1 Monday, 4 March 2002
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.34 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Case Number IT-98-29-T, the Prosecutor versus
7 Stanislav Galic.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
9 I think there are a few things left from last week we have to do.
10 First of all, I think we have to take decisions on the admission in
11 evidence of the documents that have been used during the examination of
12 Mr. Kucanin. Apart from that, Mr. Stamp, there's an oral submission you'd
13 like to make. We'll do that next, and then first continue with the next
14 witness and whatever oral arguments there has to be done, we'll do that at
15 a later stage.
16 Yes, please.
17 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, I take it that includes the 92 bis
18 argument. That will come at a later stage.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Because we only received now the statements and
20 it's a bit difficult for us -- of course we could hear oral argument, but
21 since these documents arrived today -- no, last Friday, but it was three
22 binders and I was not able to read them all over the weekend. And I think
23 we have a better idea of what the 92 bis is about if we have seen the
24 statements. So I'd rather -- yes, unless this disturbs you.
25 MR. IERACE: Not at all, Mr. President.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Not at all. Okay.
2 So Madam Registrar, could you please help us, guide us, through
3 the documents used during the examination of Mr. Kucanin.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P2792 is the photo file bearing on the
5 first page the ERN number 0028-4265.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Is there any --
7 THE REGISTRAR: And the English translation, P2792.1.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any objection, if not, it is admitted into
9 evidence. Next one, please.
10 THE REGISTRAR: P1840 under seal, the record of on-site
11 investigation by Sarajevo CSB. And P1840.1 is the English translation,
12 also under seal.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. No objections, so they are admitted in
15 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P2790, an official note, Republic of
16 Bosnia-Herzegovina, Ministry of Interior, date 22/07/1994. And
17 the English translation, P2790.1.
18 JUDGE ORIE: No objections there. Admitted in evidence.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Map of Sarajevo marked by the witness P3644.MK1.
20 JUDGE ORIE: It is admitted in evidence.
21 THE REGISTRAR: An additional map marked by the witness P3658.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's admitted in evidence as well.
23 THE REGISTRAR: Defence Exhibit P54, document bearing ERN number
25 JUDGE ORIE: No objections -- Mr. Ierace.
1 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, I note the date of that document,
2 which is the 27th of July, 1994, it therefore being many months after the
3 relevant date for the incidents which took place in Alipasino Polje. It
4 was to those incidents which the Defence intimated this document relates.
5 So I object on that basis, but it's not a strong objection,
6 Mr. President.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Piletta-Zanin or Ms. Pilipovic.
8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. President.
9 I checked the documents which were produced. It is quite possible that
10 there is a problem concerning the date because there are two sets of
11 documents, the first refers to the 20th of July, 1993, and therefore I
12 believe there would be no objections to it. The other one is of the 27th
13 of July, 1993, likewise. If that is not the case, then obviously it is a
14 question. But with regard to the document that we are talking about, it
15 is D54. Yes, I do not think that it is possible for a Defence because
16 these documents have not been translated into English by the Prosecution.
17 We could not find the documents which apply to the 9th of July, 1993,
18 which is I believe the date of the incident. And a short time after the
19 incident and during the period of the indictment, there are certain events
20 which --
21 JUDGE ORIE: No further observations. Yes, please.
22 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, the relevant date in fact is the 9th
23 of November, 1993. So it's some eight months prior. The reason I said
24 that I don't make it a strong objection is the document as tendered is
25 clearly of little weight. I understood my friend to be suggesting that in
1 fact the date of this document which he seeks to tender is not the date
2 which appears on it in the top left-hand corner. One doesn't need to
3 understand B/C/S to see that the date of the document is 27.07.1994. If
4 my friend is suggesting that the date of the document is in fact 1993, I
5 think that should be made clear at this stage before it's tendered.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, Mr. President. I think
8 this is not a linguistic matter to all, of course. One does not need the
9 knowledge of B/C/S. It is simply that within the means of the Defence to
10 show what happened at a particular period of time. And around that period
11 of time if there were some elements, it is quite possible that they also
12 sometime before that. And Mr. President, this is a time of war, and we --
13 one does not move brigades or armies just like that. I mean, a brigade
14 will have 2.000 people. And therefore, I hope that the Prosecution has
15 heard all of the -- all of this in mind.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, do I understand you well, that you
18 accept to be the date of this document, the 27th of July, 1994?
