1 Wednesday, 14 March 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.15 p.m.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let the witness make the declaration.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
8 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
9 WITNESS: NEDZIB DOZO
10 [Witness answered through interpreter]
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: You may sit.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: I should say that in Judge Mindua's absence
14 today, Judge Harhoff and I sit pursuant to the provisions of Rule 15 bis.
15 Mr. Sachdeva, you may begin.
16 MR. SACHDEVA: Good afternoon, Mr. President, Your Honour.
17 Examination by Mr. Sachdeva:
18 Q. Witness, can you please state your full name, your place and date
19 of birth.
20 A. My name is Nedzib Dozo. I was born on the 4th of May, 1958, in
21 the village of Dartelje, Pale municipality, Bosnia-Herzegovina.
22 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, may I lead the witness through his
23 personal background?
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
25 MR. SACHDEVA:
1 Q. Mr. Dozo, during the war, did you work for the police in
3 A. Yes, I did.
4 Q. And in round about June or July 1992, did you join the Stari Grad
5 police station as a uniformed police officer?
6 A. Yes, I did.
7 Q. And sometime in February 1994, or thereabouts, did you become an
8 investigator for that same police station?
9 A. I don't remember whether it was in February; but in mid-1994, I
10 joined the CID of the police administration of the Stari Grad police
12 Q. And were you an investigator?
13 A. Yes, up until the year 2003.
14 Q. And from the time that you became an investigator -- well, you've
15 answered that. But you remained an investigator, just to be clear, up
16 until the end of the conflict in 1995. Is that correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Now, within the area of responsibility of the Stari Grad police
19 station -- well, let me put it this way: Which police station had
20 Sedrenik in its area of responsibility?
21 A. The Stari Grad police station.
22 Q. Now, do you remember giving a statement to the Office of the
23 Prosecutor on the 22nd of November, 1995?
24 A. Yes, I do.
25 Q. Do you remember giving a further statement on the 21st of April,
1 2005 to the Office of the Prosecutor?
2 A. Yes, I do.
3 Q. When I arrived here in The Hague a couple of days ago, were you
4 given the opportunity to read through those statements carefully?
5 A. Yes.
6 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, could I ask that 65 ter 03035 be
7 brought up on the screen.
8 Q. Mr. Dozo, do you see on the left-hand side of the screen your
9 signature at the bottom of that page?
10 A. Yes, I do.
11 Q. Is that your statement on the 22nd of November, 1995?
12 A. Yes, it is.
13 MR. SACHDEVA: Could I ask that we go to the next page, please, on
14 this statement, and if we could scroll down to the bottom.
15 Q. Mr. Dozo, if you look at the bottom of the page on the right-hand
16 side in your language, do you see where it -- where it talks about the
17 Markale market on the 28th of August, 1995? Do you see that there?
18 A. Yes, I do.
19 Q. Is there a clarification or an explanation you'd like to give with
20 respect to this paragraph?
21 A. I carried out a few on-site investigations of the shells fired in
22 the area close to the Markale market, and all that happened before the
23 28th of August, 1995, so two or three months prior to this event.
24 Q. And given this clarification, does this statement reflect an
25 accurate recording of your experiences and your knowledge at that time?
1 A. Yes. Because I was involved in several investigations of the
2 shellings nearby by Markale, but I did not attend the one on the 28th of
3 August, 1995. But a month or two later, I took a number of statements
4 from the persons who were in the street when this shell exploded in
5 Markale and who sustained injuries in the incident.
6 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I tender this statement into
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Admitted.
9 THE REGISTRAR: As P363, Your Honours.
10 MR. SACHDEVA: Could I now ask the court deputy to bring up 65 ter
11 03036, please.
12 Q. Mr. Dozo, do you recognise this document on the screen?
13 A. Yes, I do.
14 Q. Is that the statement you gave on the 21st of April, 2005, and is
15 that your signature there?
16 A. Yes, that's the statement, and this is my signature here.
17 Q. And can you confirm to the Court that the contents of this
18 statement are accurate and reflect your experience and knowledge at that
20 A. Yes.
21 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I tender that into evidence.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we admit it.
23 THE REGISTRAR: As P364, Your Honours.
24 MR. SACHDEVA:
25 Q. Mr. Dozo, you told us at the beginning of the examination that
1 the area of Sedrenik was part of the responsibility of the Stari Grad
2 police station, and I want to ask you: Did you investigate a sniping
3 incident on the 10th of December, 1994, at that location?
4 A. Yes, I did.
5 Q. Do you recall whether there was a casualty in this incident?
6 A. One person was injured as a result of sniping from Spicasta
8 Q. Do you perhaps remember the name of the person who was injured?
9 A. I believe it was a woman and that her last name was Selmanovic.
10 Q. Now, you mentioned the place Spicasta Stijena. Can you very
11 briefly describe what that is and where it is.
12 A. Spicasta Stijena is a hill, a dominant hill overlooking the
13 Sedrenik neighbourhood. Around this hill there's an asphalt road leading
14 to the Barica neighbourhood and further on towards --
15 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat the name of the
16 second place.
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: Excuse me, Witness. Could you please repeat the
18 name of the second place.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Barica is the place to which an
20 asphalt road leads from Spicasta Stijena.
21 MR. SACHDEVA:
22 Q. Now, this dominant hill at Spicasta Stijena, do you know which
23 party to the conflict controlled that hill?
24 A. After the aggression against Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Serbian
25 forces went down to Spicasta Stijena to positions there, dug trenches; and
1 from that day onwards, no one could pass by Spicasta Stijena.
2 Q. When you say "from that day onwards," do you mean up until the end
3 of the conflict in 1995?
4 A. Yes. Until after the city of Sarajevo became integrated again;
5 that is to say, after the Serbian forces withdrew from that area.
6 Q. Now, I'm going to show you a map in a moment, and I'd like you to
7 mark Spicasta Stijena on that map. But let me ask you this first: With
8 respect to this incident, did you go to the location where this adult was
10 A. Yes, I did. A member of the public called the duty chief at the
11 police station and told him that there was shooting in the area of
12 Sedrenik from Spicasta Stijena and that a female had been wounded by
13 sniper shot.
14 Since I was on duty in the criminal investigation department, the
15 duty chief relied on the report received from this member of the public,
16 and he just passed it on to me as a duty officer on that date.
17 Q. I'm going to show you that report in a moment. So you did in fact
18 go to Sedrenik. Is that right?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And when you got there, were you able to ascertain roughly the
21 location where the lady was injured?
22 A. Before going to the scene an investigation team is set up, made up
23 of the duty officer at the police station of Stari Grad, that was me in
24 that particular instances; a technician on duty; and a ballistics expert
25 on duty.
1 The three of us went together to the Sedrenik neighbourhood, or
2 rather, to the house that was shown us where build Selmanovic was and she
3 was wounded. We did not, in fact, find Mrs. Selmanovic at the scene
4 because she had already been taken to the Kosevo Hospital.
5 Q. You say that the three of you went to the neighbourhood, or
6 rather, to the house and were shown, I think, where she was wounded. So
7 can I take it, then, that you were told the place where she was actually
8 hit. Is that right?
9 A. Yes. Upon arrival at the scene, a neighbour showed us the place
10 where Mrs. Selmanovic was outside, because she went to fetch some firewood
11 and that is where she got wounded.
12 Q. When I show you the map, would you be able to approximately
13 identify the spot where Mrs. Selmanovic was injured?
14 A. Yes.
15 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, could I have 65 ter 02872 brought up
16 on the screen, please.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, let that be done.
18 MR. SACHDEVA: It just takes a few moments, Mr. Dozo, so ...
19 Could I ask that the upper right-hand part of the map be blown up.
20 Q. Okay. Do you see a map there on your screen?
21 A. Yes, I do. It's a tourist map of the city of Sarajevo, and the
22 geographic features, or rather, elevations are not properly marked here.
23 In this area called the Seven Woods or "Sedam Suma" is where Spicasta
24 Stijena is situated.
25 Q. Okay. I'm going to have the court usher provide with you a marker
1 and I would like you to mark the -- to mark the Spicasta Stijena, please.
2 A. If you could please enlarge it a little bit more that would be
3 very helpful.
4 MR. SACHDEVA: Actually, perhaps could the map be enlarged a
5 little bit, please.
6 Q. You can't --
7 A. It should be scrolled up a bit.
8 Q. Can you see it there now?
9 A. Yes, I can.
10 Q. Okay. So please mark Spicasta Stijena.
11 A. [Marks]
12 Q. Can you just place the letter S on top of that circle, please.
13 A. [Marks]
14 Q. Now, I'd also like to you mark the location, as you can recall,
15 where Mrs. Selmanovic was injured.
16 A. Approximately here, because, as I said, this is not a very
17 accurate map. It doesn't contain all the streets and all the houses.
18 Q. Yes, that's understood. Can you please put the letters DS on top
19 of that circle.
20 A. [Marks]
21 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I tender that into evidence.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: It's admitted.
23 THE REGISTRAR: As P365, Your Honours.
24 MR. SACHDEVA: Could I now ask the court deputy to bring up 65 ter
25 03043, and it's a photograph.
1 Q. Mr. Dozo, I'm now going to show you a photograph in a moment and
2 ask you a couple of questions.
3 Do you see a photograph on your screen?
4 A. Yes, I do.
5 Q. And what is that a photograph of?
6 A. This is the Sedrenik neighbourhood, and down there on the horizon
7 you can see Spicasta Stijena.
8 Q. Can you mark the place where you say one can see Spicasta Stijena,
9 please, on this photograph.
10 A. [Marks]
11 Q. And if you could place again the letter S on top of that circle.
12 A. [Marks]
13 Q. Now, are you able to say from where this photograph was taken; and
14 if you are, please tell the Court.
15 A. This photograph was taken from the place where Mrs. Selmanovic was
16 wounded. It's in front of her house.
17 Q. Now, I just want to ask you a few questions about Spicasta
18 Stijena. You've already told the Court that the Bosnian Serb forces
19 controlled that hill. Were there Bosnian government forces in that area
20 as well?
21 A. The BH army was not directly at the foot of Spicasta Stijena.
22 Their positions were rather to the left and to the right towards Gordonj
23 and on the right hand; although you cannot see it here very well, because
24 at the foot hill of Spicasta Stijena, there's a meadow and a clearance,
25 and, therefore, it was impossible to build trenches in that particular
2 Q. So the Bosnian government positions were trenches, I take it, from
3 your answer, and -- well, let me just be clear: Are you able to see the
4 locations on this photograph?
5 A. No.
6 Q. And with respect to the trenches and the forces in the trenches,
7 are you able to tell the Court in which direction were the soldiers
8 facing. Were they facing towards Sedrenik, or were they facing towards
9 Spicasta Stijena?
10 A. The BH army trenches were facing Spicasta Stijena; but not only
11 Spicasta Stijena and also the general area towards the Barica
13 Q. And I take it the Barica neighbourhood was towards the north; is
14 that right?
15 A. Yes, that's right.
16 Q. Are you able to tell the Court with respect to the forces, the
17 Bosnian government forces, that were in these trenches, what was the --
18 well, let me put it this way: Where did the soldiers come from, those
19 soldiers that were in the trenches in the in the Bosnian government
20 locations; and if you know that, please tell the Court how do you know
22 A. The soldiers of the BH army were a unit made up of residents of
23 Sedrenik. They were motivated by defence of their city and their
24 neighbourhood, and they were positioned to the left and to the right of
25 Spicasta Stijena; in other words, those were citizens of Sedrenik.
1 Q. From where you say the Bosnian government forces -- the trenches
2 were - you say to the left and to the right of Spicasta Stijena - was
3 there a line of sight to where Mrs. Selmanovic was injured, from those
5 A. No.
6 Q. The answer you gave with respect to the origin or let's say where
7 the soldiers came from, you said they came from the town of Sedrenik.
8 Does that enable you to draw any conclusions as to whether it was possible
9 for them to fire and shoot at civilians in the town of Sedrenik?
