1 Wednesday, 25 April 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.32 p.m.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Today we start late because another trial overran
7 its time, and I say for the record that that is also why we started late
9 Mr. Docherty. Yes, Mr. Docherty, to continue your
11 MR. DOCHERTY: Before I begin, Your Honour, a member of the
12 Prosecution team is joining us for the first time today,
13 Ms. Anamaria Turlea, seated to Mr. Whiting's left. She's been working
14 with us for some months and will be helping out in court this afternoon.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Well, it's very nice of you to introduce
16 her and we welcome her to the trial, if indeed a person is to be welcomed
17 to a trial.
18 Please continue.
19 WITNESS: MILOMIR SOJA [Resumed]
20 [Witness answered through interpreter]
21 Examination by Mr. Docherty:
22 Q. Mr. Soja, good afternoon, sir. When we broke for the evening
23 yesterday we had been talking about you making a trip to the Pretis
24 factory in Vogosca, meeting a Major Krsmanovic there, and I believe that
25 you had testified that you had been informed that there was a desire to
1 re-work the ignition system for the modified air bombs. Is what I've said
2 so far as a summary of yesterday's testimony accurate?
3 A. From a later conversation with Mr. Krsmanovic, he clearly said
4 that he was opposed to the modification works. The solution that we
5 devised was intended for the launcher of the Ilidza Brigade.
6 Q. So with that correction, the Ilidza Brigade was pushing for a
7 modification, Major Krsmanovic was not enthusiastic about a modification,
8 to say the least, was my summary of yesterday's testimony accurate?
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: It's not really for him to say whether it's
10 accurate. The records will say that, yeah.
11 MR. DOCHERTY: I'm just --
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yeah.
13 MR. DOCHERTY: That's fine, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just remind him of the testimony and move on.
15 MR. DOCHERTY: All right.
16 Q. The question that was pending when we broke yesterday was: What
17 was it that occasioned the need for modifying the ignition system and who
18 was it that told you about why the ignition system was going to need to be
20 A. During the conversation with Mr. Krsmanovic we learned what the
21 requests with regard to this system were. From what he told us and from
22 our subsequent analysis we decide what problems were occurring with this
23 ignition system. I would like to note once again that for the reasons
24 that he believed that installing electronic equipment would render the
25 equipment unreliable, he was against it. However, the Ilidza Brigade
1 initiated the idea of finding a better solution than the standard one that
2 was used before.
3 Q. Were there problems with the ignition of the modified air bombs?
4 A. By talking to Mr. Krsmanovic I concluded that there were certain
5 problems occurring. These problems were related to -- as he described to
6 us by giving us an example of the first launcher that they used to
7 operate, and the major problem was the connection between the cables
8 leading or bringing the electricity in order to activate the rocket
9 engines. And other problems that occurred related to the need to prepare
10 the ignition or the fuse and to launch the projectile. So basically that
11 was what we were able to hear from Major Krsmanovic in relation to the
12 problems that they were facing.
13 Q. And did you agree to do some work and try and fix these problems?
14 A. We started this job only later, because when we returned to
15 Energoinvest and after the conversation with Major Krsmanovic, I was a bit
16 skeptical. I realised that he was not in favour of any changes. However,
17 I was told that the Ilidza Brigade requested us to do this job. And we
18 started working on it.
19 Q. And what did you do to try and fix the problems with the ignition
20 systems on the modified aerial bombs?
21 A. As I mentioned earlier, there could have been potentially a series
22 of problems. The first thing was to armour the ignition system and then
23 to launch the bomb. We decided to solve this problem by introducing a
24 certain level of electronic components into the system. The problem of
25 connecting the cables that Major Krsmanovic pointed out to us was solved
1 by installing electrical connectors that could connect these cables in a
2 very simple way.
3 And after considering the problem, I realise that these cables
4 that were used to be connected with the battery conducted electricity, and
5 the potential problem with firing was solved by us by using truck
6 batteries in order to carry out the launching. All in all, it boiled down
7 to fitting certain electronic components, not to the existing solution,
8 but designing a completely new solution consisting of certain electronic
10 Q. In connection with the work that you were doing, did you ever go
11 to the site from which modified air bombs were being launched?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Did you ever see a modified aerial bomb out in the field rather
14 than in the factory?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Approximately how many times did you see modified aerial bombs out
17 in the field?
18 A. I think it happened on two occasions.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, please continue, Mr. Docherty.
21 MR. DOCHERTY: Your Honour.
22 Q. Let's talk about the first time. Whereabouts was this modified
23 aerial bomb that you saw out in the field; and approximately when was it
24 that you saw it?
25 A. The entire job that we did in this connection and in relation to
1 the manufacturing of the launching system lasted from about the spring
2 until early summer 1995. I cannot remember the exact dates, but sometime
3 after the first bombs were launched from these launchers, the first
4 problems occurred.
5 Mr. Popovic, my colleague and I, went to a location in Osjek at
6 the confluence of the Zujavina [phoen] and Bosna Rivers. There was a
7 malfunctioning launcher there. We repaired this malfunction and we
8 returned to Energoinvest.
9 Q. And where is Osjek? Is it east, west, north, south of Sarajevo?
10 A. It's south-west, approximately.
11 Q. And at the time, were you aware was Osjek under the control of the
12 army of the Republika Srpska or under the control of the army of Bosnia
13 and Herzegovina?
14 A. Under the control of the army of Republika Srpska.
15 Q. After this, you said there was a second time that you saw an air
16 bomb launcher out in the field. Can you tell us where was the launcher
17 that you saw on the second occasion; and if you can, tell us approximately
18 the date that you saw it.
19 A. I said that I saw air bombs twice, but I saw the launcher more
20 than once. I suppose that you meant to ask me about how many times I saw
21 air bombs.
22 The second time I saw it, I cannot remember the date, was in early
23 summer of 1995. I think it was approximately at the time when there was
24 fierce fighting around Sarajevo. The launcher was, roughly speaking,
25 across Energoinvest at the beginning of the Kasindolska street under a
2 Q. And why were you out at that scene? Was it felt necessary that
3 you should go out to this air bomb and launcher under the fly-over?
4 A. I myself didn't believe that it was necessary for me to go there.
5 However, they came and fetched me and took me there. The reason was that
6 there was malfunctioning in the electronic system as part of the firing
7 system which happened on many occasions. This was a location where firing
8 was to be done in the vicinity of Energoinvest, and I thought that this
9 was a very important launching operation because I saw many people there,
10 presumably present on the location to attend the launching. They called
11 me to go there and to verify these problems and, if possible, to try and
12 rectify them.
13 Q. Were you told anything about what the military wanted to do with
14 this modified aerial bomb that was under the fly-over?
15 A. This bomb was used to fire at the cold storage facility in Stup.
16 At least that was the idea.
17 Q. And did you learn what was at the cold storage facility in Stup
18 such that the military would want to launch a bomb against it?
19 A. This cold storage facility was a building made of concrete. It
20 was in a plane relatively close do Ilidza, and fire was opened frequently
21 on Ilidza from that location, and when I say "fire," I mean small arms
23 It was clear when looking at this facility that it had been
24 targeted many times and hit with various artillery hits. I presume that
25 the idea was to try and destroy this cold storage facility which was a
1 dominant feature in that part of Ilidza.
2 Q. Did you work on the ignition system of this particular modified
3 aerial bomb?
4 A. I worked on one ignition system for this particular launcher,
5 because of which I had been called and which was supposed to launch the
6 bomb against the cold storage facility.
7 Q. And were your efforts to get the ignition system working
9 A. That time it was absolutely impossible to fire from the system
10 that existed on this launcher.
11 Q. Now, you say it was impossible to fire from the system that
12 existed on this launcher. Did you change that system in an effort to get
13 this bomb to launch?
14 A. The launcher was at a place where it was spotted and it became a
15 target of infantry fire. So it was practically left there at the place
16 from which it was supposed to launch the bomb. Since there were other
17 people there who were supposed to attend the launching, including Major
18 Krsmanovic, he was very upset, and he demanded that the existing system
19 that we made be removed and not used any longer. The men who operated the
20 launcher complied with his request.
21 Q. And at some later time, did you observe this aerial bomb being
23 A. After this unsuccessful launching, I went back to Energoinvest a
24 few hundred metres away from the place where the launcher was. After some
25 time, two men who operated the launcher came to us and asked us to make
1 the cables which will enable them to carry out the launching with an
2 auxiliary battery. And this launching indeed did happen in the early
3 evening hours from that same location and by using this standard
5 Q. And the cables that you had made?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Were you there in the evening when the bomb was launched?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Did it hit the cold storage facility in Stup?
10 A. No.
11 Q. What happened?
12 A. On that place where I was, one couldn't see clearly what actually
13 happened. Soon it became apparent that the bomb missed the cold storage
14 facility. A little bit later on, I heard that it had exploded, roughly
15 speaking, above the last Energoinvest building situated there.
16 Q. And when it exploded up above the Energoinvest building, were
17 there casualties?
18 A. As far as I know, there were no fatalities. A number of people
19 were injured, and as I heard, most of them were injured by pieces of
20 glass, because -- and other debris, because most of the windows were blown
21 away as a result of the explosion.
22 Q. In addition to the two times that you have told us about that you
23 went out into the field and saw a modified air bomb on its launcher, were
24 you told of the locations of other modified aerial bombs around Sarajevo?
25 A. When I first went there to see Mr. Krsmanovic in Pretis, I think
1 that he mentioned a launcher in Vogosca and, if I remember correctly,
2 another one in Ilijas.
3 Q. And those --
4 A. I know about the Ilidza one, because I was involved in the making
5 of the electronic components, and I heard stories that there was another
6 launcher most probably deployed in Blazuj.
7 Q. These various places that you have mentioned, Vogosca, Ilijas,
8 Ilidza, Blazuj, which of the warring factions occupied those places, the
9 army of Bosnia-Herzegovina or the army of Republika Srpska?
10 A. The army of Republika Srpska.
11 Q. Did you ever receive any information that the army of
12 Bosnia-Herzegovina had modified air bombs in its possession?
13 A. I didn't have such information.
14 Q. And finally, Mr. Soja, how long was it that you worked on this
15 ignition problem for the modified aerial bombs? You said that it was in
16 the early part of 1995, and I'm trying to ask now how many weeks, how many
17 months did you work on it?
18 A. If you're interested in the actual work that I did, which means
19 analysing the problem in terms of electronics, it took about a couple of
20 days. I don't think that we needed more than another couple of days to
21 make a design on paper.
22 The manufacturing itself lasted for another 10 or 15 days. But we
23 also tried to find the proper material and boxes and connectors during
24 that same period.
25 Q. And these chunks of time that you described, two days to analyse
1 the problem, two days to design a solution, 10 days to manufacture and so
2 on, was that back to back, or were there gaps in there, or, put another
3 way, was this a full time or part-time project?
4 A. Those were short periods. There were intervals between them. We
5 didn't work continuously on this problem.
6 Q. Thank you, sir.
7 MR. DOCHERTY: Mr. President, Your Honours, that concludes my
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Isailovic.
10 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Cross-examination by Ms. Isailovic:
12 Q. [Interpretation] Hello, Witness. I am a lawyer at the French bar
13 and I am Defence counsel for Mr. Dragomir Milosevic, accused before this
14 Chamber. I'm going to ask you a few questions, starting with two
15 statements that you have made before the Office of the Prosecutor. Do you
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. You also made a statement for the centre of documentation of the
19 police of Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1996; do you remember that too?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. I would now like you to take a look at the screen before you.
22 MR. DOCHERTY: Mr. President.
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
24 MR. DOCHERTY: Just a point of clarification. I believe counsel
25 asked the witness about two statements given to the Office of the
1 Prosecutor. I show that there was one statement made to the Prosecutor's
2 office and one to the police. Just want to get that clarified, if we
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Are those the two statements you had in mind,
5 Ms. Isailovic?
6 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I did, in
7 fact, say that. I said the same as Mr. Docherty, and the witness just
8 confirmed it.