19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. The date
20 was not manipulated by the Defence. It is the date on the document.
21 Therefore presumably, it is the date which is on the document, and as the
22 Prosecution says.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Well, partly because of the strength of the objection
24 of the Prosecution, we'll admit it into evidence. But as I have indicated
25 before, that the probative value of this document for something that
1 happened many, many months before is, of course, of a relative character.
2 Madam Registrar, this document, D54, is admitted into evidence.
3 Then the next document.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D55, document bearing ERN number
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Ierace.
7 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, there's a similar objection. The date
8 of this document is some three months after the relevant event. I would
9 add to that the fact that the relevant portion relied upon by the Defence
10 translates as a reference to a "command point of 102 Motorised Brigade in
11 Alipasino Polje area." In other words, there's no suggestion in the
12 document as to where precisely within that large part of Sarajevo the
13 command point was. The Defence seem to be suggesting that because there
14 was a command pointed in Alipasino Polje area, that therefore the mortar
15 shell impacting either on the school or at the point 2 or 300 metres away
16 is explicable as having a military objective. Essentially I say that
17 again it's of such little weight as to be of no assistance to the Trial
18 Chamber, but again if it is admitted then the same argument applies.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MR. IERACE: Thank you.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I see that this
23 morning the position of the Prosecution is bis repetita placent, it seems
24 that they do it more often than I do.
25 JUDGE ORIE: It's not quite clear to me the English translation.
1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, I'm sorry,
2 Mr. President. I said that the position of the Prosecution this morning
3 is bis repetita placent, and I repeat, those who do more, do less.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE ORIE: With a similar observation as I made in respect of
6 D54, the document is admitted into evidence.
7 Then, Madam Registrar, we come to D56. Yes, could we do 56, 57,
8 and 58 in one. Could you please, Madam Registrar, yes, because they seem
9 to be similar documents.
10 THE REGISTRAR: None of these documents bear any ERN numbers. D56
11 bears the date 19.7.1993, and 20.7.1993. D57, a report, UNPROFOR report.
12 And D58 is a portion of an UNPROFOR report.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, perhaps for the clarity of the transcript, they
14 are all parts of what seems to be annex Roman VI, page 583, page 591, and
15 page 592.
16 Mr. Ierace.
17 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, could I trouble the Registrar for
18 either a copy or at least a quick look at D56. I don't seem to have a
19 copy of that.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, there have been some difficulties as far as
21 numbering is concerned. It is page 583 and 584.
22 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, could you now clarify the source of these
24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, because of the
25 size, I did not bring all the whole set of the documents that we discussed
1 on Friday. But I believe these are the military reports of the UNPROFOR.
2 Isn't that so?
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] And what I will do,
5 Mr. President, is as follows: To indicate the source, because last week I
6 was called -- had somebody told me last week, we should be asking for the
7 source then I would have brought everything. But it is now that I'm asked
8 this and I will therefore do as follows: I will copy the page, the
9 cover page of the document that we have, and that is the annex, I
10 believe. I believe, I repeat, regarding the final report of the
11 UNPROFOR. I will photocopy this particular page. I will communicate it
12 both to the Prosecution and to the Registry so that all the questions
13 which are relative to the source of the document and how it was produced
14 are fully clarified. This seems to me the logical procedure, to provide
15 the cover page of this document.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I wondered whether these annexes to the report
17 of Committee of Experts?
18 MR. IERACE: They appear to be that, Mr. President. And in fact I
19 did ask Mr. Piletta-Zanin in open court last week, last Friday, to
20 indicate the source but I'm not too fussed by that at the moment. These
21 documents relate to the little girl being shot dead on the 20th of July,
22 1993. I object to their tender and I do so strenuously on this occasion
23 for the reason that there is simply no connection at all. My learned
24 colleague suggested on Friday that the connection was that there was
25 fighting, and that was the English translation, in Sarajevo, therefore
1 implying that the bullet could have been a stray one in the context of
2 shooting by both sides.