10 A. It was impossible. Firstly, the BH army positions did not make it
11 possible to shoot Mrs. Selmanovic.
12 Secondly, the reason why it was impossible was that no member of
13 the BH army would shoot at Sedrenik; in other words, that is correct would
14 mean that they would be shooting at their relatives and their neighbours.
15 And there is a third reason as well. It was impossible because
16 the soldier in that case would have to turn their backs to the Serbian
18 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I tender this photograph into
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we admit it.
21 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 365, Your Honours -- I'm sorry, 366.
22 MR. SACHDEVA:
23 Q. Mr. Dozo, upon your investigation and during your investigation
24 of this incident, did you produce some reports?
25 A. Yes, I did.
1 MR. SACHDEVA: Could I ask that 65 ter 03037, and page 5 be
2 brought up on the screen, please.
3 Q. Before I ask you to look at that report, Mr. Dozo, in your
4 investigation do you remember where on the body did Ms. Selmanovic get
6 A. When we received the report of someone being wounded at Sedrenik,
7 the information that was forwarded to the shift commander was that the
8 injury was in the left leg. Upon interviewing the lady, it was
9 established that she was actually wounded in the right leg. So on the
10 10th of December of -- in 1994, somebody called up the police station to
11 report that in Sedrenik street, Mrs. Selmanovic was wounded in the left
12 leg by an a rifle shot, and this is what I entered in my on-site
13 investigation report.
14 Q. So when you say someone called up on the 10th of December, 1994,
15 was that person a police officer? Was that a person a civilian? Was that
16 person a soldier. Who was that person, if you can recall?
17 A. I was not informed who it was. It was probably a neighbour who
18 was near when it happened.
19 Q. And so you said, "And this is what I entered in my on-site
20 investigation report." Does that mean that you entered this information
21 before you had verified it?
22 A. Yes. Because the same information is entered into the log-book,
23 which is kept by the shift commander of Stari Grad police station.
24 Q. Now, this document on the screen, do you see that document on the
25 right-hand side?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And if you look at the bottom paragraph, does it mention there in
3 the paragraph which leg was injured from the bullet?
4 A. No, not in the bottom part of this report, it doesn't say, except
5 that the duty doctor had established that it was a light wound.
6 Q. Well, firstly, let me ask you this: Is that your signature at the
7 bottom of that document?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Now, if you look at the last paragraph, do you see when it says:
10 "Dervisa Selmanovic went out to her yard of the building in Sedrenik
11 Street 56 at around 1045."
12 Do you see that sentence there?
13 A. Yes, I can. At 1045 she went out to her yard of the building in
14 Sedrenik Street 56 to fetch wood.
15 Q. Okay.
16 A. And that she was hit in the left leg.
17 Q. Very well. So it says the left leg?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. So is this the report that you wrote upon the information given to
20 you by the, I think you used the word "local" from Sedrenik, when you were
21 first informed of the incident?
22 A. Yes. They were neighbours who had seen the incident and had
23 helped her and took her to the Kosevo Hospital.
24 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I tender that into evidence, please.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: We admit it.
1 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P367, Your Honours.
2 MR. SACHDEVA:
3 Q. Now, Mr. Dozo, after this report, did you interview
4 Mrs. Selmanovic?
5 A. Yes. After a while, once we had found her at the place where she
6 lives, then I interviewed her about the circumstances of her injury.
7 Q. When you say "after a while," do you know after how long roughly?
8 A. I received information that Ms. Selmanovic lived in Zaim Sara
9 Street in the month of March because she couldn't stay in Sedrenik where
10 she lived previously, so she moved to that other address.
11 Q. And upon the interview, did you produce a report or a record of
12 that interview?
13 A. Yes, I wrote an official report about the -- that interview.
14 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, before I ask for the next exhibit to
15 be brought -- the next document to be brought up, can I just ask - and I
16 apologise to the court deputy - for the last document, it is actually only
17 page 5, to be admitted into evidence.
18 And once the court deputy has digested that, can I ask that 65 ter
19 03038, page 1, be brought up, please.
20 Can we go to the second page, please.
21 Q. Now, Mr. Dozo, is that your signature there?
22 A. Yes.
23 MR. SACHDEVA: And, I'm sorry, can we go back to the first page
25 Q. And is this a record of the interview you took with
1 Mrs. Selmanovic?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. If you look at the, I would say, the second paragraph, once a
4 record of her evidence has started to be taken, is there -- do you see a
5 reference to the part of the body which she says got injured?
6 A. It says in the right leg. It says, "When I came to the firewood,
7 I felt a strong impact and pain in the right knee. I didn't know what it
8 could be, but I instinctively I went back and took shelter." That's what
9 Mrs. Selmanovic said when I interviewed her.
10 Q. With respect to this report and the previous report that we have
11 just seen, both reports that you yourself drafted, which one would take
13 A. The statement by Mrs. Selmanovic that she had been wounded in the
14 right leg certainly takes precedence, and that is what I wrote in my
15 official note, too.
16 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I ask that this document be tendered
17 into evidence.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
19 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 368, Your Honours.
20 MR. SACHDEVA:
21 Q. And, Mr. Dozo, a last question to you: In your 1995 statement of
22 the 22nd of November, you talk about 100 people that were killed by sniper
23 fire from Spicasta Stijena during the conflict, and I want to ask you:
24 How accurate is this figure of 100 people?
25 A. I said at the time that in the area of Sedrenik many people had
1 been wounded and killed and that their number was between 50 and 100, or I
2 said about 100, that's what I said. The exact data can be found at Sari
3 Grad police station where we had a register of injured persons and only
4 that way can the exact number of injured and killed people be established.
5 Q. Just to be clear from your answer here, when you say "people, many
6 people were wounded or killed," are you referring to civilians or
8 A. Civilians.
9 Q. And, lastly, what's the basis of your knowledge with respect to
10 the number of civilians wounded and injured -- wounded and killed?
12 A. Every day during the aggression against Bosnia-Herzegovina, there
13 was sniping from Spicasta Stijena. The occasions, or the days, rather,
14 when there was no sniping against children, women, and men walking about
15 in Sedrenik were rare. For a while, members of civilian protection hung
16 out blankets and the like to prevent the snipers from Spicasta Stijena
17 from seeing through, so as to enable the inhabits of Sedrenik to move
18 about freely.
19 Q. Yes. I understand what you're saying but perhaps my initial
20 question wasn't clear enough. But what I want to know is: How did you
21 come about this information? Is it something that you investigated? Is
22 it something that you were told? What is the basis of your knowledge for
23 this information that you've just given us?
24 A. When I said that about 100 persons were killed, it doesn't mean
25 100 exactly. It can be more or fewer than 100.
1 Q. Yes, that's also understood. Let me ask you again. You talk
2 about roughly 100 people. You talk about civilian protection hanging out
3 blankets to prevent the snipers seeing through to Spicasta Stijena. What
4 I want to know is how do you know this information? Was it told to you
5 by inhabitants? Was it something that you investigated? Was it something
6 that you saw? That is what I'm asking.
7 A. The on-site investigation we mentioned is not the only one in
8 which I took part with my colleagues from forensics. There were countless
9 such on-site investigations about the woundings or killings of civilians
10 in Sedrenik, so there were a great many such investigations. And this is
11 how we got knowledge of the fact that many people had come to harm in
12 Sedrenik. I cannot guarantee that there were exactly 100, because I never
13 analysed the numbers.
14 Q. Very well.
15 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, that is the examination-in-chief.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic.
17 Cross-examination by Mr. Tapuskovic:
18 Q. [Interpretation] Your Honours, I will try to finish in an hour,
19 but --
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, you have been allocated one hour.
21 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Then I will have to hurry a lot.
22 Thank you, Your Honours. But I must mention that the Prosecution has
23 overstepped the time allotted to them. I will do my best to stick to the
24 time frame, but this is not only about the Sedrenik incident but also
25 about the incident of December 22nd, 1994 which the Prosecution has not
1 mentioned at all, nor have they questioned the witness about that.
2 But in order not to lose time, I would like to propose that we
3 take a look at photograph -- or Exhibit P366.
4 Meanwhile, Your Honours, yesterday, I spoke to your assistant,
5 Mr. Sean. The final document yesterday was not tendered into evidence
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm not sure that you said that Mr. Sean was my
8 assistant. I would like to clarify that he is not. He is a member of the
9 staff of the Registry.
10 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] My mistake, Your Honours. I
11 meant it -- I didn't mean anything bad by saying that. I know that, of
13 Your Honours, if I may tender this document into evidence, because
14 yesterday we were in a hurry and I failed to do that. It was DD00-1414.
15 It is a from yesterday's trial. It contains information from the
16 interrogation of a witness that took place yesterday. So if I may tender
17 this document into evidence, because it was used in court yesterday.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, you choose the worst time. That
19 happened yesterday. Are we to return to that? Since you have it on the
20 screen, let's just deal with it.
21 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
22 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Now we have the photograph on the
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm told that is not the document.
25 Mr. Tapuskovic, my instruction is that you deal with this at
1 another time, not in the -- when you're beginning your cross-examination
2 of this witness. I'll hear you on it, but not now.
3 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] All right. I just wanted us not
4 to waste time.
5 Q. But, anyway, here is the photograph that was mentioned a little
6 while ago. Let me introduce myself. I'm the attorney of Dragomir
7 Milosevic, and I have a question for you.
8 Could you mark in another colour the positions of the BH army
9 against this letter S.
10 A. The positions of the BH army cannot be seen here. To the left,
11 it's the neighbourhood of Grdonj; and on the other side, the right-hand
12 side, if need be I can show it, but ...
13 So, on the other side, we cannot see it from here because there's
14 a hill. And at the foot of the hill on the other side, there's a valley.
15 So we cannot see the positions from the right side.
16 Q. So the units of the BH army were also on the hill where you
18 A. No, behind the hill.
19 Q. On the other side of the hill?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. You're trying to say that below this letter S, or beneath, there
22 were no positions and no trenches of the BH army.
23 A. Yes, because Spicasta Stijena and this hill -- or at the foot of
24 those, there is a meadow where there were no trenches.
25 Q. So the positions of the BH army were on the other side of the
1 hill, right?
2 A. To the left of Spicasta Stijena, there's the hill of Grdonj. And
3 to its left on the other side, there were the positions of the BH army,
4 and this is an area that belongs to the Centar municipality. But the
5 positions of the BH army cannot be seen here, neither to the left nor to
6 the right, because they were behind this hill.
7 Q. Can we then say that the area underneath the letter S, the area
8 was undefended and the VRS could penetrate through that area?
9 A. No. That was a narrow area. It would have been very difficult to
10 descend that slope. And to the right in this valley, there were also the
11 positions of the BH army.
12 Q. Can you now show us the place where the witness was, who was
13 wounded. The person who was wounded?
14 A. The witness was here, to the right of this corner of the house
15 that we can see in the picture. She was about a metre or two away.
16 Q. I propose that this photograph be tendered as evidence for the
18 Please just add the letters where this blue arrow is, please, mark
19 the letter A, the upper arrow; and the other, to the right, mark it B; and
20 the spot where the witness was, please mark it C.
21 A. [Marks]
22 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I suggest that this photograph be
23 tendered as evidence for the Defence. Can I get an exhibit number?
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we admit it.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As D123, Your Honours.
1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Witness, you mentioned a road a little while ago, which you took
3 at this side of the hill. And on the other side of the hill, there was a
4 road that was used by the Serbs, right?
5 A. The road from Sedrenik to Barica goes near Spicasta Stijena and
6 there is another kilometre or two from there to Barica, and there was road
7 from Barica to Vogosca and it also went through Nahoran [phoen].
8 Q. Was the road used by the Serbs of huge importance the Serbs or
9 not? Did you know about that? Was there fierce fighting for that road?
10 A. I don't know whether there was in the fierce fighting thereabouts.
11 There were occasional clashes in that area, and I wouldn't know about the
12 importance of road to other people from the then Republika Srpska.