9 Q. I am in fact talking about the declaration, the statement which is
10 before us right now, and I'm now asking the witness to look at the screen
11 and I'm asking him whether what he sees before him is in fact his own
12 signature on the cover page of the statement.
13 A. Yes, this is my signature.
14 Q. Now we're going to look at the statement more in depth. But
15 before we do, I'd like us to be as -- specific. This statement was made
16 before an agency for inquiry and documentation of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
17 That seems to be its name. And we're now going to see this document, 65
18 ter 3125.
19 Now, do you recognise your name at the beginning of this
20 transcript? This is what you can see before you on the screen, Witness?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And if we could now turn to page 4 of both versions, could you,
23 Witness, tell me whether you recognise your signature on the B/C/S
24 version, which is on the right-hand side of the screen?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Since this is -- these are statements made before the Bosnian
2 authorities and Ministry of the Interior as well as a statement for the
3 Office of the Prosecutor, we're going to start with the earlier one.
4 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we go to page 1, please.
5 Q. Even though it was an agency for investigation and documentation,
6 this meeting took place within the framework of a criminal procedure; is
7 that right?
8 A. I don't know.
9 Q. Witness, I would like to ask you a question regarding the
10 circumstances in which this meeting took place, because we can see here
11 that was under Article 151 of the criminal code. Were you told this at
12 the time? In other words, did the Bosnian authorities or people with whom
13 you had talked, did they tell you that this is all done according to a
14 criminal procedure?
15 A. There are various circumstances involved and it would take time
16 for me to elaborate on the situation in which I gave this statement.
17 Therefore, in order not to waste the time, perhaps you can ask some more
18 specific questions so that I don't have to go from start to end.
19 Q. I would like to you answer my first question, which is: Did the
20 police officers tell you, because this was all of course done within the
21 framework of a criminal procedure, were you notified of the fact that you
22 were questioned? That was my first question.
23 A. The policeman took me down to the police station, after which the
24 AID agency officials came. They interviewed me at the police station.
25 And later I was taken to the building of a court, where I confirmed the
1 statement, and then in some offices of the MUP in Sarajevo I was
2 investigated by -- I was questioned by two Tribunal investigators, the
3 investigators of this Tribunal.
4 Q. Did I understand you correctly when you said that it was around
5 those dates, the dates that we see on this document, the 27th of August,
6 1996 that all this took place? So the Tribunal and investigators from the
7 ICTY interviewed you; is that right?
8 MR. DOCHERTY: Mr. President.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Docherty.
10 MR. DOCHERTY: I object to this line of questioning on multiple
11 grounds, and I need to state them at this point.
12 First of all, if counsel is implying that this witness had
13 committed a crime and that is why he was under the investigation of the
14 police, I respectfully put it that that is not proper impeachment of a
15 witness. If the witness has in fact been convicted of a crime, that would
16 be proper impeachment. But the fact that the police questioned someone in
17 the course of their investigations should not be used to cast doubt on the
18 character or the veracity of a witness.
19 In addition, I put it that the questioning is irrelevant, and
20 finally, Your Honour, the -- this relates back to why I rose a few minutes
21 ago about whether counsel is referring to one or two ICTY statements. I
22 double-checked the transcript and Ms. Isailovic said two statements that
23 you gave before the Office of the Prosecutor. The one that I am aware of
24 is dated 2004. It was eight years after the day in question. So if
25 Ms. Isailovic has evidence that there were ICTY investigators present in
1 1996 when the witness was interviewed by the Bosnian authorities, I would
2 respectfully request to know what that evidence is.
3 And for all of those reason, Your Honour, I object to this line of
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Isailovic, yes. What do you have to say to
6 the objection?
7 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I was
8 waiting for the interpretation. That's why I didn't answer right away.
9 So of course I can give you my response. I thought that it
10 would -- I would be able to organise my cross-examination in a useful way
11 so that I can ensure a proper defence for my client. But what I said, we
12 can check on the audio, we can check the audio. I said that the witness
13 had given one statement to the ICTY investigators and another statement to
14 the Bosnian authorities, and that is the statement that I'm interested
15 in. And can you also, of course, check the transcript, but I put another
16 question to the witness when the witness explained to us how he had been
17 arrested or called to go for this interview, he is the one who mentioned
18 the ICTY investigators.
19 So it wasn't very clear in my mind, and this is why I wanted to
20 specific this, to clarify this question and that's why I asked witness to
21 tell us when he mentioned the investigators, did he -- was he talking
22 about the events that took place around the 27th of August, 1996, because
23 the other meeting with the ICTY investigators took place in 2004. So we
24 cannot confuse one for another. That's why I put that question to the
25 witness, and of course I could repeat the question, if you will. I wanted
1 to know if -- when he was interviewed by Bosnian authorities if he also
2 saw the investigators of the ICTY. That was my question, in fact, did he
3 see them at the same time, basically.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: The Chamber will allow the Defence counsel to
6 continue her questioning. If it reaches a stage where we consider it
7 appropriate to advise the witness that he may object to any statement that
8 might tend to incriminate him, then we will give the witness that
9 warning. But at this stage we think the -- and rule that the Defence
10 counsel may continue her line of cross-examination.
11 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much,
12 Mr. President. But I would like to clarify one point: This line of
13 questioning within the cross-examination was not to impeach the witness.
14 I'm not trying to impeach the credibility of the witness. He is a very
15 credible witness, but I wanted to find out -- or, rather, I wanted to
16 prove my case. It is not the credibility of this witness that I am
17 attacking at all.
18 Furthermore-- or, rather I will continue, with your permission.
19 Thank you.
20 Q. Witness, you mentioned what happened. A bit earlier you talked to
21 us there was a meeting with the investigators of the ICTY. Maybe those
22 were people from the Prosecutor's office. Did you think at the time --
23 or, rather, when you mentioned that there was an interview, was there
24 another interview other than the one on the 24th of July, 2004?
25 A. I can repeat what I have already stated concerning the statement.
1 I gave that statement to the AID, that is, to the Bosnian police. They
2 kept me in Sarajevo. I went there to see my pre-war friends, and as I was
3 trying to back home I was brought in by some policemen. After that, the
4 AID officials appeared and they interviewed me. I spent the night with a
5 friend in Sarajevo, and I didn't go -- didn't dare go back home. The next
6 day I was taken to the court building where I, once again, confirmed the
7 contents of the statement. I was told that I provided that statement as a
8 witness in a certain case, which wasn't particularly clear to me, and I
9 cannot recall the name of the person involved.
10 After that, on all occasions there was always someone from the
11 AID. After that, the AID people took me to the ministry, I believe, to
12 the Ministry of the Interior. Once there, I was introduced to two men
13 whose names I no longer remember. I was told that these were The Hague
14 investigators. As far as I remember, that statement, which I had given
15 was at that moment translated to them into English. After a brief
16 interview - it lasted, say, for an hour, that was the time needed to have
17 that interpreted - they were released me and one of the AID men took me
18 close to the former entity borderline, from where I proceeded home.
19 Q. Witness, did you sign the transcript of that meeting that you see
20 on the screen before you after -- immediately right after, or did you sign
21 this statement at another time, do you remember?
22 A. Right away.
23 Q. Following the meeting that took place with these two officials
24 from The Hague, you were told that these people were people from The Hague
25 Tribunal, did you sign something?
1 A. I don't think I signed anything.
2 Q. But you do remember that your statement was interpreted into
3 English or translated into English?
4 A. It was done orally. It was interpreted into English, as far as I
6 Q. Now, following this meeting or this interview, as you call it,
7 with the Bosnian authorities or the AID, as you call them, you did not see
8 the Bosnian authorities until today?
9 A. I did not.
10 Q. And it was only in 2004 that you saw investigators from the OTP;
11 is that right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Witness, you've told AID officials, as you call them, AID being
14 the agency for investigation and documentation, you told them the same
15 thing as you told the investigators of the OTP; is that right?
16 A. That is correct.
17 Q. But, Witness, today you said something that is different and it
18 does not correspond to what you stated in your two statements, and you
19 will maybe be able to explain why you've said something different. You've
20 talked about the fact that you saw the launchers on two occasions. You
21 said, rather, that you saw aerial bombs on those launchers. Do you
22 remember saying this?
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Do you remember saying that? What's the answer
24 to that question?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
1 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Very well, thank you, Your Honour,
2 I was not really paying attention.
3 Q. Please, sir, answer verbally yes or no, because if you just nod,
4 we won't be able to put it down in writing in the transcript.
5 Sir, you have stated today that when you saw the bomb on the
6 launcher in Osjek, it was near the Bosna River and another one I didn't
7 really pay attention to what the other river was, but do you remember
8 saying this today?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. But you did not say that to the Bosnian authorities of the AID,
11 and you also omitted to say this to the investigators of the OTP in 2004;
12 is that correct?
13 A. I don't understand. What did I miss or omit? I said we were at
14 that location and that we were sent there to repair the launcher. I don't
15 remember when -- whether anyone had asked me about any bombs being on the
16 launcher or not. That's the way I understood the question, whether at
17 that moment there was a bomb on the launcher or not.
18 Q. In fact, my question was more directed toward the different
19 statement of today. Today you said something different than what you've
20 stated in your two statements, and we can maybe take the 65 ter document
21 3126 and we can compare the two, and I would like you, please, to go to
22 page 4.
23 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] And in English it would be page 4
24 as well.
25 Q. Right after point 5, second paragraph, right after the number 5.
1 You state here -- can you read this, sir? Aside from one statement that I
2 described to the AID --
3 A. I was shown a copy of a statement pertaining to an attempted
4 launch at the refrigeration plant where the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina
5 soldiers were and that I was never present when a bomb was launched. What
6 is stated here is correct. Even if I saw a bomb on the launcher, that
7 doesn't mean that I saw the actual firing.
8 Q. So you were explaining this discrepancy in your statement with the
9 way -- or the question was put to you. When you were put the question as
10 to whether you saw the bomb on the launcher, your bomb is -- your answer
11 is what you've stated today, rather, I saw it twice.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And you're asked the question, did you see the bomb being launched
14 you say yes on one occasion when the bomb was launched on Hladivode on the
15 refrigeration plant in Ilidza; is that right?
16 A. Yes, that is correct.
17 Q. Maybe I didn't understand you clearly today, then, but I thought
18 that that launch had failed.
19 A. It was an unsuccessful launch, due to the electronic device that I
20 had worked on. That particular component was taken out and replaced by
21 cables, and using a battery and those cables without any electronic
22 components, they managed to launch from the same position where the
23 launcher had been standing.
24 Q. And that evening you were there, you were there on the evening
25 that the bomb was launched; is that right?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. So then I must have misunderstood you, because I thought that
3 today you said something else, and we can find it of course in the
4 transcript. I have my notes, but I don't have the exact. Reference?
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Isailovic, I think you're going to put to the
6 witness that he said something different today and say what that
7 difference is, or please move on, you know?
8 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. But I do have the
9 intention of stating the differences. Maybe I'm misunderstood. I did say
10 that I had the intention of talking about it, but because I am pressed by
11 time in a certain way because the break is coming up, I cannot give the
12 reference of the transcript. I only took personal notes and I can only
13 rely on my personal notes. I did not take the reference of the
14 transcript. This is why I wanted the witness to tell us and explain to us
15 what he meant when he said the following things.
16 Q. Witness, I was under the impression that Major Krsmanovic was
17 angry with you and your colleague because the launch on the cold plant in
18 Ilidza, in Stup had failed on that day. Is this what you've stated here
20 A. Yes, that is what I said.
21 Q. And then you came back to Energoinvest and you were asked to hand
22 in the cables. Did you go back under the overpass for that launch, for
23 the launch that was to take place that same evening?
24 A. We were asked to make new cables that could make the standard
25 procedure of launching possible by using a battery, and this is what was
1 done at Energoinvest. Later, towards the evening, because at the time we
2 who had work obligation and due to the fighting around the Sarajevo, had
3 to sleep all time on the premises of Energoinvest company, we knew that
4 the launching was going to take place. Apart from me, this launching was
5 being observed by many people, because they had never seen this launching
6 of a bomb before.