3 When one examines these documents more closely, one sees that
4 there's no reference to outgoing fire at all, more importantly, the
5 fighting was in the vicinity of Mount Igman which is to the southwest of
6 the city whereas this incident occurred in the north or northeast. There
7 is simply no connection. Thank you.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, would you please.
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, with pleasure,
10 Mr. President. It takes me a few seconds. It did not escape -- your
11 Chamber surely noticed that an appeal is made, an urgent appeal is made to
12 the International Community by the Bosnian Presidency to say that there
13 would be a general attack on the city. Now, this attack began on -- from
14 Mount Igman. That is quite true. But in the military technique, when
15 there is an attack as such, and I believe that is something that our
16 Prosecution failed to notice, one has to move the soldiers in order to
17 bring them to the front, and there are forces which go through the city.
18 And when troops passed, what happens? Simply when the soldiers pass by
19 one place or another place, obviously then they can be the contact. And
20 it happened -- it also happened by night because there was fighting at
21 night, major fighting at night unfortunately when this child was killed.
22 We know Mr. President that what is happening, that there must be movement
23 of troops. And this is proven by these troops. And therefore we think
24 that this is the probative value of this document, and therefore so with
25 which the Prosecution objects to the adoption of this document seems to me
1 precisely one of the elements which is indicative of the probative value
2 of this document. And here the date is fully exact, not only with regard
3 to that date but also with regard to the night. And therefore the day
4 which follows the day after the fact, it shows that all that week nothing
5 could be done by the police, by the police, because presumably this whole
6 area was the theatre of fighting. As I said, this is this gap between the
7 20th of July and 29th of July, 1993. And it seems to me that this
8 document shows that the reason why the police could not reach the area was
9 because of this fact, and that is why the Bosnian government launched that
10 appeal. Thank you very much.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE ORIE: We'll take a decision on the admission into evidence
13 of these three documents after the break.
14 Mr. Ierace -- yes, we have still another document, Madam
16 THE REGISTRAR: D59, under seal. Photocopy of three photographs
17 and a cover page --
18 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, for the Registrar.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, could you please put your microphone
21 THE REGISTRAR: 00269223. D59 under seal.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, could I just see the exhibit. Yes,
23 thank you.
24 Since there's no objection, they are admitted into evidence. Then
25 I think we dealt with all the documents used during the examination of
1 Mr. Kucanin, and we will then proceed with your next witness. And
2 protective measures involved are voice -- face distortion as far as I am
3 aware of.
4 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, would you entertain at the outset --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, of course. I'm sorry, Mr. Stamp.
6 MR. STAMP: Thank you very much, Mr. President, Your Honour. I
7 would first like to make an oral application for protective measures --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Can it be done in open session or do we have to --
9 MR. STAMP: It can be done in open session.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 MR. STAMP: These witnesses only require facial distortion so it
12 is not broadcast on television. The first witness is witness Mirza
13 Sabljica. He is on the schedule for this week. He has arrived, and he
14 indicates that as a result of his present occupation now, he has to travel
15 quite extensively through the Republika Srpska.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 MR. STAMP: And he fears that if his is broadcast, then persons
18 might recognise him. And it might adversely affect the operations of his
19 business. That, briefly, is his concern.
20 The next witness is the witness Esrema Boskailo. She lives in
21 Sarajevo, but her father lived in Republika Srpska. He has recently died,
22 and the family house now belongs to her, and she has to travel to
23 Republika Srpska to look after affairs in respect of that house. Her
24 concern is that if her face is broadcast and she is recognised, then she
25 or her family, she has three children, may be in physical danger as a
1 result of her being recognised as a witness here. And those are her
2 concerns. And she also only asks for a facial distortion, so that her
3 face is not broadcast. No distortion in Court.
4 JUDGE ORIE: So the main reason is to avoid some being recognised
5 in the streets.
