATA: Just to remind my learned friend from the Defence
18 that he has to switch the microphone off when the witness is to talk for
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you for that.
21 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
22 Q. The 115th Brigade that you were a member of -- you see, I have to
23 focus my questions on the time-period between August 1994 and the 21st of
24 November, 1995. Do you understand me, sir?
25 A. It was part of the 1st Corps.
1 Q. Indeed. But the 1st Corps comprised three divisions, right?
2 A. I don't know.
3 Q. You spent the entire war in the conflict, and you don't know about
4 the three divisions belonging to the BH army, the 1st Corps?
5 A. Indeed, sir. I know that I belonged to the 115th Brigade, and I
6 know that I belonged to the 1st Corps.
7 Q. But you still don't know whether at the time in question your
8 brigade belonged to the 12th division of the 1st Corps of the BH army, do
10 A. No, I don't. Believe me, this is the very first I hear of it. I
11 couldn't even say I was interested in that sort of thing at the time.
12 When the war eventually ended, I was glad to finally see the war end. I
13 left the army as a civilian, which was sometime in mid-April 1996.
14 Q. You don't know that the two divisions of the 1st Corps were
15 outside Sarajevo at other positions elsewhere, Igman and another place as
16 well, do you?
17 A. I do know that. I know that certain units would go outside
18 Sarajevo. As for the divisions you mention, I'm not sure what you mean
19 when you say that.
20 Q. At the time in question, the 1st Corps of the BH army was
21 transformed into three divisions; the 12th, the 14th, and the 16th. Are
22 you telling me you don't know about that?
23 A. Precisely, I don't.
24 Q. But you do know that there were units belonging to the 1st Corps
25 that you were outside Sarajevo, don't you?
1 A. Yes, I do know that. Even my own unit would sometimes leave
2 Sarajevo itself and stay away for as long as a month. Our area of
3 responsibility was in the area of the Nisic plateau, but we were still
4 part of the brigade. We remained part of the brigade, not part of the
6 Q. What about the area of responsibility of the 115th Brigade? You
7 would leave Sarajevo through the tunnel that existed under the airport; is
8 that right?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Can you use this map, the one behind us, please, and show us,
11 first of all, where the tunnel was; and, secondly, once you cross the
12 tunnel, where exactly would you get to? Where is the Nisic plateau?
13 A. I may not be able to be perfectly accurate, but I know that it was
14 somewhere in the Dobrinja area that one ended up.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a minute, please. Will the witness take his
16 seat. Witness, take your seat. We have to go into private session. We
17 have to go into private session if the witness is going to leave his
19 [Private session]
7 [Open session]
8 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, again, I'm facing a
10 problem concerning my exhibit list. As early as the 28th of February, as
11 early as the 28th of February, I submitted all the exhibits that I was
12 going to use in relation to this witness. I have learned from the OTP
13 that some of my documents DD00-1015 and 113 and 117, that they didn't
14 receive those. I put that into e-court as early as the 28th; therefore,
15 I'm at a loss as to why those documents are now missing from my list.
16 One of these documents is essential in relation to this very
17 question, that the witness is trying to answer DD00-10113 [as
18 interpreted]. Can we please first try to retrieve that document, because
19 I have submitted the document.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: You're referring to DD00-0105?
21 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] DD00-1013; but it's not in
22 e-court. I'm not sure where the glitch occurred. It's not today that I
23 submitted this document.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let us hear from the court deputy whether it can
25 be retrieved.
1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, I have been told that the Defence
2 can now release the document. It's in their basket.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: You heard that, Mr. Tapuskovic.
4 What is the position? You still can't retrieve it?
5 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] No.
6 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: An e-court technician has been summoned to see if
8 the problem can be resolved. In the meantime, let us resort to the
9 ancient, well-tried, and tested system. Do you have the hard copy?
10 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I do. I can show
11 it to the witness. The witness can have a look, and after that I can read
12 out portions of the document.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let us do that and move on.
14 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. You have it on the screen now.
16 Can you see that, Witness?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. This is an order dated the 11th of July, 1995. The order is in
19 reference to your brigade as well. You can see that on the right-hand
20 side. Is that true, sir?
21 A. I was just an ordinary soldier. This is not the kind of order
22 that was ever read out to me. I would up sticks and leave with my unit
23 whenever the unit received any orders, normally. In fact, I spent a total
24 of nine months elsewhere outside Sarajevo, specifically at the Nisic
25 plateau along the defence lines.
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Tapuskovic, the Chamber is a bit in the dark
2 here. Could you please share with us the information as to who issued
3 this order and who was it issued to.
4 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] This is an order issued to the
5 commands, the command of his brigade, too. That is on the right-hand
6 side, and it was issued by the commander of the 12th division, Trebevic.
7 I got this from the BH army archive. I do understand that as an ordinary
8 soldier, the witness is not necessarily familiar with this. I would like
9 to tell him what it is about despite that, and I would like to ask him
10 whether he was involved in what appears to the substance of this order. I
11 believe he has never seen the order, but I would like to know if he ever
12 acted in accordance and in the spirit of this order, as he must have been
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, go ahead.
15 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Witness, let me ask you first; you spent as many as nine months
17 outside the area of the responsibility of the 115th Brigade, in other
18 areas outside of Sarajevo itself. You say you never saw an 120-millimetre
19 mortar in your own area. Did you ever see it anywhere else in Sarajevo or
21 A. Not along my own line of responsibility; not once. A while ago
22 you said outside the area covered by my brigade; whenever we left
23 Sarajevo. That, too, was the area of responsibility of my brigade; I mean
24 the Nisic plateau, among other areas. That, too, was included.
25 Q. The Nisic plateau is far away, far away from Sarajevo, outside
1 Sarajevo in a different area. Is that true?
2 A. Yes, that's true. But probably that area, too, fell under my
3 brigade. That was another one of our defence sectors, and that is the
4 only way I can explain it. We started leaving the city sometime in
5 mid-1993 and then we continued from there on.
6 Q. Particularly at the time in question, right, the time that I
7 specified to you between the 10th of August 1994 at the end -- and the end
8 of the war. Is that true, sir?
9 A. Do you mean 1994 or 1995?
10 Q. From August 1994 to the 21st of November, 1995.
11 A. Yes. I was still with this unit of the 115th Brigade.
12 Q. I'll read the order to you, and I would like to ask you whether
13 you acted in the spirit of this order.
14 "With the aim of changing shifts of units of the battalion of the
15 12th Division and the resubordinated command of the 16th Division, and
16 also with the objective of taking all the measures necessary to prepare
17 and organise units for taking over their shifts, I hereby order. Brigade
18 command shall immediately take all necessary measures and prepare the
19 units of the battalions to relieve those other units in the area of
20 responsibility of the 16th Division."
21 Is this something that you know anything about, since you were
22 transferred outside Sarajevo to a different area. Is that correct?
23 A. That's correct. But I know nothing about this. This is the very
24 first time I have ever seen this order, and I know nothing about it. I do
25 know that we sometimes left Sarajevo.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Cannata.
2 MR. CANNATA: Mr. President, again, if the microphone from the
3 Defence would be switched off when the witness is speaking, because it's
4 really important to enforce the measure of voice distortion.
5 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We did not have a copy of
6 this document, and on our screens it was entirely illegible; therefore, we
7 cannot vouch for the accuracy of our interpretation. Thank you.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: We have heard that, and for the second time, you
9 have been cautioned, Mr. Tapuskovic. So please see that your microphone
10 is turned off when it is supposed to be turned off.
11 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Of course, I have to do that, but
12 I'm not a machine myself.
13 Q. Witness, do you see towards the bottom --
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, it's very important that it be
15 done, and I will not accept what appears to be a casual attitude towards
16 it. If you can't do it, then ask your -- your manager to see that it is
17 turned off when it should be turned off.
18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, you're absolutely
19 right. I'm not trying to excuse myself. It does happen; I can't help it.
20 I'm sorry.
21 Q. Witness, look at item 4 here. It says that "the 115th Battalion
22 of the Mountain Brigade of Sarajevo will come on the 18th of May." Does
23 that involve your movement as a member of the unit?
24 A. It probably involved our setting off from the barracks and the
25 city, yes. I can see now that it is the 18th of July 1995, and that is
1 the date when the unit set off; and further downwards, it says that we
2 will set off at 2100 hours. As I said, we had to go through the tunnel
3 during night-time, due to shelling and everything else that was happening
4 at the time.
5 Q. You already mentioned what is said in the next paragraph, and here
6 it says, "As far as facility D-B," did you know anything about this code,
7 that this was the code referring to the tunnel?
8 A. No, I didn't. We just knew that there was a tunnel and that was
9 the only way out of town.
10 Q. How many times did you leave the city and the area of
11 responsibility of the 115th Brigade?
12 A. Eight times, and I spent nine months deployed outside of the town;
13 a little bit less than nine months.
14 Q. And in these areas of deployment, you took part in combat
15 operations against the army of Republika Srpska?
16 A. No, sir, not against the army of Republika Srpska. I was only
17 defending my positions from the army of Republika Srpska, not against
19 Q. When you reached this Nisic plateau, this is very, very far away
20 from Sarajevo, and the area of responsibility of the 115th Brigade. You
21 weren't there in order to participate in the operations where -- in the
22 area where you arrived?
23 A. Do you think that Nisic Visoravan was not in Bosnia-Herzegovina?
24 I was a member of the BH army.
25 Q. I know very well --
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: How far is Nisic from Sarajevo?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Roughly 50 kilometres down the road,
3 but we had to go much further because we couldn't use this road. It
4 sometimes took us two days to reach the area.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: And when you went there, were you regularly in
6 active combat with the army of Republika Srpska?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. There was already a line
8 established there, and we just went to be deployed along this defence
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: So for the duration of your stay, were you ever
11 engaged in active combat with the army of Republika Srpska?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it would happen that they
13 start shooting at the lines or shelling it; and like on any other front
14 line, you have to respond with whatever you had available and what we had
15 was mostly small arms.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: And what did they have?
17 A. Well, I don't know. But I do know that there was fire from all
18 kinds of weapons; mortars, guns, semi-automatic rifles --
19 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Anti-aircraft guns,
20 anti-aircraft machine guns, and everything else.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.