13 Q. Can you please answer the following: You say that the people from
14 this side of the marked area were local population who lived there and who
15 effectively defended their houses and themselves?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And on the other side, were there also people who lived there for
18 centuries and who also defended their homes and their lives?
19 A. I can say that the locals, as I was a policeman on the beat for a
20 while, and the people from Barica didn't fear any shooting from Spicasta
21 Stijena, but sometimes they would call and say, "Be careful. Now, there
22 are people from outside coming in."
23 Q. But I'm talking to you about August 1994 at the time when the
24 incident happened, that you mentioned a little while ago, up until
25 December 1995, or rather, November 1995. Was there anybody there but
1 local population, Serbs, possibly even Muslim who were defending their
2 homes and nothing else, but including their lives?
3 A. I do not know because I couldn't go there at the time.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I now propose that the statement
6 dated 22 November be put up on screen. It's exhibit number 03035.
7 Q. Is this your statement? You confirmed that a while ago?
8 A. Yes.
9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we look at page 2, please.
10 Q. Paragraph 1 reads as follows --
11 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please indicate which
12 paragraph he is reading from.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, what paragraph?
14 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Paragraph 1, Your Honours.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
16 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Witness, can you tell me: How were you trained to acquire such
18 skills for these delicate investigations that you were involved in and
19 that you were able to produce reports as a basis for valid decisions?
20 A. It says that I joined the police in 1992; that is to say, the
21 police station of Stari Grad. By mid-1994, I worked as a police officer.
22 I was head of the sector. I was shift commander of the uniformed police,
23 and after that I joined the criminal investigation department.
24 During my career in the police, we attended certain trainings for
25 police work and later on some trainings for criminal investigation skills.
1 Q. Thank you. Look, please, now at paragraph 3. "I investigated a
2 sniping in Sedrenik on the 10th of December 1994."
3 Is that correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Then in the next paragraph, you say: "We could not reach the
6 scene because there was constant fire from the aggressor."
7 Is that correct, too?
8 A. Once you arrive at the scene, we were not able to stand on the
9 exact location where the wounded Selmanovic woman was. We had to hide
10 behind a house because it was dangerous to be standing somewhere in the
12 Q. Two paragraphs down, you say: "When I stated before that we could
13 not reach the scene due to the constant fire, I meant by that that the
14 constant fire came from Spicasta Stijena, which is a well-known
15 aggressor-held sniping place."
16 Is that correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And then you went on to say: "A lot of people were killed and
19 injured from this place. I estimate that around 100 civilians have been
20 killed by fire from Spicasta Stijena."
21 Is that correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. You just said that you conducted an investigation of -- of a
24 person who sustained slight injury. Can you explain to me how come that
25 you never investigated any other of these 50 to 100 cases of deaths?
1 A. I did conduct an investigation of a person who was first wounded.
2 This man, I can't remember his name, was wounded in the abdomen, but he
3 bled profusely and died on the way to hospital.
4 Q. But I put it to you that those were actually the people who got
5 killed in the fighting along the confrontation line where there were
6 casualties on both sides on a daily basis. But let us assume that the
7 majority of those killed were on the side of the BH army.
8 A. Mrs. Selmanovic was not a member of the BH army, and the person
9 that I investigated, the man who died, was an elderly person and was also
10 not a member of the BH army.
11 Q. I'm not talking about that. I'm just asking: Would it be fair to
12 say to that it was possible, in view of the constant fighting and firing
13 between the two sides, there were stray bullets coming from both sides
14 without any need to specifically target anyone?
15 A. There was no fighting at the time when Mrs. Selmanovic was
16 wounded. There was no fighting between the BH army and the Serbian army.
17 Q. This constant fire, in other words, means was coming from the
18 Serbian army?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. In the official note of yours, it is stated as follows:
21 "I received medical assistance at the orthopaedic clinic. My
22 wound was dressed, and it was qualified as an entry and exit wound
23 inflicted by a bullet from infantry weapon of an unspecified calibre."
24 Did you hear that from the witness herself that she had been
25 wounded from an infantry weapon used typically by an infantry unit?
1 A. During investigation we were unable to locate the bullet that
2 wounded Mrs. Selmanovic. They probably told her at the hospital in Kosova
3 that she had been injured from a infantry weapon and she just passed on
4 that information to me, because the doctors examining wounds can
5 distinguish between wounds inflicted or caused by shrapnel and those
6 caused by fire-arms.
7 Q. Wasn't infantry weapon something that was characteristically used
8 to fire from frontal positions where have you two warring parties shooting
9 at each other?
10 A. What do you mean? How is it possible that they can shoot one --
11 at one another? They could use mortars and artillery weapons. But in
12 this specific incident I know that when we arrived at the scene to conduct
13 an investigation, we could not have access to the very location where she
14 was wounded because there was constant sniping coming from Spicasta
15 Stijena. And these were single shots aiming at specific places where
16 people were milling or moving around.
17 Q. You mentioned that blankets were used to protect people from
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. How -- can you block a view with blankets from a mountain if
21 there's a front on this mountain, or rather, a lengthy the front line and
22 thus prevent undesired shots in this kind of fighting? How can you
23 accomplish that with blankets?
24 A. Sedrenik is not a mountain. It's a neighbourhood in Sarajevo, and
25 the streets that you people used to go through the neighbourhood had
1 lighting, had lampposts, until they were destroyed in the war, and the
2 lighting was on. During night-time the people from the civilian
3 protection stretched wires between lampposts and hung blankets and other
4 stuff to prevent or to block the view of the street.
5 Q. Can you confirm that, since you mentioned 50 to 100 civilian
6 deaths, can you give me at least one name, whether you heard it from
7 another investigator or the one that you learned yourself?
8 A. No, I cannot.
9 Q. Thank you. Further down you speak about your involvement in
10 shelling investigations, and you said there was casualties as well; is
11 that correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. I'm talking about the penultimate paragraph. And so can you give
14 me one concrete example of your investigation, and did you file your
15 report to the prosecutor's office or to anyone else, for that matter?
16 A. I conducted investigations of the shellings on several occasions.
17 I remember two interesting cases when the shrapnels landed in the vicinity
18 of Markale. They fell on Dzenetica Cikma Street and wounded a number of
19 children. There may have been even been a child who got killed. I cannot
20 remember now.
21 I attended an investigation when four grenades, with very short
22 intervals between them, fell near the bridge and killed two young men The
23 second one fell on the JNA Street - it's now called the Sarajevo
24 Defender's Street - and wounded a number of are persons, among them was a
25 member of a humanitarian organization working on gas installations.
1 The third shell fell on the roof of a building on Ferhadija Street
2 across from the faculty of economics. There were no casualties though as
3 a result. And the fourth shell fell at the intersection of Titova Street
4 and Vuk Karadzica Street, as it was called then. There were casualties in
5 terms of there were both wounded and killed persons.
6 When an incident involves deaths, an investigation must be
7 conducted by an investigating judge, who directed the whole procedure, and
8 other members of the investigation team were customarily people from the
9 homicide department, people from the criminal investigation department of
10 the relative police station.
11 Q. You're talking theoretical. I'm asking you specifically?
12 A. There is the procedure followed in these shelling incidents.
13 Q. The incidents that I have in front of me, and that we are dealing
14 with, there's no mention of investigating judge or anyone else, except
15 you. We only have your reports. There was no one else involved. How do
16 you explain that?
17 A. Can you show me a report that only my name figures?
18 Q. We were dealing with that a minute ago --
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Sachdeva.
20 Mr. Sachdeva is on his feet.
21 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I just wanted to confirm which
22 reports my learned friend is speaking of. And in fact, the witness has
23 actually answered the question, because the document that has been tender
24 with respect to the sniping incident has, in my submission, three names of
25 officials on that report.
1 So I don't think it's entirely correct to say that the reports, if
2 indeed my learned friend is talking about these reports, that they were
3 just compiled by this witness alone.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
5 It's time for the break so we'll adjourn for 20 minutes
6 --- Recess taken at 3.32 p.m.
7 --- On resuming at 3.52 p.m.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm sorry, Mr. Sachdeva, I'd like to deal with
9 some administrative matters before we resume.
10 On the 28th of February, the Prosecution filed a catalogue of
11 facts agreed between the Prosecution and the Defence. The practice is
12 usually for the parties to file jointly such a catalogue, but it wasn't
13 signed by the Defence, and I'd like the Defence to indicate if they are in
14 a position to do so, they can do so, whether they endorse the 29 agreed
15 facts filed by the Prosecution.
16 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well. Thank you. That clears that up.
18 Secondly, the Prosecution, you will recall, had filed a motion
19 seeking to present what it describes as "limited evidence in respect of
20 dropped incidents through witnesses who are appearing to testify on other
21 matters." The Chamber has been considering this motion. That
22 consideration would be greatly facilitated by the Prosecution providing
23 the following, and we so order: Firstly, an identification of the limited
24 evidence, what is this limited evidence. Secondly, what are the dropped
25 incidents to which they relate. And, thirdly, what are the other matters
1 in relation to which these witnesses will testify.
2 And the Chamber will require that this be -- this information be
3 filed by Friday of this week.
4 The third matter is, for the avoidance of doubt, the Chamber
5 wishes to clarify that it will sit on Monday, the 26th of this month.
6 Let the witness be called.
7 Mr. Sachdeva.
8 MR. SACHDEVA: Very briefly, and again I do apologise. With
9 respect to one of the documents that has been admitted, I neglected at the
10 time to indicate the exact pages, so I'd like to do that.
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, go ahead.
12 MR. SACHDEVA: And it's with respect to 65 ter 03038, and the
13 Prosecution would want the first and second page only to be the exhibit.
14 Thank you, Mr. President.
15 [The witness entered court]
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Continue, Mr. Tapuskovic.
17 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we left off when we
18 came to the issue of the incidents that this witness is testifying to
19 concerning the incident of the 12th [as interpreted] of December, 1994.
20 Q. As far as I can see, Witness, there was no investigating judge at
21 Sedrenik or, for that matter, anything else done by an investigating judge
22 in this matter?
23 A. Once a police station receives a report on the wounding, as was
24 the case in this particular instances, an investigating judge is notified
25 about the incident. Under the law, investigating judges can authorise
1 someone else to conduct an investigation. I was the person authorised to
2 do is in this instance, as was the forensic technician and a ballistics
4 The three of us conducted an investigation. There was no question
5 of me doing it alone or preparing a report when shooting was involved. It
6 had to be done by a team and that is what was done. As soon as the team
7 gets back to the police station, the report is then forwarded to an
8 investigating judge and then the judge prepares a case. In a nutshell, we
9 receive all our instructions from an investigating judge.
10 Q. This is not what this document shows. As far as I know, there
11 cannot be a single investigation concluded without an investigating judge
12 visiting the scene. In the investigations that you conducted, and some
13 others that I have seen recently, an investigating judge visited the scene
14 on very rare occasions. All the job was done by the people from the
16 A. It might happen that in a single day, since an investigating judge
17 covered the whole city, there were more serious incidents taking place
18 elsewhere involving death, and that is where the investigating judge would
19 go. Due to that, it might have happened that an investigating judge was
20 absent at any of these investigations.
21 Q. I don't know who removed your statement from the monitor. It's
22 the one dated 22nd November 1995, page 2 -- page 3 -- no, I'm sorry, page
24 Take a look at the bottom of the page where you say that: "There
25 were casualties as a result of the shelling that you investigated."
1 Is that correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Were the casualties still there when you visited the scene?
4 A. You have to show me a report on the investigation of the shelling
5 in which I was involved.
6 Q. Well, that is precisely the problem, Witness. You are making
7 claims here without any basis. There was no document showing that things
8 happened as you described. This was precisely why I'm asking you this
9 question; therefore, I'm kindly asking you: Are there any documents
10 showing that you were involved in the fourth shelling incidents where
11 casualties were that will covered by documents?