7 Q. So, as you said, it was a launch that was to take place without
8 any electronic devices.
9 A. That's right.
10 Q. And you were present when the launch took place when that aerial
11 bomb was launched, in other words, but the bomb did not hit the
12 refrigeration plant but the buildings surrounding Energoinvest; is that
14 A. I was nearby, but I was not the only one. I don't know how close
15 we were when the launching took place. And it is true that the bomb
16 missed the cold storage facility, but it exploded somewhere above
18 Q. So, I can conclude, therefore, that what you have stated in 2004
19 and your statement of 1996 was not true, those two statements were not
20 true. What is true is what you said today, is that in fact you had seen a
21 launch that was successful, in brackets, because it was launched -- it was
22 unsuccessful because it did not hit the target, but you did see the bomb
23 take off from the launcher. Is that right?
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Docherty.
25 MR. DOCHERTY: Your Honour, I object to counsel saying what you
1 have stated in 2004 and what you have stated in 1996 is not true when
2 counsel has not pointed to a single falsity in either of those statements,
3 and consistently when challenged about those statements the witness has
4 reaffirmed and has explained why it is that counsel is under a
5 misapprehension about the import of those statements.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Isailovic, if you are going to put to the
7 witness that what he said in those two statements is not true, then you
8 have to -- you have to lay the foundation for that. What are you alleging
9 in those statements to be untrue? And put that squarely to the witness.
10 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. What I said
11 is slight more moderate than what Mr. Docherty stated. I said only that
12 there was some discrepancies and I started to mention the discrepancies,
13 and you can read it for yourself. The witness can also read his words in
14 paragraph 2. There's no mention of a launch. There's an attempt of
15 launch only. In B/C/S it's "pokusaj," which is attempt in English, and in
16 French is "essai," which is also in English attempt. So if I rely on my
17 linguistic knowledge, those two words, attempt and pokusaj, which means
18 attempt, is not the same thing.
19 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Where is the second paragraph,
21 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] The paragraph 2 is right under
22 paragraph 5 -- or right under number 5. You have the -- first you have
23 number five and then after that, there's a second paragraph of this number
24 5 item.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: But, Ms. Isailovic, you have not put these
1 particular alleged discrepancies to the witness to have the witness
2 comment on them.
3 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm terribly sorry, Mr. President,
4 but I started by this, because it's possible to verify in the transcript
5 of today and in the statements. This is why I started with paragraph 2.
6 I even read in B/C/S, which says "izuzev jednog slucaja," and then I asked
7 the witness whether he knew or whether he was able to explain this
8 discrepancy, this difference, between what he is stating today and what he
9 stated in his statements, in those two statements, and those two
10 statements correspond to one another.
11 Maybe we can leave it up to the witness to explain to us where do
12 these differences come from.
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: In the interest of clarity, I'm just going to put
15 to the witness.
16 Witness, in your statement to the OTP, to the Prosecutor, of the
17 24th of July, 2004, you said and I read: "With the exception of one
18 incident, which I described in my statement given to AID, that involved an
19 attempt to fire air bomb against a cold storage plant which was occupied
20 by the soldiers of the army of ABH, I was never been present at the time
21 of launching air bombs."
22 Now counsel had put that today you said something differently.
23 What is the explanation, if any, for the difference?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe I understand what the
25 misunderstanding is. The crew of the launcher asked me to come to this
1 failed launching, and I was present there while this failed launching took
2 place. However, when a successful launch took place in the evening
3 without electronic parts, and since this location from which the air bomb
4 was launched was merely a few hundred metres away from Energoinvest where
5 we used to spend all day long there and I was not the only one who knew
6 that a launching was going to take place, we watched it. I cannot
7 remember exactly how far I was. It was a long time ago, and in addition
8 to that, the whole situation was for me stressful. And I wouldn't say
9 that I was exactly at this or that place. But as I say, since this was a
10 very close location, let's say, up to 150 metres, all of us were watching
11 this launching. There were many people watching it. And this is, I
12 believe, what has given rise to this misunderstanding.
13 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
14 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Yes, I understand, but can we agree on the fact that in fact you
16 omitted to mention to the Bosnian authorities that you were present during
17 launching and you also didn't mention that to investigators of the OTP.
18 The only time you mentioned it is today. Is that right.
19 A. That is right. But you have to take into account the explanation
20 that I just give you. The first time I was asked to attend it because of
21 the problems, and later on I observed the launches, just like all the
22 other people living in the houses nearby did, and this was also being
23 watched by other people employed in Energoinvest.
24 Q. Now let me go back to your statement of today regardless these
25 differences. From where you were, were you able to see the air bomb?
1 A. I cannot remember exactly. It was dusk, and I think one could see
2 both the bomb and the launcher. The launcher was standing there all day
3 long. It hadn't been moved.
4 Q. And you were able to hear, I imagine, people from the Ilidza
5 Brigade saying that the purpose of launching this bomb was to hit the cold
6 storage which was supposed to be the nest of the Bosnia-Herzegovina --
7 A. It was clear already during my presence in the course of this
8 failed attempt at launch, and the launcher wasn't moved from that place.
9 It could not have been pulled out because it was exposed to infantry
10 fire. Therefore nothing changed with regard to the firing.
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Can I just take the witness back to something
12 that he said earlier in answer to the -- the question relating to the
14 You said, if I remember correctly, that you cannot remember
15 everything, and the whole situation was for you quite stressful. Would
16 you wish to elaborate on that? Only if you wish to.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] After the failed attempt at launch,
18 as I said earlier, Mr. Krsmanovic was opposed to using electronic
19 components. And when the bomb was launched, there were some people there
20 wishing to see what effects it was going to produce. It was very noisy.
21 People were shouting at me, demanding me to remove these parts, and after
22 infantry fire was opened, the launcher was left in that position, and all
23 of this, of course, affected me. And the whole day after this whole
24 event, I was under severe stress. And that is why I would say with the
25 reservation that some illogical aspects can be detected in my statement,
1 because after so much time has elapsed, I'm unable to remember 100 percent
2 exactly all the details, and I think one of the conducive factors to that
3 was the stress that I was under at the time.
4 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
5 Microphone for the counsel.
6 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Witness, you were under stress, and maybe the effects of stress
8 were the ones that would justify the discrepancies in your statements
9 given to AID and to the Bosnian authorities.
10 A. I believe that the issue here is merely interpretation of what I
11 said. I was present during the failed launch in a sort of official way
12 because I had been asked to come and be there as a person able -- capable
13 of detecting what the problem was. And the second launching, I observed
14 as an observer and not from a very close range, and I think that's the
15 source of discrepancies. They never asked me whether I was watching the
16 later launch, and probably due to the question asked of me and the way I
17 responded to them, occasioned this misinterpretation.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: It's --
19 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Witness, you said that the bomb was
20 supposed to be launched and it was supposed to target the cold storage of
21 Energoinvest. But at the same time, if I understood you correctly, you
22 also stated that you went towards this factory to observe, to look at what
23 was going on. Was it possible to go on the one hand where the bombs were
24 being launched and to also go simultaneously to the place where the bombs
25 were supposed fall? How can you explain this?
1 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, Your Honour, I
2 don't think that the witness ever stated that, and he can confirm this, of
3 course, to us. The cold storage was in Stup, and he was working at
4 Energoinvest. But if you wish, the witness could maybe confirm this to
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Witness, what's the answer?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Energoinvest location that we
8 are talking about employed about 6.000 people before the war. So we are
9 talking about a rather large area. We were at one end of this compound.
10 At the other end was already the front line, and after that, towards
11 Sarajevo in Stup under the control of the BH army was this cold storage
13 So the cold storage facility was not part of the Energoinvest
14 complex. The bomb exploded on its way toward this storage in the vicinity
15 of the buildings which are at the end of the compound, and I think that
16 the distance is approximately over a kilometre.
17 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. But you've also stated that the launcher was taken or was under
19 infantry fire coming from the territory under ABiH army. So in the
20 morning, when there was an attempt to launch the bomb, there was this
21 infantry fire on the launcher; is that right? These shots, this infantry
22 fire, was it coming from the cold storage?
23 A. I can only assume that that was the case. I don't know.
24 Q. And in the evening, when you were present, you were not invited
25 but you were nevertheless present during the launch, was there also
1 infantry fire coming from the territory under the control of the ABiH
3 A. I cannot remember exactly. I don't think there was any fire
4 around the launcher itself. But generally speaking there was shooting
5 almost all the time. I cannot verify with any degree of certainty that
6 there was fire at that particular moment. I'm talking about infantry fire
7 targeting the launcher.
8 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... If I understood you correctly
9 there were a lot of people, all these people participated to this launch.
10 They were people around looking at the launch. But the launch failed, is
11 that right, it was a failed launch?
12 A. That is right. That is what happened during the day.
13 Q. No. Actually, I'm talking about the evening launch, the launch
14 that was targeting the cold storage. And you told us that on that evening
15 the bomb hit something else, it did not fall in the territory that was
16 under the control of the army of the Republika Srpska. Is that right?
17 A. So you asked me two questions, the first about the people present
18 there. I said that there were people attending the first failed attempt
19 during day-time. During the second launch, I and a few colleagues of mine
20 were watching this from a relatively close range. I don't know who was
21 next to the launcher. It is true that the bomb exploded, although we
22 couldn't see it well from where we were, but judging by the damage to the
23 buildings, we concluded that it happened somewhere in the air towards the
24 end of the Energoinvest compound where Ilidza begins, and that is in the
25 direction of Stup.
1 Q. That is to say, on the territory under the control of the VRS; is
2 that right?
3 A. That is correct.
4 Q. So since you told us that you were present at Energoinvest, since
5 you had your working obligation and you were there, you were permanently
6 there, you never saw again another launch from that position; you never
7 assisted another launch from that same position. Is that right?
8 A. That's right.
9 Q. Witness, what do you know regarding those air bombs that were
10 launched from those launchers?
11 A. I would like you to be more specific. I don't know in what sense
12 you mean, what I know about.
13 Q. In fact, my first question was to see if you can tell us anything
14 about the bombs, not about the launcher but about the bombs.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Again, open to the objection that it is vague.
16 Ms. Isailovic, what about the bombs do you wish him to say?
17 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. I would like you to take a look at your statement and to the
19 paragraph above item number 5 --
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Are you still on the same question or are you
21 abandoning this question?
22 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] No, no.
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: On the same?
24 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] No. It's the same question, but I
25 am -- I am going to rephrase this question upon your suggestion.
1 Q. So, sir, I would like you to take a look at the paragraph above
2 item number 5, and I would kindly ask you to read the portion above
3 Desimir Popovic.
4 So I would like to ask you to tell us what is it that you did not
5 know about air bombs at the time? So, sir, is it right to say that you
6 had never seen any document about air bombs?
7 A. That is correct. I had never seen any documents relating to air
9 Q. And you also did not know at the time where these air bombs came
11 A. No, I did not.
12 Q. You also did not know at the time where the motors, the reaction
13 motors used for the launching of these air bombs, were installed?
14 A. That is correct. I didn't know anything about that.
15 Q. Tell us - and of course you may tell us if you don't remember that
16 you don't remember. But please tell us, if you know, when you talked
17 about 105 and 155-kilo bombs, you say "krmaca"?
18 A. Yes. I heard about it. If your previous question concerned the
19 weight of those bombs, I've heard of the figures of 105 and 220 rather
20 than 155. I think it was 220 or 225 and 105, and I heard that the people
21 usually referred to those bombs as krmaca or sows.
22 Q. Who was calling them like this?
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, answer that and then we'll take the break.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The name of the air bomb, krmaca or sow,
25 that is something that I heard at the very beginning of the war, when the
1 first sorties were above Sarajevo. That's what I heard from people. I
2 heard that people referred to those bombs as krmaca, and it was a popular
3 term. People would say a krmaca landed, and if you heard anyone saying
4 that, you would know that he meant an air bomb.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we'll adjourn for 20 minutes.
