1 Monday, 5 March 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.16 a.m.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Isailovic, the Chamber trusts that your
7 health has improved over the weekend.
8 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, thank you, Your Honour. I
9 feel a lot better, fortunately.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: You will continue with your cross-examination.
11 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
12 WITNESS: EKREM SULJEVIC [Resumed]
13 [Witness answered through interpreter]
14 Cross-examination by Ms. Isailovic: [Continued]
15 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, witness. We will now continue the
17 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] So, first, Your Honour, we
18 received a copy of a document in the meanwhile. We got the statement from
19 Mr. Hangatsori, an UNPROFOR soldier, and we downloaded it in the e-court
20 system. And we have a number for it, and I would like to offer it as
21 evidence. And it's number DD00-1118 in the e-court system.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let me see if I understand correctly. You're
24 offering this as evidence. You wish to have it admitted.
25 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. Yes.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Sachdeva.
2 MR. SACHDEVA: Good morning, Mr. President.
3 I'm just not aware that the statement was -- has at this point
4 been shown to the witness, or whether conclusions from it have been put to
5 the witness. But maybe I'm -- of course, I'm happy for parts of the
6 statement to be put to the witness, or for the statement to be shown to
7 the witness, but I don't think it's been done yet.
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Isailovic, the Chamber doesn't have a clear
10 recollection of the statement having been put to the witness, so would you
11 briefly put whatever it is that you wish to the witness from the
13 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. The portion I'm
14 interested in is just one sentence, on page 2 at almost at the end, "[In
15 English] French officer showed me. I thought it was something like 81,
16 82-millimetre shells. I haven't seen a tail-fin."
17 [Interpretation] I showed this to the witness, and earlier he had
18 said that during the interview the Prosecutor had shown him another
19 situation report, I guess, where there is mention of this mortar being
20 shot and not a gun being shot, a cannon being shot. I forgot to note on
21 what page this was, but I'm sure we could find it.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Isailovic, just put to the witness, again,
24 the two issues: What kind of weapon it was, and where did the firing come
1 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Witness, please, last Friday, I'm sure you remember that we talked
3 about the incident of December 22nd, 1994 at the flea market; do you
4 remember that?
5 A. Yes, I do.
6 Q. Do you remember that we talked about your own analysis?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And what were your conclusions regarding the weapon the shell was
9 actually shot from?
10 A. In this particular instance, it was a 76-millimetre shell fired
11 from a gun.
12 Q. You also said that there were UNPROFOR soldiers who were on the
13 site carrying out their own crater analysis.
14 A. That is correct. After we completed our analysis of the crater,
15 they proceeded with their work. I think that they had arrived in the
16 meantime and started their own examination. After we compared our
17 findings, in terms of direction from which the projectile had come, it was
18 established that these two findings coincided. I think that they were
19 identical with respect to the direction of the projectile.
20 Q. Now, regarding the weapon, the weapon that --
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just one moment, Ms. Isailovic, just let him say
22 what direction was that.
23 Witness, what direction was that from which the firing came?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was fired from the area of
25 Trebevic. I can't remember exactly the exact azimuth that we measured,
1 but I believe that it was south-easterly direction; closer to the south,
2 but generally south-easterly direction.
3 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Now, Witness, last Friday you said that upon arrival the
5 Prosecutor showed you the analysis made by UNPROFOR where the weapon
6 mentioned was a mortar and not a gun or cannon. Is that true?
7 A. It wasn't an analysis as far as I was able to understand from this
8 document. It was an UNPROFOR report on incidents, and it mentioned that
9 at that time and on that location two projectiles exploded, most probably
10 82-millimetre mortar shell. Therefore, it was not an analysis. It was
11 just a report.
12 Q. Do you remember that you were shown a statement last Friday, a
13 statement made by an UNPROFOR officer, Mr. Hangatsori, who was there on
14 site. I will read to you what he said in that statement, and it has to do
15 with the findings regarding the weapon. "[In English] According to the
16 shrapnel a French officer showed, I thought it was something like 81,
17 82-millimetre shells. I haven't seen a tail-fin."
18 A. I don't understand what the question is.
19 Q. Well, the question is my following -- the question is the
20 following: Do you remember the statement by this person that was shown to
21 you last Friday? It was in English.
22 A. Yes, I do. And I said that our analysis showed that this
23 analysis, or rather, the report does not correspond to the factual state
24 of affairs. Based on fragments, we established that it was a
25 76-millimetre projectile. UNPROFOR did not collect these fragments, and I
1 don't know what their analysis was based upon.
2 Following the on-site investigation, these fragments were
3 collected; and after the on-site investigation, the team took this --
4 these pieces as evidence.
5 Q. Do you allow for the possibility that things would have happened
6 according to what Mr. Hangatsori said in his statement?
7 A. Not even in theory. There is no theoretical possibility that it
8 was a mortar shell.
9 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would like to offer
10 this statement as evidence, DD00-1118.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Sachdeva.
13 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I would just say that you know the
14 witness who made the statement has not been called and, therefore, there's
15 been no opportunity for cross-examination on these conclusions and,
16 therefore, it would clearly go to --
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: That's not different in any way from the usual
18 hearsay statement, but let me hear you further. You were developing
19 another argument.
20 MR. SACHDEVA: I was merely saying that the fact that the witness
21 has not been called and not cross-examined would go to the weight of the
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: And, therefore, we can admit it.
24 MR. SACHDEVA: It's been done in the past in this Court, so I'm
25 just merely stating that the weight should be afforded appropriately to
1 this kind of evidence.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: I see. Because I make a distinction between this
3 document and the ones that we have been marking for identification, in the
4 sense that those we are marking for identification is that the witness
5 doesn't know anything about the document. That is not the case here. The
6 difference is in the opinion as to the -- the type of weapon and where it
7 came from.
8 The Chamber will admit it and, of course, we take account of the
9 submissions that you made about the weight to be attached, yes.
10 MR. SACHDEVA: Thank you, Mr. President.
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: Counsel? Counsel? Ms. Isailovic, since you are
12 the person to cross-examine, I will put my question through you and I
13 would like to you ask the question, put the question to the witness if he
14 can clarify a bit more why he does not think that there is not even a
15 theoretical possibility that the grenade was a mortar.
16 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.
17 Q. So, Witness, I'm sure you heard this question, but I will
18 reformulate it. Why -- could you give us your reason that why you totally
19 would exclude the fact that this grenade or this projectile might come
20 from a mortar?
21 A. The reasons lie in the evidence collected on the spot, including
22 the trace left on the surface by the projectile as well as on the basis of
23 the collected fragment pieces. These fragments were analysed in detail.
24 This can be subjected to extra analysis, if necessary. They were analysed
25 by the CSB in Sarajevo, and the analysis relied on both the traces and the
1 fragments and it was established beyond doubt that it was a 76-millimetre
2 shell. There was not a single evidence found on the spot pointing to the
3 origin of the projectile being a mortar shelf of any calibre.
4 Q. Well, because of this shift in the examination, I'm going switch
5 topics, too, and change my questions. And so we'll continue with the
6 incident of December 22nd, even though I had other questions in mind.
7 Let's talk about December 22nd. Do you remember an affidavit that
8 the Prosecutor asked to you sign last Friday?
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Isailovic, please allow the court deputy to
10 assign a number.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, Your Honour. That statement will be
12 Exhibit D101.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Witness, before you move on, you say that the
14 analysis relied on both the traces and the fragments and it was
15 established beyond doubt that it was a 76-millimetre shell. That's more
16 an assertion. What is there about the traces and the fragments that
17 established beyond any doubt that it was a 76-millimetre shell, because
18 are we have not technical people. So you have made this assertion, but I,
19 speaking for myself, would need to be told what was there specifically
20 about the traces and the fragments that led to the conclusion that it was
21 a 76-millimetre shell?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I can remember, there was
23 probably some markings on the pieces of fragments. Each projectile bears
24 a marking, so there was probably a fragment of the marking on the physical
25 evidence. At this point, I cannot remember exactly what was written on
1 it; but based on the markings and based on the characteristics of very
2 specific fragments, we arrived at the conclusion some of the fragments
3 were totally irrelevant, but there was some characteristic ones. And some
4 that bore the markings served as a basis for establishing the type and the
5 calibre of the projectile.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Were you a part of the team that carried out this
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I was.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Ms. Isailovic, please continue.
10 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Witness, I'll continue along the same line.
12 In -- in the report everything that goes toward this conclusion
13 [Realtime transcript read in error "exclusion"] written down, right?
14 Sorry. It's not "exclusion" that the interpreter wrote, it was
16 So I'll reformulate. The whole logic regarding how you analysed
17 the origin of the shot is actually written down in the statement?
18 A. Yes. Its had been decisively stated in the report which kind of
19 projectile was involved on the basis of the fragments detected and
20 retrieved from the scene.
21 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... finding, but the whole logic,
22 the rationale, the procedure that you used to actually to arrive to this
23 finding or conclusion. I would like to know whether the whole thought
24 process is also included in the report, the whole logic?
25 A. Typically, our report contained a description of individual
1 fragments, and this is followed by an opinion. In this particular case,
2 the opinion was as I just explained to you a while ago.
3 Q. Yes. We'll come to this in a minute.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Sachdeva is on his feet.
5 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, just for the Court's information,
6 the report and related reports of this incident have been admitted into
7 evidence with the spreadsheet. It was part of the documents that the
8 witness reviewed.
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: I have been developing a view that there is a
11 problem with the way we admit documents under the e-court system. Well,
12 just in this particular instance, because you say that was part of the
13 spreadsheet. But it wasn't shown specifically to us this report, was it?
14 MR. SACHDEVA: I didn't use it in my chief because the procedure
15 we adopted was to save time as we had done in previous instances: for
16 example, with the W-28 and also with Dr. Mandilovic. And the witness
17 reviewed these reports in my office and, therefore, we produced -- I
18 produced the affidavit that he signed. And so --
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Have you seen this report, Ms. Isailovic? Have
20 you seen it?
21 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I have seen it
22 and we're going there, and I'm going ask that, actually.
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: You're going to ask questions about it?
24 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, please continue.
1 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. So, Witness, please, we are going to linger on this incident of
3 December 22nd.
4 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] And I would ask my case manager to
5 call up the document that was tendered and accepted as P314.