22 Mr. Tapuskovic.
23 MR. CANNATA: Mr. President, it's been brought to my attention
24 that there is probably a miscatch with the interpretation. The witness,
25 apparently, answered to the question put by my learned friend: How far is
1 Nisic from Sarajevo? Apparently, the witness has answered 15 kilometres
2 and not 50 as I can read in the transcript. Can we clarify this?
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, I will ask the witness.
4 How far is Nisic from Sarajevo?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Around 50 metres. 50.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: 50, 5-0. Okay. Thank you.
7 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, lest I forget,
8 DD00- --
9 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please repeat the number of
10 the document.
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: Could you please repeat the number of the
12 document, Mr. Tapuskovic.
13 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] DD00-1013. I would like to have
14 it marked for identification, and this is the order that we have been just
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we mark it for identification.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be Exhibit number D98,
18 marked for identification.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.
20 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Witness, when you reached these areas with your brigade, were you
22 facing the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps?
23 A. I'm not very familiar with this area, but I know that the lines
24 were in front of us, or most probably towards the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps,
25 and that fire was coming from that direction. So they were -- the lines
1 were in front of me in the area of Nisic plateau.
2 Q. The front line of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps, yes or no?
3 A. Most probably, yes.
4 Q. And you assert that in the relevant period, in the last year of
5 war, that the BH army was much more poorly armed than the army of
6 Republika Srpska?
7 A. Yes, yes. Very much poorly -- there's no comparison.
8 Q. Since I have time concerns, let me now move on to the statements
9 that you make, and let me begin with the statement that you gave on the
10 20th of November, 1995.
11 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] That's P306 exhibit, and could
12 the witness please be shown this statement on his screen.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
14 MR. CANNATA: Can we be sure that it's not broadcast outside?
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, the court deputy will see to that.
16 MR. CANNATA: Thank you, Mr. President.
17 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Is that the statement that you gave on the 20th of November, 1995?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Can we please look at page 2 of your statement, so that I can put
21 a few questions to you.
22 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Is the request of my learned
23 colleague, the Prosecutor, still valid?
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm not sure what you're speaking about. Let's
25 move on.
1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Witness, look at the beginning of your statement: "I don't
3 remember what the weather was on the 22nd of November, 1994."
4 Here you spoke about the 22nd of November, 1994, and not about the
5 22nd December, 1995, which you mention in your second statement. How do
6 you explain that on a -- a year later or, rather, after the incident, you
7 spoke about the incident that happened on the 22nd of November, 1994?
8 A. I think it's a mistake. It's a misprint, the 22nd of November,
10 Q. I must tell you that I don't believe that you were able to sign
11 such a statement containing such a mistake in the first sentence. How do
12 you account for that?
13 A. I didn't understand your question.
14 Q. How do you explain that it was possible that the statement
15 contains such a mistake in the first sentence of your statement given on
16 that date?
17 A. Can I look at the second statement? I think that in the second
18 statement also reads the 22nd November, 1994.
19 Q. We'll come to that. You were not even sure about that at that
20 time, but let me proceed with this statement.
21 You said: "I only recall hearing shooting on my way to the front
23 What kind of shooting are you talking about? From which side was
24 it coming or was it an exchange of fire?
25 A. It was coming from one side. It was infantry fire, and it
1 typically happened when they intended to shell. First, they would start
2 with infantry fire to proceed with the firing of shelling, in order for us
3 not to hear the shells.
4 Q. We'll come to that. I'm still asking you about the relevant
5 period. Was fire always coming in those days from one side only and never
6 from the positions of BH army?
7 A. Well, not always. But if there was fire, mortar fire, behind the
8 lines where we could hear them, typically, infantry fire would be open,
9 first, in order to cover the sound of mortar fire; not always, but in most
10 cases that happened when they wanted to resort to shelling.
11 Q. Will you please look now at paragraph 4 which reads, according to
12 you: "According to the sound we heard, all of us were certain that the
13 shell was fired from Vidikovac."
14 Is that correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. That's the Chetnik-held position?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. "I do not want to involve all the Serbs by this term, by this word
19 I mean the aggressor."
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Can you explain under such circumstances what did you mean by "the
23 A. By this term, I was referring to all those who were shelling
24 Sarajevo, killing women, children, and the elderly and everybody else.
25 Q. From the other side of the front line, who was there? Were those
1 your erstwhile neighbours, people who were also in their homes, or did
2 somebody else come to that area and started shooting and shelling
4 A. No. The Chetniks were at the other side. Many of my neighbours
5 stayed with me in the city.
6 Q. We're not going to debate this any longer.
7 Were the Chetniks the people who had been living all their lives
8 in these areas?
9 A. Those were just extreme Serbs. Many Serbs stayed and remained
10 with me in the city of Sarajevo, to defend it against those very same
11 extreme elements.
12 Q. That is not what I'm asking. I understand what you're saying,
13 but were those extreme Serbs local people who had been living there all
14 their lives?
15 A. Well, most probably, but I didn't perceive them as human beings.
16 Q. Very well. I understand your position.
17 Let us go back now to your statement: "According to the sound, we
18 immediately assumed that the shell was not a mortar shell, that it was
19 probably a shell fired by a cannon because the explosion was louder than
20 one caused by a mortar shell."
21 Is that what you said?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Further down you said: "I can't say that I have vast experience
24 in this matters because I was on the front line since the 26th of June,
2 A. Yes, that's my wartime experience.
3 Q. Was it not commonly known that the sound of mortar shell -- that
4 the intensity of the sound increases at the time of explosion?
5 A. No, sir. When you fire a shell from a gun, a tank, or anything
6 else, is much louder than a mortar shell. A mortar shell produces a kind
7 of buffed or buffered sound when it's fired.
8 Q. Further down on this page, several paragraphs down, it begins:
9 "After the explosion, we heard ..."
10 Can you see that?
11 A. Yes, I can.
12 Q. "After the explosion, we heard soon after the general alert and
13 sirens of ambulances could be heard."
14 Is that correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Then you went on to say in the next paragraph: "After that
17 explosion, we went to the trenches where we had our positions."
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. "There was just sporadic shooting on that day, and I don't recall
20 having heard any more shells exploding."
21 Is that correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. When you went down to the trenches, those were the trenches in
24 Brajkovac, right?
25 A. Yes. We didn't go down; we went up, because the trenches were
1 ahead of us.
2 Q. How long did it take you for you to go up?
3 A. Well, we were not far away; probably some 50 metres diagonally.
4 Q. Is Brajkovac part of Debelo Brdo?
5 A. Well, I don't know how long Debelo Brdo stretches. The line was
6 connected to Debelo Brdo, so Brajkovac and all the rest was part of the
7 foot of Trebevic mountain.
8 Q. Yesterday, you said that you went across Kozija Cuprija, Jarcev
9 Dol, Dolici, Mala Colina Kapa, Velika Colina Kapa, Brajkovac, Debelo Brdo,
10 Vranjaca, Debelo Brdo?
11 A. Yes. So that was the area of responsibility of my brigade. I
12 couldn't cover all that in a day. We took turns. Each company or a
13 battalion would cover it on a weekly basis; for instance, from Kozija
14 Cuprija to Popov Gaj, then Colina Kapa, Velika, and Mala, and so on. We
15 went around from Kozija Cuprija to Debelo Brdo, which constitutes the area
16 of responsibility of my brigade.
17 Q. Were those all hills overlooking Sarajevo held by BH army?
18 A. Well, these were just elevations, not proper hills; higher ground
19 above the neighbourhoods of the city. And above us the units of the
20 Republika Srpska were on the hills.
21 Q. This is exactly what I would like you to explain. Yesterday, you
22 mentioned Vidikovac and Colina Kapa. As far as I know, Colina Kapa is 940
23 metres high. Can you tell me what's the difference between the height of
24 Colina Kapa and Vidikovac?
25 A. Well, I don't know exactly, but I believe that as the crow flies,
1 there is between 700 and 800 metres. I cannot tell you precisely. I'm
2 not an expert.
3 Q. I didn't ask you about the distance between these two points. I'm
4 asking you about the difference in heights between Colina Kapa and the
5 peak of Vidikovac?
6 A. I cannot tell you even that either, how -- the difference between
7 the heights, but the distance as the crow flies is about seven or 800
8 metres. I don't know exactly.
9 Q. Both Vidikovac and Colina Kapa and even Debelo Brdo and all other
10 elevations are part of Trebevic. Can we agree on that?
11 A. Colina Kapa, Debelo Brdo were at -- are at the hill of Trebevic;
12 however, Vidikovac was on Mount Trebevic where there was a cable car and
13 the plateau, and that is part of Trebevic proper. Everything else was at
14 the foot of Trebevic mountain.
15 Q. From the position where your trenches were that you held and if we
16 move onward, you come across Hrasno Brdo and Mojmilo and so on. All these
17 hills and their ridges were held by the BH army?
18 A. I don't know. I didn't go down there to the line, but I suppose
19 that was the case. I am not sure.
20 Actually, no, Vraca were under the control of the Serbian side;
21 Vraca, Grbavica, and towards Hrasno Brdo. I know that these points were
22 held by the Serbs.
23 Q. Well, Grbavica is downtown, isn't it? No elevations there. It's
24 in the valley, like all other neighbourhoods in Sarajevo. What does that
25 have to do with it?
1 A. Yes, but Vraca is on an elevation, above Grbavica; and then all
2 the way to Hrasno Brdo, one after the other.
3 Q. It's not my intention to dwell on this, but tell me about this.
4 Up north, Zuc, Hum, Grdonj; I am not mentioning any other mountains?
5 A. These are not mountains; these are elevations.
6 Q. If I may just complete my question to avoid any misunderstanding.
7 Who was in control of these elevations, the BH army, yes?
8 A. I don't know. I have to point out yet again that I never went to
9 those lines up there.
10 Q. Let us now go back to your other statement, the one dated the 20th
11 of April, 2006.
12 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] This is P307.
13 Q. I wish to ask you something else about the firing of that shot.
14 Is this your statement?
15 A. Yes.
16 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please go to page 2 of
17 your statement.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Cannata, the same warning?
19 MR. CANNATA: Yes. Yes, Mr. President.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: The court deputy will see to that.
21 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Sir, the second paragraph of that statement reads: "I am unsure
23 of the exact date of the shelling. It has been such a long time."