6 MR. STAMP: Being recognised in Republika Srpska, the fear being
7 that it would endanger herself and her daughter.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. I was
10 hesitating to tell my colleague that there are people who know these
11 speakers. We can certainly have them represented. It is possible to
12 testify in normal circumstances in a trial of this nature under the
13 obligation to make it possible for them to still do business, because what
14 you said before this Chamber is that in order not to have commercial
15 activities of a witness affected so that he can do more business, so that
16 he can make more money, this Prosecution is asking protective measures
17 only to protect the business and profit of a witness. I really did not
18 expect such arguments, Mr. President.
19 And then, another witness to say that someone else is asking for
20 protective measures so they can look after a property, and Mr. General
21 Galic cannot do anything about it. I don't think this is founded, these
22 arguments given by the Prosecution, they are only economic, and they are
23 not really protected by the rules, and I do not believe they should be
24 heard in this way by your Chamber.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp, we'll give a decision after the break.
2 MR. STAMP: Thank you very much, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Any other application?
4 MR. STAMP: Not an application. There's a matter I think I should
5 raise just to make the Court aware. Having regard to the postponement of
6 the testimony of Witness Mirza Sabljica and he had been scheduled to take
7 quite a long time, and logistic problems in bringing some witnesses here
8 in the order as was indicated in our letter of the 25th of December, there
9 will of necessity be --
10 JUDGE ORIE: The 25th of December?
11 MR. STAMP: 25th of February, 2002. I beg your pardon.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MR. STAMP: There will be some changes in the schedule of
15 JUDGE ORIE: As a matter of fact, you are talking about the 25th.
16 I have also the 27th of February. That seems to be a more recent one.
17 MR. STAMP: Yes. I don't think --
18 JUDGE ORIE: I think for the first witnesses, the following order
19 is the same as far as I can see. Yes, I think the following...so it
20 doesn't make any difference.
21 Please proceed.
22 MR. STAMP: In the circumstances, the order and to some extent it
23 depends on the travelling arrangements which can be made for other
24 witnesses will be Sead Besic to follow, and that is in accordance with the
25 order indicated. But instead of Mirza Sabljica, it would be Ezrema
1 Boskailo for whom I made the application just now, Esad Hadzimuratovic,
2 then Mirza Sabljica. He could make it here earlier than the Witnesses AF
3 and P.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That would mean first Sead Besic.
5 MR. STAMP: Yes.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Then Ezrema Boskailo.
7 MR. STAMP: Yes. Then Esad Hadzimuratovic
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MR. STAMP: Then Mirza Sablijeca.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The --
11 MR. STAMP: The Witnesses AF and P, we could not change their
12 travel arrangements.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Do we know who comes after Witness Sabljica?
14 MR. STAMP: It would be AF.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 MR. STAMP: But originally they were before the witness Sabljica.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 MR. STAMP: And Witnesses Zecevic, Kolp and Audhuy have indicated
19 that they will have difficulties being here in the next few weeks, but as
20 soon as we can confirm a time for their arrival, we will advise the Court
21 and our learned friends.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so at the earliest possible moment
23 because of course the Defence also has to prepare the cross-examination of
24 these witnesses.
25 MR. STAMP: Mr. President, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Any observations from the Defence?
2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, there would be a lot to
3 say, Mr. President, but I think I would rather sit down.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 So we have taken notice of the change of the order in which the
6 Prosecution will call its witnesses.
7 Then I don't know to whom to address, but then I think we are at
8 your next witness.
9 MR. STAMP: Indeed, Mr. President.
10 JUDGE ORIE: And it would be Mr. Besic.
11 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, might I be excused during this next
12 witness, and perhaps I should say something which is probably quite
13 obvious to you and Your Honours, and that is that we are now moving into
14 the third phase of the four phases of the trial, which is the shelling
15 evidence in relation to the shelling of civilians. And during this fourth
16 phase, Mr. Chester Stamp will be frequently in Court. There are a few
17 sniping witnesses still to come, and of course the videolink evidence.
18 And whilst I'm on my feet I might indicate that we're planning on that
19 occurring on March the 18th, 19th, 20th, and 21st.