6 --- Recess taken at 4.02 p.m.
7 --- On resuming at 4.23 p.m.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Ms. Isailovic.
9 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
10 Q. Witness, we were discussing the word "krmaca," which is used,
11 according to you, for any air bomb; correct?
12 Can you confirm that?
13 A. I cannot be precise. Let us say it is correct. I -- although I
14 don't understand what you mean by "any air bomb."
15 Q. Well, let me explain, then. On more than one occasion air bombs
16 fell on -- on the surroundings of Sarajevo; is that correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Was that then the word used, as you said, for the bombs that fell
19 out of planes?
20 A. I said that it was around that time when I heard that people call
21 certain air bombs krmacas. I cannot say anything more precise than that.
22 Q. At which time are you referring to? What time are you speaking
24 A. The beginning of the war, around that time, for the first time in
25 my life, I heard the term "krmaca," referring to a type of air bomb.
1 Q. But let's now talk about those air bombs that you saw on
2 launchers. Who told you what those bombs were?
3 A. I probably heard about that for the first time at Pretis, and I
4 think two bomb types were mentioned on that occasion, the 105 and 200 or
5 220-kilo type. I'm not certain.
6 Q. You told us earlier that you never say any documents about these
7 bombs, but did you know at the time what type of explosive was used inside
9 A. I didn't know that then, and I don't know it now either.
10 Q. When you answered earlier the questions of the Prosecutor about
11 modifications, about changes, to be entirely specific what sort of changes
12 were you referring to?
13 A. Instead of the type of launch using a special battery and cables
14 going to the fuse and the rocket boosters, that is, in the case of the
15 launcher used in the Ilidza Brigade, we put together an electronic
16 component, an electronic system, making use of a truck battery. Instead
17 of a regular trigger, we used the battery to initiate the process of
18 starting the engines, the motors. There was a box with commands, with
19 buttons to arm the fuse and to carry out the launch comprising several
20 electronic components. That is simply put.
21 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Please.
22 Microphone for counsel, please.
23 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. If I understand you correctly, you and your colleague,
25 Mr. Popovic, never had anything to do with the bombs themselves?
1 A. No.
2 Q. Well, precisely, Witness. You were present at the launches of
3 some of those bombs, failed or not. And I'm thinking more specifically of
4 that launch which happened in the day-time in the direction of the cold
5 storage in Stup. Can you now tell us, you were a guest there. You
6 were -- or, rather, you were called upon, you were brought there to do
7 something about the ignition systems. Now, can you tell us how the whole
8 process went?
9 A. It happened often with the launcher to have -- that there were
10 certain problems when launching and the launching site was close to
11 Energoinvest, about 100 or 150 metres away. They asked me to go there to
12 see what the problem is in case of an unsuccessful launch. And I suppose
13 I was expected to fix the problem on the spot, but that is what I think.
14 Q. Allow me to be a bit more specific. What we're talking about now,
15 the time when you walked into this place, they intended for you to watch
16 the launch. It was supposed to actually happen, right, it was supposed to
17 be successful?
18 Now what I'm interested in now, what I'm interested in now is what
19 were the people supposed to be doing? Those people who were there to
20 launch the bomb towards its target, what were they doing?
21 A. Once I got there, the bomb had already been mounted on the truck.
22 The rail used to launch the bomb from was put in a certain position, at a
23 certain angle, as well as the mechanism and the truck itself. It was in a
24 ready position, prepared to target the refrigeration plant. That was put
25 in place before I came there. When I appeared, they connected the cables
1 used to launch and then they had to be stretched and taken away from the
2 truck to a safe place, and the bomb would be launched by using the command
4 If you're interested in any more details, I believe there were
5 three buttons on it. By depressing two, one could arm the fuse, and then
6 depressing the third one and one of the previous two, the launch would be
7 carried out. The electronic system was there to make it impossible for
8 the bomb to be launched before arming the fuse. That's why they wanted to
9 have the electronic system. That was its only role it had in practice.
10 Q. And now, Witness, could you describe to me what the bomb looked
11 like? What did it look like? As many details as possible, please.
12 A. The bomb was green, oval-shaped. I don't know exactly how long.
13 I would say one or one and a half metres. It had three rocket boosters
14 attached. They resemble a tube. I wasn't able to see how they were
15 connected to the bomb casing. I suppose they used screws. It was a
16 regular bomb, an object rather difficult to describe. It was oval in
17 shape, between one and one and a half metres long, and I don't know how
18 many centimetres across.
19 Q. But when you were in the military, when you were in the army in
20 1983, I believe you worked with -- you were in charge of a rocket
21 launcher, multi-tube. I don't know if that's the right way to call it
22 B/C/S visecjevni lanser raketa. Multiple-rocket launcher, in other words,
23 is that right?
24 A. It is correct. I think among other things, you had the JNA in
25 mind when I served my military term in 1983. When there, I was tasked
1 with three things, one of which was to carry out training within the
2 artillery unit with a multiple-rocket launcher of 128-millimetre calibre.
3 Q. And then what you saw in Kasindolska ulica under the fly-over, did
4 that look anything like the system that you had seen when you were in the
5 reserve, when you were in the military? I'm thinking of the rockets
7 A. No.
8 Q. Tell me now, let's carry on with the actual launching process.
9 What exactly happened during the ignition process?
10 A. I don't understand the question. The ignition of what?
11 Q. Well, the ignition of the system that was supposed to launch the
13 A. You mean the ignition of the rocket boosters?
14 Q. Yes.
15 A. From the standpoint of us, the people who were supposed to work on
16 that, some electricity had to go through a small resistor, and it is
17 probable that due to an overcharge, to electricity being strong, the
18 resistor was supposed to burn out and then that would be used to ignite
19 the boosters. That was one of the principles in place.
20 Q. Right, Witness, that was what ought to have happened, but what
21 actually did happen is what interests me.
22 A. Do you mean why the boosters weren't turned on?
23 Q. No, Witness. What I want to know is what you saw. You were there
24 as an eye-witness. I want to know what you saw happening.
25 A. By pressing the buttons that were supposed to arm the fuse, one
1 starts a reaction. Well, we can't actually see it because it concerns
2 electricity. By pressing the buttons, the rocket boosters were supposed
3 to be ignited. It, however, did not happen. They tried to do it several
4 times without any effect. That's all we could see.
5 Q. So the system, that is, the bomb as you saw it, and its boosters
6 didn't move at all?
7 A. That is correct.
8 Q. Was there a sound?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Now, how far were you standing? There was a lot of people there,
11 right, and a lot of people who knew about this kind of thing?
12 A. I can't recall exactly, but we were probably some 15 to 20 metres
13 away on the side.
14 Q. And if I understand you right, they tried to ignite it several
15 times, pressing the button, right?
16 A. That's right.
17 Q. And then what happened?
18 A. Since the system would not ignite, there was no launch, in other
19 words, then the reaction I had already mentioned happened. There was
20 yelling and I was asked to take that down, to replace it, and
21 approximately at that time the firing started.
22 Q. But the bomb remained on the launcher. Now did the people try to
23 take it off, off the launcher, or did they just leave it there?
24 A. One of the people from the launching crew took the fuse off, and
25 then they withdrew, leaving the bomb on the launcher.
1 Q. Well, precisely where did they put the fuse? Where did they put
2 the fuse of the -- of the bomb?
3 A. I don't know that.
4 Q. You said earlier, Witness, that one of the -- one of the people
5 there pulled out the fuse from the bomb; correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. But where exactly on the bomb is the fuse?
8 A. The fuse is at the top of the bomb, or let's put it this way,
9 opposite from the rocket boosters.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Isailovic, I imagine all these technical
11 details are relevant to your case? Please explain how.
12 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, Your Honour, I'm going to
14 The witness is an eye-witness to the launching process. The fact
15 is we have seen no one else, fortunately or unfortunately, no other
16 witnesses to an actual launch of an air bomb. And because we, that is,
17 the Chamber and myself and the Prosecutor were all less than technical
18 experts, we don't know necessarily enough about it, so I'm trying to
19 collect some technical details which may be useful later for a technical
20 expertise and help us make comparisons with other expert reports that are
21 already available.
22 I notice some inconsistencies, but I'm not an expert and hence I
23 can't use them much. I can't do my own expertise.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: But ultimately what are you trying to show, what
25 are you trying to establish? This is what is not clear to me.
1 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, I'm trying to demonstrate
2 the nature of this object that the witness has seen.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: But to what purpose? To what purpose? It's not
4 the purpose of cross-examination. It must be something that is relevant
5 to your case. This is not a class. I don't have any esoteric interest in
6 the subject. I mean, it has to be something that is relevant to your
7 case. We're not here just to gather facts and gather scientific data
8 about the air bombs.
9 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]. Well, actually, Your Honour, I
10 think that the Chamber's purpose is to find out whether this was an air
11 bomb at all. So what I'm trying to do is collect some technical
12 information that's going to enable to us find out, with the means at our
13 disposal, what exactly was on that launcher that day, which was seen by
14 our witness, who obviously is not an expert either and has never had
15 anything to do with air bombs. He told us himself.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: So it part of -- part of your case is that what
17 was launched is not -- was not an air bomb. Is that so?
18 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] What I'm trying to say is that
19 obviously, it was a projectile of some sort, but I don't know what it was,
20 and I'm trying to collect as much information as I can to compare what
21 I've already got with what this eye-witness has -- has to tell. He's seen
22 something, and for me, that something is very relevant. And I believe
23 it's relevant for the Chamber which is supposed to establish the nature of
24 the object in question with, of course, the technical analysis available,
25 since we are not experts. We're specialists in law, as far as I know.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, suppose it turns out that what was launched
2 was not an air bomb but some other projectile but that projectile caused
3 the damage and led to the death and the injuries as set out in the
4 Prosecution case, what would be the effect of that?
5 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, part of the argument
6 of the Prosecution is, one, that air bombs are weapons that can't
7 discriminate, that are not precise, that can't target anything with any
8 precision, that you can't select your target with a weapon like that. And
9 also, that only the army of the BiH has this weapon which can't select its
11 Now, for the Defence it is very important to find out whether,
12 since we have a witness who can tell us that the target was in fact a
13 military one and another question is what weapon was actually used, and
14 that's what I'm trying to find out.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Now I think you are saying something that is
16 relevant. If you're going to cross-examine to show that the air bomb
17 could in fact discriminate and was in fact precise and could target with
18 precision, that's very relevant. But it does not appear to me that your
19 line of questioning was leading to that.
20 Mr. Docherty.
21 MR. DOCHERTY: Your Honour, I hesitate to make things even more
22 complicated, but if that is the line that counsel is going to do down is
23 that the air bomb could in fact be targeted, I'm going to object
24 because --
25 MR. DOCHERTY: Yes, yes.
1 Could in fact target, I'm going to object as beyond this witness's
2 expertise and that there is no foundation for those questions. The
3 witness before the break in answer to questions from Ms. Isailovic said
4 that did he not know very much about air bombs; and on direct examination,
5 he said he was brought in, he tried to fix the ignition systems, it didn't
6 work, and he went back to Energoinvest.
7 So absent foundation that the witness actually knows about the
8 capacity of the air bomb to target, I'll object to that line of
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Isailovic, I'm going to do this: I'm going
12 to ask the witness a question in relation to the air bomb targeting the -
13 what was it? - the cold storage factory because that is a question of
14 fact, in my view. He can say whether the air bomb was set to target the
15 cold storage factory and he can also say whether at that time the cold
16 storage factory was in the hands of the ABiH army.
17 So, Witness, I'm going ask you this: Can you say whether the air
18 bomb was set to target the cold storage factory?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it was.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: And was it successful?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. The bomb exploded earlier. It
22 didn't fall down. It exploded in mid air, and I never found out, since I
23 ceased all contact with these people operating the launcher, what
24 happened, and the question is whether they themselves know what happened,
25 why it exploded in mid air, whether it hit a tree or some other obstacle,
1 whether there was malfunction. I don't know. But, at any rate, it missed
2 the target. It exploded in the air.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: And was the cold storage factory in the hands of
4 the ABiH army?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Now, Ms. Isailovic, I'm not going do allow any
7 more questions concerning the scientific data in relation to the bombs.