24 Is that what it says?
25 A. Precisely, sir. At the time in Sarajevo, every day was very much
1 like any other day, and dates hardly mattered, or did the passage of time.
2 No one kept track, believe me.
3 Q. The first statement you made was back in 1995. The statement that
4 I showed you a minute ago was given in 1995, right? Yes or no.
5 A. Probably.
6 Q. Can you look at this next sentence, please. How do you explain
7 that? "I don't know whether it was in November or December 1994."
8 How do you explain that since you made this statement a lot later?
9 A. Well, I told you a while ago dates meant nothing. Days of the
10 week meant nothing. Every day was much the same as the one before, and no
11 one kept track of the dates and days of the week, and that was the last
12 thing we cared to think about.
13 Q. All right. In the next paragraph you say you arrived at
14 Brajkovac; and then you go on to state this: "I remember that we changed
15 the shift early in the day because of the threat of snipers on the heights
16 above us."
17 A. Yes. We would take turns early in the morning or late in the
18 evening, precisely because of the snipers and their firing.
19 Q. Is it not a fact that the only elevation overlooking the BH army
20 positions was Vidikovac, above Colina Kapa? In any other place, the BH
21 army had an obvious advantage in terms of positions, right?
22 A. No. That's not true, sir. That's not true. The Serb army held
23 the entire Trebevic, and Trebevic is higher up than Sarajevo.
24 Q. But a while ago you told us that you were at Colina Kapa, the
25 Colina Kapa is 940 metres high and it's part of Trebevic?
1 A. Yes, but Trebevic itself is higher than that. I am not sure which
2 lines you are referring to, but I do know that the firing was coming from
3 over there and on that side, from up there, even the a bob track was
4 higher up than Colina Kapa, the observatory, too. It was all higher up
5 than the positions in Bogosevac.
6 Q. I'm asking you because of the sniping. You say: "There was
7 snipers at elevations above us." Did your brigade have any snipers?
8 A. I don't know.
9 Q. I would like to show you DD00-0682; and then let me ask you
10 something about snipers.
11 This is a very short document, just two or three sentences. As
12 you can see, there's a reference here to the 14th of February, 1994.
13 Again, this is an order issued by Brigadier Nedzad Ajnadzic, and the order
14 states: "Because of the needs for equipment and weapons for the unit, and
15 with the objective of competently carrying out combat operations, I hereby
16 order all brigades shall secure the hand over and transport of three
17 sniper rifles each to military warehouses belonging to the 1st Corps. 2,
18 these weapons must be in full working order, both the commanders and the
19 unit itself will personally report to me on the completion of this
21 Based on this, I'm putting it to you that your brigade did have
22 snipers in fact. These snipers were used from the positions held by your
23 unit. Can you answer that, sir?
24 A. I have never seen this document before. Again, it is unfamiliar.
25 I don't know that they had any, but one thing I can tell you is that my
1 own unit did not have a single sniper. That much I'm sure of.
2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, can this document
3 DD00-0682 dated the 14th of February, 1994 --
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll mark it for identification.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be Exhibit number D99,
6 marked for identification.
7 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Let's move on.
8 Q. So these were the snipers and then you say: "I do remember that
9 the weather was bad. It was foggy and dark and our view of Bascarsija was
10 obscured." Is that what the weather was like on that day, sir?
11 A. Yes, probably so. We weren't able to see Bascarsija down in the
12 valley where it landed, so it was a rough assessment that we made at the
13 time. We assessed that the shell had landed at Bascarsija, but the
14 visibility was certainly low.
15 Q. Are you familiar with the natural phenomenon of Sarajevo? There
16 is no other city quite like that in Europe. It is in a valley. When
17 there is fog in the valley, you cannot see anything at all in Sarajevo,
18 not a single house. Are you familiar with that natural phenomenon, sir?
19 A. But not the whole of Sarajevo, just part of the airport and
20 Dobrinja, isn't it, and part of Hrasnica as well.
21 Q. On that very day, where the shell landed, as you say, Bascarsija,
22 the place where the shell landed, was covered by thick fog, and there was
23 nothing you could actually see down there, was there?
24 A. That's true. We couldn't see Bascarsija.
25 Q. What could you see? You just heard the sound and that was that,
1 isn't that right? You heard the explosion, right?
7 Q. Based on what? How could you possibly know? You didn't see a
8 thing. How could you possibly come to that conclusion?
9 A. Look, sir, if I drop this glass on the floor, you listen to the
10 sound it makes when it hits the floor, and you know that it didn't fall
11 over there. You know that it fell over here. It was based on the sound
12 of the explosion that we were able to conclude where the shell had landed.
13 Q. Just a moment, please.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: There's something to be redacted.
15 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Do you know how long this took, how many seconds? How many
17 seconds between the explosion that you heard and the moment you heard the
18 explosion down there at Bascarsija?
19 A. It was a very short time, very short, several seconds perhaps.
20 Q. You see, there's a notorious, well-known fact about this weapon
21 that I need to share with you. The shell takes 45 seconds from the place
22 it was fired to the place it eventually hit. Forty-five seconds, that's
23 what it would have taken. What can you say about that, sir?
24 A. I think that is plain wrong. I don't agree with that. It takes a
25 lot less time than you suggest, a lot less time for a shell to reach
1 Bascarsija. I'm no artillery expert myself, but I'm saying this based on
2 hands-on experience.
3 Q. It is still your case that it would have taken no more than three
4 seconds, right?
5 A. I didn't say three seconds. I said several seconds.
6 Q. Paragraph 4, halfway through, you say: "But we sent a report from
7 the front line to our headquarters about this artillery round hitting
8 Bascarsija, and our police later contacted us about what we heard."
9 Is that right, sir?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. How do you suddenly know what people back at headquarters are
12 doing, since you claimed a while ago only to have been aware of the
13 actions of the ordinary soldiers?
14 A. When I say our headquarters, we sent the report there; and then
15 probably the headquarters got in touch with the police to have them take
16 our statements. We had those wired telephones, and we used those to
17 contact are headquarters. They wanted us to monitor any movement by the
18 various units, any operations that were afoot, or anything like that. So
19 we sent the report to the headquarters, and they probably forwarded the
20 report to the police.
21 Q. Fine. You were in a trench. I am not going back to that.
22 But in your first statement, you say that very soon after the
23 first explosions, you heard there were ambulances driving across town,
24 first aid being administered to people, you heard the sounds and
25 everything. What need could you possibly have had to report this to
2 A. I'm not sure I understand your question. What do you mean "what
4 Q. Perhaps the police came to you. Perhaps they asked to you confirm
5 that, did they?
6 A. No. It was based on our report; that they asked us to monitor any
7 movement by the enemy, by the various units, any operations that were in
8 progress, that sort of thing, and we would report on this to the
9 headquarters down there. It's probably based on that report, that the
10 headquarters subsequently forwarded to the police, that we were later
11 called, having returned from the front line, to make statements as to
12 where the shell had been fired from and had landed.
13 Q. All right. Each time the enemy fired a shell you would report to
14 the headquarters about where it had been fired from in a particular
15 exchange of fire, right?
16 A. No, not every time; it would have been impossible. There were
17 days when thousands of shells were fired. But for the most part, we did
18 try to make reports; a shell fired from the Vidikovac area, a shell fired
19 from the Vraca area, and so on and so forth, all of these locations around
21 Q. Well, since you seem to know this, what was this headquarters that
22 the report was sent to?
23 A. I don't know about the headquarters. I'm telling that we sent
24 this to our own unit, to the command of my company or platoon or whatever
25 the establishment happened to be; to the company command. And they
1 probably sent this along, the way they normally did.
15 (readacted) As for the shots being fired from Spicaste Stijena,
16 I don't know. There was a sniping activity and all sorts of weapons being
17 used; and then Bistrik, too.
18 JUDGE MINDUA: One minute, Mr. Prosecutor.
19 [Interpretation] Just a minute, please, counsel. I'd like to put
20 a question to the witness. On page 28 line 25, you say that on some days
21 there were thousands of shells falling. These shells were falling on the
22 town or on the positions of the ABiH army? That is my question. I wanted
23 to know whether shells were falling on the town, on the buildings
24 inhabited by civilians, or whether these were falling on ABiH positions.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was normally indiscriminate.
1 They shelled the town, they shelled the lines, they shelled all the places
2 where there were people.
3 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. I didn't have
4 the translation in French.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Cannata, you had a point.
6 MR. CANNATA: Yes, Mr. President. It's about a possible need for
7 redaction from the transcript. I -- actually it came to my attention that
8 the -- there is a passage from the reading of the statement that might
9 disclose information, which probably allowed to disclose the identity of
10 the witness or in a way to put in danger his protections. So I would
11 suggest, and I refer to your screen about that, to redact page 29 of
12 today's transcript, line 10 to 23 where the witness discussed the --
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Prosecutor, could you please repeat the parts
14 that you suggest be redacted.
15 MR. CANNATA: Yes, Your Honour. It's page 29 of today's
16 transcript, line 10 to 23.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Well, out of an abundance of caution, yes,
19 we'll have it redacted.
20 MR. CANNATA: Thank you very much, Mr. President.
21 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Judge Mindua, I have
22 to go back to what you asked. All the questions I'm asking the witness
23 are in relation to the period of the indictment, the last year of war.
24 Q. What about those thousands of shells? You speak about this
25 particular day. There weren't that many, really. Throughout the year,
1 was it always the same? Was it always like it was back in 1992 and 1993?
2 This year, too, thousands of shells falling in Sarajevo every day.
3 A. There were few days that year when there were no shells, and we
4 looked forward to those days. Those were happy days. But on those days,
5 there were shells falling; maybe not thousands on any given day, but there
6 was shelling every day.
7 Q. What about the summer of 1995? How were the shells flying? Into
8 Sarajevo or from Sarajevo?
9 A. Into Sarajevo. There were many more shells flying into Sarajevo.
10 Q. Something else about your statement. You say you weren't sure
11 whether it was November or December 1994 or 1995, but please look at
12 paragraph 4, the beginning of paragraph 4, and that's why I have the
13 statement in front of me. You say: "I clearly remember one shell being
14 fired and the explosion when the shell impacted; however, I'm not sure
15 about the other round. I do not have a clear memory of the other round."