12 A. Yes, there are such documents. Some of the documents are in the
13 Stari Grad police station and part of the documents is in the court.
14 Q. How can we then discuss any of this without documents? This is
15 just what you are saying without providing any documents to support your
17 A. I'm talking about the incidents where I was personally involved.
18 Q. Thank you. This statement of yours has already been tendered into
20 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now move to page 3, the
21 penultimate paragraph where you say as follows: "Because the police in
22 Sarajevo had forbidden the people to gather if public places." Was that
23 true? Did the police make a decision to forbid any public gatherings.
24 A. I don't know if this decision was taken officially. Such a
25 decision should have been taken by the government, the authorities, but
1 there was a ban on large public gatherings that could result in shelling
2 and deaths.
3 Q. Who approved what you say here, that Markale was the only place
4 where a lot of people were gathered? Who lifted this ban and allowed
5 people to gather at Markale?
6 A. I don't know whether it was forbidden or approved.
7 Q. Thank you.
8 Let us just briefly look at your statement dated the 21st April.
9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] That's 65 ter 30306, page 2,
11 Q. Is this your statement? Let's begin with that, if you can answer
13 A. Just give me a minute, please. Yes, it is.
14 Q. In paragraph 3 you mention modified bombs, and you say that one
15 such bomb did -- did not explode and then you went on to cite its
16 characteristics. Is that correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. "It flew slowly."
19 A. I don't know.
20 Q. You have never seen one?
21 A. No, I didn't see it flying.
22 Q. Do you know, did the BH army has -- had this type of bombs?
23 A. No, I don't know.
24 Q. In paragraph 4, you say that: "The Serbian forces on the slope of
25 Trebevic filled natural gas containers with explosives, put rubber tires
1 around them, and rolled them down the hill."
2 Is that what you say?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Can you tell me who was at Colina Kapa? That's the hill which
5 was -- which is 940 metres high. Who had positions in that area?
6 A. I don't know.
7 Q. Can you tell me at all that -- whether it was possible to -- to
8 roll these kind of things past Colina Kapa, or did you make this up?
9 A. This does not refer to the peak of Trebevic, but, rather, to the
10 slopes of Trebevic beneath Osmice. I myself was involved in an
11 investigation of killing of one person; and on that occasion, I saw a
12 number of gas cylinders with car tires fitted to them. When I asked the
13 people there what this was all about, they told me that cylinders were
14 rolled from Osmice down to the neighbourhood situated below.
15 Q. First of all, you don't say anywhere here that somebody was
16 killed, and, secondly, you said that everything that you saw here did not
18 A. The ones that I saw were unexploded.
19 Q. But you also said there was a -- a killing incident. Do you have
20 any document about that? Did you compile any report, an investigation
21 report on the death?
22 A. The report I made at the time involved the killing of a man who
23 stepped on a -- on a trip wire. He was walking towards a field where he
24 wanted to cut grass.
25 Q. But what does that have to do with these cylinders being rolled
1 down the mountain?
2 A. There is a connection --
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Sachdeva.
4 MR. SACHDEVA: Yes, Mr. President. In fact the witness appears to
5 have answered the question; but in his answer concerning these tires, I
6 wondered when he talks about why he was investigating the killing of a one
7 person, that doesn't necessarily mean it was related to the killing of
8 someone from these tires. Maybe that's why the conclusion arises.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'll ask the witness to give his answer again.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] During one of my investigations, I
11 worked in the part of the neighbourhood situated on the Trebevic slopes.
12 A man who lived in this neighbourhood went to a field to cut grass; and
13 while doing so, he activated an anti-personnel mine and he got killed.
14 During my investigation, in a depression in the ground, I noticed
15 gas cylinders with car tires fitted to them, and they were there. I asked
16 the people standing around what this was all about, and they explained to
17 me that these were gas cylinders filled with explosives, that the Serbian
18 forces had rolled down the slopes into their neighbourhood.
19 One of these devices exploded earlier on which there is a report
20 compiled by the Stari Grad police station, as a result of the
21 investigation of this particular explosion.
22 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. But you also have no documents about this, except what you declare
24 here orally?
25 A. I did not make my private archives --
1 Q. Talking about this mine, it was found on the territory controlled
2 by the BH army, right?
3 A. You cannot say that it was on -- the territory controlled by the
4 BH army. It was in an area between Osmice or -- in an area towards
5 Osmice, which place was controlled by the Serbian forces.
6 Q. Are you trying to say that the person who was killed went to the
7 territory of the army of the Republika Srpska and thus got killed?
8 A. No. That person went to his land, to cut grass.
9 Q. Please explain to the Court whether that person had crossed the
10 demarcation line between the two armies across the trenches?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Thank you.
13 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] If I think I can make it in the
14 remaining time, I would like to question the witness about the events on
15 the 22nd of December. 65 R --
16 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We didn't get the rest.
17 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. You were a member of the commission that investigated the event
19 that occurred on the 22nd of December that had to do with the shells that
20 hit Bascarsija. Is that so or not?
21 A. Yes.
22 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I would like us to take a look at
23 page 2 of the English version, which is on page 5 of the B/C/S version,
24 and that is the very report.
25 Q. Witness, we can see that official report here, and we can -- it
1 says that the commission comprises of some persons, and you are mentioned
2 as the tenth member, is that so?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. It further follows from this report that on the 22nd of December
5 at 9.45, you went on site is that so?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. From the introduction, it follows that at around 0910 hours the
8 shelling had taken place. Is that so?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Can you say that you arrived at the site 35 minutes later?
11 A. At 9.30, the Stari Grad police administration received information
12 that there had been a shelling incident, and we arrived within 15 minutes.
13 Q. When you arrived, did you find any casualties there?
14 A. I didn't conduct the on-site investigation. It was conducted by
15 the magistrate. I never saw the wounded persons.
16 Q. I asked you: Did you see any wounded or otherwise -- sorry, any
17 wounded or killed people when you arrived?
18 A. No, I didn't see any.
19 Q. As far as I see, a series of photographs were made but there is no
20 photograph on which killed or wounded people can be seen?
21 A. I can see no photographs; but, of course, if -- when someone gets
22 wounded or killed they wouldn't be left lying there. They would have been
23 taken to hospital.
24 Q. That is natural. But what I'm asking you is that how it is
25 possible that those who were killed were not left at the spots where they
1 were killed so that an investigation can be conducted?
2 A. In a war, you cannot leave wounded or killed people lying about.
3 Possibly someone didn't get killed instantly. They may have died
4 subsequently, on the way to the hospital, for example.
5 Q. So you actually only saw them in the morgue?
6 A. No, I didn't see them at all.
7 Q. As many as 16 witnesses were interviewed regarding this incident,
8 at least there is what follows from these documents. One of these
9 witnesses is a witness W-12 who was interviewed here. He was not sure
10 when he had seen that incident.
11 His statement can be found on page 3078, line 2 of the transcript.
12 He even stated that the incident took place in November rather than 22nd
13 of December of that year. Did you speak to that witness?
14 A. I don't remember.
15 Q. All right. But there are 15 more statements --
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Sachdeva.
17 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, and perhaps we would move into
18 private session, but of course the witness here would not be able to
19 identify W-12. So perhaps the name of the witness can be given to the
20 present witness, but in private session.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, private session.
22 [Private session]
20 [Open session]
21 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] At this moment, I would like to
22 avoid wasting time. There will be time later on to analyse this. But --
23 THE REGISTRAR: Sorry, counsel. Sorry for the interruption.
24 We're in open session now.
25 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Out of this --
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Please continue, Mr. Tapuskovic.
2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Out of the 16 witnesses that were interviewed --
4 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm just considering how to
5 shorten things.
6 Q. Out of the 16 witnesses who were interviewed and are mentioned in
7 this document, 65 R00044, also marked P327, I would like to point out that
8 13 witnesses have stated that they had first heard one explosion, then
9 another, and others that they hadn't heard the firing of shells at all. I
10 would like to submit that all these witnesses statements be tendered into
11 evidence, but according to their statements, 13 witnesses say that they
12 heard one explosion and then another and nobody had heard guns being fired
13 up on the mountain.
14 A. I cannot comment on witnesses' statements because I don't know
15 what they said. I wasn't there at the time of the explosion, so I have
16 nothing to say.
17 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, since this entire
18 document was tendered into evidence, or, rather, I think so, I would like
19 to submit that this entire document, 65 R00044, also marked as P327, that
20 all these statements be tendered as evidence for the Defence. Otherwise,
21 I will proceed statement by statement, witness by witness.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Sachdeva.
23 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, these statements have already been
24 admitted through Witness, I think it is, 122. I don't believe he was
25 protected, but they were submitted -- sorry, they were admitted in the
1 spreadsheet format. So my learned friend is -- in my submission, there's
2 no need -- they don't need to be admitted again.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Can the court deputy confirm that?
4 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: We have a record that they have already been
6 admitted, yes.
7 They have already been admitted, Mr. Tapuskovic.
8 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, not all. I insist
9 that all pages from 658 through 748 be admitted. 65 ter 00044, P327, that
10 they be admitted as evidence for the Defence from pages 658 through 748.
11 Otherwise, I will ask for additional time to interview witnesses.
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: The question is whether those pages are already
14 included in the document admitted.
15 Mr. Sachdeva.
16 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I'm going confirm in one second, if
17 I could have your indulgence, just to --
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Tapuskovic, will you be in a position to
20 identify more precisely which of the almost 100 pages that are you now
21 seeking to admit that you will rely on?
22 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I can give you that
23 information immediately, but it, of course, will take sometime. All the
24 statements from page 17 of the English version, and it's page 58 of the
25 B/C/S version, I can now read it out, but I'm afraid that I might come
1 across a protected witness. So ...
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: I am not fully able to understand what precisely
3 it is that you wish to have the Court look at in these statements.
4 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I said to you very
5 clearly that in these 13 statements, every one of these 13 witnesses in
6 this document said that they had heard an explosion. They all clearly
7 stated that they had heard an explosion. I can read out to you, but take
8 it from me that they all said that they had heard an explosion and after
9 some time another. In neither case does any of the witnesses say that
10 they had heard the shell actually being fired and flying to that place.
11 No one said that. But 13 witnesses say what I have just said. I can read
12 it all out to you but I don't want to take too much time. I can show to
13 you what each and every one of these witnesses testified to.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Sachdeva.
15 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, the witness statements that my
16 learned friend speaks of were admitted as part of the spreadsheet and they
17 are part of 65 ter 00044, and the pages specifically are pages 30 to 56 of
18 the B/C/S, in other words, the original language of the exhibit. And for
19 more clarification, the ERN references are 00267714 to 00267740. And
20 pursuant to your ruling they have been admitted.
21 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, give us the pages again that you
25 wish to have admitted.
1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] But, Your Honours, each of these
2 statements is accompanied by another document or two. It is impossible to
3 analyse this incident unless the entire 65 ter is analysed. It is
4 absolutely impossible to arrive at any conclusion at all. And as this is
5 here already --
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Pages 658 to 748.
7 Now, Mr. Sachdeva, you say that these pages are already included
8 in the document admitted. I'm looking at the list of exhibits here, and
9 in the spreadsheet of the documents admitted, the highest page number is
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
13 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, all I can submit is that with
14 Witness 131, when we introduced the spreadsheet, I recall that I showed
15 him the entire local statements that were given by persons who were
16 involved in this incident, and it's correct that there's -- there was a
17 statement and then after that there is a diagram with the statement. And
18 from what I can recall of the exhibit, the composite exhibit, once we get
19 to the end of the statements we then have medical record, and of course
20 Witness 131 was not in a position to verify these medical records and
21 therefore the records were not admitted.
22 But the pages -- if my learned friend checks the pages, from page
23 30 to 56 of that range, I submit that those would include all the local
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Tapuskovic, could you please do me the favour
2 of explaining to me why -- let us assume that the 13 statements which you
3 wish to adduce now, to introduce, that they do indeed include the
4 information that you say they do; namely, that these 13 witnesses heard,
5 first, one explosion and then another, but none of these 13 witnesses
6 could confirm that they had also heard from where the -- that they had not
7 heard the shot itself.
8 Why do you seek to introduce this evidence in relation to this
10 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Because he was involved in an
11 investigation of this incident. I have already received it from him. In
12 the document that I studied, he was a member of the commission and all the
13 witnesses are connected with that investigation.