8 If you wish to direct questions about the target capacity of the bombs and
9 the accuracy, then you can, provided you can establish a foundation such
10 as to show that this witness is competent to give that evidence.
11 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I shall
12 simply ask one last question on this subject and go on to another subject.
13 Q. Precisely, if -- I want to know whether the witness felt certain
14 that this was in fact an air bomb.
15 A. It looked like an air bomb. Everybody was saying that this was an
16 air bomb, and I believe it was one.
17 Q. Well, this is the last, last question. This was the first time
18 you saw it, this particular occasion?
19 A. I said that I saw it twice on a launcher, and that was the second
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Isailovic, I'm told you have seven minutes
22 remaining. If you wish to use more time, then you know what you have to
24 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I would, in
25 fact, like to be given a bit more time. I have just a few more questions
1 which pertain to the argument of the Defence. I think I'll probably need
2 another ten minutes on top of the seven.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, proceed.
4 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Perhaps even less.
5 Q. Witness, you actually come from the area of Ilidza; is that right?
6 A. Yes, from the environs of Ilidza.
7 Q. And you were a member of the VRS during this particular conflict.
8 That's during the war, up to December 31st, 1994, right?
9 A. [No audible response]
10 Q. And as of the constitution, the beginning of the Republika Srpska,
11 you were a member of --
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Docherty.
13 MR. DOCHERTY: Your Honour, I did not hear a response to the
14 question put at lines 13 and 14, and I -- it appears from the transcript
15 neither did the court reporter.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Now, Witness, you were asked, were you a member
17 of the VRS during this particular conflict during the war up to December
18 31st, 1994.
19 What's your answer?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said yes, I was.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Please ensure that you answer the questions.
22 Don't just nod.
23 MR. DOCHERTY: Your Honour, I did hear the witness say "da" --
24 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues] ... talking at
2 MR. DOCHERTY: Yeah.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: And that could be why. All right. Thank you.
4 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Witness, as of the creation of the VRS, you were a member of the
6 Ilidza Brigade; is that right?
7 A. At the beginning I was a member of a unit, I don't know how it was
8 called initially, we were organising defence of our own homes from
9 someone. We posted sentries, and that was a sort of self-organisation.
10 Later the Osjek battalion was set up in Osjek. At first it was part of
11 the so-called Ilidza Brigade. Later on it became part of the so-called
12 Igman Brigade, and from the Osjek battalion, I went to the Butile
13 barracks, which was completely unrelated to either of the brigades.
14 Q. Witness, would you be able to confirm to me if the people who were
15 members of this Osjek battalion, were those people citizens of Osjek?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. You've stated a few moments ago that you were supposed to, at the
18 onset, defend your houses?
19 A. That's right.
20 Q. I would like to show you a map; it's 65 ter number 2829. And I
21 would like you to show us Ilidza on that map.
22 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] And I would like to ask the
23 assistance of Madam Usher to give the witness the electronic pen.
24 But in the meantime, if I'm not mistaken, you said -- when you
25 were talking about the Ilidza Brigade, you called it the so-called Ilidza
1 Brigade. I'm interested in that word "so-called." Does that mean
2 anything to you or is it just a way of expressing yourself?
3 A. Well, I don't know if it was its official name. That's why I said
4 so, the Ilidza-Igman Brigades were the names that we heard, we as ordinary
5 soldiers. Whether this brigade had some military name like the 1st
6 infantry so and so brigade, I don't know. That is why I used this
7 term "so-called," but it was a commonly used terms, the Ilidza Brigade,
8 the Igman Brigade, but I don't know whether those were their proper
9 names. That's why I expressed myself the way I did.
10 Q. Very well. Witness, would you please look at your screen. You
11 have before you a map. Are you able to orientate yourself on this map,
12 and, if so, can you please show us where Ilidza is.
13 A. I think this is Ilidza. Mm-hm.
14 Q. Thank you. Did you know at the time what were the military units
15 that were placed in front of you on the ABiH line or side?
16 A. You mean did I know their names? No, I didn't know their names.
17 Q. On this map, are you able to show me the direction from which the
18 opposite side came from, when we talk about Ilidza? So could you please
19 show us the direction with arrows, by drawing arrows on the map.
20 A. [Marks]
21 Q. The units of your battalion, did they align themselves along this
22 red line?
23 A. At the time when I was a member of this battalion, this red line
24 looked completely different.
25 Q. And you're talking about what period of time exactly?
1 A. Well, in the period while I was a member of the Osjek battalion.
2 This is what you're asking me about.
3 Q. And would you be able to show us this line, to draw the line from
4 your memory of the way it was then?
5 A. It's very difficult to that in this map. At the beginning, the
6 whole Energoinvest complex belonged to the so-called BH army, if we want
7 to be consistent in calling units their names. If this is Otis, and it
8 was in the hands of the BH army at the beginning of the war as well, I
9 cannot orientate myself well in this map, I cannot draw a line, but I know
10 which locations were held by both armies.
11 Q. But can we say that while you were involved in the army that there
12 were permanent combats between the two warring parties?
13 A. There was fighting, but I don't know what period you are referring
14 to. I was in the army until the end of 1994. There was fighting, there
15 were periods of tranquillity and peace and --
16 Q. Now during this time, members of the Ilidza Brigade for as far as
17 you remember, were those people who always lived in that area, or who had
18 always lived in that area?
19 A. That's right.
20 Q. And those people were in effect defending their houses; is that
21 right? And I'm now talking about people who were involved in the
22 Republika Srpska army, the VRS.
23 A. That's correct. Most of the lines in Ilidza were so close to
24 residential areas so that can you easily say that people were, in effect,
25 defending the line in front of their own homes.
1 Q. Now you talked about a trip, the trip that you took to Vogosca.
2 On this map, would you be able to show us approximately, since we do not
3 see Vogosca, but can you show us the direction of Vogosca, once again by
4 drawing a line.
5 A. Roughly speaking, Vogosca is in this direction, roughly speaking.
6 Q. During the war, did you ever go to Pale or to Lukavica, sir?
7 A. I've been to Pale once.
8 Q. And did you ever go to Lukavica?
9 A. Never.
10 Q. Would you be able to show us the route that you took to go to Pale
11 from Ilidza?
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Docherty.
13 MR. DOCHERTY: I object to this question, Your Honour. It's
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Isailovic, what's the relevance?
16 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I started a line of
17 questioning which pertains to the Defence case, and I would like to ask
18 this question. I would like to know if this witness can tell us as far as
19 he remembers, what route he took when he went from Ilidza to Pale and
20 Lukavica. I'm not really interested in Lukavica, but I'm rather
21 interested in his answer. I would like him to tell us what is the route
22 that one takes to go to Pale and what route were the civilians taking, the
23 civilians who would go there on this territory that was controlled by the
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: You haven't explained how that is relevant.
1 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it is relevant
2 because the military necessity was to defend this road and that was of
3 vital importance for the VRS, but it was also very important for the
4 civilians living on the territory controlled by the VRS. And this witness
5 was a member of that army, so he was also from that area, from Ilidza, and
6 I will also ask him questions on that.
7 But I would like him to show us what is the road or the route that
8 they were taking.
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: You would establish the relevance if you could
11 elicit from this witness some evidence concerning the -- what you call the
12 military necessity to defend this road. It's not apparent to me that he
13 has any evidence in relation to that issue. Otherwise, I think it's
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: We find that the question is irrelevant,
17 Ms. Isailovic, unless framed in the manner that I suggested.
18 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Witness, you lived during that entire period in Ilidza, is that
20 right, during the war, that is?
21 A. That's right. Let me be precise. In Osjek near Ilidza, but that
22 was Ilidza municipality, and I think it's not important.
23 Q. And I imagine that all the members of your family lived there as
25 A. That's right.
1 Q. Now, I would like know if your mother or if your wife were also
2 members of the Republika Srpska?
3 A. Yes. My whole immediate family was in Osjek.
4 Q. Have you ever heard of a hospital Zica in Blazuj?
5 A. Zica, yeah, I heard about that.
6 Q. With regard to the civilians of this area, were they treated at
7 that hospital; do you know?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Would you be able to show us where that hospital was located on
10 the map, once again?
11 A. I think it's not on this map. But roughly speaking, and I really
12 mean roughly speaking, it would be in this direction.
13 Q. At what distance from Ilidza, please?
14 A. Well, between five and six kilometres, approximately.
15 Q. Now, at the time did you know if the wounded fighters were also
16 treated at this hospital in Blazuj called Zica.
17 A. As far as I know, that was the only hospital in the area, and
18 everybody was treated there.
19 Q. Now, if we talk about people who were severely injured or
20 civilians who were very ill, were they brought to Belgrade or Banja Luka
21 by helicopter? Did you know that at the time, if that was the case?
22 A. At the very outset of the war, I heard about cases, including some
23 of my acquaintances, being airlifted to Pale in helicopters. Whether that
24 practice was continued, I don't know. But -- and I don't think that was
25 the course later in the course of the war. I don't think that there were
1 any helicopters landing in Ilidza.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Isailovic, I'm trying to understand what your
3 case is in relation to this hospital. Are you saying that this hospital
4 was attacked and that there was a need to defend it? What -- what are you
5 saying? What's the relevance of this evidence?
6 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I am trying to show
7 through this witness, which -- who is a Prosecutor's witness, and he was a
8 fighter of the VRS, he is also a resident of Ilidza. I'm trying to
9 establish a certain number of facts which are relevant for our case. We
10 will have other witnesses, of course, that can testify on this, but I'm
11 also trying to establish the fact that this hospital was also under attack
12 and that it was necessary to defend this hospital, but I'm also trying to
13 show that the route, the logistic route taken by --
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: The hospital that was attacked, how is that
15 relevant to your case or to the case in general? Are you saying this
16 hospital was attacked by the ABiH?
17 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Defence tried to
18 show on a number of occasions the relevancy of its arguments, namely the
19 intensity of fighting from one city that, according to the indictment, was
20 a city inhabited only by civilians and a protected area. Furthermore, and
21 the Defence in its arguments have tried to show on many occasions that in
22 that area there -- intense fighting was taking place, especially during
23 the period covered by the indictment, and the Defence is trying to show
24 that there were military necessities taken by the VRS. Furthermore, I'm
25 trying to establish through this witness that this logistics road existed
1 and I wanted him to show us that route.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Madam, I would like to understand
4 one thing: What do you mean by "intensity of fighting"? If we imagined
5 that there are two warring parties, warring party A and warring party B,
6 now you have the intensity of fighting and the intensity of fighting is
7 such that the party A launches all sorts of projectiles on the warring
8 party B. Now, I insist on the intensity of fighting, now at that point,
9 given the intensity of the fighting that is going on between the two, the
10 warring party B, if that party has no longer the capacity of thinking and
11 of choosing his weapons, that warring party could also launch all sorts of
12 projectiles to the warring party A or in the direction of warring party A.
13 Is that the intensity of fighting that you mentioned?
14 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] To answer your question, Your
15 Honour, when I talked about intensity of fighting, I talk about the many
16 wounded and injured -- now I mean soldiers, but there were also a lot of
17 wounded and injured civilians, so the more intense the fighting, the more
18 there are victims and casualties and fatalities.
19 So I'm not now talking about weapons used by the warring parties.
20 I'm talking about the intensity. I'm talking about all sorts of means
21 used, but those means are of course -- they correspond to the provisions
22 of the Geneva Conventions and they're -- are in conformity with all the
23 other international texts. But I'm talking about the intensity and the
24 consistency of these fightings which could later explain the number of
25 casualties and fatalities.
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: Ms. Isailovic, if indeed the hospitals to which
2 you have referred were attacked, and I have no reasons to question that,
3 then the least thing you should be able to establish in order to show some
4 relevance to this case is to seek evidence to prove that these hospitals
5 were attacked from positions inside Sarajevo. But I honestly do not think
6 that this witness can provide you with any relevant testimony to this
7 effect, I so really suggest that we move on.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: With that, please ask your last two or three
9 questions, Ms. Isailovic.