16 Why do you make this reference to the other round? And how can
17 you explain -- can you explain how this other round suddenly appeared on
18 that day?
19 A. I don't know. I was told later on that two rounds had been fired
20 at Bascarsija. I do remember clearly the first one that was fired and
21 landed. I'm not sure about the other one. We had to hurry back to the
22 trenches to avoid being shelled along the front line. I don't remember
23 this other round. I can't confirm that. I know about the first round.
24 There wasn't that much shelling that particular morning because it was
25 foggy, that sort of thing, so I remember the first round being fired. I
1 can't really remember the other one, whether it was fired or not. We had
2 to hurry back to the trenches to take cover.
3 Q. Can you tell me --
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Cannata is on his feet.
5 MR. CANNATA: Just to clear the records, the witness statement
6 never mentioned that the witness was in doubt between November or December
7 1994 or 1995. The statement says November or December 1994. The year
8 1995 is not an option, I would say.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, there is no reference to 1995. That's your
11 MR. CANNATA: Yes.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.
13 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] The Prosecutor is right. I meant
14 November or December. It was a slip of the tongue on my part, but it is
15 very important.
16 Q. I would like to ask the witness this: Who gave you the idea of
17 there having been a second round, the other round being fired?
18 A. Nobody gave me the idea. We heard this over the radio that people
19 had been injured. By the time I got home, one of my neighbours said, Two
20 shells have landed on Bascarsija. People have been killed and wounded,
21 and that's where the two shells come in. I myself don't remember there
22 being two shells. I know about the one that came from Trebevic. Now, as
23 to Vidikovac and that sort of thing, it was probably from somewhere around
24 there and it landed at Bascarsija.
25 Q. But you're not sure whether it was in November or in December
1 1994; is that right, sir?
2 A. I think it was in November 1994, but let's leave it at that. It's
3 just an assumption. I'm 90 per cent certain that it was November 1994,
4 but not entirely positive.
5 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I believe it's the
6 time for a break.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, you're right. We'll adjourn.
8 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.
9 --- On resuming at 10.51 a.m.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic.
11 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
12 Q. Witness, let me ask you one more question relating to the event at
13 Nisic plateau. Did your commander at one point, the commander of the
14 115th Brigade, did he got killed on the positions; do you know about that?
15 A. No, he didn't. I don't know. No, the commander of the 115th
16 Brigade wasn't killed at the Nisic plateau.
17 Q. But the battalion commander was killed and then the units
18 abandoned the positions without the approval of the command?
19 A. I don't know about that incident.
20 Q. Very well.
21 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I asked the
22 Prosecutor's approval to show a map, which is going to be very helpful for
23 my examination. It is not on my list, though, but it will be significant
24 if shown to the witness. It's already been tendered as Prosecutor's
25 Exhibit. Do you allow that?
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] That's Exhibit P194.
3 Q. Witness, do you see the map?
4 A. Not yet.
5 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] If we can enlarge it so as to
6 show the positions of the 115th Brigade. All right. There it is.
7 Q. Can you see it now?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. It shows accurately the positions held by the 115th Brigade; is
10 that correct?
11 A. I suppose so, approximately. If this is Kozija Cuprija, yes, that
12 would be something like that, roughly speaking.
13 Q. Yesterday, you said that never throughout the war you saw a
14 120-millimetre mortar.
15 A. I said I didn't see it on my front line.
16 Q. These two dots, to the right of 115th Mountain Brigade, indicate,
17 according to my information, precisely the positions of this type of
18 mortars. Can you confirm that or not?
19 A. No, I cannot, sir. I was on the front line. What was behind me,
20 whether there were mortars or whatever, I don't know. On the lines, where
21 I moved, there were no mortars, or I couldn't see them, actually.
22 Q. Were there any other heavy weapons or not, and are they marked
23 here in this map? Can you tell me that or not?
24 A. I don't know. I didn't see any of them on the lines. We didn't
25 have enough ammunition.
1 Q. But you know very well that these heavy weapons were camouflaged,
2 in certain situations, to prevent them from being seen by the enemy. Do
3 you know anything about that?
4 A. No, I'm telling, I don't know. I never saw a mortar or anything
5 similar, any other heavy weapons on the line and in the area of my
6 responsibility; not on the line that I walked along.
7 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] In that regard, Your Honours, I
8 intend to show the witness another document issued by the commander of the
9 12th Division. He was the commander of Sarajevo. It's dated 25th of
10 July, 1995, DD00-0782.
11 Can we please enlarge it a bit for the benefit of the witness.
12 Q. Do you see the document in front of you?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. I'm going to read out to you. You see that it's dated the 23rd of
15 July, 1995, and that it's an order issued by Fikret Prevljak. You know
16 who Fikret Prevljak was? He was the commander of your brigade as well?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. This is what he says in this order: "After inspecting the units of
19 the 12th division, it was established that anti-aircraft defence weapons,"
20 and you know that the anti-aircraft defence is something to use to shoot
21 at aircraft; yes?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And then he goes on to say that these anti-aircraft weapons that
24 are being used to fire at targets on the ground and that they hadn't been
25 properly constructed. It seems that he believed that these weapons and
1 the anti-aircraft weapons should be used to fire at targets on the ground.
2 Is that correct?
3 A. According to this order, yes. But I myself never saw this order
4 before, and I know nothing about it.
5 Q. The order says that "firing positions constructed for firing at
6 targets on the ground should be upgraded and fortified up to the level
7 that they guarantee safety of gunners and enable long-term combat
8 operations." And in the next passage, he says: "When constructing firing
9 positions, take due care for them to be fully camouflaged."
10 Do you see this?
11 A. Yes, I do.
12 Q. If you never saw mortars and any heavy weapons, was that perhaps
13 the reason, precisely, that there was such an order in existence
14 instructing everyone for them to be camouflaged and obscured from vision
15 of even your combatants?
16 A. I'm telling you, we are talking here about anti-aircraft weapons.
17 It could be, I'm not claiming, but I personally didn't know that there
18 were any mortars of this kind of weapons. They could have been
19 camouflaged, I'm not denying that, but I'm telling you that I personally
20 know nothing about that.
21 Q. But you allow for the possibility that you don't know anything
22 about them, precisely because it had been ordered for them to be
23 camouflaged and not be visible for anyone?
24 A. I don't know. I'm telling, I don't know if they existed or not.
25 I myself didn't see them.
1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would kindly ask
2 for this document to be tendered for identification as exhibit -- Defence
3 exhibit and the number DD00-0782.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be Exhibit D100, marked
6 for identification.
7 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Let me clarify one more thing
8 with the witness.
9 Q. In these combat operations carried out either in Sarajevo or
10 outside of Sarajevo in Nisici, et cetera, you carried out them often in
11 coordination with police units or MUP units.
12 A. I personally had no contact with or wasn't involved in any
13 concerted actions with MUP. I was just a soldier, and I was part of my
14 unit. I don't know whether MUP units were there or not.
15 Q. Particularly in summer 1997 [as interpreted], in view of what was
16 happening in that summer, do you know that everyone was involved in these
17 operation, including MUP units, your units, and everything else that was
18 happening in June and July?
19 A. I don't know.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Cannata.
21 MR. CANNATA: Yes, summer 1997? Can my learned friend from the
22 Defence clarify? Probably he referred to a different year.
23 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter confirms that the counsel said 1997.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: What did you mean to say?
25 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] This order that I would like to
1 show to the witness, and I will finish with my questioning, is another
2 order issued on the 6th of July, 1995 by Fikret Prevljak, which
3 particularly refers to the period for which General Milosevic is accused
4 of; that is the order date of the 6th of July, 1995.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: So it's 1995 not 1997. You said 1997. That's
6 why the Prosecutor got to his feet.
7 Let's move on.
8 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] My apologies. The order says --
9 oh, no. I first have to call it up. It's DD00-0725. It's Defence
10 exhibit. It's a very short order, another order issued by Fikret
11 Prevljak, the commander of the 12th Division, which reads as follows:
12 "In view of the prevailing situation on the battlefield," and I'm
13 going to read further on, "I hereby issue the follow order. MUP units
14 shall continue to be engaged in the areas of responsibility of the 155th,
15 102nd, and 105th Mountain Brigades, and the 111 VBBR. They are going to
16 be used for defence and for securing the area of responsibility of the
17 brigade and the airport as a vital facility in the city of Sarajevo."
18 You know that MUP was often participating in actions, together
19 with the BH army. You can see here that your adjacent brigades were
20 engaged; 155, 102nd, et cetera.
21 A. Yes, but there's no mention of my brigade. I don't know how many
22 times I have to repeat. I don't know anything about it. I know that they
23 were not cooperating with my brigade. Whether they were engaged in action
24 with other brigades, I don't know about that. As for the position of my
25 brigade, they were never involved in actions together with us.
1 Q. The question is whether you're going accept this document for
2 identification as Defence exhibit.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Cannata.
4 MR. CANNATA: Just one or two -- putting the transcript --
5 actually, this document was not in the list. I mean, it's not a problem.
6 I just wanted to ...
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: For identification. Yes, we'll mark it for
9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, sorry. I have just
10 been told that we already tendered this document with the witness Vidovic,
11 so it's already there.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Very well, yes.
13 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. I have finished my
15 Q. Thank you, Witness.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Your Honours.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.
18 Any re-examination?
19 MR. CANNATA: Yes, Mr. President, very briefly.
20 Re-examination by Mr. Cannata:
21 Q. Witness, did you serve with the ABiH army throughout the period of
22 the war, which is, let's say, June 1992, December 1995; is that correct?
23 A. Yes, it is.
24 Q. You gave evidence that you spent around nine months, maybe less,
25 deployed in the area of the Nisic plateau; is that correct?
1 A. Yes, it is.
2 Q. Where did you spend the rest of your services with the 115th
4 A. The rest of the time I spent in the area of responsibility, in the
5 city of Sarajevo between Kozija Cuprija up to Debelo Brdo, in that area.
6 Q. So that we can say that in the period between 1992 and 1995, June
7 1992, December 1995, out of this whole period, you only spent nine months
8 in Nisic and the rest of the period deployed in the Sarajevo -- in the
9 city of Sarajevo area of responsibility, the 115th Brigade; is that
11 A. Precisely so.
12 Q. Thank you very much.
13 MR. CANNATA: Can I ask the court officer please to call Rule 65
14 ter number 44, and I will call page 12 of the B/C/S/document and page 7 of
15 the English document; and not to be broadcast, please. 65 ter 44; page 12
16 of the B/C/S and page 7 of the English translation, please.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Is this it?