20 JUDGE ORIE: The videolink?
21 MR. IERACE: Yes.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 MR. IERACE: Thank you.
24 JUDGE ORIE: I must indicate to you that I received this morning a
25 suggestion from the Court management that I think we would not sit on the
1 8th of March -- let me just have a look. There would be a small change on
2 the 8th and the 15th. I only saw it briefly, but you told me that this
3 would be the 18th, so it's not affected by any change on the 8th or the
4 15th. I'll inform you about that also after the break.
5 Yes. Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. The
7 Defence wanted to draw the attention of the Prosecution and your Chamber
8 to the following point: Your Chamber still hasn't decided on the Rule 62,
9 but then there was a decision to have two statements of two witnesses who
10 were in The Hague last week. And so it seems that the position of the
11 Defence is that not to accept this, and that's what we are stating because
12 we were not invited formally to give our opinion on these two witnesses,
13 that's the first thing. And subsequently --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, you're referring to Rule 62.
15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, that is an error. I was,
16 of course, talking -- I'm not reading the transcript, but I could do it.
17 It is -- I'm talking about Rule 92 bis. And thank you for noting it in
18 the transcript. And of course, the position of the Defence is not to
19 accept this, although your Chamber it seems has already taken a decision
20 to designate an officer in this case, which --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, the designation of an officer is
22 done by the Registry, not by this Chamber.
23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I apologise, by the Registry,
24 by the Registry not by the Chamber. But we have to indicate to the
25 Chamber not to the Registry what our position is. That's the point
1 first. And the second point or perhaps I should wait for -- yes -- so
2 that we can have less noise. So by chance, if your Chamber does not take
3 a positive decision on Rule 92 bis, then we are going to have to again
4 reactivate ourselves in this area on sniping incidents. So we are then
5 going back to the shelling, and then going to the sniping. So I think
6 that could cause confusion, that's all.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Until now we could not finally decide on the 92
8 bis applications because there were no translated versions of the
9 statements available to the Chamber, and for final decisions of course the
10 content of the statement is relevant. So that's the reason why we
11 postponed oral argument on it. We just received them, and so we'll do
12 that as soon as practical. Yes.
13 Nothing else to be discussed. Yes, Mr. Stamp. You will then call
14 Mr. Besic.
15 MR. STAMP: Yes.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Facial distortion is the protective measure which is
17 in force. Yes, please, Mr. Usher, could you bring in Mr. Besic.
18 [The witness entered court]
19 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Besic.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Can you hear me in a language you understand?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, very well.
23 JUDGE ORIE: And Mr. Besic, I'll first tell you that I checked
24 that your facial distortion, which is one of the protective measures which
25 will be applied in respect of you, is functioning. Before giving
1 testimony in this Court, the Rules of Procedure and Evidence require you
2 to make a solemn declaration that you speak the truth, the whole truth,
3 and nothing but the truth. The text of this solemn declaration will now
4 be handed out to you by the usher, and may I invite you to make that
5 solemn declaration please.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
7 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much. Please be seated.
9 You'll first be examined by Mr. Stamp.
10 Mr. Stamp, please proceed.
11 MR. STAMP: Thank you very much, Mr. President.
12 WITNESS: SEAD BESIC
13 [Witness answered through interpreter]
14 Examined by Mr. Stamp:
15 Q. Could you please state your name and occupation for the record.
16 A. My name is Sead Besic. I work at -- I'm a police officer at
17 the Sarajevo canton MUP, and I am a criminal technician.
18 Q. How long have you been a police officer?
19 A. Since 1975.
20 Q. And do you have any specialised training as a criminal technician?
21 A. No, except for a course which lasted for six months, a criminal
22 technicians' course.
23 Q. Now, you live in Sarajevo?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And as a police officer, you worked in Sarajevo?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Now, could you briefly describe in a couple sentences the nature
3 of your work as a criminal technician.
4 A. Well, the work of a criminal technician means that it is
5 investigating the scene of an incident, a crime scene. We are marking or
6 fixing the scene that we find. We sketch the area, the scene of the
7 incident. And then we gather the evidence, the material evidence, that
8 could help in clearing up the case. So we have to mark them with numbers,
9 photograph things in detail. We gather any evidence, any traces, and we
10 keep them as evidence. Anything that has to be expertly examined is then
11 sent to be examined, and then some others can be kept under seal for later
12 examination. This is more or less what I do.