10 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much,
11 Mr. President. I will end on this topic, but I believe that this witness
12 is able to answer, if he knows, to the following: Where did the road lead
13 between Ilidza and Pale? Maybe I will ask a direct question.
14 Q. This road, did it go all around this red line on the map, and did
15 it extend to about 90 kilometres, and was it close to the red line that we
16 see on the map?
17 A. In the first portion, it goes from Ilidza to here, next to
18 Rajlovac, towards Vogosca. I only went that route once, but the people
19 who moved about more frequently said that they were often opened fire at.
20 And this is a hilly area, and it probably was close to the line. Fire was
21 opened at vehicles that moved there. More or less, it is so. This is the
22 road itself, although it cannot be clearly visible on the map.
23 Q. I would like to request that this map be admitted into evidence.
24 MR. DOCHERTY: I object to that and can state my reasons, if
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, yes, state them.
2 MR. DOCHERTY: Your Honour, the witness testified that the
3 confrontation lines on this map are completely wrong as of the time that
4 he was serving in the Ilidza Brigade, and in fact when invited to correct
5 them, he said that he couldn't even do that.
6 In addition to that, this map tells us nothing. There are circles
7 and arrows all over it. Not one of them has been labelled. I dare say
8 that if I look at this in three months' time I will have no idea what the
9 relevance of this map is. So because the witness has said that the map is
10 incorrect and because the map is not labelled, I object to it being
11 received into evidence. I think it's beyond irrelevant; it is positively
13 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] If I may, Mr. President, I would
14 like to answer, with your leave.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
16 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] First of all, regarding the
17 arrows, it would not be the first time that there is no marking, but I
18 think that it is very easy to follow what was drawn on this map if you
19 read the transcript. It is very easy to consult the transcript, to
20 compare it with the map, and we are very much able to follow the arrows,
21 and the transcript would also be -- could be admitted into file as well,
22 if you wish. But we can also make some markings -- or ask the witness to
23 put markings if my learned friend requests.
24 Now, this is a map that shows us a portion of this territory and
25 this witness is a qualified witness to recognise this area. The first
1 question I put to this witness was if he was able to orientate himself on
2 this map, and he said that he was able to. So then I showed him the map
3 and I wanted to know if he could explain us a few things.
4 Now regardless of the confrontation lines, he was able to show us
5 things on this map, and he was also able to show us this logistic route
6 that he took to go to Pale, as he stated himself on one occasion.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, we think there is some merit in
9 Mr. Docherty's point, but, consistent with the practice that we have been
10 following for -- in relation to maps, we're going to admit it. The
11 witness was able to identify some locations on it.
12 So we will admit it.
13 THE REGISTRAR: As D177, Your Honours.
14 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, if you wish, maybe
15 some annotations could be put on this map so that whoever is looking at it
16 later can orientate themselves better.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: That will take too much time. We have admitted
19 it for what it is worth.
20 One last question, if you have one.
21 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] No, no, no, thank you. No. I
22 just wanted the witness to perhaps put these annotations, but that's all
24 Q. Thank you very much, sir.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Docherty.
1 MR. DOCHERTY: Briefly, Your Honour.
2 Re-examination by Mr. Docherty:
3 Q. Mr. Soja, just a couple of last questions.
4 During cross-examination, you were asked several times about the
5 number of times you had seen an air bomb launched or attempted to be
6 launched. Do you remember being asked questions like that?
7 A. Yes, I do.
8 Q. Whatever the number was, it was quite low, one or two. But in
9 addition to seeing air bombs, did you -- I'm sorry?
10 A. That is correct.
11 Q. That's all right. In addition to seeing air bombs, did you also
12 from time to time hear air bombs in flight?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. About -- first of all, how could you tell you were hearing an air
15 bomb and not something else?
16 A. When I heard that unusual sound for the first time --
17 THE INTERPRETER: Would the counsel please not hit the
18 microphone? Thank you.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A few days before that, we
20 mounted --
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm sorry. Ms. Isailovic has a problem.
22 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. These questions
23 do not stem from the cross-examination. It is the first time that we hear
24 these questions. So in order to follow the procedure, I would like to
25 note that those questions do not stem from the cross-examination and it is
1 too late to ask them now.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: But the question of seeing air bombs, that was
3 certainly raised in cross-examination. The question of hearing air bombs,
4 that may be another matter.
5 Mr. Docherty.
6 MR. DOCHERTY: Well, the question of seeing air bombs was raised
7 multiple times in direct -- cross-examination with a view, I put it, to
8 showing that the witness had very little opportunity to observe air bombs.
9 So if the question is observing air bombs, one can observe with the eyes,
10 one can observe with the ears, and I believe it would leave a misleading
11 impression if we were to here that the witness saw air bombs only once or
12 twice when the witness has also heard air bombs on other occasions. So I
13 put it that the questions I'm asking do in fact -- are in fact a response
14 to a point that was attempted to the be made on cross-examination.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, the Chamber rules that the question does
18 MR. DOCHERTY:
19 Q. Mr. Soja, to continue, you had -- you had been answering and
20 saying that the first time you heard the noise of an air bomb was "I
21 believe" -- that's about as far as you got. Could you continue, please,
22 with your answer.
23 A. A day or two after we made the electronic device which we
24 delivered to the people who were supposed to mount it on the launcher,
25 sometime in the evening, one could hear an unusual sound coming from the
1 direction of Igman, after which there was a very loud detonation. It was
2 an unusual sound, and based on that and the explosion which followed - and
3 this explosion was stronger than, let's say, a usual explosion - I
4 concluded that it involved an aerial bomb, and that was with hindsight and
5 based on the experience I had working on the device.
6 On several other occasions subsequent to that, I had the occasion
7 to hear a couple of other such detonations as well.
8 Q. You said that you heard this coming from Igman. Was there any
9 particular part of Igman that it came from?
10 A. I remember well that my mother told me about the sound, because
11 she was facing that direction. What she said was that the sound was
12 coming from the area of the so-called Poljane at Igman. It is a
13 settlement there.
14 Q. And at that time was Poljane settlement on Igman controlled by the
15 army of Bosnia-Herzegovina or the army of Republika Srpska.
16 A. It is not a settlement. It is a place, a locality, on the
17 mountain. It is not forested, and at the time it was in the hands of the
18 army of Republika Srpska.
19 Q. And you say that you heard this a little -- or a couple of days
20 after you had worked on the electronic ignition system. Were you able to
21 tell if the sound was coming from the direction of the air bomb whose
22 ignition system you had worked on or was it coming from somewhere else?
23 A. I think that particular bomb was launched from the very launcher
24 that I was working on.
25 Q. And then after this, approximately how many other times did you
1 hear air bombs in flight?
2 A. I can't tell you precisely, but some five or six times.
3 MR. DOCHERTY: I have no further questions on re-direct, Your
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Neither of the statements has been admitted. Do
7 you wish to have them admitted, either party?
8 MR. DOCHERTY: Your Honour, my understanding was that the witness
9 was testifying viva voce, but, yes, I will tender both of the statements
10 at this time.
11 I will get the 65 ter numbers in just one moment, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: He's 92 ter.
13 MR. DOCHERTY: Then I stand to be corrected. I apologise, Your
15 The 92 ter numbers, Your Honour, are 3125 and 3126.
16 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it seems to me that
17 everything is inverted.
18 Firstly, all the questions brought up, when I was speaking, you
19 decided that I couldn't carry on because we were dealing with questions
20 that were never dealt with during the main examination, and that's why I
21 decided not to ask any further questions and I decided to stick to what
22 had in fact been dealt with in this courtroom.
23 But if the Prosecution wishes these statements to become evidence,
24 to be admitted, then that changes everything, and I would have dealt
25 differently with my questions, since during the re-direct the Prosecution
1 brought up these issues, and now the Defence hasn't had a chance to ask
2 its own questions in the cross-examination on these matters, on facts that
3 are now duly established by the witness. I had to organisation my
4 cross-examination on the basis of what has in fact been asked of the
5 witness during the examination-in-chief.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Isailovic, when I ruled that you could not
8 ask certain questions, it wasn't because the questions did not relate to
9 issues raised in what you call the main examination,
10 examination-in-chief. It is because the Chamber ruled that the questions
11 were irrelevant.
12 As for the questions asked by the Prosecutor in re-examination,
13 the Chamber has already ruled that those questions properly arose from
14 cross-examination, and as for the chamber reminding both parties that
15 the -- they had not sought the admission of certain documents, certain
16 exhibits, that's a practice which the Chamber has followed consistently
17 throughout this trial when parties forget to tender documents, and we have
18 done that in relation to the Defence and the Defence has availed itself of
19 that opportunity.
20 So we'll admit the documents. What are the documents? Please
21 remind us, Mr. Docherty.
22 MR. DOCHERTY: Your Honour, they are 65 ter numbers 3125, which is
23 the statement to the police, and 3126, which is the ICTY statement.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours 65 ter number 03125 becomes P598, and
25 03126 becomes P599.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Witness, that concludes your testimony. Thank
2 you for giving it, and you may now leave.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: In fact, we'll take the break now. We'll break
5 for 20 minutes.
6 [The witness withdrew]
7 --- Recess taken at 5.50 p.m.
8 [The witness entered court]
9 --- On resuming at 6.18 p.m.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let the witness make the declaration.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
12 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
13 WITNESS: VEKAZ TURKOVIC
14 [Witness answered through interpreter]
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, you may begin, Mr. Docherty.
16 Examination by Mr. Docherty:
17 Q. Good afternoon, sir. Could you please begin --
18 A. Good afternoon.
19 Q. Could you please begin by introducing yourself to the Judges by
20 telling them your name and what it is that you do for a living.
21 A. My name is Vekaz Turkovic. I am a programmer and I'm a student of
22 IT in Sarajevo. During the war I worked as a crime scene investigation
23 technician. During the war I abandoned this job and starting doing other
24 things. First I worked as an interpreter for an American company and also
25 an interpreter for the UN. Later on I started working as a network
1 administrator for the UN, too.
2 Q. In connection with your work in law enforcement during the armed
3 conflict, did you give a statement to ICTY investigators on the 10th of
4 March, 1997?
5 A. Yes, I did.
6 Q. Did you later give another statement to ICTY investigators on 25th
7 of April, 2006?
8 A. Yes, I did.
9 Q. Since coming to The Hague to testify a few days ago, have you had
10 the opportunity to review those -- the statements that came out of those
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And do I understand correctly that you wish to correct something
14 in those statements concerning seeing an air bomb in flight from the
15 tunnel that went under the airport. Is that correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And what is that correction, in a couple of sentences, sir?
18 A. The correction refers to the fact that in the first statement I
19 said that I had seen an air bomb flying, whereas my friend and I actually
20 only heard the bomb flying. That's what -- that would be about all.
21 We followed the sound of the bomb, but we didn't actually see it.
22 Similarly, you can follow an airplane judging by its sound, although you
23 can't see it.
24 Q. And if that correction from seeing to hearing is made, are the
25 statements true and correct?
1 A. Yes, they are.
2 Q. And if you were asked the questions today that the investigators
3 asked you in the past, would we get the same answers?
4 A. Yes, I would.
5 MR. DOCHERTY: Your Honour, at this time, I tender 65 ter number
6 02873, which is the statement from 1997, and 65 ter number 02874, which is
7 the statement from 2006.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we admit them.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter number 02873 will go in as
10 P600, and 02874 will become P601.
11 MR. DOCHERTY:
12 Q. Mr. Turkovic, can you tell us, please, in a few sentences what it
13 was that you were doing with the police during the armed conflict. Begin,
14 please, by telling us which law enforcement agency you worked for and what
15 your title was.
16 A. That was the cantonal police, as it is called now. It used to be
17 called the security services centre of Sarajevo. I worked as a crime
18 scene investigation technician. My job was to collect physical evidence
19 on crime scenes, to mark the spots where they were found, and to forward
20 them to other services for further processing.