18 MR. CANNATA: Looks like, yes. And I'm waiting for the English,
19 page 7. Can we ensure that it's not broadcast, please. Yes.
20 Well, I think the witness can answer the question. Yes, the
22 Q. Witness, do you see that B/C/S document in your monitor? Do you
23 need to be zoomed or that to be zoomed or can you see your name in that
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Do you recall that you gave a statement to Bosnian authorities,
2 the CSB of Sarajevo? Do you remember that, about the incident that we
3 were talking about?
4 A. Yes, I do.
5 Q. Do you --
6 A. Yes, I did give a statement.
7 Q. Let me read you briefly what it says at the second paragraph:
8 "The officer in charge states that on 24 December 1994 we interview," I
9 skip the witness name; and at the bottom of the same paragraph, it says:
10 "About the explosion of artillery projectiles at the flea market near the
11 Vijecnica building on 22nd November, 1994 at around 0900 hours."
12 Is that correct? December -- I'm sorry, 22nd December, 1994. Can
13 you read it in the B/C/S document in front of you?
14 A. Towards the end of the second paragraph on the 22nd of December,
15 1994. Is that what you're referring to?
16 Q. Yes, exactly. Yes.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: You're asking the witness to say whether that is
19 MR. CANNATA: Yes, Your Honour, primarily to recognise this as the
20 statement that he gave to the Bosnian authorities.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's the one.
22 MR. CANNATA: I tender this document into exhibit, under seal.
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Yes, we admit it, under seal.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be Exhibit number P309,
25 under seal.
1 MR. CANNATA: And I would actually tender only this page. It's --
2 as usual it's a large document. It's a 33-page English document. I will
3 seek to tender the very one page which has been shown to the witness.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. What is admitted is the particular
5 page shown to the witness.
6 MR. CANNATA: If I may, a final remark in terms of redaction. To
7 be consistent with the decision this Honourable Chamber has made for the
8 redaction of page 29 of today's transcript, I will refer your attention,
9 Your Honours, to page 78, line 18 to -- lines 18 to 23 of yesterday's
10 transcript where the same information of today were disclosed. So as a
11 matter of consistency, I will ask the redaction of also that small portion
12 of the transcript.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we'll do that.
14 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Are you through now?
16 MR. CANNATA: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. That concludes.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.
18 Questioned by the Court:
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: Good morning, Mr. Witness.
20 A. Good morning.
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Witness, during this trial, you are actually
22 the first witness to appear who has ever seen the front line, and the
23 Chamber is interested in knowing a little more about what the front line
24 looked like. So my question is, if you could tell us a bit what was
25 visible at the front lines. I understand that there were trenches, but
1 were there trenches all along the front line, or was it just trenches some
2 parts and other parts there would be nothing? That's one question.
3 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the Judge please.
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: What did the front line look like in the urban
5 areas? For instance, in the western side of your area of responsibility
6 in Grbavica, how would the front line there be visible, and how was it
7 manned? Were there soldiers on both sides looking at each other?
8 And my third question would be in the rural areas in the hills,
9 was the -- were the grounds between the two front lines, between the BiH
10 army and the Republika Srpska army, were those areas there full of
11 land-mines, or could you walk across them without any damage, I mean,
12 except for the risk of being shot?
13 Could you clarify a bit about what the front line looked like for
14 the Chamber, please?
15 A. It was like this, roughly speaking: Wherever it was possible to
16 dig a trench, one tried to dig one, and to get as close as possible to the
17 enemy lines precisely because of the shelling. The closer one got to
18 them, the greater the possibility not to come under shelling, because in
19 that case the enemy would have lay their own positions bare, expose them
20 to the shelling. The trenches had connecting tunnels, connecting
21 trenches. You didn't leave those because you would have exposed yourself
22 to shelling and to bullets. That's what the line was like above Sarajevo,
23 for the most part, in the Trebevic area which is where I was.
24 As for other parts of Sarajevo, for the most part I didn't know
25 exactly, but I think the lines mostly ran through buildings and basements
1 and what have you.
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Witness, that concludes your evidence. We thank
4 you for coming to the Tribunal to give it. You may now leave.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, too, Your Honours.
6 [The witness withdrew]
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: The next witness, please.
8 MR. SACHDEVA: Good morning, Mr. President, Your Honours. The next
9 witness is witness number 131, Mr. Ekrem Suljevic.
10 MR. CANNATA: Your Honours, if I may be excused please.
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, certainly.
12 MR. WHITING: Your Honours, I am sorry. While the witness is
13 being brought in and we are trading places, if I could just steal a moment
14 here to address that translation issue.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
16 MR. WHITING: The issue pertains to Exhibit D19 which was
17 discussed with the witness. Limiting myself strictly to the translation
18 issue, and not the larger issue that it touches, we don't really have any
19 comment on it. Looking back at the document, I think what happened is the
20 Prosecution was looking at one paragraph of the document and the Defence
21 was looking at another; and, in fact, the translation that's been provided
22 is consistent with the translation which is in evidence with this exhibit.
23 So we don't see any difficulty, and we don't really have any further
24 comment on the translation issue as such. It's fine with us.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.
1 Mr. Tapuskovic, any brief submissions on that matter?
2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I don't have any
3 objections myself. I do, however, believe that it is my duty to draw your
4 attention to our motion dated 26th of February, 2007, since this motion is
5 related to this entire document; given the fact that Barry Hogan, an
6 investigator of this Tribunal, on the 30th of January, 2001, once all of
7 the evidence about this had been heard, obtained a document that runs
8 counter to the previous medical document. I believe that to some extent,
9 and it's difficult to find the right word, this challenges everything that
10 the Prosecution has been doing so far. How is it possible, after all of
11 this, for a document to turn up that is fully in contradiction to all the
12 previous medical documents, or for that matter any evidence that we have
13 so far heard?
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm not sure that I have seen the motion that you
15 said you have filed. What does it seek?
16 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I don't mean to
17 tire you with this. We filed this on the 26th of February; you must have
18 received it. It's all explained in that motion, and I would not like to
19 tire you with this now, but if you could please study that motion.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: We will be examining the motion and giving a
21 ruling on it, although I am surprised that you -- that are you not in a
22 position to say what it seeks, but we will deal with that shortly.
23 Let the witness make the declaration.
24 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I am in a position
25 to tell you that.
1 That motion, we are saying that this document cannot be admitted
2 under 92 bis. If the document is -- so that's it.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. That's a matter we'll attend to.
4 Thank you very much, Mr. Tapuskovic.
5 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, there is one thing
6 that I would like to ask you. Could I please be excused?
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Sure, certainly.
8 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let the witness make the declaration.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
11 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
12 WITNESS: EKREM SULJEVIC
13 [Witness answered through interpreter]
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Please sit.
15 And you may begin, Mr. Sachdeva.
16 MR. SACHDEVA: Thank you, Mr. President. And can I inform the
17 Chamber that this is a 92 ter witness.
18 Examination by Mr. Sachdeva:
19 Q. Good morning.
20 A. Good morning.
21 Q. Please state your full name, your place and date of birth.
22 A. Ekrem Suljevic, the 1st of September 1959, the village of Gvosa
23 [phoen] in Foca municipality. This is in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
24 Q. Mr. Suljevic, do you remember on the 28th of February, 1996
25 providing a statement to investigators of the Office of the Prosecutor at
1 the ICTY?
2 A. Yes, I do.
3 Q. Do you remember providing another statement to the Office of the
4 Prosecutor on the 10th of March, 1997?
5 A. I do. I wouldn't remember the exact date but I think the year
6 sounds right.
7 Q. Yes, I will show them to you in a moment, which should make
8 everything clear.
9 Do you remember meeting me, roughly, two weeks ago in my office,
10 where I gave you an opportunity to read through those statements?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And do you recall upon reading those statements that you made a
13 number of amendments and corrections to those statements?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And do you remember that those corrections and amendments were
16 contained in another information report, and you had an opportunity to
17 review that report and you signed it?
18 A. I do remember signing it, yes.
19 Q. And with those corrections and amendments made to your two
20 statements, is it your evidence that those statements reflect an accurate
21 and valid state of events, according to your knowledge and memory?
22 A. Yes, fully.
23 Q. And if you were to be asked questions today in Court, would those
24 answers that you give reflect the contents of those statements and the
25 information report with the corrections?
1 A. Indeed.
2 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, could I ask that 65 ter 2968 -- 2968
3 be brought up on the screen, please.
4 Q. Mr. Suljevic, do you see a document on your right-hand -- on the
5 left-hand side of the screen there?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And do you see your signature there at the bottom?
8 A. I do.
9 Q. And is that the statement you gave on the 28th of February, 1996?
10 A. Yes.
11 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I tender that into evidence.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: It's admitted.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be Exhibit number P310.
14 MR. SACHDEVA: May I now ask for 65 ter 02969 to be broadcast,
16 Q. Mr. Suljevic, same questions: Do you see your signature on that
17 document, and is that the statement that you gave on the 10th of March,
19 A. Yes.
20 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I offer that into evidence as well.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, it's admitted.
22 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be Exhibit number P311.
23 MR. SACHDEVA: And, lastly, can I ask that 65 ter 02970 be brought
25 Q. Mr. Suljevic, firstly, do you see --
1 MR. SACHDEVA: Can we have the B/C/S version also on there,
3 MR. SACHDEVA: I'm told that the B/C/S version is page 3 and 4 of
4 the same document.
5 Can we just go to page 2, please.
6 Q. Mr. Suljevic, do you see your signature there at the bottom of the
8 A. I do.
9 Q. And is this document the corrections and amendments that you made
10 to your two statements?
11 A. Yes, it is.
12 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I ask that be admitted, as well,
13 into evidence.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be Exhibit number 312,
17 MR. SACHDEVA:
18 Q. Mr. Suljevic, I'm just going to ask you a couple of questions,
19 most of this is contained in your statements, but you worked for the
20 Sarajevo KDZ during the war; is that right?
21 A. That's right. The KDZ was under the Republican Ministry of the
22 Interior, which was based in the Sarajevo.
23 Q. Was there another name for the KDZ that was commonly used?
24 A. Not really. Well, what this really means is counter-sabotage
25 protection or bomb squad, if you like. That is what the department is
2 Q. And what was your role within this department of the Ministry of
3 the Interior?