6 Q. So this is part of this official report dealing with the incident
7 that occurred on December 22nd, 1994. So, first, we have a map, a map
8 where you actually annotated the direction where the shot came from.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Sachdeva, in my view, when we admit documents
10 globally without the party adducing evidence on the parts thereof, I think
11 the party should state what the document consists of. Of course, it's on
12 the e-court and we can track it down, but I think it would be more than
13 helpful if we developed a practice for a party to identify the various
14 items in a document that is admitted as a whole, so that we can determine
15 whether any one of those items warrants further questioning. But I
16 imagine you're going to tell me this is all on the -- is it on the
18 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I was indeed going to say that I
19 have attempted to identify exactly what the witness has seen. If,
20 Mr. President, you're suggesting that when this procedure is employed we
21 could read out in court what is on the spreadsheet, then I would agree
22 that would be a useful idea.
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. I think that at least should be done, if
24 it's not overly long at any rate.
25 So do we have the document that you wish?
1 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for counsel, please.
2 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, we're waiting for it to be
3 displayed. We actually pressed on -- gave the order for the -- for this
4 document to be pulled up on screen, but we're waiting.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Is there a problem, Court Deputy?
6 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Oh, I understand it's taking a while because it's
8 a map.
9 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, while we're waiting for the
10 map to be displayed.
11 Q. Witness, do you remember those documents you saw with the
12 Prosecutor and which are on that list that you actually signed?
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Sachdeva.
14 MR. SACHDEVA: I'm sorry to interrupt, Mr. President. But if
15 there's a problem with the e-court, I do have hard copies that can be
16 shown to the witness to assist the Defence.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: That would be helpful, yes. Please provide the
19 MR. SACHDEVA: Can I just inquire through the Court whether the
20 Defence wants to show the witness the report that he himself compiled?
21 Because I understand my learned friend was talking about a map.
22 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, yes, the map first; and then
23 the report, P315.
24 Maybe the way we could proceed in the following fashion: The
25 Prosecutor could please give us the hard copy for the map, and we will
1 pull up the report on screen. It might take a few minutes.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: It sounds like --
3 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] No, here comes the map.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: We have the map now, yes.
5 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Witness, please, you -- this is the map that you actually
7 annotated yourself. Is that true?
8 A. Yes, it is.
9 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Could the usher please come and
10 help you to work the electronic pen, so that we could show something else
11 on the map.
12 Q. Witness, please, this green arrow represents the direction that
13 the shell was actually shot from, according to your findings. Is that
15 A. Yes, it is. It was the direction with a degree of or a margin of
16 possible error, because it was impossible for to us determine it 100 per
17 cent correctly; therefore, we could have an error of plus or minus 5 per
18 cent. But this is the direction from which the shell came, based on the
19 measurements made at the place of impact.
20 Q. Witness, is it fair to say that you were not able to determine the
22 A. Yes. We were not trying to establish the distance in this case.
23 Q. So could you please circle Colina Kapa on this map.
24 A. Could you please enhance the map, zoom in? It should be somewhere
25 around here.
1 I don't know exactly, but Colina Kapa, in my view, is around here.
2 Q. Don't you see any letters on this map or inscriptions on the map?
3 A. The place where I put my marking says "Bogusevac." As for Colina
4 Kapa, I can't see it. I am unable to find such an inscription. I don't
5 know what the number 3 is supposed to mark.
6 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please zoom a bit for, if
8 A. Yes, I can see it now. Colina Kapa, on the map, is here.
9 Q. Would you please circle it? Just draw a circle around Colina
11 A. [Marks]
12 Q. And do you see Vidikovac on this map?
13 A. Yes. Vidikovac is the place to which the cable car could
14 eventually take you from the old town before the war.
15 Q. Letter A on Colina Kapa; letter B on Vidikovac.
16 A. [Marks]
17 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] And now, Your Honour, I would like
18 to offer this document.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we admit it.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, that will be Exhibit D102.
21 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Now, I'm going to ask my case
22 manager to call up document P315 on screen. This it the report written
23 by your boss, I guess, at least it was signed by your boss, and we talked
24 about it yesterday.
25 Q. Witness, please, you see the report on screen?
1 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] If we could please move to page 2
2 of the B/C/S version. The English version is only one page long.
3 Q. Witness, please, is this the entire report regarding the crater
4 analysis, the direction of the shot, and the nature of the -- of the
5 projectile that fell on the flea market? Is everything included in your
7 A. I think at page 1 a part of the text is illegible in this report
8 we drafted, because at page 2 we only see the opinion as to the type of
9 projectile. I think there is a part of the text missing where we have the
10 description of some characteristic fragments based on which we made the
11 conclusion that could be seen on page 2.
12 We never drafted reports in this way, that we would provide an
13 opinion without any basis. We always described the characteristics and
14 it's traces which led to us a certain conclusion. There were some reports
15 of ours in which we described the fragments, but we also state in some of
16 them that it was not possible to establish the type of projectile based on
17 the traces found.
18 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] But could we go -- could we please
19 zoom in on the first page in the B/C/S, or look at the first page in the
21 Q. Witness, please, this is also very difficult for me to read the
22 document, and sometimes it's very hard to know exactly what is written in
23 these documents, in the documents that are offered here as evidence. But
24 the missing part here, according to you, would be the crater analysis. Is
25 that it?
1 A. No, no. The part that is missing is the analysis of traces and
2 evidence collected. In the bottom part, we cannot see the part of the
3 text which was supposed to describe the characteristic traces found on the
5 Q. Witness --
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let me ask the witness: Are you able to read the
7 B/C/S? It's not very legible. If you are, would this provide the missing
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't think so.
10 Because in the part that I can read, I can only see that it is stated
11 there that we have been forwarded material for expert analysis. You can
12 see the date when that took place and the address, or rather, the name of
13 the street. I can read out for you the things that I see, not the rest.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, never mind.
15 Yes, Ms. Isailovic. Just a minute, Judge Mindua has a question.
16 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Yes, witness, there is something
17 that I don't understand. Are you challenging the authenticity of this
18 document, or are you saying that there are portions that can you not read
19 and that because of that you cannot exactly know what is included in the
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do not question or dispute the
22 authenticity of this document, but this is a very poor copy and there is
23 part of the text which is simply invisible. I don't know why. But the
24 originals of these reports I believe can be found with my former
25 department of KDZ. This is an authentic report, but the copy you have is
1 very poor and you simply cannot see an entire portion of the text.
2 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Witness, is this -- when you made an affidavit about a document,
4 it was about the document, this document, the way it is written here and
5 the way it was presented here?
6 A. Yes. I was shown this document, and we established that a part of
7 the text is invisible.
8 Q. Do you think that the boss -- your boss, you know, who signed the
9 document, do you think that he could have contributed something to help us
10 know exactly what the document was all about? Because you didn't seen the
11 document in the first place. It's your boss that signed the document.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Sachdeva --
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is correct.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: The question appears to be ambiguous. You have
15 asked him whether he thinks that his boss could have contributed something
16 to help us know exactly what the document was all about. What do you
18 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, a document that we
19 have, like the document it we have here on the screen, cannot help
20 Chambers discover anything; discover at least the analysis that was made
21 after the incident. And it was a very important incident because it is in
22 the schedule, in the indictment.
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: That's not my question. It's probably a
24 translation or a language problem. Do you mean to ask whether his boss
25 might be able to say something that could clarify the document?
1 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. Because the
2 witness here did not sign the document. It's another person who signed
3 the document.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, what is your answer to this question,
5 Witness? Do you think your boss might be able to add something that would
6 clarify the document, the missing parts of the document?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Based on the quality such as the one
8 you have here, no one could help you in assisting you to read. It is
9 correct that my boss had things to do with this report, but can you also
10 see my initials on the second page, which means that I worked on it as
11 well. Based on a copy as poor as this, no one could explain anything
12 further to you.
13 The only way to go to would be to come up with a better copy of
14 the report so as to be able to see the missing part; and, perhaps, if I
15 may add, I could tell you that my boss did not attend the on-site
16 investigation. He probably saw the traces on the fragments during the
17 analysis at our department. I don't know exactly whether he was there at
18 that moment; but as our boss, he was supposed to supervise our work.
19 Therefore, it is likely that he saw the traces.
20 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. So, Witness, according to you, the analysis would be in this
22 missing part of the page, in the invisible text?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Thank you. I'm trying to save time, so we agree on the missing
25 part. Thank you.
1 Now, we will continue with the same incident and the same
3 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] And I would like to call on screen
4 the document P317.
5 Q. Witness, last Friday, you said that the casualties and the
6 eye-witnesses were not your main concern when you visited the site of the
8 A. The representatives of my department, that is the technical staff,
9 did not deal with such things. It wasn't our task on site. There were
10 other team members who were tasked with that.
11 Q. Yet you certified the content of statements that were collected on
12 site by your colleagues. Is that true?
13 A. I certified the authenticity without going through each and every
14 word; because once drafted, I did not see the documents subsequently. I
15 can confirm the authenticity of the documents, but I did not go through it
16 chapter and verse.
17 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Now could we please have page 2 of
18 this document on screen.
19 Q. Witness, please, could you please take a close look at this
20 document and tell us who actually collected the statements, the name of
21 the colleague that actually collected the statements?
22 A. I can't tell you who took statements. There's a signature here of
23 the person who took the statements, but I don't know who it was. There's
24 only the name of a witness, of the person giving the statement; but as to
25 who took the statement, I don't know.
1 Q. Witness, as a police officer, do you find it normal not to have
2 the name of the officer who actually wrote down the statement made by a
3 witness? Do you find it normal that the name of the person would not be
4 written out?
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: You mean written above the signature?
6 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, or elsewhere,
7 but somewhere at least. Because in our national jurisdictions, we have
8 different systems and different procedures regarding, you know, how
9 reports are made by an officer, a police officer. And I'm asking the
10 witness to tell us where in this document we can see that the -- an
11 official officer actually wrote down this official report.
12 A. I cannot tell you anything about that. I see the statement had
13 been taken in the CSB on the 11th of January, 1995 by Salih Luksija who
14 then signed his statement. I can't tell you anything about the things
15 that you're asking me about now. I cannot furnish an answer that would
16 satisfy you.
17 Q. Witness, I'm happy with all answers; it's not the problem. The
18 question here is to check the authenticity of this document and you
19 certified it. You certified it with -- by oath, right?