21 Q. Was it also a part of your duties to write reports about your
22 findings and your activities?
23 A. Yes. These were mainly crime investigation reports, including
24 photographing and sketching the crime scenes.
25 Q. In what part of the Sarajevo area were you stationed when you were
1 working as a crime scene technician for the Security Services Centre?
2 A. I was in charge of the municipality of Ilidza.
3 Q. And what areas of Sarajevo would be -- would be within your area
4 of responsibility?
5 A. It included Hrasnica, Butmir and Sokolici Colinja and also the
6 foot-hill of Mount Igman that is the Igman road.
7 Q. Were you also in the police for a while following the conclusion
8 of the armed conflict?
9 A. Yes, roughly speaking, six months. I cannot remember exactly.
10 Q. I want to ask you some questions concerning any differences that
11 there might have been in your professional activities during the armed
12 conflict versus after the armed conflict. With what frequency during the
13 war did you respond to calls related to shellings that had -- shellings
14 within your area of responsibility, Hrasnica, Sokolici Colinja and so
16 A. Perhaps in 80 percent cases what was involved was shelling,
17 sniping and other wartime activity.
18 Q. Did you have contact with your colleagues from other parts of
19 Sarajevo, by which I mean your police colleagues in other parts of
21 A. Yes, once a week on the average I had contact with them when I
22 took films to be developed for photo files.
23 Q. During the times that you took film in to be developed for photo
24 files, did you have conversations with your colleagues about how busy they
25 were and what types of calls they were responding to?
1 A. Yes, I did. I saw their log of events and I could see what was
2 happening -- what happened in the intervening period since my last visit.
3 Q. And how did their experiences seem to be comparing with the
4 experiences you were having and that you described a couple of minutes ago
5 as being 80 percent of your professional activities responding to shelling
6 and sniping calls?
7 A. It was more or less the same percentage that applied to my
9 Q. Were you able to form an impression as to what parts of the city
10 of Sarajevo these calls for assistance were coming from?
11 A. From all over Sarajevo, practically.
12 Q. Were you able to form an impression of what hours of the day and
13 night these calls were coming in?
14 A. Any time of day or night, without any specific pattern.
15 Q. And finally, what about time of year? Did the calls seem to you
16 to vary according to the season or the month?
17 A. No, I didn't notice anything of that nature.
18 Q. Following the end of the war, what was your experience -- you said
19 six months, you were with the police following the end of the war. How
20 many shelling calls did you have to respond to in those six months?
21 A. Not a single one, as far as I can remember.
22 Q. And did you hear of any of your colleagues elsewhere in the city
23 of Sarajevo having to answer a call to a shelling during those six months?
24 A. No.
25 Q. What about calls related to people being shot with fire-arms? Did
1 you have any such calls in the six months following the end of the war?
2 A. I cannot remember any incident at the moment.
3 Q. All right. And you said a moment ago that you did not hear of one
4 of your colleagues having to answer a single shelling call. What would be
5 your answer as regards to shooting calls during the six months between the
6 end of the war and your resignation from the police?
7 A. I am not aware of any such incident. I don't know whether they
8 happened or not.
9 Q. Over the last week or so, have you had the opportunity to examine
10 a spreadsheet summarizing data from I believe 218 different police reports
11 from the time between - excuse me - August of 1994 and November of 1995?
12 A. Yes, I have.
13 Q. Have you also had an opportunity to look at the underlying police
14 reports whose data is summarized in that spreadsheet?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And when you examined that spreadsheet, based on your experience
17 with the police, do you recognise those as apparently authentic police
18 reports from your law enforcement agency or another law enforcement
20 A. Yes, those were police reports.
21 MR. DOCHERTY: And if we could please see on the monitor 65 ter
22 number 03124, just the first page.
23 Q. Mr. Turkovic, while we're waiting for the exhibit to be called up
24 on the screen, did you look at this spreadsheet in terms of the addresses
25 where the police went in response to sniping calls or shelling calls?
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic.
2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this is a crucial
3 moment in the Prosecution case. And now the witness is being shown a
4 document that covers, according to him, at least a couple of hundred
5 incidents. This document that was to be tendered through another witness,
6 Mr. Kucanin, who the Prosecution was unable to locate, is -- there's an
7 attempt now to burden the documents that already contain numerous binders
8 and who knows how many documents.
9 In the course of further investigation, you will have -- see that
10 the first ten pages refer to August and September 1994, and you will also
11 be able to when this witness started doing the job that he did. In other
12 words, you have seen how much time has been allocated for this witness for
13 both the Prosecution and the Defence. The Defence was given 45 minutes.
14 In order for me to examine this witness it will take a few days for
15 preparation in order to demonstrate how these investigations were carried
17 At any rate, tendering so many documents through this witness and
18 such a huge number of incidents that I'm not able to question him about,
19 and I could have questioned Mr. Kucanin in a very short time about just a
20 number of incidents and to deal with the method that this was done in.
21 If you're going to burden the court documents with papers that
22 probably contain the description of several hundred incidents, then I
23 truly believe that we are going to put the Defence in an impossible
24 situation. I believe that this witness cannot be a proper witness after
25 45 minutes of cross-examination to tender and admit this kind of document
1 and papers relating to.
2 This is inappropriate, Your Honours, and I think is superfluous.
3 Please take a look, how thick this file is. Each page contains tens of
4 pieces of evidence. I think this is out of order.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: But what is the Prosecutor seeking to do? Have
6 you sought anything --
7 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] The Prosecution intends to tender
8 through this document documents relating to God knows how many incidents,
9 hundreds of them, which is absolutely inexplicable.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: And your point is that if they wish to do that,
11 that they should only be allowed to tender it in relation to certain
12 specific items?
13 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Only with relation to specific
14 things to be clarified through this witness. This witness has no
15 connection whatsoever with these incidents, absolutely not, especially not
16 to specific and particular incidents.
17 There are a couple of incidents and documents that have been
18 prepared for today's questioning, and this is what this witness can speak
19 about. Until 1994, this witness was not involved in these incidents at
20 all. He was not involved in these incidents until the end of 1994 and
21 that is what is stated in his statement, and now through this witness
22 there is intention to tender documents from 1994, not to mention the
23 evidence from 1995 that he has no connection with at all.
24 I do appreciate that we can question this witness about certain
25 incidents that he was involved in, and I know what the purpose of this
1 move is. They were unable to bring Mr. Kucanin here, who would be
2 compelled here to explain to the Chamber his methodology. Now this last
3 witness is being used for tendering these documents.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, I don't have your talent of
5 clairvoyance, so let me ask the Prosecutor what the position is.
6 MR. DOCHERTY: Your Honour, let me begin by stating what I've
7 already stated in a submission that was turned in in writing a couple of
8 weeks ago regarding our notification that we were going to seek to
9 introduce this sort of evidence.
10 The -- in the indictment, the Prosecution has taken on the burden,
11 which we accept, of proving beyond a reasonable doubt certain things,
12 including the existence of a campaign. We -- we seek to introduce this
13 spreadsheet - and I have not tendered it yet but will in a few questions -
14 in order to show that throughout the time that the accused was in command
15 of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps, the police in Sarajevo were fully occupied
16 at all hours of the day and night responding to calls for assistance for
17 sniping and shelling incidents that came in from all parts of the city at
18 all seasons and months of the year. We are not tendering the underlying
19 reports. We are not tendering statements that might be contained in those
20 underlying reports and where the person who made the statement is not
21 available for cross-examination. We are not bringing this report in
22 through an employee of the OTP, which was found to be an issue in an
23 earlier case where overview evidence was tendered by the Prosecution.
24 We are bringing in evidence concerning observations made by police
25 officers who were under both a professional and a legal duty to make those
1 observations, and we are doing so for the limited purpose of showing the
2 widespread nature of the campaign conducted by troops under the command
3 of the accused.
4 Mr. Tapuskovic indicates that if Mr. Kucanin was here, Mr. Kucanin
5 could be made to answer as to his methodology, but I mean, Mr. Turkovic
6 can be cross-examined regarding the spreadsheet as well. This is a
7 spreadsheet that is simply a compilation from police reports of the date,
8 the time, the address, the type of call, the number of victims and in the
9 last -- the right-hand side column, the names of the victims. Some of the
10 items are blank because there might be no data in that particular police
11 report for a particular field.
12 But I put it to the Court that under this Tribunal's established
13 jurisprudence on introducing this sort of overview evidence, most recently
14 in October of 2006 in the Milutinovic trial, as was referenced in the
15 Prosecution's written submission, this evidence is admissible. It hues to
16 the limitations placed on such evidence by other chambers of the
17 Tribunal. And as to the point of notice, which I believe Mr. Tapuskovic
18 at least adverted to, we served, as the Chamber knows, a written
19 submission several week ago indicating that we were planning to do this.
20 We notified the Defence in an email last Friday that we were going
21 to do this through this witness we put the spreadsheet on the usual chart
22 of exhibits that we are seeking to tender through a witness and which we
23 serve and file in advance and we informed the court officer earlier today
24 that we were going to put this -- seek to put this evidence through this
1 So for all of those reasons, Your Honour - and I don't wish to
2 simply stand here and read the submission that the Prosecution made a
3 couple of weeks ago. I think that it summarizes the law. I think it
4 shows the admissibility of the evidence. It's offered for a limited
5 purpose. It is overview evidence. It is necessary evidence on a point of
6 the Prosecution's case, the existence of a campaign, and I submit that it
7 is admissible once I have asked a few more foundational questions of
8 Mr. Turkovic.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: I think that was my point about the anticipatory
10 nature of the objection. Because you had not yet sought to lay the
11 foundation. So I thought the point was premature.
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Docherty, wasn't the written submission
13 rendered void when the former witness couldn't come?
14 MR. DOCHERTY: In my view, no, Your Honour, and the reason I say
15 that is because when the Chamber denied the Prosecution's application to
16 modify its 65 ter witness list and put on that 65 ter witness list the
17 substitute for Mr. Kucanin, a Mr. Vejzagic, the Chamber also noted in the
18 last or second to last page of its decision that there were other
19 witnesses of similar rank or similar category - that's the word I'm
20 looking for - to Mr. Vejzagic, in other words, other police officers
21 remaining on the Prosecution's witness list and that the -- left open, in
22 my view, the possibility that the spreadsheet could be offered through one
23 of those other police officers.
24 The Chamber's decision related to notice and to the timing of the
25 Prosecution's application to put -- substitute Mr. Vejzagic for
1 Mr. Kucanin and did not, in my view, go to the merits of the proffered
2 overview evidence.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: What should be done is that you should now seek
5 to lay your foundation and then seek to have the documents admitted, at
6 which stage the Chamber will consider after hearing submissions the
7 admissibility of the document.
8 MR. DOCHERTY:
9 Q. Continuing, Mr. Turkovic, do you see in front of you on the
10 television monitor in both English and B/C/S the spreadsheet that you have
11 been reviewing?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And have you looked at the underlying police reports as well?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. In your training and experience with law enforcement in Bosnia and
16 Herzegovina, do you recognise those police reports as being from your own
17 law enforcement agency or another law enforcement agency?
18 A. There are all sorts of reports. Some of them do stem from my
19 service from my department, including some medical documentation.
20 However, all of the documentation comes from the police.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: I notice you say there are all sorts of reports.
22 Relating to what? Give us an example.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] For example, medical reports on
24 woundings, which are usually attached to police reports.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: And would it also include other matters such as
1 traffic accidents?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. Perhaps I do not understand.
3 The things I reviewed did not include any traffic accidents.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just could you take as an example through
5 something that is on the spreadsheet.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May be can offer a clarification?
7 MR. DOCHERTY: Certainly.
8 Q. Let's just start with entry -- the very first entry here. On the
9 left-hand side, there's something called an evidence registration number.
10 Is that correct?
11 JUDGE MINDUA: Mr. Prosecutor, is it possible to have it in
13 MR. DOCHERTY: I was just about to ask.
14 JUDGE MINDUA: Thank you.
15 MR. DOCHERTY:
16 Q. The next column over going from left to right is called type. Is
17 that correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And under type I at least see two types of entries, SH or SN. Can
20 you tell us what SH and SN mean?