13 Q. Apart from sketching scenes of crimes and photographing items on
14 the scenes of crimes, is there another way that you use to record the
15 scene of a crime?
16 A. What I said, we take a picture, we take photographs. We video --
17 we have a video evidence, and these -- we gather evidence, and these are
18 the three ways that we can record the scene of the incident.
19 Q. Thanks very much.
20 Now, were you working as a criminal technician in the police force
21 during the war of 1992 to 1995?
22 A. Yes, I did.
23 Q. And this was in Sarajevo?
24 A. Yes, that's right.
25 Q. Now, in the course of that conflict, did you investigate shelling
1 and sniping incidents?
2 A. Yes, I did.
3 Q. Just an approximation, about how many shelling incidents would you
4 have investigated in the course of that conflict?
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. I would
7 like to object because the question, the way it is asked, does not allow
8 it to be -- to find out whether this gentleman was intervening on the
9 sniping incidents coming into the city as well as those coming out of the
10 city that we know about, unfortunately.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp, would you like to respond.
12 MR. STAMP: I merely wanted to have an idea as to how many
13 shelling incidents the witness has investigated so the Court could get an
14 idea of his experience in his field.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The objection is denied. And of course,
16 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, there's nothing that prevents you from asking
17 additional questions for the witness during cross-examination. Please
18 proceed, Mr. Stamp.
19 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Mr. President.
20 Q. Yes, approximately how many shelling incidents have you
22 A. Well, I cannot give you an exact number, but approximately 1992,
23 1993, 1994, 1995, I worked perhaps not on all of them, but almost all.
24 Many, many cases for shelling and for sniping incidents.
25 Q. Now, what was the procedure used when you went to investigate
1 incidents? Did you go alone or did you go as a team?
2 A. No, the normal police procedure, after we would have a report from
3 the citizens or from the civilian defence, there would be a team created
4 by the security services. They would then inform the investigating judge,
5 and they would create an operative team that would go to the scene of the
6 incident. So we wouldn't go on our own, no.
7 Q. In respect of the investigation of shelling incidents, you said
8 that there was sometimes an investigative judge. Was there any other
9 specialist that would accompany the team in investigating shelling
11 A. No, whoever was on duty, whichever investigating judge was on duty
12 on that day, he would go out. So it would not always be the same person.
13 And of course, criminal technician it wouldn't be the same. So there
14 would be people who would be on duty. There would be different people.
15 Not every technician would go to do shelling, investigate shelling every
16 single time.
17 Q. Very well.
18 Now, do you remember investigating a shelling incident on the 5th
19 of February, 1992?
20 A. Yes, I do.
21 Q. Can you remember where you were when you got the information about
22 this event?
23 A. I was on the premises of the criminal technicians' department. As
24 always, if someone was on duty, if a technician was on duty, then it would
25 be in the premises, in the office.
1 Q. May I get back to the date. The date I'm asking about is the 5th
2 of February, 1994.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And the evidence which you gave, that you were at the office of
5 the police, is in relation to that date?
6 A. Yes, yes, that's right.
7 Q. Now, did yourself and a police team go to investigate a shelling
8 that day?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Where was this?
11 A. It was in Markale.
12 Q. What is Markale?
13 A. Markale is a marketplace where people go to buy and sell things.
14 It's an open marketplace. There are many stands and many things are sold
16 Q. When you say "it's an open marketplace," do you mean by that that
17 it is not covered?
18 A. That's right. There's no roof. It's between buildings, and
19 normally there are tables with small roofs. These are so to speak some
20 kind of stands. It would have a little table and then it would have a
21 small plastic cover above it.
22 Q. Now, where in Sarajevo is Markale?
23 A. It's right in the centre of town.
24 Q. Now, the 5th of February, 1994, what day of the week was that?
25 A. It was a Saturday.
1 Q. And normally on Saturdays, would Markale market be crowded or
2 empty or somewhere in between?