20 A. That is correct. But it concerns the authenticity. As for the
21 contents, it will be best to ask the person who provided the statement and
22 signed, because that person stated what is contained.
23 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for counsel, please.
24 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Now I'll ask my case manager to
25 call up page 4 of this document.
1 Q. Witness, please, does the same thing apply to this document, or
2 could you tell us in this case who actually wrote the report?
3 A. Unless there is a name that I can read on the document, I cannot
4 tell you who took the statement for any of such documents. I can only
5 confirm what I can see written here. As for the authenticity, this was
6 the template, the form that we used. And at bottom, you were trying to
7 say that at the bottom there should be a name printed out legibly, but I
8 can't tell you anything about that.
9 Q. Witness, you already confirmed the authenticity of these
10 documents, but I'm asking you what basis you use to actually authenticate
11 these documents?
12 A. Based on the form of the document itself and the signature of the
13 witness. Whether it is the witness's authenticate signature, well, I
14 can't say because I don't know the witness, but the document as we see it
15 here corresponds to the form we used. The witness's signature should be
16 authentic, I believe. As for whether he was telling the truth or not, I
17 have no comment.
18 Q. Witness, you're saying that this document is -- has a correct
19 format. Is that it? You're saying that the format of the document is
20 perfectly normal, according to you. Is that what you're saying?
21 A. [No interpretation].
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: We have lost the interpretation.
23 THE INTERPRETER: Apologies by the interpreters.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Will you please repeat that.
25 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Should I also repeat the question?
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: It's the witness's answer that should be
2 repeated, not the question.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's the format of a statement.
4 In the preamble, some basic information is given us as to when and where
5 the statement was taken; then the statement itself as made by the witness
6 is noted down. It's then read back to the witness, and the witness signs
7 it is as its own. So not even the person taking the statement can verify
8 and stand by, but only the person giving the statement can do that.
9 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Witness, let's move to page 10, for example, now.
11 So, it's -- it's a bit blurry, but we can still need the name of
12 the officer who actually wrote down the statement collected from a
13 witness, and we can even see the name of the registrar, or clerk.
14 So here's my question: The format of this statement, do you think
15 that it is more legal or more -- is this format more legal than what we
16 saw earlier?
17 A. It's not up to me to determine what is legal or not. I'm not a
18 legal person. You can see the name of the witness here, the person who
19 took the statement, Sulejman Pilav, and the recording clerk; however, the
20 contents of this statement can only be verified by the witness who stated
21 where was at the time if the incident and where he went. No one can now
22 check that any longer, so this should be taken as the statement of the
23 witness saying and describing the incident. As far as the legality is
24 concerned, I'm not a lawyer.
25 Q. So let's go back to the list, document P327, the list that the
1 Prosecutor asked you to sign.
2 Witness, we have the schedule here on screen. Do you remember
3 this schedule that you signed Friday?
4 A. Yes, I do.
5 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please zoom on the
7 Q. Please take a look at number 1. You remember that Prosecutor
8 showed you this criminal investigation file?
9 A. Yes, I do.
10 Q. So here's my question, and if need be, we will actually call up
11 the entire file.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Look, Ms. Isailovic, I don't think we need to
13 call up the entire file; but I wanted to ask you, what is it that you
14 would be asking the Chamber to conclude in relation to these many
15 documents to which you have been referring? What is your submission on
17 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this is my
18 submission. Here we've been presented with a great number of documents
19 that are on a schedule. Personally, of course, I studied them very
20 carefully, and I noted that for a number of documents the witness that we
21 have here did not actually take part in the investigation, and I'm trying
22 to determine, to help you determine the weight you should actually give to
23 this evidence. This evidence is offered through this witness, even
24 though -- well, it's up to you, of course, to find out. But I'm trying
25 here to demonstrate -- I try to help you in assessing what weight should
1 be given to this witness's deposition.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Would your submission be that we should attach
3 little weight to it for the reason that the signature of the -- the
4 investigating officer is not sufficiently clear, or the name of the
5 investigating officer is not identified?
6 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, these are elements
7 and parameters that have to be there for documents to be legal and
8 depend -- for each document, my submission is different. But regarding
9 this witness, he actually authenticated this document. All these
10 documents are offered through him, and I wanted to check about him exactly
11 what he knows about all of these documents regarding all these documents,
12 because he is actually testifying in terms of the authenticity of these
14 And if I can go on, for document 1 and 15, for example, I am
15 offering to the witness that he did not even take part in all these
16 investigations regarding 1 and 15. So I'm asking him whether he is just
17 testifying on the apparent form, on the form that the documents have but
18 not on the substance of the documents.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Sachdeva, how would you respond to that
20 submission, that for the reasons that she has outlined the Chamber should
21 not attach much weight to these documents.
22 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, of course, arguments regarding
23 weight depend upon the entirety of the evidence, as the trial proceeds.
24 What the witness has done and what he has confirmed under oath and what
25 has never been -- which has always been maintained by the Prosecution is
1 that the witness has confirmed the validity or the authenticity of these
2 records. It doesn't require the witness to have participated in an
3 investigation to render a record valid.
4 We did the same exercise with Dr. Mandilovic, who may not have
5 performed surgery on you particular patients but testified that these
6 document were valid medical records. Of course, my learned friend is
7 entitled to put her argument as to the weight of the documents, but in
8 terms of the procedure for admission, no.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: No. I don't think we're not dealing with that.
10 It's just weight.
11 MR. SACHDEVA: Very well. And, in any case, the fact that the
12 witness did not participate in an investigation again goes to other
13 arguments of weight. We will have witnesses that have participated in
14 these investigations; and once the evidence has come in, then only then
15 the proper arguments can be put regarding weight. But in my submission,
16 these documents are valid.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: You will be bringing other witness who will be
18 able to speak more directly to the contents.
19 MR. SACHDEVA: We have already brought other witnesses, yes.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Ms. Isailovic. Do you still plan to go
21 through all of the documents?
22 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] No. No, Your Honour. It's just
23 documents 1 and 15, because there I would like to ask the witness whether
24 he actually took part in the investigation. We have the documents anyway,
25 and we can display them or you could look at them if you want.
1 Q. Here's my question, Witness, please. You see the document on the
2 first page under number 1. On the next page, there is also a document
3 that is mentioned under number 15. Did you take part in these
4 investigations; and if so, in what manner?
5 A. Are we waiting for a document to be shown?
6 Q. Normally, the document is displayed.
7 A. I said on Friday, as well, what our capacity was.
8 Q. I'm interrupting you right away, because I'm asking you a very
9 practical question. On this list here, there are two numbers: Number 1
10 and the number 15. It's the first document and the last document on this
11 schedule, and here's my question: Did you participate in the
12 investigation; and if so, in what manner? You signed this list on March
13 2nd. You signed that in front of the Prosecutor.
14 A. In the technical part of the investigation involving the
15 collecting of evidence and subsequent analysis, I did take part. This
16 involved the collection of fragments, as I said, on the scene; however, I
17 did not take part in taking statements. I did not take photographs. I
18 did not go to hospital to take a statements of people. That was not part
19 of my job. However, when it comes to collecting physical evidence and the
20 analysis of the direction of the projectile and compiling a report, I -- I
21 did take part in that, yes.
22 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I see that time is
23 flying, but I you really believe that we have to continue with this
24 cross-examination. I need some extra time because I believe that this
25 witness is very important. He's saying something that needs to be
1 demonstrated in the document.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: How much time are you asking for?
3 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm -- I might be
4 ready to -- not to go into other questions, but I think I need at least
5 half an hour.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll give you 20 minutes. Well, we'll take the
8 break now.
9 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, if I may, I'm sorry.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Whiting.
11 MR. WHITING: I'm sorry to interrupt. I'm unable to be here for
12 the rest of the day because I'm preparing a witness for tomorrow. All I
13 wanted to say is that I trust that Your Honours received the report from
14 the OTP regarding Mr. Hansen, as Your Honours had requested for today, and
15 I just wanted to make sure that there was no difficulty.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, but I have questions to ask about it.
17 MR. WHITING: Well --
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: So if you could come immediately after the break,
19 and we can deal with that.
20 MR. WHITING: Yes, I can do that
21 [The witness stands down]
22 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.
23 --- Upon commencing at 10.55 a.m.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Whiting, the Chamber thanks for the report
25 that you have submitted on Captain Hansen and the unknown UNMO. The
1 report indicates that have you been in contact with Captain Hansen. He
2 has been difficult to reach by phone, but you have reached him. He has
3 given some information about the -- the UNMO, who witnessed this
4 particular incident, and a request has been made by the Prosecution for
5 assistance from the Kenyan government to locate the UNMO, because it was
6 believed by Captain Hansen that he came from that country.
7 Now, as for Captain Hansen himself, you see that he has stated
8 that he would not be available to testify from the 6th to the 15th of
9 March or during the last two weeks of April; and for that reason, you have
10 asked whether he would be able to testify on the 2nd of April, and you're
11 awaiting a response.
12 I'm not particularly happy about that aspect of it, because what
13 we're running here is a court, an international court of law. We are not
14 operating a social activity. It's not as though he is being invited to a
15 dinner party, and I did not find acceptable the wording that he would not
16 be available to testify from a particular time to a particular time,
17 without any explanation being given for that unavailability. So I'd like
18 to hear you further on that, because the Chamber is of the firm view that
19 Captain Hansen should come to testify one way or the other; and the
20 sooner, the better.
21 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 I'm unable to tell Your Honours what the reasons are for him
23 stating that he is unavailable during those times.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Did you not speak with him?
25 MR. WHITING: I did not myself speak with him, no.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Who spoke with him?
2 MR. WHITING: Our investigator. At the time we got that
3 information, it was before Your Honours had requested that he come
4 testify, and it was at that time -- we had already started speaking with
5 him when the information when the issue arose, and so it was before Your
6 Honours had made that request. So we got the information -- he stated
7 that he was unavailable during those times, but we did not pursue it any
8 further; that is, I don't know whether it was for professional reasons.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: It should have been pursued subsequent to the
10 Chamber indicating its interest in having him testify.
11 MR. WHITING: The reason we didn't pursue it further, Your Honour,
12 is looking at the schedule ahead of us, looking at the additional
13 information that we would like to have available to us and to the Trial
14 Chamber when he comes to testify, so that his -- that he doesn't have to
15 come more than once, and finally looking at the issue which is really
16 involved -- the issue which is at issue here, which is, in our view,
17 narrow and specific, we thought that having him come by April 2nd would
18 accommodate all of those things; that is, that it -- it would be in
19 sufficient time to address the issue. We would then have in hand all of
20 the necessary information so that his appearance would be the most
21 fruitful possible. So it was not our judgement that it would be necessary
22 to bring him here sooner than that. So that is why we didn't pursue it
23 further and press him to come sooner.