4 A. I was a pyrotechnics inspector at the time, all the way up until
5 1995, sometime in 1995, when I became the head of the pyrotechnics
7 Q. Did you also undertake investigations into shelling incidents
8 during the period 1994/1995, within that department?
9 A. I didn't do on-site investigations. I was involved with teams
10 that carried out these investigations. I was in charge of analysing any
11 evidence collected at crime sites, forensically.
12 Q. Did you go to any on-site investigations with your team to conduct
13 investigations within the sphere of your expertise?
14 A. Yes, but there were other people involved, too, so I didn't go to
15 each and every on-site investigation. It depended. I sometimes did go.
16 Q. And when you did go, did your responsibility, amongst other
17 things, include analyses of craters and parts of projectiles that may have
18 been found at the scene?
19 A. Whenever I was there, I was supposed to help with crater analysis,
20 in terms of establishing the direction of a projectile. I was also
21 supposed to gather evidence, fragments of projectiles that exploded, which
22 could then be used to conduct some sort of analysis in a lab, because this
23 is the sort of the thing that you can't do at the actual site.
24 Q. When you conducted analysis of craters and determined the
25 direction of fire, what -- well, let me put it this way: What sort of
1 weaponry did you -- what kind of craters did you investigate? Were they
2 craters from mortars, modified air bombs, other artillery projectiles?
3 Could you describe that for the Court, please?
4 A. Well, depending on the projectile used, craters could vary. Very
5 peculiar type of crater is that caused by a mortar shell, which is
6 different from a crater produced by an artillery weapon.
7 As to air bombs, these would normally be large holes. If, for
8 example, a bomb hit the ground, or if it hit a building, what would be
9 left would be a large-scale ruin.
10 Q. When you say "other artillery projectiles," could you be more
12 A. Projectiles fired by artillery weapons. They rotate in flight as
13 opposed to mortar shells. These actually rotate around their own axis
14 during their flight.
15 Q. Do you know what a 76-millimetre shell is? What kind of weapon is
16 that, or projectile?
17 A. Yes. This is a shell that is fired by a 76-millimetre cannon.
18 This projectile also revolves or rotates around its own axis during its
19 flight, around its own axis.
20 Q. Do you know the approximate range of such a projectile?
21 A. I'm no expert in that field; but based on our work, based on the
22 requirements of our work, I am familiar with certain types of information.
23 As with any other artillery projectile, or mortar shells for that matter,
24 there are different kinds of charge; the more powerful the charge, the
25 larger the range of a projectile. In this specific case, if you have a
1 76-millimetre gun, a cannon, there are four charges, one to four.
2 And the most powerful charge normally implies that the range is,
3 and I can't remember exactly, but I think it must have been over 8
4 kilometres; between 8 and 9 kilometres, that's what the rage would be.
5 I'm talking about the charge number four, which is the most powerful
6 charge possible for this type of projectile.
7 Q. Very well. I'm going to ask you a few questions about a
8 particular incident in a moment; but, firstly, just generally, can you
9 tell the Court when you conducted on-site investigations and when you
10 analysed projectiles or parts of projectiles in your office at the KDZ,
11 were reports and notes routinely made?
12 A. On-site investigations were normally conducted by our colleagues
13 from the Security Services Centre. Every time they submitted a request
14 with evidence collected at a scene, fragments were, as a rule, analysed,
15 fragments that were collected at the site of an explosion.
16 Q. And when you analyse these fragments, did you produce reports?
17 Did your unit produce reports?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And given your time at the Ministry of the Interior at the KDZ,
20 did you, during that period, have the occasion to -- to review or to read
21 reports from other departments of the Ministry of the Interior? That is,
22 CSB reports, official reports, on-site investigation reports,
23 photographs -- official photo documentation, and so on.
24 A. No. We didn't get their reports or any other documents or any
25 notes. If, for example, there was a judge present at an on-site
1 investigation, we would receive a request for evidence or any fragments
2 found at the scene to be analysed, do our job, and then we would send back
3 our report containing any evidence that was found. So the evidence was,
4 in a manner of speaking, sent right back to the Security Services Centre,
5 and I think that sort of thing is still kept there.
6 Q. If you had seen such reports during your time at the Ministry of
7 the Interior, would you have been in a position to -- to recognise them as
8 valid documents from the Ministry of the Interior?
9 A. I think so.
10 Q. Now, do you remember when you first came on the 18th of February,
11 and also this morning, that you were shown a series of official reports,
12 photo documentation, maps, and other police documentation?
13 A. Yes. One thing I don't remember is the date I arrived; the 18th
14 or the 19th of February, I'm not sure. But I saw the documents then and I
15 saw them this morning, again.
16 Q. And did you have the time to review those documents carefully?
17 A. Yes, I did.
18 Q. Did you come to a conclusion as to the authenticity or the
19 validity of these documents?
20 A. I found all the documents to be both valid and authentic.
21 Q. After reviewing these documents, did you then review carefully a
22 spreadsheet containing a list of the documents that you had previously
24 A. A spreadsheet, yes.
25 Q. And after reviewing the spreadsheet carefully with the list of
1 documents, did you sign that spreadsheet and date it?
2 A. Yes, I did.
3 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, could I ask that 65 ter 30 -- sorry,
4 03012 be brought up on the screen, please.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Certainly, yes. It's -- certainly, yes.
6 I should say that I -- you don't need my permission to do that.
7 It's your evidence that you are leading.
8 MR. SACHDEVA: Thank you, Mr. President.
9 Q. Mr. Suljevic --
10 MR. SACHDEVA: Actually, could we go to the second page, please.
11 Q. Mr. Suljevic, do you see your signature there?
12 A. Yes, I do.
13 Q. And is that the spreadsheet containing the list of materials and
14 documents that you reviewed carefully in my office?
15 A. Yes, it is.
16 Q. And can you confirm to the Court that the materials and documents
17 contained in this spreadsheet are authentic and valid documents from the
18 Sarajevo CSB or Ministry of the Interior?
19 A. Yes, they are.
20 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, as the Prosecution has in the past
21 done with witness 28 and Dr. Mandilovic, the Prosecution would like to
22 tender into evidence the materials and the photographs contained in this
23 spreadsheet as separate items of evidence, in addition to the spreadsheet,
24 in the interest of time.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, let that be done.
1 Ms. Isailovic.
2 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
3 As to the document under number 9, after reviewing, then I realise
4 that these documents deal with an incident which was withdrawn from the
5 list after your decision, which is bombing number or shelling incident
6 number 4, the incident of December the 12th; and pursuant to your
7 decision, the Prosecution should not tender documents into evidence
8 regarding this particular incident.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: What you're saying is that we have excluded the
10 presentation of evidence -- what you're saying is that we had in our 73
11 bis decision excluded the presentation of evidence on that incident. What
12 incident is this on? Is that shelling incident number 4, you say?
13 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right. That was a
14 shelling that took place on the 12th of December, 1994.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, may I make a brief submission.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
18 MR. SACHDEVA: My learned friend is absolutely right, and I can
19 only apologise that it was an oversight. I believe that it is indeed an
20 incident that was removed by Your Honours' ruling, and I can only say that
21 I am constantly focussing on the incidents that we are dealing with, that
22 it was an oversight, so I'm happy to remove that from the spreadsheet.
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, that's to be removed from the spreadsheet.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, these items will then be given
25 Exhibit numbers 313 up to 326, following the numbers on the spreadsheet
1 and with exception from item number 1 -- 9, sorry.
2 MR. SACHDEVA: And may I also ask the spreadsheet to be admitted
3 into evidence, barring, of course, item number 9.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this spreadsheet will be Exhibit
6 number 327.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Please, Mr. Sachdeva, let me put a
9 question to the witness.
10 Witness W-131, at some point in time you worked --
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Private session.
12 [Private session]
23 [Open session]
24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
25 Cross-examination by Ms. Isailovic:
1 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you Your Honour.
2 Q. Hello, Witness. My name is Branislava Isailovic. I work for the
3 Paris Bar Association, and I defend General Dragomir Milosevic, present in
4 this courtroom, who is charged here by this Tribunal. I have a number of
5 questions to put to you concerning your statement, which you discussed
6 with the Prosecutor a while ago, do you remember this?
7 A. Yes, I do.
8 Q. And, today, the Prosecutor told us that you made a few changes to
9 your statements. Is that also true?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. You made more changes to your first statement, i.e., the one
12 that's dated 28th of February, 1996; is that right?
13 A. Yes, a certain number of changes were inserted.
14 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for counsel, please.
15 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. In these statements, now I'm putting the question to you, do you
17 need to have the statement on the screen. Even though you have looked at
18 these this morning with the Prosecutor, would you like this to be
19 displayed on the screen?
20 A. If you think it's necessary, then it's all right with me.
21 Q. Yes, maybe it's a good idea.
22 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] These statements are not in
23 e-court. We have not put these statements on our list. This is P310;
24 that is his statement of the 28th of February, 1996. Can we turn to page
1 Q. According to information provided a few weeks ago, you stated that
2 you were a mechanical engineer; is that correct?
3 A. No. Until a few weeks only. Since 1993, actually, I was a --
4 became a mechanical --
5 Q. Yes, but in this statement, which was given in 1996, it is
6 stated - maybe it's a mistake - it is stated that you were technology
7 constructor. Two weeks ago, you made a change here. Is that right?
8 A. Due to some confusion in the interpretation, this change was
9 input, but I can explain, if necessary.
10 Q. I shall pick up on this new piece of information you've given us.
11 I reckon that this is right. Did you acquire your knowledge as a
12 mechanical engineer in Sarajevo?
13 A. Yes. On the 10th of January, 1983, I graduated from the Faculty
14 of Mechanical Engineering in Sarajevo.
15 Q. What you studied at the Mechanical Faculty in Sarajevo, did your
16 training focus on anything pertaining to ammunition?
17 A. No.
18 Q. When did you acquire this knowledge which would entitle you to act
19 as an expert on matters relating to ammunition?