14 I wanted to end my cross-examination after that, but I believe
15 that there is no reason for not admitting this because this can only be
16 taken as a whole and evaluated as such. This can be analysed only as a
17 whole. And this witness took part in the investigation. This has to do
18 with this witness and I don't know why this shouldn't be admitted. Why
19 not admit the entire D document? Because this is a set -- this is in
20 order from -- starting from page 658, and I can see no reason why this
21 shouldn't be allowed. And with this I would conclude my
23 JUDGE HARHOFF: I'll will tell you the reason. The reason is that
24 the parties are not free to pour irrelevant evidence into the case. So we
25 have to ensure that whatever is admitted as evidence is relevant, and this
1 is why, again, I fail to understand just why the information that 13
2 witnesses had not heard the shot from where these grenades were shot, why
3 that is related to the testimony of this witness.
4 And I kindly ask you to explain it to me, because otherwise I will
5 have a difficulty in agreeing to your request.
6 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let me just add to that. Explain the relevance
8 of that evidence to the case, first; and then explain how it is connected
9 to this witness.
10 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Firstly, let me repeat. This
11 witness was a member of the investigative team. This file about the
12 incident of December 22nd is linked to his work in this investigation.
13 And being asked I will tell you the following: This very evidence and
14 some other shows that these were staged explosions. This is relevant.
15 That there was no gun-fired; there was no shell fired. These were staged
17 A few days later, Carter should have arrived to Sarajevo, and this
18 was the kind of thing that was done when international representatives
19 were to arrive in Sarajevo. If you want me to explain things now, rather
20 than at a subsequent stage, I will do so. Because I say that the very
21 fact that 13 people had not heard the firing of shells, they only heard
22 explosions, this goes to show that what I'm saying is so. I wanted to
23 save this for my final word, but you wanted to hear it now.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Sachdeva.
25 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, firstly, well, I really don't want
1 to take the Court's time, but I have responses to make to
2 Mr. Tapuskovic's, I would argue, arguments and material that should be
3 left for closing. But, secondly, the Prosecution does not object, if Your
4 Honours and Mr. President if you deem it appropriate for the composite,
5 the full exhibit, the full file to be admitted into evidence.
6 Now, there were parts of that file that were admitted through
7 Witness 131 because, of course, it depended upon his confirmation of these
8 reports and, therefore, some of the medical records, as I have explained,
9 could not be confirmed by that witness.
10 But if my learned friend is seeking to admit the full composite
11 exhibit, the Prosecution would not have an objection. Of course, it
12 depends entirely on whether it is appropriate for you, Mr. President, and
13 Your Honours.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, we are going to admit the
16 document that you are seeking to have put into evidence.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter 00044 will be admitted as
19 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I have
20 no further questions for this witness.
21 Q. Thank you, Witness.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Sachdeva.
23 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, one question in re-examination, if I
25 Could I please ask the court deputy to bring up the photograph
1 D123, please.
2 Re-examination by Mr. Sachdeva:
3 Q. Mr. Dozo, do you remember marking this photograph in examination
4 and cross-examination?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And I want you to concentrate on the letter A and the arrow there.
7 Can you tell the Court where exactly is the arrow pointing to?
8 A. It is turned the other way from the Sedrenik neighbourhood and
9 pointing at the Serbian positions there.
10 Q. And letter B, what does that depict?
11 A. Behind this arrow, or rather, behind the hill were the positions
12 of the BH army.
13 Q. So can I just clarify: When we speak about the letter A, are you
14 talking about the BiH army or the VRS army?
15 A. I'm saying that behind this hill were the positions of the BH
16 army, but the extension of Spicasta Stijena was held by the VRS.
17 Q. So my next question is: From where you have said the arrow from
18 letter A is pointing to, in other words, the ABiH army positions, did you
19 have a line of sight to where you have marked where Ms. Selmanovic was
21 A. The BH army positions were behind, and it was impossible to see
22 Mrs. Selmanovic at the place where she was when she was wounded.
23 Q. And what about at position B?
24 A. It was also impossible to see Mrs. Selmanovic from the positions
25 of the BH army there, because after this slope there is a depression and
1 this is where the BH army positions were.
2 Q. Thank you.
3 MR. SACHDEVA: That's the re-examination, Mr. President.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Witness, that concludes your evidence. Thank you
5 for giving it. You may now leave.
6 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, Mr. Waespi is taking the next
7 witness. Might I be excused for a moment.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, certainly.
9 [The witness withdrew]
10 MR. WAESPI: Mr. President, while the witness leaves, in relation
11 to the document the Defence wanted to have admitted after yesterday, I
12 have looked at the document.
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Waespi, exceptionally, the Chamber will call
16 the witness, the witness who we just discharged. Would you have him
17 brought back, because we'd like to ask him some questions.
18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can I please take this
19 opportunity to ask you for the document from yesterday to be entered into
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: What is it?
22 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] It's DD --
23 MR. WAESPI: Mr. President, it's the information report dated 9th
24 March of this year, in relation to the conversation I had with the
25 witness, so I have no objection.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm told that it's DD00-1414.
2 MR. WAESPI: Yes, I have seen it. I have no objection.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: I should explain that the Chamber is recalling
4 the witness who was just discharged.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: We admit that document, Mr. Tapuskovic.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be admitted as D125.
8 MR. WAESPI: Mr. President.
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 [The witness entered court]
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Would you have the witness make the declaration
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
14 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
15 WITNESS: NEDZIB DOZO [Recalled]
16 [Witness answered through interpreter]
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, please sit.
18 Now, Judge Harhoff has some questions to ask relating to the
19 allegations of the Defence, with regard to the bombs.
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you Mr. President.
21 Questioned by the Court:
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: And witness, I do apologise for not being quick
23 enough to put the questions to you while you were in the seat, but you
24 went out so fast that I didn't have the time to catch you. And I'm glad
25 that are you back, and thank you for coming.
1 The question that I wanted to put to you was triggered by the
2 Defence allegation that the two bombs that you investigated, I think, on
3 the 22nd of December, that they were really not explosions from mortar
4 shells fired from outside the city. But as I understand the Defence
5 position, they were, rather, explosions following from a bomb that was
6 placed there secretly, and this, of course, is a very important point.
7 So my question to you is: Whether you in your investigation on
8 the scene, if you found any evidence that could either support the Defence
9 allegation or counter the Defence allegation.
10 Did you find pieces from a mortar shell, for instance, that would
11 suggest that it was a mortar shell that this been shot into the area; or
12 did you not find any such evidence? This was just an example. I don't
13 want to lead you.
14 But my interest is to know whether you found any evidence on the
15 spot that could support the Defence counsel's allegation, or the other way
16 around, that could counter that allegation.
17 A. I don't have with me an on-site investigation report. However, in
18 the course of the investigation, no pieces of shells were found indicating
19 that they were part of a manufactured device. What we found was shrapnel.
20 I am also not sure that it was a mortar shell, but, rather, the shrapnel
21 from another type of a projectile.
22 At that point, I was not authorised to give or offer any opinions.
23 We had ballistics experts at the scene; and after their expert analysis,
24 they established the type of the projectile that was used.
25 MR. SACHDEVA: Am I permitted to ask a question --
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: Of course.
2 MR. SACHDEVA: -- of the witness.
3 Further Re-examination by Mr. Sachdeva:
4 Q. Witness, hello again. Can you just tell the Court, with respect
5 to your official role or designation with the police, were you a
7 A. No, I wasn't.
8 Q. Did you -- well, were you authorised to make determinations as to
9 the type of projectile used in shelling incidents?
10 A. No, I wasn't.
11 Q. Was it your role to determine the direction of fire of projectiles
12 during these incidents?
13 A. The direction of fire was established by an expert who was a
14 member of the investigation team. It wasn't my role to do so. My task
15 was to assist them, or rather, to carry out orders given by an
16 investigating judge. When pieces of shells were found, we were to be --
17 we were to secure the area around the spot where an incident took place.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, might I just point out that Witness
20 1341 - I can name him now: Mr. Ekrem Suljevic - in fact, testified here
21 and he worked for the bomb squad within the CSB, and it's my submission
22 that these sorts of allegations would have been better put to that
23 witness, firstly.
24 Secondly, my learned friend, Ms. Isailovic cross-examined
25 Mr. Suljevic, and it is my understanding that her position was that as
1 opposed to the cannon shell that we submit caused this incident, her
2 position was that there were mortar shells that caused the incident and,
3 in fact, she referred to an UNPROFOR statement in that regard.
4 So I'm not, of course, supposed to be, you know, completely
5 understanding of the Defence position, but it appears to me that that
6 wasn't the position taken in the cross-examination of Mr. Suljevic who, I
7 submit, would have been better placed to answer these questions.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.
9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, my learned
10 colleague insisted on something which was left unclarified, whether it was
11 a gun shell or a 120-millimetre shell, and the Prosecution left this issue
12 unclear in the indictment as well. My question was: Was there a
13 possibility allowed during the investigation that the shell came from a
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Do you wish to put a question to the witness?
16 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the President, please.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Do you wish to put a question to the witness?
18 Because if you do, you must seek our permission as Mr. Sachdeva did.
19 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I intended -- my intention, first
20 of all, was to provide this explanation to the Bench, but I forgot that I
21 was indeed required to ask your permission to address the witness. I
22 wanted to explain to you that we discussed this matter, whether this
23 was --
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: If you wish to put a question, you may do so.
25 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Initially, during your investigation, is it true that you were not
2 sure whether the shell was fired from a gun or was it any other type of
4 A. I did not conduct this investigation. It was done by the
5 investigating judge. I was neither authorised nor did I have expertise to
6 qualify or to categorise the type of the shell. I didn't know what kind
7 of shell was involved.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Sachdeva. I'm not going to prolong this.
10 MR. SACHDEVA: Nothing, Mr. President.
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Witness, we thank you for coming to assist the
12 Court. Your evidence is concluded and you may now leave.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
14 [The witness withdrew]
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.
16 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with your leave,
17 can I be excused from the remaining part of the sitting?
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
19 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: Thank you.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Waespi, the next witness.
21 MR. WAESPI: Yes, Mr. President. I would like to inform you that
22 during proofing, the witness told me that he does not require voice
23 distortion. So in that sense, I would like you to vary your decision to
24 grant him voice distortion.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Our decision on protective measures is varied to
1 that extent.
2 MR. WAESPI: Thank you, Mr. President.
3 [The witness entered court]
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let the witness make the declaration.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
6 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
7 WITNESS: WITNESS W-91
8 [Witness answered through interpreter]
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: You may sit.
10 And you may begin, Mr. Waespi.
11 MR. WAESPI: Thank you, Mr. President.
12 MR. WAESPI: Unfortunately, I forgot to prepare a pseudonym sheet
13 for this witness. Perhaps that could be done after the next break, with
14 your leave, Mr. President.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 MR. WAESPI: Or we could write it on a bit of paper.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just write it on a piece of paper. We can
18 improvise, yes.
19 Examination by Mr. Waespi:
20 Q. Good afternoon, Witness. Could you please write your name on to
21 that piece of paper.
22 A. [Marks]
23 MR. WAESPI: And if it could be shown, please, to the Defence and
24 to Your Honours.
25 Can it be tendered under seal, Mr. President.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
2 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P369, under
4 MR. WAESPI: Thank you very much.
5 If It ter number 03042 could retrieved please and not broadcasted
6 because the name of the witness appears on it.
7 Q. Witness, you are a protected witness, therefore, I will address
8 you just with "Witness" this afternoon. Do you remember having given a
9 statement to the OTP on 14th November 1995?
10 A. Yes, I do.
11 MR. WAESPI: Mr. President, I think the Defence --
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Witness is "W" what?
13 MR. WAESPI: 91, Mr. President.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: 91.
15 Yes, Mr. Sachdeva.
16 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
17 I'm not sure it's the right number 65 ter, because I have the
18 number 30040 is that correct.