24 Our schedule is also, as I've indicated, we have a lot of dates
25 that are now quite committed to witnesses who cannot come other times for
1 various reasons, who have been rescheduled in the past. We have a very,
2 very tight board, and even this date we have to bump somebody off this
3 date so that he would be able to come testify.
4 So are all the reasons why we left it as it was and selected that
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Of course, it is open to the Chamber to -- to
7 call him at any time.
8 MR. WHITING: Well, Your Honour, under the rules, it's open to the
9 Trial Chamber only if the Trial Chamber makes a finding that is in the
10 interests of justice. Because ordinarily since are in the Prosecution
11 case, it the Prosecution who has the prerogative to call the witnesses.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: It must be clear to you that we consider it an
13 important matter and in the interests of justice.
14 MR. WHITING: I certainly do. I would not imagine, Your Honours,
15 that would it with be the interests of justice to call him next week as
16 opposed to the week following. I don't see the possible justification for
17 rushing. As I have indicated in our memorandum, we are awaiting clearance
18 for documents which will be relative to his testimony. I think it would
19 be fruitful if we were able to identify this unidentified UNMO before he
20 came. All those things, I think, would be beneficial.
21 And I certainly don't -- I do not appreciate, myself, and I could
22 be enlightened on this, but I don't see why it would be necessary to bring
23 him here next week, for example. I think if we bring him here April 2nd,
24 it seems to me that would be -- from what I can tell, that would be
25 sufficient to address the concerns.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Are you in any way making his coming contingent
2 on the identification of the UNMO?
3 MR. WHITING: No. No. I would add one other thing, Your Honours,
4 and that is -- we can talk about this at another time. But, of course, we
5 would like to be able to cross-examine the witness when he comes. I'm
6 happy to do -- allow him to tell his story or do a kind of direct
7 examination without any leading, but we would then, of course -- from the
8 point of view of the Prosecution, we would like to have an opportunity,
9 since we are not really calling this witness, but it's the Trial Chamber
10 is asking that he be called, that we be allowed to cross-examine the
11 witness. And if we're not, that may factor into whether we actually do
12 call the witness, and perhaps we would leave it to the Trial Chamber to
13 call the witness.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: If the Chamber calls the witness, he is open to
15 examination by all the parties.
16 MR. WHITING: That's what I would think. Thank you.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: But at this stage, what I had done was to invite
18 you to call him. Now, if you don't want to accept that invitation, then
19 you should say so.
20 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, I will accept the invitation as long as
21 we have the ability to cross-examine him, which is critical. In light of
22 the information obtained, we cannot -- we do not think it would be fair
23 and in the interests of justice at all, if they were not allowed to
24 cross-examine him.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: This is for the UNMO or for Captain Hansen.
1 MR. WHITING: This is for Captain Hansen. Our position on the
2 UNMO is undetermined right now, because we don't know who it is and we
3 haven't spoken to him.
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: Sorry, counsel. If you call him, he would be your
6 MR. WHITING: Well, just because he's our witness, just because we
7 call him, and he is our witness, does not mean that we cannot
8 cross-examine him. There are situations where we would be allowed to
9 cross-examine our own witness, and I think is one of them. But where we
10 have been invited, I see this invitation as we are accommodating the
11 interests of the Trial Chamber and facilitating bringing this witness here
12 as quickly as possible during the Prosecution case, but normally we would
13 not call this witness. It was not our intention to call him in this
15 We would not call him, so it seems to me unfair if we're -- if we
16 call him and then we are not allowed to cross-examine him. And if that
17 ends being the position, I would have to say we will probably not call
18 him, and we would leave it to the Trial Chamber to call him. We're just
19 trying to accommodate Your Honours to get him here and to have him
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: That is well appreciated, but my understanding is
22 if you would call him you would examine him in chief.
23 MR. WHITING: I'm happy to do an examination-in-chief to allow him
24 to tell his story, but then I would -- I would ask that we be allowed to
25 challenge that story and to cross-examine him.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Because normally the basis for that in the common
2 law system and, indeed, in the cases that have proceeded with that
3 procedure here at the Tribunal is that you -- there is an a contradiction
4 between the evidence being given by the witness in court and a previous
5 statement that. That would not be the case here.
6 But I'm not unsympathetic to a procedure where the Prosecution
7 utilizes the means at its disposal to secure the attendance of the
8 witness, and the witness is then called by the Court and then is he open
9 to examination by all the parties. But I think that would have to be made
10 clear to the witness that he's being called by the Court, even though it's
11 the Prosecution that is utilizing the means at its disposal to secure his
13 MR. WHITING: That's fine, Your Honour, and I would be very happy
14 to work with that solution, and Your Honours could decide whether you
15 wanted to do the direct examination or you wanted leave it up to us to do
17 I would note, of course, Your Honour is correct. I share Your
18 Honour's understanding how things would work in a common law system; but,
19 of course, in a common law system, the Court would not ask the Prosecution
20 to call a witness. That would not happen; that is a civil law system
21 attribute. When we mix and match here, we also have to accommodate our
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a minute.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic. Yes.
1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to
2 respectfully ask for you take one thing into consideration when arriving
3 at your ruling.
4 This witness was on the list of the Prosecution witnesses; and at
5 moment when the Chamber was asked to allow for certain witnesses to be
6 removed from the list, his name was stricken out. So, initially, he had
7 been witness proposed by the Prosecution; but due to the request posed in
8 terms of time restrictions and concerns, this witness was removed from the
9 list. So this should be taken into account when you reach your ruling.
10 In my view, this person can only be a witness for the Prosecution
11 and subject to the examination-in-chief by the Prosecution.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. But by what means can you oblige the
13 Prosecution to call a witness that it doesn't wish to call? Or by what
14 means can the Defence be obliged to call a witness it doesn't wish to
16 [Defence counsel confer]
17 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] We are of the position that the
18 Prosecutor should renew its witness list. He initially had been made part
19 of the witness list at first, and they should redo their list. As for me
20 as counsel and the way I should try and tackle this, that is a delicate
21 matter. But that witness was one of their witnesses, and at that time he
22 was not a hostile witness. It turned out he was a hostile witness at the
23 moment when a certain document surfaced, and I have faith in the Bench in
24 trying to come up with the proper solution, but I merely wanted to express
25 our position here.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Are you finished?
2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: Yes.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: So you believe you can secure his attendance on
6 the 2nd of April?
7 MR. WHITING: I certainly hope so. And if that turns out to be a
8 problem, then that is when we will begin to push and insist. But I'm
9 hoping that date will be fine, and I except to know -- I actually thought
10 I would know by now. But I expect to know today or perhaps tomorrow, and
11 I will inform Your Honours as soon as I know.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: By Wednesday at the latest, and you bring him
13 here and he will testify as to the witness called by the -- by the Bench,
14 so that he would be available for examination by all the parties. Whether
15 the Bench will lead him is another matter or whether we will get a
16 statement from him on the basis of which he may be examined is something
17 that we'll decide.
18 MR. WHITING: Just so Your Honours know, there is no an OTP
19 statement from way back of him that pertains to this issue, and, of
20 course, we'll make all of this available to the Trial Chamber.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: , Now there is another matter that I want to
22 discuss and for that I want to go into private session, and this requires
23 your presence, Mr. Whiting.
24 MR. WHITING: I'm staying, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Okay.
1 [Private session]
11 Pages 3161-3164 redacted. Private session.
8 [Open session]
9 THE REGISTRAR: We're back in open session, Your Honour.
10 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. And I understand the technicians are asking
12 that the next break be for 30 minutes, as they have more work to do.
13 [The witness entered court]
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: And, Ms. Isailovic, 20 minutes.
15 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
16 Q. Witness, I'm sure you remember that earlier we were talking about
17 the schedule that you signed, and I would like to see the document that is
18 under number 1 so that we could look at it together, so I'm asking my
19 assistant to call it up. We will look at all the pages.
20 I submit that you did not participate to this investigation at
21 all, and you can answer this after having seen all the pages in the
22 document. But maybe the date of the investigation can help you decide on
23 the answer you will give.
24 A. Not on the basis of the date.
25 Q. We are waiting for the English version to be called up, and we can
1 look at all the -- all pages in the B/C/S version. Could you please first
2 take a look to see whether your name is included in the investigating
3 team? So let's move to page 2.
4 Let's move to page 3 now. We have the signature of the person who
5 wrote the report, but this is not your name, right?
6 A. No, no.
7 Q. Were you a member of the investigating team?
8 A. I wasn't at the location of the explosion in this case.
9 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please move to page 4.
10 Now page 5. Next page, please.
11 Q. This report that we have just seen, can you tell us if you took
12 part in the drafting of this report?
13 A. No.
14 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Let's move to the next page,
16 Unfortunately, we have a problem with the display, so we're asking
17 for the registrar to please help us.
18 Q. Witness, please, this is the report on the traces in the
19 explosion. I mean, that was your field of competence, right?
20 A. Yes.
21 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Move to the next page, please.
22 Next page again.
23 Q. Witness, here, it -- the person who signed this document is still
24 your boss, right?
25 A. He signed it, but I think the initials at the end of the document
1 are NB. Perhaps we can zoom in on those and then I may be able to tell
2 you who the person was who processed and completed the report.
3 Yes, NB. It an a colleague of mine.
4 THE INTERPRETER: The name uttered by the witness was inaudible.
5 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Mr. Nedim Bosnic did not sign the document?
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.
8 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Nedim Bosnic didn't sign the document either, neither did you,
10 witness. So you were not involved in this investigation?
11 A. I probably participated in the analysis of traces and in assisting
12 my colleagues. In Kosovo, we always did teamwork.
13 THE INTERPRETER: The witness should be asked to speak into the
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Witness, please speak into the microphone. Will
16 the usher please see that the mics are adjusted.