21 A. SN is sniping. I suppose the SH stands for shelling.
22 Q. The next column over is time. Is that the time of the incident?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Next over is location. In reviewing this spreadsheet, did you
25 recognise all of these locations as addresses within the city of Sarajevo?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And just to take the top one as an example, there's the name of a
3 street and then a street number; is that correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And then below that, Novo Sarajevo. And is that a municipality
6 within the city of Sarajevo?
7 A. Yes, it is a municipality in Sarajevo.
8 Q. Moving over from that is a column labelled origin of fire. And
9 that's blank on the first one, but the one below that says Jewish
10 cemetery. Is that correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And is that information taken from the police reports that are
13 being summarized on this spreadsheet?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And, again, next column over is --
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: How does he know it's taken from the police
17 reports? He has reviewed those reports?
18 MR. DOCHERTY: Because he has reviewed the reports.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: And you have led evidence to that?
20 MR. DOCHERTY: I haven't yet. But it's on the list of
21 foundational questions.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: I see, okay.
23 MR. DOCHERTY:
24 Q. Next column over is weaponry used. And, again, is that taken from
25 the police reports?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And then there's a column for number of victims; correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And that's then broken down into killed and wounded in the
5 second-to-last column; correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. I'm sorry. I'm going too fast. Finally in the last column there
8 is the victim's name, last name first, then first and middle name, then
9 year of birth and then a K for killed or a W for wounded, at least in the
11 A. Yes. However, what we see here is the last name, the first name
12 and the father's name rather than the middle name.
13 Q. Thank you for the clarification. Let's talk about a few of these
15 When a police officer responds to a call, is it standard practice
16 for that officer to record any information from witnesses or any other
17 source as to the origin of fire in the case of a sniping or a shelling
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And that's because police reports contain important information
21 concerning an incident; is that correct?
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: You shouldn't lead about these matters. You must
23 ask the witness the question and let him give the evidence.
24 MR. DOCHERTY:
25 Q. Mr. Turkovic, in your experience, why do the police write
1 reports? What are the uses to which these reports are put after they've
2 been written?
3 A. Excuse me. Policemen wrote respective reports according to their
4 specialities, for example, crime technicians would compile their report.
5 Then regular policemen or policeman who attended the scene first would
6 write his report, as well as some other people were other specialities.
7 They all provided their opinions as well, based on the material they
8 gathered. One, for example, would be tasked with taking witness
9 statements and so on and so forth.
10 Q. And after all these reports are all written and proof-read and
11 typed up and printed out, what are the uses to which they are put? Who
12 relies on these police reports?
13 A. They would be handed over to the competent office or service and
14 then forwarded to the courts.
15 Q. And in Bosnia -- I mean, different counties have different
16 investigating procedures. What is the role of an investigating judge in
17 the Bosnian law enforcement investigating system?
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic.
19 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it may have been
20 better to limit the witness's scope of testimony. He is nothing by a mere
21 crime scene technician. He took photographs until the end of 1994. In
22 his stead we should have a senior police official who could provide us
23 with certain guidelines that could influence your decision. If this is a
24 way to go through this document to corroborate the list contained here,
25 whereby the witness didn't have to do with a single one of them, then on
1 top of that, the Prosecutor needn't do anything else. They can just keep
2 on tendering such documents, which haven't been verified by a senior
3 police expert.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just please wait. I'm going to come to you. I
5 had established a procedure. The Prosecutor is seeking to lay the
6 foundation. I don't know whether he will succeed. He is trying to lay
7 foundation for the admission of the document.
8 When he has finished laying the foundation and he seeks to have
9 the document admitted, I will hear from you. I'm obliged to. Take my
10 word for it, you will not be left out.
11 MR. DOCHERTY:
12 Q. Mr. Turkovic, we were talking about police reports and the uses to
13 which they are put, and in preparation for a subsequent question I asked
14 you to give us a short description of the role of the investigating judge
15 in the Bosnian law enforcement investigating system.
16 A. In brief, an investigating judge would provide his assessment of
17 evidence presented and that he received from the police.
18 Q. And what role do the police reports play in the presentation of
19 that evidence to the Presiding Judge?
20 A. Such evidence was collected at the site and it also may include
21 witness statements about a certain event or incident. I don't know what
22 else to say on that topic.
23 Q. I don't wish to lead, but your last answer was a little
24 ambiguous. Are you saying that these reports went to the investigating
1 A. From my standpoint as a crime scene technician, well, I was
2 obliged to hand my report over to my boss, and that's when I would part
3 with my reports.
4 Q. And then my question becomes: Were these reports looked at by the
5 investigating judges during investigations of crimes?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Do you know a Mr. Vejzagic?
8 A. Vejzagic, yes. He used to be a lecturer during my course for
9 crime scene technicians, and later on he headed a MUP department for a
11 Q. Was he ever your supervisor?
12 A. Not directly. He was two levels above.
13 Q. And have you spoken during the past week with Mr. Vejzagic
14 concerning this spreadsheet and the underlying reports?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. What did Mr. Vejzagic tell you concerning his checking of each
17 item in the spreadsheet against the underlying reports?
18 A. He said that these were our police reports, that he had certain
19 objections as to the spelling and such things. He entered the
20 corrections, and that's it.
21 Q. And since coming to The Hague, have you yourself checked the
22 spreadsheet against some of the underlying reports?
23 A. Yes.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let me just clarify. By the "underlying
25 reports," you mean the documents that are referred to in the first --
1 MR. DOCHERTY: The ERN documents in the --
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: The ERN documents.
3 MR. DOCHERTY: -- farthest left column.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, the first left column, yes.
5 MR. DOCHERTY: And based on -- I'm sorry.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: So if he we take, for example, the first one 0331
8 to 9234 --
9 MR. DOCHERTY: Mm-hm.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: -- to 9297, that would be 63 documents?
11 MR. DOCHERTY: That would be 63 pages.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: 63 pages.
13 MR. DOCHERTY: Yes. Each page has a unique ERN number, and it
14 goes up by one with each page, and within those 63 pages you would find
15 all of the information summarized in the spreadsheet. You would of course
16 find a great deal more besides, but that is what we extracted from those
17 reports and put on to the spreadsheet.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: And this witness has familiarised himself with
19 these 63 pages?
20 MR. DOCHERTY: And that's what I'm asking. That's the questioning
21 I'm doing now. He has spoken with Mr. Vejzagic about it. Mr. Vejzagic
22 told him that he had checked all of them and had suggested some
23 corrections, and now the witness is saying that he has also looked at some
24 of these reports, and I'm about to ask him based on his conversation with
25 Mr. Vejzagic and his review, what opinion does he have as to the accuracy
1 of the spreadsheet.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: So I'm a little confused now.
3 MR. DOCHERTY: Okay.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Vejzagic seems to the person you want.
5 MR. DOCHERTY: Mr. Vejzagic is the person but you ruled that we
6 could not have him, you see, so ... levity aside, your honour, the witness
7 is, in my submission, able to lay a foundation for the admission of this.
8 It really -- I don't wish to make too much of this. It really is a matter
9 of taking a certain limited amount of information out of voluminous
10 reports, putting them in a spreadsheet, and then using that spreadsheet to
11 show the widespread nature of the campaign.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Is he not a summarizing witness?
13 MR. DOCHERTY: He is -- I think the term the Tribunal has used is
14 an overview witness. That is the term that the Milutinovic Chamber used
15 back in October concerning a -- similar evidence regarding human rights
16 abuses in Kosovo and reports that had been generated of those human rights
17 abuses and then summarized in what they called the blue book.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: So an overview witness is permissible but not a
19 summarizing one?
20 MR. DOCHERTY: Well, I don't know what really would turn on that
21 terminology. In my review of the law, I kept finding the terms "overview
22 witness" or "overview evidence." I don't think there's anything wrong
23 with summarizing witness or summarizing evidence; it's just not used.
24 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Mr. Docherty, with this system of
25 an overview witness, or -- and we have this spreadsheet, now what means
1 does the Defence have to cross-examine, for instance, knowing that you
2 yourself, you don't have a lot of time, and knowing that the Defence has
3 45 minutes to cross-examine, is there something that allows the Defence to
4 check the veracity or the content of this document, or, the Defence -- or
5 are you saying that the Defence should just accept this document as an
7 MR. DOCHERTY: The answer to any -- any question along those
8 lines, Judge Mindua, is full disclosure, and all of the documents
9 summarized in this spreadsheet not only were disclosed to the Defence in
10 some cases more than a year ago, but every one of them is on the
11 Prosecution's 65 ter exhibit list and has been since that was finalised in
12 late 2006, early 2007.
13 In addition, when we made our submission a few weeks ago, the
14 spreadsheet was attached as an exhibit to that submission, and so the
15 Defence has had, in my view, time to check, if they wished to -- they need
16 not check all 218 if they don't want to, but they have had an opportunity
17 to at least look at some of them and see if at least those some are done
18 correctly, and they could have done all of them had they wanted to.
19 As I say, it's not just a question of we disclosed it. Over and
20 above disclosure, we then put all of these police reports, every one of
21 them, on our exhibit list, and they have been there for quite some -- some
22 length of time.
23 The nature of the evidence must also be considered in -- in
24 looking at the scope of cross-examination. This is overview evidence and
25 it is intended to show a pattern. We're not really getting into the sorts
1 of things we heard from crime-base witnesses, I was sitting on the tram,
2 the window it my left exploded, I felt a burning sensation in my, ribs
3 that sort of thing. It's evidence, really, of police activity. Where did
4 the police go in response to calls for help? When did they go there?
5 What date did they go there? And how many dead or wounded people did they
6 find once they got there.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: You are relying on it for an important purpose,
8 are you not?
9 MR. DOCHERTY: Well, of course, yes. I mean, I am relying
10 upon --
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: What is that purpose?
12 MR. DOCHERTY: That purpose is to show the widespread nature of
13 the campaign, and in viewing -- looking at this evidence, one must of
14 course must look at it, as one does with all evidence, as an
15 interconnected whole. We have had a great deal evidence in this -- in the
16 last few months in this courtroom concerning the fact that sniper fire, in
17 my submission, obviously it remains to -- it is something that we must
18 prove, sniper fire, for example, comes from SRK-held territory. Shelling
19 originates, mortar fire originates in SRK-held territory. Air bombs
20 originate in SRK-held territory. Now we've got a police officer who is
21 saying after the armed conflict these calls fell down to zero. We have
22 got a spreadsheet which shows that during the conflict the police were
23 very busy running all over the city in response to these types of calls,
24 and this evidence, this spreadsheet, shows the spatial and the temporal
25 pattern of the police response to the campaign that in the Prosecution's
1 respectful submission was carried out by troops under the accused's
2 command and control, and in that regard and for that limited purpose. But
3 by saying "limited," I do not mean unimportant purpose. For that limited
4 by important purpose, the jurisprudence of the ICTY is that this sort of
5 overview evidence is admissible.
6 Overview evidence has been rejected when it is proffered by an
7 employee of the OTP who is seeking to offer opinions regarding the guilt
8 of the accused. Overview evidence has been rejected if it is a
9 compilation of information that the reporters, the people who make the
10 underlying documents, were not under a duty to prepare.
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Are these decisions of Trial Chambers or the
12 Appeals Chamber?
13 MR. DOCHERTY: These were -- all I found were decisions of Trial
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Did you bring them?
16 MR. DOCHERTY: Oh, I'm sorry, I stand corrected. They are
17 referred to in the submission that was made. I have that with me, behind
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, we have to adjourn now. So when we resume
20 tomorrow afternoon, you'll just take a very short time to complete the
21 foundational aspect of your questioning and then you will seek the
22 admission, I presume, and then we will hear from Mr. Tapuskovic.
23 We're adjourned.
24 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.03 p.m.,
25 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 26th day of
1 April, 2007, at 2.15 p.m.