19 MR. WAESPI: There are two witnesses statements. One is indeed
20 03040 dated 25th February, 1996; and the second one is 03041, dated -- I'm
21 sorry, 03042.
22 Q. So turning to this statement, do you see your signature on the
24 A. Yes, I do.
25 Q. Thank you, Witness.
1 MR. WAESPI: If we could move to the fourth page, please, on both
2 versions, English and B/C/S.
3 Q. The first full paragraph from the top says, on line 3, and I
4 quote: "Having in mind the information from UNPROFOR about not allowing
5 them to attend the investigation, the investigating judge of the High
6 Court of Sarajevo, Mr. Basdarevic Izet ordered the investigation to be
7 reconstructed two days later."
8 Do you have a comment to make about this sentence, Witness?
9 A. Yes, I do. At this juncture, I cannot ascertain whether the
10 reconstruction, or rather, an order for reconstruction was carried out on
11 the next day after the incident or two days later. What I am sure about,
12 though, is that the reconstruction was indeed carried out.
13 Q. Thank you, Witness. Let's turn to the next paragraph which talks
14 about what's called here the second shelling of 7.00 p.m.
15 The second sentence reads as follows, and I quote: "This was also
16 an 82-millimetre shell, which we ascertained from the east from the
17 locality of the Serb-held position at Borije."
18 I think have you a make a comment about this sentence; is that
20 A. Yes. As far as I remember, in my statement I said that "we," by
21 which I meant the investigative team from the police centre in Sarajevo,
22 that the shell had been fired from the Serbian positions in Borije which
23 was in the east.
24 Q. Thank you very much.
25 MR. WAESPI: I think the explanation in English is that there need
1 to be a coma after the word east. In B/C/S, I understand it's similar,
2 but the witness just gave his explanation about what he has to say about
3 this sentence.
4 Q. Now, with these two corrections, Witness 91, is this statement an
5 accurate and truthful record of what you had told the investigator?
6 A. Yes, so that reflects what I said to the investigator.
7 Q. And if you would testify today, would your answers under oath be
8 the same as recorded in this statement?
9 A. Yes, my answers would be the same.
10 Q. Thank you, Witness.
11 MR. WAESPI: Mr. President, if that statement could be tendered
12 under seal.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
14 THE REGISTRAR: As P370 under seal, Your Honours.
15 MR. WAESPI: If the next document could be retrieved. This is
17 Q. Do you remember, Witness 91, having given a second witness
18 statement to the investigators of the Tribunal?
19 MR. WAESPI: And, again, I ask that this statement not be
21 A. Yes, I remember.
22 Q. And do you see that statement in front of you?
23 A. That's the very statement.
24 Q. And, again, is this statement - and you had a chance to look at it
25 my office - an accurate and truthful record of what you told the
1 investigator back in 1996?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And if you were to testify today, would your answers under oath be
4 the same as recorded in this statement?
5 A. Yes.
6 MR. WAESPI: Mr. President, if this second statement could also be
7 admitted under seal, please.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours this will be Exhibit P371, under
11 MR. WAESPI:
12 Q. Witness 91, can you very briefly, and without going into -- into
13 identifying details about your career, tell Your Honours what your
14 education and your training was. In particular, do you have an university
16 A. For almost 20 years, I have worked as a police officer. I worked
17 16 years as an investigator. As far as my professional training is
18 concerned, I'm a trained criminalist. This is what I am, officially, my
19 official profession.
20 Q. Do you have a -- do you have a degree from an university?
21 A. Yes. I have a diploma, an university diploma of the first degree.
22 Q. And what was the subject of your university diploma of the first
24 A. As I have said, I am a criminalist by profession; and during my
25 studies, I -- I heard many subjects. I'm not sure what you mean when you
1 ask me about the subject. But criminal investigations was a subject that
2 I heard for two years.
3 Q. Thank you. So, in essence, you have a degree in criminology; is
4 that correct?
5 A. Yes, that is my official profession.
6 Q. Thank you, Witness.
7 MR. WAESPI: If exhibit -- potential exhibit ter number 02112
8 could be retrieved, and it may take a while because these are photos.
9 Q. So while this is being done, can you tell, Witness 91, to Their
10 Honours what your function was. What was your job in summer 1994?
11 A. Precisely from December on, or rather, during the period about
12 you're asking me, I was an investigator of the department for homicide and
13 sex crimes of the Sarajevo police. And I was a member of a team which,
14 apart from tradition police investigations into sex crimes and violent
15 crimes, I also worked on all incidents due to sniping or the shelling of
16 Sarajevo in -- on every occasion when there were civilian casualties.
17 Q. Thank you, Witness 91. Now, in November 1994, were you involved
18 in the investigation of a shelling at Livanjska Street in Sarajevo?
19 A. Yes, I was.
20 Q. Now, looking at a few photos I'm going to show to you, and let's
21 go to the third page of this range.
22 Were you alone in investigating this incident, or were other
23 people with you?
24 A. Naturally, this investigation, as well as all others that I
25 conducted, was conducted in accordance with the then law on criminal
1 procedure, what was then in force. And since the investigative magistrate
2 was not present on the investigation, which was legal at the time but had
3 authorised me to lead the team, I was actually the team leader on this
5 Q. Thank you, Witness, for your explanation. Can you now look at
6 the picture, and do you recognise this picture?
7 A. Yes. That is the spot where a mortar shell impact took place in
8 front of the building in Livanjska Street, number 26.
9 Q. And I believe you can see the -- the plate of number 26 on the
10 photo; is that correct?
11 A. Yes, it can be seen.
12 Q. Can you explain the feature that appears to be a crater on the
13 pavement? Can you explain what that is?
14 A. I cannot hear the interpretation.
15 Q. Yes. Can you please explain to Their Honours what appears to be a
16 crater in the middle of the picture? Can you explain what that is.
17 A. We, and when I say "we," I mean the investigative team for such
18 investigations, in our technical count we called this a rose or a paw,
19 which is characteristic of spots of impact of a mortar shell on a -- on
20 tarmac. In this case, it was an 82-calibre shell.
21 Q. And were there casualties caused by this shelling?
22 A. At the site of the event, one girl was killed instantly. A boy
23 who was taken from there to hospital died soon after arriving there; and
24 as far as I remember, a female who was wounded died sometime later.
25 MR. WAESPI: Mr. President, if this picture could be admitted as
1 an exhibit, and it does not need to be under seal.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
3 THE REGISTRAR: Sorry. Is that just this individual picture or
4 the entire document?
5 MR. WAESPI: In fact, I would prefer the entire document. But I
6 understand from Your Honours' ruling or suggestion yesterday that you
7 prefer to have a single -- I will discuss about five photos out of a range
8 of about 15. I'm in your hands, Mr. President.
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: We have a distinct preference for that approach,
11 focussing on those that we absolutely need look at.
12 MR. WAESPI: Thank you, Mr. President. So I ask that this photo
13 be tendered.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
15 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter 02112, photo number 3, will become Exhibit
16 P372, Your Honours.
17 MR. WAESPI: If we could move on to the sixth page of this range
18 of photos, please.
19 Q. And, again, Witness 91, if you could tell us what you see on this
21 Can you tell Their Honours what time of the day this shelling
23 A. I think it was about 3.30 or 4.30. I'm not sure at the moment,
24 but it was certainly in the afternoon.
25 Q. Thank you, Witness. Can you explain Their Honours what you see
1 now depicted on your screen.
2 A. This is a close-up photograph of the same spot taken from a little
3 smaller distance where the mortar shell hit the ground, and this area
4 where it hit the ground, and the part of the mortar shell that we call the
6 Q. And did ballistics experts look at this -- this scenery, the
7 position you found this tail-fin?
8 A. The ballisticians were members of the team, of course; and
9 about -- as for the identification of these traces, they were certainly
10 team members in -- who participated in finding these. The ballisticians
11 were not the only ones who did that; but talking about their tasks and
12 what their activities, they were supposed to establish what fell into
13 their area of competence.
14 Q. Let's move to the page number 8.
15 MR. WAESPI: And, Mr. President, if this photo could be tendered.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we'll admit photo number 6 as
18 Exhibit P373.
19 MR. WAESPI:
20 Q. Again, very briefly, what's depicted on this picture?
21 A. This is the same spot. Here we can see that beside the crater,
22 there is a -- there's figure 1, and there are chalk markings that are
23 forensic experts and ballisticians use for their purposes.
24 MR. WAESPI: If that could be exhibit as well, Mr. President.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, photo number 8 will become P374.
2 MR. WAESPI: Two more photos. The next page, please, page 9.
3 Q. And, again, Witness 91, once you see it displayed, can you tell us
4 what -- what's depicted here?
5 A. Here, in this photograph, we see the work of our colleagues,
6 ballisticians. This photo was taken to document their finding.
7 MR. WAESPI: If that could be exhibited, Mr. President.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, photo number 9 will become P375.
10 MR. WAESPI: And, finally, page 12, please.
11 Q. And while that is being retrieved, Witness 91, was also a video
12 made on that day?
13 A. Yes. This on-site investigation was videotaped.
14 Q. And did you recently provide a copy of that to the Office of the
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. We'll come back to that in a moment. Now, looking at this
18 picture, can you explain very briefly, again, what you see here?
19 A. Conditionally speaking, this is a photograph showing the
20 surroundings of the spot of impact. You can see these figures put there,
21 which indicate the spots where evidence was found, and the person standing
22 there is videotaping the site.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 MR. WAESPI: Mr. President, if that could be an exhibit as well.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, photo number 12 will become Exhibit
3 MR. WAESPI:
4 Q. Now, Witness, do you remember whether a determination was made by
5 you and your team as to the direction of fire this shell came from?
6 A. After completing the on-site investigation in line with the rules
7 of criminology and in line with the provisions of the rule -- of the Law
8 on Criminal Procedure that was in force then, all elements were
9 established based on which it was possible to reconstruction the direction
10 from which the shell had flown to the spot where it detonated.
11 MR. WAESPI: And perhaps before the break, Mr. President, I would
12 like to play a few seconds of the video the witness mentioned. It
13 depicts, again, horrible details, I think brains of somebody, but we will
14 show you only a very brief clip, as soon as we have reached it.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Spare us from the gory details.
16 MR. WAESPI: If that section could be played, please.
17 [Videotape played]
18 MR. WAESPI:
19 Q. Can you give an explanation, Witness, what you see here?
20 A. The person who made this video was standing very close to the spot
21 of impact, and at the moment when I started speaking, we saw the building
22 across the road from the spot of impact of this mortar shell.
23 Here, at this moment, we can see the crater with the tail-fin of
24 the mortar shell.
25 MR. WAESPI: Mr. President, I think that's enough. It's a
1 six-minute video, and I suggest that the whole video be admitted.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we admit it.
3 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P377, Your Honours.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: And we'll take the break now.
5 --- Recess taken at 5.35 p.m.
6 --- On resuming at 5.55 p.m.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, please continue.
8 MR. WAESPI: Thank you, Mr. President. About ten to 15 more
9 minutes, and then I will be done with my chief. If the next document, ter
10 number 00084, could you please retrieved please.
11 Q. Now, Witness, do you remember having drafted a report you
12 conducted at Livanjska Street.
13 A. Yes.
14 MR. WAESPI: If we could move in the English version to page 3,
15 and in the B/C/S version to the fifth page, please.
16 Q. And did you have a chance to look at the report in my office?
17 A. Yes, I did.
18 Q. And, shortly, you will see on your right side the original version
19 of your report.
20 Can you look at the screen? Is that your report?
21 MR. WAESPI: And if it could not be broadcast, please.
22 A. Yes. This is the official report that I drafted on the occasion
23 of this incident.
24 Q. Thank you.
25 MR. WAESPI: We don't need to see the second page.
1 Mr. President, if approximate those two pages could be exhibited,
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Let them be admitted.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that would be pages 5 and 6 in B/C/S
5 will be admitted as Exhibit P378.
6 MR. WAESPI: And they should be under seal, Mr. President, since
7 the author is the witness.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, those will be under seal.