17 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. There are still a few pages to this document. We can continue to
19 peruse through them, look at all pages, one after the other, and you can
20 see whether you were involved in any way in this investigation. And we're
21 talking about the investigation that is in the schedule under number 1.
22 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Please move, move on. Move to the
23 next page and the other pages, so we can just scroll through the document
24 until the end of the document, please.
25 Here maybe we need to ask a question to the Prosecution. We have
1 the medical report which may be inadvertently put in document P313. I
2 don't really know how this medical report ended up in this document, in
3 Exhibit P315.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Sachdeva.
5 MR. SACHDEVA: Yes, Mr. President. My learned friend is right.
6 It should not be there. The ERNs quite clearly indicate that the last
7 page should be 00375126; and 5126 is the map, the sketch. So as was
8 stated on Friday, the witness did not review medical records.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Ms. Isailovic.
10 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Anyway, Witness, what did you certify in relation to this report?
12 A. Concerning this event, I confirmed that such an incident indeed
13 took place, and I presume I assisted my workmates in the analysis of
14 traces. We worked in teams. I know that this incident took place on that
15 day and at that time. There was an explosion of a projectile at that
17 Q. Now, regarding the document that we find under number 15 in the
18 schedule, it was -- which is Prosecution document P326.
19 Here again, we have the English version on the screen.
20 Witness, could you please take a look at the date and tell us if
21 you actually took part in the investigation?
22 A. Can I please look at the whole file? Because there was so many
23 incidents, it's impossible for me to remember what happened on which date.
24 Q. We're getting there.
25 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please scroll through the
2 Q. Here we have mention of the Simone Bolivar elementary school in
3 Dobrinja. Did you take part in that investigation?
4 A. Can I review the whole set in order for me to give you a
5 definitive answer?
6 Q. Just one question: Last Friday, did you really look at all this
7 before actually signing the list and the schedule?
8 A. Yes, I did. But I don't recall specific dates; therefore I cannot
9 attach an event to a date. There were so many incidents, and we are just
10 focussing now on one section; therefore, I cannot vouch for, say, the
11 dates. That's why I wanted to look at the whole file.
12 Q. But, Witness, we have just scrolled through the entire file, and
13 last Friday you certified what -- what did you certify? Can you please
14 tell is what you certified, you certified last Friday, regarding this
16 A. So after reviewing the file, I said that all the specific cases
17 dealt with there was authentic and that the incidents indeed took place at
18 the times specified.
19 Q. How did you know that?
20 A. On the basis of the documents contained in each case file, which
21 confirms that whenever I was present at the scene there's my name there,
22 and vice versa there is no mention of my name when I didn't attend the
23 scene. But I, nevertheless, remember most of the events that took place
24 in Sarajevo at the time.
25 Q. Witness, please, in your statement, because it's -- according to
1 Rule 92 ter, we have your document -- your statement of February 28th,
2 1996, P310. And there is one sentence in this statement that we talked
3 about Friday. We talked about the explosion that occurred on June 28th,
4 1995 on the TV building. Do you remember having talked about this last
6 A. Yes, I do. And I was involved in the on-site investigation
7 following the explosion.
8 Q. There's something that I would like to show you in this respect;
9 65 ter document 298. It's an UNPROFOR report, and there is a sketch that
10 I'm interested in. It's a sketch which, according to the report, would
11 represent the shell that was seen falling on the building. This is the
12 report that deals with this event of June 28.
13 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] And could we please call up page 3
14 of this document. That's page 2, but we would like to have page 3,
16 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Do you see the sketch on the screen? Thank you.
18 So we have a sketch, and the legend on the B/C/S version there is
19 only the legend.
20 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] If we could please have on the
21 screen the translated legend in B/C/S, since the original was English.
22 Q. So now we have the two documents side by side.
23 Witness, please, last Friday you made a correction to your
24 statement, and you said that on the scene you found no fragments of engine
25 and no fragments of rockets. Do you remember that?
1 A. It was not a correction to the statement. The same thing is
2 stated in our report following the incident, that these fragments of the
3 engine and other pieces had not been found.
4 Q. Fine. So we agree on that. I think you made a slight
5 rectification to your statement, not to what actually happened.
6 What we have here on screen is the projectile that was seen by
7 UNPROFOR members, and they drew a rough sketch of this projectile.
8 According to what you found on the site, could this sketch actually
9 correspond to whatever you found on the site?
10 A. The physical evidence retrieved on the spot originate from an air
11 bomb. And this sketch, one might say, generally shows one of the forms of
12 air bombs. They are manufactured in a variety of forms, so one might say
13 that this is something approximate.
14 Q. Here you see the dimensions that were given by the person who
15 actually made the sketch. It would be 60 centimetres long and 20
16 centimetres wide. Do you believe this is acceptable in terms of
18 A. No. These dimensions are unacceptable. I was talking only about
19 the shape, which is accept to a certain extent. As for the size,
20 especially the width, I don't think that is acceptable.
21 Q. What do you base yourself on to say that? What do you rely on to
22 say that the dimensions are not acceptable.
23 A. They are not acceptable because a 20 centimetre diameter of a
24 projectile and the amount of charge to be packed inside could not possibly
25 have caused such devastation at the place of impact.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: And what would be say would be the more
2 acceptable dimensions?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, at least twice the diameter of
4 the one stated here, so that means 40 centimetres or more. The wall of
5 the TV building that was penetrated was made of reinforced concrete over
6 30 centimetres thick, and the reinforced concrete was -- bars were over 15
7 millimetres in diameter.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Isailovic, you should be bringing your
9 cross-examination to a close now.
10 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, if I could just
11 ask one more question.
12 Q. On site, you did not find the parts that would have normally been
13 part of a modified air bomb?
14 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter correction: It is just "air bomb,"
15 not modified.
16 A. Fragments were found on the spot, probably originating from the
17 body of the air bomb. As I said, no parts of the motors and adapters were
18 found which otherwise were always found under such circumstances, which
19 means that a modified air bomb has a head, engines, and an adapter, an
20 adapter to serve the bomb and the propelling engines.
21 Q. How many casualties were there after the explosion on the site?
22 Do you know that?
23 A. I'm not sure. I know that a fellow police officer was killed who
24 is from the same area where I came from, and we grew up together.
25 Q. And in your report, his name is mentioned as being the victim. Do
1 you know that?
2 A. I'd have to look at the report, because I don't know -- don't
3 remember what is stated there. We received input, information along with
4 the request from the CSB, specifically how many casualties there were and
5 their names. We would just rewrite this information. We didn't collect
6 this type of information at the scene. We were involved only in the
7 technical aspect of on-site investigations, as I said before.
8 Q. Thank you, Witness.
9 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to offer this
10 exhibit -- tender it, but I have a problem. This 65 ter number
11 corresponds to another document, which was marked for identification, D31,
12 and it's this document without the drawing. It's been marked for
13 identification as D31, but it's this document without the sketch. And I
14 would like to tender the -- the entirety -- the entire 298 65 ter
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: We're inclined to admit it, Ms. Isailovic. The
18 question is the confusion that seems to exist in relation to D31.
19 Is the court deputy able to offer any clarification?
20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, D31 is marked for identification.
21 It was done so on the 1st of February and it's an UNMO Sector HQ, and that
22 particular document was marked confidential or is marked confidential.
23 [Trial Chamber confers].
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: So how does this drawing relate to the UNMO
1 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Judges, this -- here
2 we have the entire report. I don't know how we ended up with these two
3 pages that we have already used, because after the fact I did some
4 research. And under another 65 ter document, 298, I found the entire
5 report supplemented with this sketch, if I may say so. And since we have
6 discussed the sketch with the witness, after the discussion, the witness
7 confirmed what was in this drawing. The drawing actually corresponds to
8 what was in the report of the UNMOs. It show what the UNMOs actually saw
9 that day.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: You want to us admit the entire document, not
11 just the specific pages that you just referred to in your
12 cross-examination? I'm beginning to become a little wary - and this
13 applies to the Prosecutor, both parties - about admitting these global
14 documents without seeing the specific items that are included in it.
15 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Defence is also in
16 the same position. As time goes by, you know, we discover pages that
17 actually serve or case, and I would like the entirety of the report to be
18 tendered. This sketch is part and parcel of the report. It's the report
19 made by Captain Hansen.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: I think in the interests of consistency, we'll
22 have do it. We have been doing it for the Prosecution, then we will also
23 do it for the Defence. So we admit it.
24 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: It will be partially confidential because of the
1 report which is under seal.
2 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
3 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours that be Exhibit D103 under seal,
5 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Witness, please, since you're still
6 in the courtroom, I'd like to go back with you on the question of this
7 bomb which fell on the TV building.
8 On page 48, line 8 and 9, you said that neither the head nor the
9 engine or the motor, nor the adapter of this bomb was actually found. So
10 if I understood exactly what was said, this would have been an air bomb
11 but not a modified air bomb. Is that what you said, that it was just an
12 air bomb?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that that was a modified air
14 bomb; however, where its engine ended, I don't know.
15 If I may, I would just like to add one sentence. There is certain
16 contradiction in the description given by UNPROFOR. It says that the
17 width was rather big and the projectile was rather short, which means
18 there is a discrepancy between the sketch and the verbal description. I
19 believe that this projectile, like all others, when we were dealing with
20 modified air bombs that landed on the city of Sarajevo - and more than ten
21 of them landed on the city of Sarajevo. I don't know how many of them
22 landed in Hrasnica and Sokolovic Kolonija - in this particular case, it is
23 true that we didn't find fragments of the propelling engine, which only
24 demonstrates how unreliable this weapon was, and it shows its imperfection
25 in terms of design. In my view, these engines properly fell off during
1 the flight. That's the only logical explanation that I can find.
2 Let me just add one thing. What we found at the scene were
3 fragments originating from the body, or rather, the head of a modified air
5 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Sachdeva.
7 MR. SACHDEVA: Thank you, Mr. President.
8 Re-examination by Mr. Sachdeva:
9 Q. Mr. Suljevic, just a few issues I want to deal with.
10 Firstly, I just want to take you back to when counsel for the
11 Defence was talking about: The report of the 24th of May, 1995, and also
12 the report about an incident at the Simone Bolivar school on the 18th of
13 June, 1995.
14 Firstly, do you remember being asked questions about those two
16 A. Yes, I do.
17 Q. And you told the Court that you had not participated in the
18 on-site investigations for those two incidents; is that right?