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Isailovic, he is not here as an expert, which
21 is a technical term in -- in the courts. We have a particular procedure
22 for -- for experts and we're not following that procedure. It doesn't
23 mean that he is not here to give evidence that relates to a specialised
24 field, and you're perfectly entitled to test him as to his qualifications
25 to give the kind of evidence that he is giving. But I just wanted to
1 clarify that he is not here as an expert.
2 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, thank you for your
3 remark. But I wanted to put the question to him because under domestic
4 jurisdiction, he appeared to be an expert on craters.
5 Q. Witness, let me resume. The Security Services Centre in Sarajevo,
6 you conducted crater analysis, is that right, is that the kind of thing
7 you did?
8 A. Crater analysis were conducted on the spot. That's the trace in
9 the ground left by the projectile. You cannot take it with you. It has
10 to remain at the scene.
11 Q. Did you yourself get involved in this kind of analyses, on the
12 spot, I mean?
13 A. Yes, with a view to determining the direction from which a
14 projectile came.
15 Q. And when did you acquire that knowledge that would entitle you to
16 conduct this kind of analysis?
17 A. This type of analysis doesn't require any specific knowledge. You
18 just need practice; therefore, there is no training course for this kind
19 of an analysis, teaching you how to do these things.
20 Q. Are you saying that you had no training in these matters?
21 A. As I told you, it was based on practice, and you acquire a
22 knowledge through practice. One didn't need any special training. It's
23 not any specific science how you determine the direction of a projectile
24 based on the shape and the features of the crater.
25 Q. Witness, and when did you start conducting crater analysis, when
1 did you put this into practice?
2 A. Before 1993, I had been working at Zrak company, which was a
3 special purpose factory in the former Yugoslavia. From November 1993, I
4 started working at the KDZ department. Initially, I took part in on-site
5 investigations and wasn't involved in expert analysis. I attended the
6 scenes as a kind of an assistant; and throughout this period, I acquired
7 this knowledge through practical work in the field.
8 Q. Witness, can I infer from your previous answer that you
9 established a connection between the job you were doing in the Zrak
10 factory and the fact that you were able to analyse craters after that, and
11 that you had a knack for it?
12 A. No. My job in -- in this company had nothing to do with
13 projectiles and artillery weapons of any kind. My job in this company --
14 now we go back to the technologition [as interpreted], or someone who is
15 involved in various technological processes, and I was a mechanical
16 engineer. We were dealing with optical systems, guiding systems for
17 anti-tank rockets, and we were developing these kind of systems.
18 Q. Witness, can I infer from this that the Zrak factory was an arms
20 A. Zrak factory was what we call the special purpose industry in the
21 former the Yugoslavia, for the former Yugoslavia People's Army. It
22 manufactured optical devices and other devices, to be used among other
23 things for certain weapons, and I myself wasn't involved in all those
24 weapons. It was a huge range of products and optical devices used in an
25 army; sighter devices, optical devices, and things like that.
1 Q. And as you left this factory in 1993 [Realtime transcript read in
2 error "1983"], can I infer from that that this factory was under the
3 control of the ABiH army after that?
4 A. In 1993, you mean, because you said in 1983. Between 1983 and
5 1993, I worked in this factory which is located in the city of Sarajevo.
6 Q. As far as you know, up until 1993 and thereafter, did the -- this
7 factory still produce the same kind of thing?
8 A. Yes. This factory is still in operation. I don't know what its
9 capacity nowadays is, but it's still working. I mean, it's still in the
10 same field. I don't believe that they still have the same range of
11 products because there is no need for that, and they don't have the
12 capacity to do that. I don't know. I didn't go to visit it for at least
13 ten years.
14 Q. But during the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina and from 1992
15 onwards, did this factory remain under the control of the ABiH army;
16 namely, from 1992 up until the -- up until the Dayton agreement. Is that
17 right? Agreements?
18 A. Yes. It's based in Sarajevo, and the factory was never occupied.
19 Q. Does this mean that throughout the entire conflict, it was still
20 manufacturing armament for the ABiH army?
21 A. This factory operated throughout the war with a very reduced
22 capacity of output.
23 Q. So you left this factory in 1993, and when did you start
24 conducting crater analyses?
25 A. This department was involved in this particular area; and since I
1 joined the department, I started becoming -- started to familiarise myself
2 with what they were doing, starting with the landing of projectiles, et
3 cetera, and I continued to do that until the end of the war.
4 Q. I don't know. I would like to put the name of one of his
6 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Perhaps we could move into private
7 session, please.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Private session.
9 [Private session]
11 Pages 3109-3111 redacted. Private session.
4 [Open session]
5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
6 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Witness, in your statement, I'd like to refer to page 3 of your
8 statement in both versions, because we already have one of the versions on
9 the screen, so the B/C/S version, please. We don't have paragraphs here,
10 but it's paragraph 9 as a matter of fact, and it's starting with [B/C/S
11 spoken] "in which I was involved." In the English version, "I was also
12 involved." It's the fourth paragraph in the sheet.
13 I derived from that paragraph that you establish or you
14 established special relationships for the purposes of your evidence today
15 at this Tribunal?
16 A. No. The first time I got in touch with anyone from the
17 International Tribunal was back in 1996.
18 Q. Witness, this wasn't my question. My question -- perhaps I'll
19 read this paragraph, [In English] "which hit the flea market on 22
20 December 1994. The report which you have shown me, signed by [French
21 spoken], is an example of the brief reports we wrote prior to the
22 knowledge that the Tribunal was interested in our work."
23 So my question is as follows: You started writing reports because
24 you wanted to use them for the Tribunal, and the fact that you started
25 writing for the Tribunal meant that you wrote the reports differently. Is
1 this correct?
2 A. Up to that point, we had been compiling reports, and we had been
3 asked to analyse countless missiles falling on the city of Sarajevo,
4 regardless of whether these missiles landed somewhere among the houses, in
5 a garden, for example, without necessarily injuring anyone. There were
6 too many of these missile and too many of these incidents. Sometimes we
7 would receive several requests in a single day. The reports had to be
8 concise. The point being to identify the projectiles without being too
9 competent assist.
10 You see that there are no specific descriptions very often, but
11 what we looked for were telltale signs that could help us to identify the
12 type of projectile that was used. The scope of our work was reduced later
13 on. We only carried out on-site investigations when there were
14 casualties; people wounded or killed. There was no point in us going out
15 all the time. There were thousands and thousands of missiles falling on
16 the city every day. It would have taken many more people to do that sort
17 of job.
18 Q. Reading your statement, I come to the conclusion that the report
19 you wrote after the 22nd of December incident on the flea market belongs
20 to this category of brief reports, which were drafted before you started
21 writing reports for the ICTY. Is this correct?
22 A. Yes, it's a brief report. You can tell by just looking at it.
23 The one thing that is unequivocal is the final opinion on what was
24 established; how the projectile was identified, the one that exploded in
25 that particular location. There were two at that particular market, in
2 Q. And for this report, did you go on the spot? Did you visit the
4 A. Yes. In this case, I did go to the scene of the explosion after
5 the explosion.
6 Q. You have just stated that the type of weaponry used was clear and
7 unambiguous, according to your analysis?
8 A. That's right. It was based on the mark left by the missile or the
9 crater, based on the fragments found at the scene. We realised this was a
10 76-millimetre missile that had been fired by a gun, a cannon.
11 Q. Witness, do you remember UNPROFOR forces being present on the
12 scene during your investigations?
13 A. UNPROFOR arrived at the scene. I can't say when exactly, but they
14 followed us. We were there by the time they arrived.
15 Speaking of this incident, their investigation of the direction
16 was independent, and then we would cross reference our results and our
17 results tallied. We arrived -- we had arrived at the same result, which
18 they subsequently confirmed. Our conclusions were identical, and the
19 direction that had been established appeared to be accurate.
20 Q. And do you remember the conclusion of UNPROFOR on the weapon used?
21 A. I don't remember the conclusion, but last week when I arrived
22 here, I eventually saw their report and I don't agree with what it says
23 about these having been mortar shells. When I saw for the first time that
24 that was what their report stated, that those had probably been mortar
25 shells that had been used, I disagreed.
1 Q. If I understand, the Prosecutor has shown you these UNPROFOR
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Well, then, I'm sorry to say that these conclusions were not
5 disclosed to us, because in our documents we have several UN documents
6 missing. Since it is difficult for to us to lay our hands on them, I have
7 here with me something which was disclosed, which is Mr. Angatsori's
8 [phoen] statement, who's an UNPROFOR member, his statement for the
9 purposes of witness evidence here. Unfortunately, he is not a witness in
10 this particular case, but it is a statement to the Office of the
12 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Since it is not present in
13 e-court, I have prepared paper copies of that document which I'll ask the
14 usher to circulate it. It is in English.
15 Q. But you, Witness, are already aware of this, because it actually
16 confirms what you have just stated. So we are talking about
17 Mr. Angatsori; his name is mentioned in the report as having been involved
18 in the investigation, which was conducted parallelly to the Bosnian
19 police's investigation.
20 Witness, my question is as follows: You came to the unambiguous
21 conclusion to --
22 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: You came to an
23 ambiguous conclusion.
24 Q. And your conclusion was different from UNPROFOR's conclusions. My
25 question is as following: After performing the analysis, have you looked
1 into the possibility of other possible conclusions on the same facts?
2 A. When we finished our analysis, we drew up a report. This report
3 was compiled based on the fragments found at the scene. These fragments
4 come from a 75-millimetre projectile. No stabilising fins were found such
5 as normally found in mortar shells, something that would have indicated
6 the use of a mortar shell.
7 I'm not sure what UNPROFOR based their opinion on. This was an
8 independent report that they made later on. I do know that while there,
9 we cross-referenced the directions that we had measured and our results
10 tallied at the time. That's all can I tell you.
11 Q. So you have compared the direction, but have you also calculated
12 the distance from which the shell was fired?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Witness, earlier on, you talked about different charges for a gun
15 shell; is that correct?
16 A. Yes, that's correct. But that is only the extent of my knowledge.
17 Q. Would you consider yourself as an expert in gun shells?
18 A. I'm not sure what exactly you mean when you say, "an expert in gun
20 Q. Are you positive that there can be different charges for gun
22 A. This is not in reference to the projectile but the propulsion
23 charge. The more powerful the propulsion, the farther a projectile is
24 likely to fly. A shell is just a shell. There is just a single type of
25 shell. No aberrations. It always has a certain type of charge.