10 MR. WAESPI: Could we please move to page 11 in the B/C/S version
11 and page 8 in the English version.
12 Q. Witness, if you look at the right side of your screen, do you see
13 this document? Can you identify to us what it is?
14 A. This is, in fact, a report compiled by the KDZ department that, at
15 the time, was attached to the then Ministry of the Interior, and this is
16 the report that shows the findings of an expert analysis of the physical
17 evidence retrieved on the site of the investigation.
18 Q. Now, I see that it talks about the 7th November 1994 as being the
19 date of the incident at Livanjska Street. Do you have a comment about
21 A. I believe that this is a misprint. It should read here the 8th of
22 November, 1994.
23 Q. Thank you, Witness.
24 MR. WAESPI: Mr. President, if this exhibit could also be
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
2 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, page 11 will be P379.
3 MR. WAESPI:
4 Q. Now, Witness, was --
5 MR. WAESPI: Mr. President, Defence.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Isailovic.
7 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, thank you.
8 I just have one little technical problem. Here, again, we are
9 starting to fragment documents. Could the Prosecutor please tell us the
10 number of pages included in P379, just so we know.
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Waespi.
12 MR. WAESPI: This is only two pages, the second report. Both last
13 exhibits have two pages. It's a bigger file, as you were aware
14 Mr. President, of 50 pages which includes medical certificates, and so
15 on. But consistent with your ruling of yesterday, I am only tendering two
16 documents; the document the witness authored and the ballistics report
17 that we just discussed. So it's two times, two pages.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well. Thank you.
19 MR. WAESPI:
20 Q. Witness, did you investigate a second shelling on the same day,
21 8th November, 1994, in Livanjska Street?
22 A. Yes. I was a member of the investigating team that did that
23 investigation as well. Only this investigation was conducted on the
24 following day; that is, on the 9th of November, 1994.
25 Q. And why was it conducted the following day?
1 A. Both at the time when we conducted the first on-site
2 investigation, Sarajevo was subjected to shelling, which made even the
3 first investigation rather risky. What I'm telling now is further
4 supported by the fact that immediately after our departure from the site
5 of the first investigation, two projectiles hit a spot which was very
6 close to the site that we are discussing now.
7 The second reason was since all this happened in November when
8 days were short, we didn't have proper conditions; that is to say, we
9 didn't have enough daylight to complete the investigation, and I'm talking
10 now about the second investigation on Livanjska Street.
11 Q. Thank you, Witness, for this explanation.
12 MR. WAESPI: If the last exhibit, 65 ter 03041 could be retrieved.
13 Q. And while this is being done, Witness, what role did UNPROFOR play
14 on that day? Did you see any members of UNPROFOR or UNMO, international
16 A. I presume that you're asking me about the investigation that was
17 conducted on the 8th of November.
18 Q. Yes.
19 A. In order to give you a precise answer to this question, allow me,
20 please, just a short preliminary explanation.
21 Members of UNPROFOR, that is to say, members of the international
22 forces, visited the scene as a rule. Where we were conducting our
23 investigations in the cases like this one, sometimes they only attended
24 and observed the investigation and sometimes, albeit much more seldom,
25 themselves took part, or rather, conducted their independent
2 Speaking about UNPROFOR, that is international military forces
3 deployed at the time in Sarajevo, we distinguished practically two groups;
4 one of them was military observers who had blue UN berets on their heads,
5 and there was another group mostly made up of soldiers an officers from
6 France, which we called them the French Battalion.
7 Now, in response to your question, some ten minutes after we
8 arrived on the site, we were joined by two military observers; that is to
9 say, members of the group that regularly wore blue berets on their heads.
10 I informed them about the incident, and I briefed them about what had
11 happened there, of course, in accordance with the rules of criminal
13 In the course of the investigation, and most certainly after the
14 arrival of these two UNMOs, a military combat vehicle came from the east.
15 These kind of vehicles were typically used by members of the FrenchBat. A
16 man in uniform got out of this vehicle. I don't know if he was an
17 ordinary soldier or an officer, and I don't know that today either.
18 Through his interpreter I engaged in a conversation with him and
19 briefed him and gave him an outline of the incident. I also asked him if
20 they were going to attend the investigation. He replied that they only
21 came to the scene to see what this was all about, but that their team
22 would probably join them later. After that, this FrenchBat combat vehicle
23 left the site.
24 Q. Thank you very much, Witness. Let's go to the third page of this
25 document -- of this photo spread, and please explain -- to the second
1 page. I'm sorry, to the second page. Please explain to Their Honours
2 what you see. And perhaps to start with, how far away from the first
3 shelling was this second shelling?
4 A. If I remember correctly, up to 50 metres. So the distance between
5 the impact of the first shell and the other two shells in my estimate was
6 up to 50 metres.
7 Q. And you're saying there was first one shell, and we discussed that
8 before the break, and now there are two shells about 50 metres apart. How
9 much later in time were the two shells fired?
10 A. If I remember correctly, I think that the time interval was about
11 three hours, if I remember correctly.
12 Q. Now, before the break you described where the first break was
13 landing, and we show the video and the shells landing on the street. Now
14 where were these two other shells landing, and please use the photos to
15 explain that.
16 A. The other two shells that fell approximately three hours later, as
17 I already said, landed some 50 metres or less in the direction of east,
18 from the location where the first shell had landed.
19 According to the witness statements, these two shells detonated
20 practically simultaneously. One hit the dirt or soil surface that you can
21 see here in this garden in the photograph, and the other one exploded on
22 the carriageway of Livanjska Street closer to the right-hand side
23 pavement, if you view it from east to the west.
24 Q. Thank you, Witness?
25 MR. WAESPI: If this exhibit could have a number, please,
1 Mr. President.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
3 THE REGISTRAR: The entire exhibit or just these two pages that
4 were shown?
5 MR. WAESPI: Mr. President, I will -- I think are 15 photos, and I
6 will talk about seven of these photos. Perhaps it might be easier to all
7 these 15 photos admitted. It is easier for the for the registry, but I'm
8 in your hands, Mr. President.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll go for the more limited number. But what
10 does this picture show? Has the witness explained that?
11 MR. WAESPI: Yes.
12 Q. Witness, can you please explain, again, what you see on this
14 A. Conditionally speaking, this is a photograph of the general area
15 where one of the two shells, mortar shells landed and which exploded some
16 three hours after the first one that we discussed earlier.
17 Q. Thank you, Witness.
18 MR. WAESPI: If that photo could have a number, please.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Prosecutor, what do they see here? I see a
20 small garden or trees. Is there a crater?
21 MR. WAESPI: Yes. Your Honours, that is just the general area.
22 The next picture will enlighten you further, I'm sure.
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we'll admit this. This is pages 2
25 and 3 of 65 ter 03041 as Exhibit P380.
1 MR. WAESPI: If we could move to page 7, please.
2 Q. Now, Witness, did you have again a team of experts deal with this
4 A. This investigation was also attended by a team of experts.
5 However, unlike the investigation that we discussed earlier on the 8th of
6 November, this one was directed by an investigating judge. All the
7 measures and procedures applied here were applied according to his
9 Q. And can you explain Their Honours what's done here by your team?
10 A. You mean what is shown in this photograph or the entire
12 Q. No. What's depicted here on this photograph.
13 A. I'm not a ballistics expert; but from the area of my expertise and
14 incomplete training that I had undergone, we can see here ballistics
15 expert in cooperation with the forensic technician applying certain
16 procedures in order to determine the direction from which a mortar shell
17 had come.
18 MR. WAESPI: If that could be exhibited, Mr. President.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, page 7 will become P381.
21 MR. WAESPI: Let's move to the next page, please, page 8.
22 Q. Did injure investigators collect remnants of -- of a projectile?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And I believe we see a photo shortly. Can you explain what's
25 depicted here?
1 A. What we see in this photograph are fragments and parts of a mortar
2 shell of 82-millimetre calibre. According to the markings, if I can see
3 clearly, I think it was manufactured by Krusik Valjevo and the year of
4 manufacture is 1985.
5 Q. And do you know where Krusik Valjevo is located?
6 A. Krusik is the name of the factory, and Valjevo is the town in
8 MR. WAESPI: If that could be exhibited, Mr. President.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, page 8 becomes P382.
11 MR. WAESPI: If the photo after next could be exhibited please.
12 Q. And, Witness, you told us earlier that one shell was landing in a
13 garden and the second one was on -- on the street; is that correct?
14 A. Yes, that's what I said.
15 Q. So let's have a look at this next photo, and please explain to
16 Their Honours what you see here.
17 A. This is the place of impact and explosion of the second mortar
18 shell, which detonated, as I said, on the carriageway closer to the
19 right-hand side pavement viewed from east towards west. Specifically, in
20 this photograph, you can see these lathes that are being used to determine
21 the direction from which a mortar shell flies.
22 MR. WAESPI: Mr. President if that could get an exhibit number,
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
25 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, page 10 will become Exhibit P383.
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Prosecutor, will you return to these pictures;
2 because if not, then I would like you to ask the witness explain to us
3 what does it actually show here with these sticks? What is their
5 MR. WAESPI: Yes, Mr. President and Judge Harhoff.
6 Q. Yes. Witness, please, if you can, can you explain to Judge
7 Harhoff the significance of what you see on this photo? We understand
8 you're not an expert in ballistics, and there will be one. But just help
9 as much as you can.
10 A. In response to your question, and with regard to this, I wouldn't
11 like to offer any further explanation, given the fact that I am not a
12 ballistics expert.
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you very much. I apologise for asking.
14 MR. WAESPI: No reason to, Judge Harhoff.
15 If we could go to page 15, please.
16 Q. Do you remember what kind of projectiles were found in the course
17 of your investigation?
18 A. If I remember correctly, during the investigation conducted on the
19 9th of November, we managed to find these fins but only belonging to one
20 shell. We failed to recover the second one. I'm talking about the
21 stabilizer of a mortar shell.
22 MR. WAESPI: Mr. President, if that could be an exhibit.
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, page 15 becomes Exhibit P384.
25 MR. WAESPI:
1 Q. And finally --
2 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
3 Q. -- page 18 of this range of photos, please.
4 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
5 Q. Do you recognise this picture, Witness 91?
6 A. Yes. This photograph was taken on the 9th of November while the
7 investigation was in progress of the two mortar shells.
8 Q. Now, what do you see here on -- in the middle of the photo, we see
9 markings, so a darker area. Can you take a pen with the help of the usher
10 and encircle that, and explain us what that grey area is?
11 I'm referring to the crater which we've seen in various other
12 pictures before. Can you encircle the area where the crater is?
13 A. [Marks]
14 Q. Yes. Thank you. And please attach letter A next to it.
15 A. [Marks]
16 Q. Is that the crater Judge Harhoff asked you a question about a
17 moment ago?
18 A. Yes, that's the one.
19 Q. And in relation to this crater, where was that garden where we saw
20 the other shell landing?
21 A. Viewed from here, it's to the right.
22 Q. Can you just make an arrow to the right, and mark it with the
23 letter B, please.
24 A. [Marks]
25 Q. And the first shell that had landed a couple of hours previous to
1 that in front of Livanjska Street 26, where was that location? Where is
2 Livanjska Street 26 in relation to this picture?
3 A. [Marks]
4 Q. Thank you very much. And, lastly, we see what appears to be
5 UNPROFOR or UNMO soldiers in the background. Can you explain us what they
6 were doing on that day?
7 A. In order for me to be able to give you a precise answer, I have to
8 mention the fact that on the 8th of November; that is to say, on the day
9 before in the evening of that day, an UNPROFOR spokesman informed the
10 media and the press about the investigation that we mentioned earlier that
11 is on Livanjska Street number 26, and he said that the police denied
12 access to the site to UNPROFOR.