19 A. I said that I would like to review again, because I believe that I
20 did take part in the investigation regarding the school. But I would need
21 to look at the report. It should bear my name. Because according to the
22 name of the school, it doesn't ring any bell. I cannot remember many
23 schools were targeted by these kinds of projectiles.
24 Q. Well, just for the moment for this question, irrespective of
25 whether you were there or not, what you confirmed on Friday, in other
1 words, what you signed were documents -- you saw documents from those two
2 incidents, and I want to ask you today: Do you confirm that those
3 documents are authentic, valid documents from the Sarajevo CSB or the
4 Ministry of the Interior, irrespective of the contents?
5 A. I can fully confirm that.
6 MR. SACHDEVA: Now, may I have --
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Sachdeva, how can he confirm what you want
9 him to confirm, "irrespective of the contents?" Aren't the content an
10 essential part of the document, in fact, the most essential part, or are
11 you suggesting that he confirms the authenticity just on the basis of the
12 appearance of the document, that it has a reference to the relevant
13 government department and so on?
14 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, that is why there are documents
15 pertaining to incidents that the witness did not himself investigate or
16 conduct an on-site investigation. But given his experience in the
17 ministry, he has seen such documents, and the signing of the spreadsheet
18 essentially serves two purposes. There are documents that he himself
19 drafted. There are incidents that he himself went to, and there are
20 others that he did not.
21 But for all of those documents, he has, at least by signing the
22 spreadsheet, confirm the their authenticity and their validity, in terms
23 of the form, in terms of the process. And the reports for the Simone
24 Bolivar incident have been already tendered into evidence, the police
25 reports, the on-site investigation report, through -- through another
1 witness. So yes, for -- for the Simone Bolivar school, he has
2 authenticated the validity of these documents.
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: It comes as a bit of a surprise to me that the
4 documents mentioned on the spreadsheet were not all of the documents that
5 related to incidents in which the witness had participated himself. I
6 don't know if I can suggest that for further occasions, we are being
7 informed of whether the documents sought to be admitted relate to
8 documents that -- relate to incidents, sorry, that the witness himself did
9 participate in.
10 MR. SACHDEVA: Your Honour, firstly, the statements of the witness
11 clearly indicate which incidents he was involved in. Secondly, the
12 process that we've employed here, the Prosecution has asked to use, is the
13 same as that what we did with Dr. Mandilovic and another doctor; namely,
14 that they did not necessarily perform those specific operations, they did
15 not necessarily write the medical report, but they were able to confirm
16 the validity of those reports, the authenticity of those reports.
17 So my submission is based on the precedents that has been set in
18 this Court what I undertook with the witness is simply a reflection or
19 following that precedent, and I've -- it's clearly maintained in my
20 submission those incidents that he himself was involved in are clearly
21 represent-- that those incidents that those incidents that he was involved
22 in are clearly indicated in my submission.
23 JUDGE HARHOFF: I appreciate what you have just said, but my
24 difficulty, nevertheless, is that when you present a list on the
25 spreadsheet of 15 documents which you seek to have admitted into evidence,
1 then I must say that I was led to believe, perhaps wrongly, that all of
2 these 15 documents were relating to incidents in which the witness himself
3 had taken part in the investigation.
4 Now, if you then tell us that some of these 15 documents are only
5 sought to be admitted for the purpose of -- in relation to this witness
6 for the purpose of confirming their authenticity, then I think I would
7 have liked to have known that when you presented the spreadsheet with all
8 the documents for admission into evidence.
9 MR. SACHDEVA: Your Honour, of course, there's been no deliberate
10 intention to mislead the Court. I submit that my questions to the witness
11 and what is contained in the statements provides, in my submission,
12 clearly what incidents he was involved in and what incidents he was not
13 involved in. These documents are being admitted into evidence and, of
14 course, what weight is attached to those documents depend upon the other
15 evidence that is coming in and the context of the case that will proceed
16 and also what has taken place through other witnesses.
17 But this witness is simply, at least with respect to these two
18 incidents, attesting that these have valid materials from the CSB,
19 authentic materials from the CSB and, therefore, sufficiently reliable for
20 them to be admitted into evidence. But if this procedure is adopt in the
21 future, it can be stated clearly on the spreadsheet or it can be orally
22 stated that -- stated where the incidents -- whether the witness has also
23 been to the incidents. That can be undertaken.
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: I would agree and I would suggest that you do it
25 in the spreadsheet directly, because we will be returning to the
1 spreadsheet later on in the trial; and at that moment, we may have -- I've
2 forgotten but perhaps not be completely aware of the documents on the
3 spreadsheet are now admitted only for the purpose of authentication and
4 which are not.
5 MR. SACHDEVA: Yes, Mr. President -- Your Honour, yes.
6 I would also add that in my questions to the witness in chief, I
7 did, in my submission, set the foundation by asking whether he would in
8 the course of his business come into contact with other reports from the
9 Ministry of the Interior.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Sachdeva.
11 Witness, that concludes your --
12 Oh, you have not finished. I'm sorry.
13 MR. SACHDEVA: Thank you, Mr. President.
14 Could I have -- may I have Exhibit P317 brought up on the screen,
15 please. Can we just move to the second page, please.
16 Q. Witness, do you remember being showed this page in the examination
17 by the Defence?
18 A. Yes, I do.
19 Q. And do you see there on the bottom right-hand side, there's a
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And do you see on top of the signature, there is a phrase in
23 B/C/S, "izjavu uzed"?
24 A. That is correct.
25 Q. And what does that mean?
1 A. "Statement taken by." It means that the signature there is that of
2 an official, or rather, the official who took down the statement from the
3 witness. The statement was supposed to have been taken by a -- from the
4 eye-witness, and the note-taker merely registered his participation there.
5 Q. Now, I just want you to focus on that signature for a minute,
7 MR. SACHDEVA: And I'd like the exhibit -- well, could we go to
8 page 12 of this exhibit, please, and the bottom right hand -- yeah, be
10 Q. Now, do you see there a signature on the screen?
11 A. Yes.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Isailovic.
13 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, thank you.
14 Now, before having a look at the writing, I wanted to take the
15 floor, even though my -- I have no more time. Maybe I wasn't crystal
16 clear. I believe with our witness we're going to have a look at the
17 graphical expertise of the signature.
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Isailovic, exactly what is your point?
20 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I believe that now my
21 colleague -- I'm avoiding him doing this because I find it unacceptable,
22 but it's up to you to decide. To compare myself, I had the opportunity to
23 do this, but precisely this is up to a graphics expert.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, let us hear. Let us hear what he is going
25 to ask the witness.
1 What is the question?
2 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I just -- well, can I ask the
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
5 MR. SACHDEVA:
6 Q. Witness, do you see on the bottom right-hand side, do you see --
7 or, firstly, a signature there?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And do you see a name on top of that signature?
10 A. Yes. Nurija Nakas, or Makas; N or M.
11 Q. And my question to you is: Does the signature appear to you to be
12 the same signature that you saw a moment ago in the second page.
13 A. Perhaps we could have both documents on the screen at the same
14 time and then I can tell you what I see, but the authenticity would need
15 to be confirmed by a graphology expert. He could tell you whether these
16 are the same signatures. I can only tell you whether they look the same
17 to me.
18 Q. And that's what I'm asking.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. For what it is worth, do they look the same
20 to you?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could we have both documents on the
22 screen, if that is not too much of a problem.
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: May we have both documents on the screen.
24 Do you wish to press on with this? I don't wish to rule it --
25 rule it out, but I'm not certain whether it is going to advance your case,
1 if he says that the two signatures do look the same.
2 Well, we do have the two signatures now. What is your comment?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my view, this is the same
4 signature, but, as I said, only a graphology expert could tell you whether
5 they indeed are.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you very much.
7 Yes, Mr. Sachdeva.
8 MR. SACHDEVA: Thank you, Mr. President.
9 Q. Witness, I also want to ask you a question about the 22nd of
10 December, 1994 incident at the flea market. You remember being asked
11 questions about that?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And you told the Court that the determination was that the
14 projectile used was a 76-millimetre cannon shell; do you remember that?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. On that day in the investigation, did you -- well, did you
17 undertake the investigation with other police officers from the Ministry
18 of the Interior?
19 A. Yes. We would first make a team and then that team would go out
20 onto the location, and each member would do his part of the task.
21 Q. And in the investigation, was there consensus among the members of
22 the team about the type of shell that was -- that impacted at that time at
23 that space?
24 A. In principle, no statements are given of such a nature during the
25 examination. An opinion is given only own after an expert analysis of
1 traces and fragments had been carried out. One can guess as to the degree
2 of probability, but no official statements are issued before a report is
4 Q. At the scene was there -- do you remember if there is was a view
5 or if there was a conclusion that the projectile used was that of an
6 82-millimetre mortar?
7 A. No. Unofficially, what we thought at the spot was that the
8 calibre was 76. No one mentioned the possibility of a mortar shell
9 82-millimetre calibre.
10 Concerning the team police, or actually, what I'm telling concerns
11 the team of the police who were at the location, excluding UNPROFOR; and
12 if I may add, UNPROFOR did not share their opinions or views with us.
13 They made their own analysis, although I don't know on what basis. They
14 only photographed the traces and fragments on the spot, and they did not
15 take them with them.
16 Q. And, lastly, Witness, At the beginning of cross-examination, the
17 Defence were asking you about your experience in crater analysis, and I
18 want to ask you: From when you joined the police, or the KDZ, up until
19 the conclusion of the conflict, roughly, how many crater analyses did you
20 personally undertake?
21 A. It is difficult to say. Many. I analyse craters even nowadays.
22 Whenever I see traces in the asphalt, I think about them, I analyse them
23 unintentionally. It is always at the back of my mind.
24 Q. But during the time when you were at the police, when you say
25 "Many," is it that 20, 50, 100.
1 A. Again, I can't say. Each investigation I attended, during each
2 such an investigation, I analysed the direction of firing. Sometimes I
3 couldn't be precise, especially, for example, when it comes to mortar
4 shells. Say a mortar shell ricochets off of something, and there was an
5 example of that when a shell flew through a -- to the branch of a tree,
6 and what you could see on the asphalt was -- were traces which would point
7 to the fact that it was fired from the direction of a certain wall nearby,
8 which made no sense.