1 Q. Yes, we are talking about the same thing, about the propelling
2 charge. This is what you had in mind, isn't it?
3 A. That's right, the propulsion charge.
4 Q. You have just said that you haven't found -- that you didn't find
5 the stabilising fins on the scene on the 22nd of December. Is this
7 A. That's correct. The fins would have indicated that a mortar shell
8 had been used. The projectiles fired from a gun have no fins. It's the
9 rotation that gives them a certain trajectory and a certain stability in
10 their flight. That's as far as I know.
11 Q. When analysing craters, have you already come across an instance
12 in which the stabilising fins vanished from the scene?
13 A. I did a number of on-site investigations, and whenever we were
14 dealing with a mortar shell, fins were invariably found. I don't know
15 what became of those later on. I'm not going into that. This would be
16 submitted to us for analysis and then returned for further analysis
17 perhaps. I don't know.
18 Q. So one important part of your analysis was the absence of the
19 stabilising fins, and is this one of the main things you base this on to
20 conclude that the shell had been fired by a 76-millimetre gun?
21 A. I wouldn't call it that important. When you conduct an analysis,
22 you need to take into consideration all the fragments that you retrieve.
23 It is based on all the fragments that you establish that, not based on
24 what is not there. There are these fragments that are submitted for
25 analysis. You will find some of our reports where we were simply unable
1 to ascertain, based on the fragments received, what the projectile was
2 that had been used. And then the conclusion would be, based on the
3 evidence submitted, it is impossible to identify the projectile used.
4 Q. On the basis of the very fragments, on the basis of the same
5 fragments, your analysis and UNPROFOR's analysis diverged; is this
7 A. Well, you see, our report clearly states that the fragments
8 belonged to a 76-millimetre shell. The UNPROFOR report states that this
9 was probably a mortar shell. I don't know what they based their finding
10 on. I know what we based on conclusion on.
11 Q. In the final paragraph of your statement - and part of your
12 statement has been amended, so please do take these amendments into
13 account - but in the final paragraph of your statement you mention this
14 22nd of December incident and you talk about the existence of the
15 buildings which may have been a basis for your analysis. Is that correct?
16 A. That's correct. There are no buildings there that would make it
17 possible what the angle of descent was of that particular projectile. It
18 was impossible to conclude whether it was at a lower angle or a higher
19 angle. I'm not sure if I'm making any sense.
20 If you have this cannon, the same charge, you can have two
21 different angles. You can use two different angles and still have the
22 projectile land in the same place, depending on where the weapon is
23 positioned. It can be positioned in a protected place. It can be used to
24 fire from behind a hill, for example. You have lower angles; you have
25 higher angles. My knowledge of this field is only modest. But for a
1 projectile to land one and the same place, you could actually fire it from
2 two different angles, if using that kind of weapon.
3 Q. So when performing your 22nd of December, 1994 analysis, all these
4 elements were missing.
5 A. I'm not sure what you mean by "elements were missing." The
6 direction of the missile was ascertained beyond any doubt at all. There's
7 always some symmetry. If you look at the marks left by a missile, this is
8 always at the mercy of the elements, the weather, that sort of thing.
9 There's always some degree of aberration that is taken into account. Plus
10 or minus 5 or 10 degrees, the direction was established. What we weren't
11 able to establish we simply didn't record. It was on the spot that we
12 ascertained the direction. We collected the evidence based on whatever
13 evidence was collected. An analysis was drawn up and the projectile was
15 You can identify a projectile based on the fragments found.
16 Sometimes these fragments were marked. Each projectile is marked in a
17 certain way. Sometimes these markings were found or bits of these
18 markings. Sometimes there were fins. So based on that, you establish
19 what the calibre was and what the type of shell was that was used.
20 Q. Earlier on you said that there were many shells fired and many
21 explosions in Sarajevo. I was wondering whether you were also looking at
22 the presence of other shells on the scene?
23 A. Those two are theoretical possibilities. But you would collect
24 evidence around a crater. A projectile comes flying in and then you can
25 get different types of fragments or evidence. As far as I know, this sort
1 of matter, material, is susceptible to corrosion. So even if you come
2 there the next day, you're likely to find that the fragments had been
3 altered by natural corrosion.
4 Q. When you were thinking and analysing, did you also take into
5 account the injuries of the victims?
6 A. No, we didn't. Most often there were no casualties. Once we
7 arrived at the scene, everybody had already been taken to hospital. There
8 was no point for to us wait there to carry out an investigation while
9 people are being removed. Therefore, there were very few occasions where
10 I arrived at the scene while there were still some casualties there. But
11 basically I never found anyone at the scene.
12 Q. But, Witness, would you agree that the nature and kind of wound
13 would indicate where the shot came from?
14 A. I'm not sure. After an explosion, who is capable of determining
15 how the victim was standing and where he or she was standing? And I don't
16 think that's the basis for establishing the direction of a projectile.
17 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] I shall get back to this affidavit
18 which the Prosecutor has submitted and which the Chamber has just tendered
19 into evidence.
20 Q. In these documents, there is a whole series of medical reports
21 which you have reviewed today, and you have, under oath, stated that these
22 are true to fact.
23 A. I think that they are authentic. As for the contents thereof, I
24 had never seen it before, nor did I write it. But the documents, as
25 documents, are authentic, produced by authorised or organs or
1 institutions. I didn't go into the contents thereof; what kind of
2 injuries were sustained, who were the victims, et cetera. It is not up to
3 me to evaluate that because I don't know what happened on the spot. That
4 is why I just say, "Yes, for example, there was this and this casualty."
5 And I think that these documents are authentic because they are based on
6 actual events.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Sachdeva.
8 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, if my learned friend is talking
9 about the spreadsheet, there is no mention of medical reports being shown
10 to the witness or at least being -- at least contained in this
12 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] To substantiate what I have just
13 said, I'm dealing with document 8, for instance. This is a 65 ter
14 document, number 1340, and in these documents there are a series of
15 medical reports.
16 Q. Now, if you look at number 8, can you see this? Did you see this
17 today? You haven't seen a single medical report?
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Where does it say it's medical, Ms. Isailovic?
19 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have received the
20 list of documents which are in e-court, so I have retrieved the documents
21 which are mentioned on the list. Number 8, for instance.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Sachdeva.
23 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, perhaps I understand where the
24 confusion lies. The documents on the spreadsheet are the ones that the
25 witness has confirmed, and if you look at -- if Your Honours look at item
1 8, it is indeed from 65 ter 1340; however, it's clearly indicated that
2 only pages 5 to 7 of that composite case file were shown to the witness.
3 That was the official report for incident 21st June 1995.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: What is admitted is confined to pages 5 to 7?
5 MR. SACHDEVA: Yes, Mr. President. And on e-court the full range
6 is obviously contained.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: So there you have it, Ms. Isailovic. It's only
8 pages 5 to 7 that's admitted.
9 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] So I stand to be corrected, but I
10 shall get back to this affidavit.
11 Q. So you cannot confirm any medical report in your affidavit?
12 A. I cannot -- I'm not capable of confirming a medical report at
13 all. If I see a document, I can only say whether it is authentic, whether
14 it has been issued by an authorised institution. I cannot confirm the
15 contents or the veracity thereof. I'm not an expert there.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: But are there medical reports in his, what you
17 call, affidavit? Are there medical reports in his affidavit?
18 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I was not feeling
19 very well this morning; that's why I came in late this morning. In the
20 meantime, we had three lists, and this was something that we greed with
21 the Prosecution. I was unable to write down the numbers this morning and
22 my case file was prepared last night for today. This case file contains
23 these reports, but if it's redacted, it's even better.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Sachdeva, are there medical reports in the
25 statements that were admitted?
1 MR. SACHDEVA: No, Mr. President.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: No.
3 MR. SACHDEVA: No. I mean, that's why the pages are indicated.
4 And, in fact, the specific ERNs from the B/C/S versions, the original
5 versions, are clearly marked. I didn't show the witness medical reports.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Right. So you shouldn't ask the question: So
7 you cannot confirm any medical report in your affidavit, because we
8 already settled that there aren't any.
9 So proceed.
10 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Fine, Your Honour.
11 Q. In your statement - I don't have it on my screen anymore; could it
12 be put up on the screen, please; this is Exhibit P310 - you did talk about
13 specific cases which you were able to talk about, given that you had taken
14 part in the investigations. The incident that occurred on the 28th of
15 June, 1995, when an air bomb had fallen on the television building, do you
16 remember this?
17 A. Yes. I visited the scene and carried out the on-site
18 investigation of this particular incident.
19 Q. Do not look at the document you have on your screen because the
20 numbers have been switched around. This is the document now. Page 3.
21 You say in your statement that when you reached the site you found
22 no fragments.
23 A. I think that's not correct. I don't know where you found that,
24 that no shrapnel was found.
25 Q. Perhaps you could correct what's written in here.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm sorry. I see. The question that you put to
2 him was that in his statement -- you say that when he reached the site, he
3 found no fragments, and then he answered: "That's not correct. I don't
4 know where you found that, that no shrapnel was found." I'm not sure
5 whether there is a distinction being made between fragments and shrapnel.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Sorry, there shouldn't be any
7 distinction between fragments and shrapnel. It is it possible, though,
8 that this statement refers to the fact that in this incident there were no
9 remnants of the engine found, of the rocket engine, which was an integral
10 part of this modified air bomb. But shrapnel were found and that's what I
11 put in our report subsequent to our analysis. And you will see there that
12 we examined each and every piece of shrapnel that we found at the scene.
13 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. If I have understood you correctly, you didn't find any rocket or
15 engine fragments on the site; is that right?
16 A. That's correct.
17 Q. But, nonetheless, you did conclude that it must have been an air
19 A. Yes, that's correct.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Isailovic, in view of the fact that are you
21 not well, and the Chamber has observed that, we'll take the adjournment
23 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Witness, you may leave, to return on Monday at
25 9.00. In the intervening time, you are not to discuss your evidence with
1 anybody, and that includes the Prosecution.
2 Please take the witness out.
3 [The witness stands down]
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Private session.
5 [Private session]
16 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.31 p.m.,
17 to be reconvened on Monday, the 5th day of March,
18 2007, at 9.00 a.m.