13 In view of such statement given to the media by UNPROFOR, the then
14 Minister of the Interior ordered to me specifically, because I was in
15 charge of that investigation, to report to him in writing about this
16 situation, and I complied with his request. And in the statement of
17 reasons for his order, it was said that this report was being requested by
18 the then Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
19 The presence of such a large number of UNPROFOR members that one
20 can see in this picture was not a common sight. Here there are many more
21 of them than would normally be during our investigations. I suppose that
22 what I said a minute ago was the reason for such a significant presence of
23 UNPROFOR on the spot.
24 Q. And my last question will be, and before we also propose to tender
25 that exhibit is: Are you aware that UNPROFOR or UNMOs also made an
1 investigation into this second shelling; not the one Livanjska Street
2 number 26, but these two shells we discussed now after the break. Are you
3 aware of such an investigation?
4 A. I remember that UNPROFOR personnel carried out some measurements
5 there, and that they conducted an on-site investigation. I also know that
6 it was a common practice then in such situations. They carried out their
7 measurements as completely separately from Sarajevo CSB personnel.
8 Subsequently, the results would be compared on the spot, or
9 rather, at the site; and as far as I remember, based on the technical
10 characteristics of the type of mortar shell, the direction from which it
11 came, the angle of impact, et cetera, all these main parameters coincided.
12 With regard to the position of UNPROFOR in relation to local
13 police - I am referring exclusively to the city of Sarajevo, mind you -
14 UNPROFOR was not obliged to officially inform local police of their
15 findings. Yesterday or the day before yesterday - correct me if I'm
16 wrong - I saw UNPROFOR's official report about this on-site investigation
17 about these two mortar shells for the first time.
18 MR. WAESPI: If the photo we discussed a moment ago,
19 Mr. President, could have an exhibit number, please.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be P385.
22 MR. WAESPI: I have no further questions, Mr. President.
23 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Prosecutor, maybe I can address the witness
24 now that have you stopped your examination-in-chief.
25 Mr. Witness, I would like to know what was the finding that the
1 UNPROFOR investigation concluded regarding the provenance of the shell --
2 of the two last shells? You said that the UNPROFOR findings matched your
3 own findings, and my question is: Well, what did those findings show?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I can speak only about
5 what was orally communicated to me at the site on the occasion of the
6 comparison of the results of our investigation which was separate from
7 that of UNPROFOR to the -- to the results of the UNPROFOR investigation
8 which was, in turn, carried out separate from us.
9 What I remember very well is that it was indeed an 82-millimetre
10 calibre mortar shell, that it was manufactured by Krusik Valjevo, and that
11 it had come from an eastward direction. But the UNPROFOR's conclusion,
12 uttered there and then, was that the mortar shell was most probably -- had
13 been fired most properly from the territory which was then controlled by
14 the BiH army.
15 We asked them right away upon -- about the grounds for such a
16 conclusion, and allow me to utter a remark before I continue. This
17 conversation is carried out by the investigative magistrate assisted
18 certainly by ballistics experts.
19 If you allow me - I apologise - I would like to add just one final
20 sentence about this.
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: Please, one final sentence.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The reasons stated by the UNPROFOR
23 soldier was that they found the evidence on the -- at the site
24 corresponded to the finish tables for such -- for such armaments. But
25 then we showed them the tables for an 82-millimetre calibre mortar shell
1 that we had, from which it followed clearly that the finish tables were
2 nothing like the tables for this specific type of armament which was used
3 by the then JNA.
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
5 MR. WAESPI: Mr. President, what the witness just said is
6 contained in his witness statement which is -- has been admitted under 92
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Isailovic. Ms. Isailovic.
9 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
10 Cross-examination by Ms. Isailovic:
11 Q. Terms good day, Witness. I'm Branislava Isailovic. I am a lawyer
12 from Paris, and I defend the accused, General Dragomir Milosevic. I'm
13 going to ask you some questions, first of all, regarding the statements
14 that you discussed earlier with the trial attorney; and, afterwards, I
15 will show you a report drafted by the inspector of the OTP on the 28th of
16 February and also address things that you discussed today.
17 First of all, I would like to begin with these statements. I want
18 to make sure that they will not be broadcast, given the protective
19 measures that have you been granted, and so I would ask my assistant to
20 call up exhibit 3042 that was admitted as P370. It is your statement.
21 Would you please look at it again.
22 I have taken the liberty of --
23 A. I cannot hear the interpretation.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Could that be attended to by the technical
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can hear now.
2 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. I took the liberty of noting on the basis of your statement the --
4 the hours, or rather, the minutes during which your investigation took
5 place. I'm going to ask you some very specific tangible questions. If
6 you agree, I would ask you to say so; otherwise, we can look at the
8 You said that you were informed at your centre at 3.45. This is
9 on page 2 of your statement. I noted, according to my numbering, in
10 paragraph 5 --
11 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] We have a slight technical
12 problem. We need to turn to the next page.
13 Q. So, you were informed at 3.45; do you agree? Paragraph 5.
14 A. Yes, that's what it says here.
15 Q. And so you went on site at 4.15. We see this in paragraph 7 on
16 the next page; therefore, on the third page.
17 The second paragraph in the B/C/S version, and in the English we
18 also have to move to the next page and you find it in the first paragraph,
19 the first full paragraph. Could you confirm that for us?
20 A. Yes. This reads at 4.15 p.m.
21 Q. And in the next paragraph, you say that the soldiers, the UNMO
22 soldiers, arrived ten minutes later, which would mean 4.25. Do you agree
23 with that?
24 A. I can agree with that, yes, about some ten minutes later.
25 Q. And also in the paragraph in the middle of the page, you said that
1 the UNPROFOR arrived at 4.40 p.m.?
2 A. Yes, that's what it says.
3 Q. And one of the UNMO members, a Major Iloinwsa, a Nigerian - you
4 don't see his name in the B/C/S version - did you know that he was from
6 A. I can give an indirect answer. Upon the arrival of the UNMOs to
7 the site, they would introduce themselves to us, state their names and
8 ranks; and we would introduce ourselves to them, stating names and
9 functions and investigative team, and both sides would put down this
11 Q. And you say in the next paragraph, beginning with -- I returned to
12 the scene in the middle, slightly lower on the page. You say that he
13 tried to pull out the tail from the ground. Is that indeed what happened?
14 A. I really do not understand your question.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: I think she's just asking you to confirm, I think
16 it is paragraph 1, 2, 3, 4, which says that you returned to the scene and
17 one of the men told you that a Nigerian Major Iloinwsa tried to pull out
18 the shell from the ground, but it was so firmly stuck in the ground he
19 could not move it.
20 Is that so?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I confirm that.
22 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. And you also say in your statement, but I would ask to you confirm
24 this today, that it was at that time that you began the investigation?
25 A. I confirm that.
1 Q. And if I've calculated correctly, that would be at approximately,
2 well, between 4.50 and 4.55 p.m.; in other words, 40 minutes after you
3 arrived on the scene.
4 Forgive me, 40 minutes -- yes. The beginning of the investigation
5 at 4.45, so approximately 20 minutes after you arrived on site. Is that
7 A. I really cannot confirm that, but it is a realistic assumption.
8 Q. And afterwards in the paragraph that I've numbered as 12 that
9 begins in the English version by: "I insisted," and in B/C/S, [B/C/S
10 spoken]. Do you see that?
11 A. Yes, I can.
12 Q. And there, if I understand you correctly, the investigation ended
13 around 4.55 p.m.?
14 A. That's what it says.
15 Q. According to what you remember, did things -- is this
16 approximately how things happened, or is this simply what is written here?
17 A. What you are reading out and analysing undoubtedly is my
18 statement, but it was made, I'm not sure, about a year after the event
19 itself. I really cannot confirm all this -- these times that are stated
20 here and be sure that all the times given are correct.
21 What can be seen from the original official report, which is made
22 after the investigation itself, is that all required investigative
23 measures and steps were conducted in -- to the amount necessary to arrive
24 at the conclusions that we arrived at.
25 Q. And at the same time, a member of your team filmed all of this
1 with a video camera; is that correct?
2 A. At the time the investigation was conducted, is that what you're
4 He was doing that at the very beginning while those -- those
5 figures were laid out to mark evidence, and what may be important for what
6 we are talking about now is that the video also has a time display which
7 shows how much time was spent at the site.
8 Q. Well, you anticipated somewhat my next question.
9 So the timer, as you say, on the camascope [as interpreted] was
10 functioning properly. Is that what you would say?
11 A. I have no information of it -- of any malfunction with it.
12 Q. At any rate, tomorrow we will see the video again, because it's
13 extremely important to see the whole thing. This is very important for
14 the Defence.
15 This investigation was very quick. Is that not true?
16 A. The investigation lasted as long as necessary to arrive at valid
17 indicators. Certainly, as I have stated already, at the time the
18 investigation was conducted, Sarajevo as a whole and that particular part
19 was under fire.
20 Q. Witness, did you stay on the scene -- were you on the scene at the
21 time when the second and the third shells fell?
22 A. The investigative team and I left the site a little earlier, a
23 short time before the two subsequent mortar shells exploded, and two
24 police officers who were securing the perimeter around the investigation
25 were wounded by shrapnel from one or two of those later shells.
8 A. I am positive that I personally and my team were not at the site.
9 And it is also certain that if we had been there, we wouldn't have
10 remained untouched, because the detonations were very close to the place
11 where we were.
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Very well. I believe you.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 MR. WAESPI: To be on the safe side, yes, I think it should be
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: All right. We'll redact that, and the reference
22 to the page number in the transcript.
23 Please proceed, Ms. Isailovic.
24 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, yes, I really was
25 careful not to identify. But perhaps we could move to private session
1 and, therefore, mention the name of the witness, of course, without
2 identifying the witness who is now testifying. But as far as I'm
3 concerned, I don't think I gave any elements to make it possible to
4 identify the witness. I was very careful not to do so.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just move on.
7 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. So you say that the witness who testified to that basically was
9 not telling the truth before this Chamber. Would that be fair to say?
10 A. I'm saying that --
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Waespi.
12 MR. WAESPI: Yes. We heard what --
13 The witness can state to what -- what he observed when he was
14 there and not what another witness says at the same time.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Whether the witness was telling the truth is or
17 not is a matter for us, Ms. Isailovic.
18 So let's move on to another question. We have five minutes.
19 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, forgive me, but I'm
20 not claiming -- I'm not trying to judge the witness. I'm just asking this
21 question to clarify whether this witness was present or not. So I'm
22 asking him to tell us whether things occurred that way or not, simply for
23 confirmation of that and could he answer.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: And he has done that. So it's really a matter
25 for us now to decide where the truth lies.
1 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Witness, you said in your statement that the UNMO member whose
3 name was Iloinwsa, from Nigeria, that he wanted to pull out the shell,
4 more specifically the tail-fin, from the ground. Is that correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Now, if we could please call up
7 DD00-1416. It is a report of an interview with Mr. Barry Hogan of the
9 Q. And, indeed, he reflects what you said. As far as I can see, the
10 document is not signed by you, but I would like to know whether the facts
11 stated here are in fact how things occurred.
12 The last paragraph in both languages -- I suppose this is not
13 being broadcast? Yes, I see it on the screen. I've been told that it is
14 not being broadcast, so do not read out loud because your name can be seen
15 here. But in the -- well, the penultimate paragraph in the B/C/S version
16 and the last paragraph in the English.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: What's the question?
18 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Does this paragraph, the penultimate paragraph in B/C/S that
20 starts with your name, does this reflect the truth?
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Waespi.
22 MR. WAESPI: I don't know whether the witness has a chance to see
23 what this document is. The investigator, Barry Hogan, while in Sarajevo
24 met with the witness, and the witness gave him the video we watched today
25 and a few photographs. And during that conversation, you know, the
1 witness told Mr. Hogan is what is stated here, and then Mr. Hogan made a
2 report about that. So the witness knows what the context is of that last
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: I don't understand your intervention, Mr. Waespi.
5 The question is, Witness, can you confirm that what is stated in
6 the last paragraph reflects what happened --
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not as drastically as this.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: -- or what is drafted there.
9 Tomorrow you will give us the qualifications that you have on
11 We have to take the break and adjourn.
12 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.02 p.m.,
13 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 15th day of
14 March, 2007, at 2.15 p.m.