9 It fell less than a metre away from the wall of a building;
10 therefore, if you were only to look at the traces, it would seem as if the
11 shell had been fired from the direction of the building, which is one
12 metre away, and that is impossible.
13 As for the number of analyses, well, I'd say 50 or more.
14 MR. SACHDEVA: No further questions. Thank you, Mr. President.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.
16 Witness, that concludes your testimony. Thank you for giving to
17 the Tribunal to give it. You're now free to leave.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll adjourn now, and as I indicated the
20 technicians have work to do and require half an hour break.
21 So we we'll adjourn for half an hour.
22 [The witness withdrew]
23 --- Recess taken at 12.30 p.m.
24 [The witness entered court]
25 --- On resuming at 1.05 p.m.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let the witness make the declaration.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
3 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
4 WITNESS: ISMET HADZIC
5 [Witness answered through interpreter]
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: You may begin, Mr. Waespi.
7 MR. WAESPI: Thank you, Mr. President.
8 Examination by Mr. Waespi:
9 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Hadzic.
10 A. Good afternoon.
11 Q. Can you please state for the record your, name your full name.
12 A. My name is Ismet Hadzic; father's name Dervis.
13 Q. And what is your current occupation?
14 A. I am a retiree.
15 Q. And is there a reason for that, given your young age?
16 A. Thank you for the compliment, but there is no special reason. I
17 went to earlier retirement due to the reorganisation of the army of
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: What's his ages. What's your age?
20 MR. WAESPI:
21 Q. What's your age, Mr. Hadzic.
22 A. I was born in 1952; therefore, now I'm 55.
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Proceed.
24 MR. WAESPI: Thank you, Mr. President.
25 Q. Before the war, what was your occupation?
1 A. I worked at the company called Energoinvest, and I was a
2 specialist for checkup of engines without intrusive method into that their
3 work. It is a type of mechanical engineer.
4 Q. And where did you live at that time?
5 A. In 1984, after the Olympics, I was given an apartment in the Novo
6 Naselje, the New Olympic settlement in Dobrinja, and I lived in Dobrinja
7 since that time.
8 Q. So during the war, you continued to live in Dobrinja?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Now during the conflict, and I am talking about 1992 to 1995, did
11 you have a function within the Bosnian army?
12 A. On the 6th of July, 1992, I was appointed commander of the 1st
13 Dobrinja Brigade.
14 Q. Did you have any qualifications to become the commander of a
16 A. Perhaps I was a person of some authority, but I held no military
18 Q. Did you serve in the JNA prior to the war?
19 A. Yes. In 1971, I was in Zagreb to serve my military term. I was
20 enlisted with the Rocket Anti-aircraft Defence. I worked on the SAM 2
21 Russian-make systems.
22 Q. Thank you, Mr. Hadzic. Now, as you know, the Trial Chamber is
23 mainly concerned with the time frame of the second part of 1994 and 1995.
24 But can you briefly answer a few questions about the way the war
25 developed, starting in 1992, in Dobrinja?
1 A. Dobrinja, in terms of geographic location, is placed between the
2 Sarajevo airport and the Mojmilo hill. In late 1991, there were hundreds
3 of tanks going to the Lukavica barracks through Dobrinja. There were also
4 APCs and lots of material and equipment while the JNA was withdrawing from
5 Slovenia and Croatia. The citizens of Dobrinja, naive as they were,
6 waived to the soldiers and threw flowers on the tanks. The situation was
7 different at that time.
8 The people who arrived at the barracks then would appear in the
9 local cafes; and as early as the beginning of 1992, they started making
10 problems and getting into fights with the people who regularly attended
11 those cafes. The peak of it all, or rather, when we all came to our
12 senses was when the APCs and tanks were brought to the Mojmilo hill in
13 mid-March 1992. I believe there were three tanks, two APCs, as well as
14 the equipment and soldiers, and they took up positions at Mojmilo hill
15 near the water reservoir. And, thus, they held about 50 per cent of all
16 water supply for the city of Sarajevo.
17 When they took up position there, they put up the flag of the
18 former Yugoslavia.
19 Q. And let me briefly interrupt you there. Was there a time when
20 Dobrinja was cut off from the rest of Sarajevo?
21 A. Dobrinja was cut off on the 4th of March, when a checkpoint was
22 established. It was surrounded completely. They used tree trunks and
23 other things, thus, physically preventing any movement between Dobrinja
24 and the rest; and then Dobrinja and Mojmilo hill and the airport, which
25 had already been taken by the Serb forces, and then with Kula and Lukavica
1 on the other side, we were completely encircled.
2 Q. And later that early summer, was there a time when people started
3 leaving from Dobrinja?
4 A. On the 13th or 15th of May, over the loud speakers of the JNA or
5 the RS or the Serb forces, one could hear an invitation, or rather, a
6 message for the inhabitants of Dobrinja to move out. Two settlements had
7 already been emptied; these being Dobrinja 4 and Drobrina 1B. So that
8 message was sent in the morning, and at around 11.00, those who were ready
9 to leave left. In our assessment, on that day, with the assistant of the
10 Serb forces, some 4.000 Dobrinja inhabitants left.
11 Q. And how long people were living in Dobrinja before the war, if you
13 A. As I said, at first, Dobrinja comprised three segments; the right,
14 the centre, and the left section. It had 12 and a half thousand
15 apartments and around 45.000 inhabitants. A good example would be that
16 the mean age at Dobrinja was between 28 and 30. The population was quite
18 Q. And maybe my last question about that period, after the people
19 left, these 3, 4.000 people, was there shelling that occurred?
20 A. Not on that day. Early the following day, heavy shelling started,
21 indiscriminatory shelling as if it were raining. After that, an infantry
22 attack followed from the area of Dobrinja IV.
23 Q. Thank you, Mr. Hadzic. I think that's enough for the background.
24 Let's turn to the Dobrinja Brigade. You told us earlier that on the 6th
25 of July 1992, you were appointed the commander of the 1st Dobrinja
1 Brigade; is that correct?
2 A. Yes, yes.
3 Q. Now when was the brigade formed, on the same day?
4 A. On the 6th of July, a courier arrived over Mojmilo hill carrying a
5 sealed envelope, saying that the presidency of the Bosnia and Herzegovina
6 had appointed me commander of this brigade. By that time, all other
7 brigades were formed except from our brigade. So we were the last to have
8 received an order to form a brigade. Upon receipt of this order, I tried
9 to find men who were versed in military matters and who were capable of
10 establishing a mountain brigade as the order stipulated.
11 I was lucky to find Colonel Beslagic, who was in the air force,
12 and it took him about two or three days to set up a brigade from his
13 memory only. It wasn't a proper brigade, but some 89 per cent was there
14 of our requirements. Based on his experience, we tried to find men who
15 had been in the JNA, in order to expand the brigade and to have all the
16 structures required as per establishment.
17 And to tell you the truth, it was very difficult because we had to
18 find 2.000 men at once, and we didn't have any lists of people living in
19 the neighbourhood. You had to provide food and clothing for men, and
20 there was no weaponry.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: So when you say that you found 89 per cent, you
22 mean 89 per cent of 2.000?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. Your Honours, on the paper and
24 as per establishment, it did not correspond to the actual establishment,
25 so it was 80 percent accuracy as to what a brigade is stipulated to have
1 on paper per establishment.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: What is a brigade required to have as per
3 establishment, so I can know how many men you actually had? That's what I
4 want to find out.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It had battalions, it had a staff,
6 staff units, staff attached units, everything that goes together with
7 battalions; medical units, quarter master service, logistics, everything
8 that constitutes a military formation.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: But in terms of numbers, how many men did you
10 actually have in the brigade?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Upon finalising the whole process,
12 we had about 2200 men, after we finished the mobilisation or call-up
13 process. We had 2200 men, because that is a mountain brigade as per
15 MR. WAESPI:
16 Q. And how many were you supposed to have in a proper brigade.
17 A. Approximately, that same number. According to establishment,
18 proper establishment prescribed on the paper, a company should perhaps
19 have three medical detachment, and we had one detachment for one company.
20 And that satisfied the needs of one company. One medical detachment
21 satisfied the needs of one company. The same applied to people who were
22 in charge of logistic supply, food supply, et cetera, because the -- the
23 whole process was made easier because the zone was not such an expanded
25 If you allow me to finish this, the whole process from the time we
1 received the order until we somehow wrapped it up lasted for less than two
2 months. The solemn oath was taken towards the end of August, and at that
3 time we had a properly established brigade, area of responsibility was
4 assigned to it, and we were able to deploy men in this area of
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: Witness, what did you have in terms of weapons?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We had very few weapons. We had
8 homemade rifles, hunting rifles, trophy weapons. Lucky were the ones who
9 were able to purchase an automatic rifle or a pistol. And we also had
10 some other homemade devices or makeshift devices with explosives and
11 things like that, in order for to us to cope with the situation that we
12 found ourselves in.
13 MR. WAESPI: Does that answer your question?
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: It does.
15 MR. WAESPI: We will go back to weaponry a little bit later and
16 also talk about mortars. But for the time being, let's just focus on the
17 early period in 1992.
18 Did you read any books in -- in preparation of establishing this
20 A. When I received an order on the assignment, I started looking for
21 military literature in order to educate myself better for the position,
22 and I did manage to find some with people who were in this field. I was
23 most helped with the British lexicon on military issues. It had ten
24 volumes, and I managed to find everything that we needed there. The fact
25 is that we couldn't apply the tactics and other instructions from these
1 books on the ground. I said that many time that through a kind of
2 illogical warfare, we confronted trained army people and we somehow,
3 through this illogical warfare, managed to come out victorious.
4 Q. And just to make it clear, can you tell the Trial Chamber why was
5 it necessary to establish a brigade in Dobrinja in mid-1992?
6 A. I already said that we were encircled already in May, that there
7 were many volunteers loitering around, there were so many informal groups,
8 and it was very difficult to coordinate all these issues. We were
9 encircled. The Serbian forces attacking, entering Dobrinja, taking people
10 away, et cetera. Simply speaking, there was no hierarchy or command or
12 There were attempts to establish a battalion from among the ranks
13 of the Territorial Defence, but I think that they created even more chaos
14 than before. And they created the necessity of linking up all of these
15 scattered elements, and that would be a guarantee for us to survive in
16 Dobrinja. And I think that the forming of the Dobrinja brigade was a
17 water shed in this totally chaotic situation that prevailed earlier.
18 Q. Thank you. Witness, you told us that the brigade was called the
19 1st Dobrinja Brigade. Did it change its name throughout the conflict?
20 A. Yes, that's correct. The brigade was initially called the 1st
21 Dobrinja Brigade. I think towards the end of 1992, following
22 reorganisation in the army, we received an order to form a 5th Motorised
23 Brigade. In late 1993, another battalion was attached to us that had been
24 part of the 101st Brigade, and the area of responsibility was thereby
1 Q. And what was the name of your brigade in August 1994?
2 A. There was another reorganisation in 1994, and the brigade was
3 renamed 155th Mountain Brigade. And if I may add one more thing, until
4 the end of the war, there was another change in name. And until the
5 Dayton Accords were signed, the brigade was called the 125th Motorised
7 Q. And when did that last change occur, from 155th Mountain Brigade
8 to the 125th Motorised Brigade?
9 A. In late 1995 or beginning 1996, that was the time when the command
10 was moved from Dobrinja, because in actual fact two brigades merged; 101st
11 and 155th. And the 125th emerged from these two brigades. And it was in
12 the Viktor Bubanj barracks or the Ramiz Salic barracks.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Can I ask whether the word "motorised" in the new
14 name had any significant, whether in terms of how the brigade was
15 organised or in terms of the kind of weapons that it had at its disposal?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my view, this reform only
17 entailed the change of number of troops; however, the weapons remained the
18 same. Motorised [as interpreted] brigades had around 2.000 men, and
19 Motorised brigade had between 3800 and 4.000 men and they had weapons of
20 standard issue.
21 MR. WAESPI:
22 Q. And just following up --
23 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Witness, you said that there was
24 chaos, there were several brigades, several groups of soldiers that needed
25 coordinating. Does this mean that your brigade played the role of
1 military police or police in the settlement, or was it to fight against
2 the Serbs, and did it indeed fight against the Serbs?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It didn't have a role of a military
4 police, but rather to defend the local residents. These groups or
5 individuals in various parts of Dobrinja were supposed to be put under one
6 cap, under one command in order for everyone to be able to survive in this
8 Many people from these groups were admitted into the regular
9 formation of the 1st Dobrinja Brigade.
10 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Right. Defend the population
11 against whom? Against the groups of citizens fighting against other
12 citizens or against the Republika Srpska army?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We were defending ourselves from the
14 army of Republika Srpska, which was an organised force, and we were
15 encircled in the a most traditional way by a well organised army of
16 Republika Srpska, or rather, Serbian forces, as they were called at the
17 time, because Republika Srpska didn't exist at that time.
18 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you.
19 MR. WAESPI:
20 Q. Mr. Hadzic, I also see that once the appendix "mountain" appeared
21 in the name of your brigade. Given that it was a fairly flat area in
22 Dobrinja, why was it called the mountain brigade?
23 A. The Dobrinja Brigade, there were no mountains as far as I know.
24 It's a flat area.
25 Q. Didn't you say that once the name of the brigade was the -- I
1 think it was the 125th Mountain Brigade or something. You never used the
2 word "mountain"?
3 A. Yes, I did. The 1st Dobrinja Brigade was a mountain brigade.
4 That's how it was called according to establishment, according to the
5 rules of service of the JNA. It wasn't related to any specific
6 geographical area. That was the terminology that used to be used at the
7 time. A mountain brigade was supposed to have a certain number of troops
8 and equipment, or alternatively, motorised brigades were also defined in
9 certain terms.
10 Q. Thank you, Mr. Hadzic. Now let's move to August 1994. Now we
11 have the 155th Motorised Brigade; is that correct?
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. And how many soldiers would say you have now in August 1994?
14 A. Around 4.000 men. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. No, no. We didn't have
15 as many. Around 3.000 or -- between 3.000 and 3800.
16 Q. So over time, since it started in mid-1992, you almost doubled the
17 number of soldiers that were part of your brigade?
18 A. Yeah, you can say that.
19 Q. And in 1994, mid-1994, how many battalions did you have in your
21 A. We had four battalions under arms; not all of them actually, but
22 there were four battalions that were guarding the line at the foothill of
23 Mojmilo, and there was always one battalion in the area of responsibility
24 at Igman. Because after the conflict in 1993, we were assigned one part
25 of the area of responsibility on Mount Igman.
1 In addition to these four battalions, we had a logistical
2 battalion, an engineers battalion, and everything to be expected according
3 to the establishment for this kind of brigade.
4 Q. We'll come to location of these battalions in just a moment. My
5 last question about the general setup is what was the ethnic composition
6 of your brigade in the second half of 1994?
7 MR. WAESPI: And if at the same time, the exhibit ter number 03013
8 could be prepared, and I'm only interested in the last page of that range.
9 Q. The ethnic composition of your brigade in middle of 1994,
10 Mr. Hadzic.
11 A. We were a multi-ethnic brigade. We had 21 per cent of the others.
12 The rest were Muslims or Bosniaks; 13 to 15 per cent were Serbs; the next
13 largest group were Croats; there were also Hungarians and Romanies.
14 Q. And, incidentally, what was the ethnic population of the
15 population, the civilians in Dobrinja during the war?
16 A. I cannot tell you the exact percentages, but it corresponded the
17 composition of the brigade. The majority were Muslims. There were fewer
18 Serbs in Dobrinja than Croats because some of the Croatian political
19 parties tried to resettle the Croats from Dobrinja. We prevented that
20 move, and asked the Croats to stay with us and they did. So there were
21 Bosniaks, Croatians, Serbs, Hungarians, and Romanies, but I can't give you
22 the percentages.
23 Q. Thank you, Mr. Hadzic. Now you see on the screen a map. Do you
24 recognise this map?
25 MR. WAESPI: Perhaps it could be scrolled to the bottom a little
1 bit so that a signature appears.
2 A. Yes, I recognise this map. That's the map of Dobrinja, and the
3 separation lines that we had facing the army of Republika Srpska from the
4 beginning till the end of war changed almost not at all. So basically
5 this is the area, and these are the separation lines between us and the
6 army of Republika Srpska.
7 Q. Let me stop you there, Mr. Hadzic.
8 MR. WAESPI: Your Honours, I have the original of this -- this map
9 which has been signed by the witness vis-a-vis investigator, which I would
10 like to put on to the ELMO because you can see that it's coloured. So it
11 might be a little bit easier for Your Honours to see that and for the
12 witness to use the screen to emphasise these -- these lines.
13 Q. On the screen now, Witness, do you see the original of the map
14 that you had signed?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And these red markings --
17 MR. WAESPI: And perhaps if you could it could be turned a little
18 bit so we can see the numbers, which appear in the middle the way they are
19 supposed to be. Yes, but you need to open it. I think that's fine. The
20 numbers are still upside down, but at least it's facing in the right way.
21 Q. Mr. Hadzic, who marked these red lines here?
22 A. I did.
23 Q. And, first of all, can you explain, and using the screen in front
24 of you, to the Judges the various parts of Dobrinja, and you mentioned a
25 few already. You mentioned Mojmilo, you mentioned Mojmilo hill, and I
1 think the airport as well. Can you use the screen, and now I'd like to go
2 back to the electronic scanned version. Can you mark Mojmilo hill first.
3 A. It's this area here, between the water reservoir to the right.
4 That's the Mojmilo area, and it stretches further on to the right.
5 Q. You need to make a circle with that electronic pen around it.
6 A. [Marks]
7 Q. Thank you, and please attach the letter A next to it.
8 A. Here.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 MR. WAESPI: Now, if we can scroll up a little bit.
11 Q. Can you indicate to Their Honours where the settlement of Mojmilo
12 is located?
13 A. You can't see it on this electronic map. It's somewhere here.
14 MR. WAESPI: I have a technical question to the registrar. If the
15 witness marks outside the actual map, will it still be captured or thus
16 his markings need to be on the map itself.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Mr. Waespi, it will be captured, but it's
18 preferable that it's done within the map.
19 MR. WAESPI: Thank you very much.
20 Q. Can you please put the letter A into the middle of the circle
21 depicting Mojmilo hill.
22 A. [Marks]
23 Q. Thank you very much. Now can you indicate to Their Honours where
24 the airport is.
25 A. [Marks]
1 Q. And please use the letter B to explain the line you just drew.
2 A. [Marks]
3 Q. And could you lead Their Honours through these various parts of
4 Dobrinja. I think you used Dobrinja 4 and Dobrinja 1B. Can you show to
5 Their Honours where these settlements are.
6 A. Dobrinja 4-1, and Dobrinja 4-2.
7 Q. You just marked two circles to the far right attaching the numbers
8 4 to it.
9 Now, before you continue, you started -- in fact, you completed a
10 circle just to the right of the airport area, the first one to the right.
11 Can you attach a letter to it explaining what it was?
12 A. Would you like me to put a letter or a number?
13 Q. In fact, number C will be great.
14 A. This letter C signifies Dobrinja 1A, and the next one is Dobrinja
15 1B. Which letter shall I use to mark it?
16 Q. Mark with 1B.
17 A. [Marks]
18 Q. Now, do the other parts of Dobrinja also have names?
19 A. Yes, they do. This one adjacent to Dobrinja 1A is C5. Do you
20 want me to circle it?
21 Q. Yes, please.
22 A. So this is C5 quarter.
23 Q. Yes, please mark C5.
24 A. [Marks]
25 Q. And the next settlement to the left of C5, slightly up and left.
1 A. This is the so-called airport settlement, or Aerodromsko Naselje.
2 Q. Can you attach the letter D to that?
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Waespi, I would like you to conclude this
4 exercise, but I have to be mindful of the fact that Judge Mindua has to
5 appear for another case.
6 MR. WAESPI: We will continue tomorrow. If --
7 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: He's not finished.
9 MR. WAESPI: But we need to tender it, I guess; otherwise, it will
10 be lost.
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let's give it a number.
12 MR. WAESPI: For identification.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, that will be marked for
14 identification as P328. JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. We will adjourn until
15 tomorrow at 9.00.
16 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.47 p.m.,
17 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 6th day of March,
18 2007, at 9.00 a.m.