3 A. Well, considering that it was a Saturday and the other days were
4 working days, so the people who were on work obligations on those other
5 days, the Saturday was a day when people could go and go to barter
6 cigarettes for oil, flour for sugar, and try and buy things that they
7 needed. So yes, I presume that there were many, many people there. I was
8 not there when it happened, but, yes, I presume it was quite crowded
10 Q. Now, could you tell us what you observed when yourself and your
11 team arrived at the market that day?
12 A. When we arrived in Markale, we did not find any civilians there
13 because the police station Stari Grad was securing the area until the
14 investigation team arrived. So the whole place -- the whole scene was
15 secured already.
16 Q. Could you describe the scene as you saw it when you arrived
18 A. When we arrived and we looked at the scene of the incident, we
19 found many tissues, we found many stand's tables overturned, a lot of
21 Q. Now, when you arrived at the scene, did you do anything as a
22 criminal technician?
23 A. Normally we would start a procedure to find out where the
24 projectile landed, where it fell, because a crater was found, and then
25 that had to be processed in the sense of it being photographed, sketched,
2 Q. So did you photograph, sketch, and otherwise record the scene?
3 A. Yes, we did.
4 Q. You referred to the -- to trying to find the place where the
5 projectile fell. Did you find that place?
6 A. Yes, we did. We located it, and we started to record the scene of
7 the incident, because the actual location, there were lots of human
8 tissues, lots of blood, a lot of items. I personally proceeded to clean
9 this area so that we could see as much as possible the actual projectile
10 and the way the projectile landed.
11 Q. You said photographs were taken. Who took photographs of the
12 scene at Markale?
13 A. I took photographs.
14 MR. STAMP: May it please you, Mr. President, Your Honours, I
15 would like to hand to the witness what is designated Exhibit P2262.
16 Before that, may I just ask him one question.
17 Q. If you saw those photographs again, the ones you took at Markale
18 market that day, would you be able to identify them?
19 A. Yes, I could.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed, Mr. Stamp.
21 MR. STAMP: Thank you.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please assist Mr. Stamp.
23 MR. STAMP: May I indicate to the Court that I think the procedure
24 is that the translation is attached to the exhibit at the back, to the
25 back of the document that has been handed to you. I think there should be
1 a P2262.1.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if it's dot 1, it's the English translation.
3 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Mr. President.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I apologise. Dot 1 is the English translation
5 of the same document.
6 MR. STAMP:
7 Q. Just have a quick look at the folder which is in front of you, and
8 I just want to tell you if that is a selection of some of the photographs
9 that you took at Markale that day.
10 A. Yes, these are the photographs.
11 Q. Are those all the photographs you took at Markale that day?
12 A. There are missing the photographs of people, of victims. In this
13 particular file you do not find the photographs of victims, and their
14 photographs were taken in the morgue of the Kosevo Hospital.
15 MR. STAMP: May I respectfully indicate to the Court and to my
16 learned friends that those photographs are in the possession of the
17 Prosecution. They were disclosed to the Defence a long time ago. And if
18 they are needed we could make them available to the Court, but it was
19 decided that the photographs of the bodies would not be necessary.
20 Q. Now, in the set of photographs in front of you, could you have a
21 look at the photograph numbered 1.
22 MR. STAMP: One moment, Mr. Besic.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Just make clear, what
25 photographs are we talking about, those which the Defence has? What are
1 the photographs? Could you please specify which of the photographs which
2 we have?
3 JUDGE ORIE: As far as I understand, it was indicated by the
4 Prosecutor that they had photographs of the bodies of those who have been
5 brought to the morgue, and that they would not use that. And what we're
6 talking about at this moment is this photo documentation 2262.
7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Indeed, Mr. President, what I
8 wanted was the ERN number to merely check. If Mr. Stamp can give me the
9 ERN number of those other photographs so that we can check if we did
10 receive them.
11 MR. STAMP: If I could assist my friend.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please.
13 MR. STAMP: The photographs in the folder here --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just take it short. You're asking about ERN
15 numbers of those photographs we are not using at this very moment. Ask
16 Mr. Stamp during the break, and I'm certain that he'll inform you.
17 Please proceed, Mr. Stamp.
18 MR. STAMP: Thanks, Mr. President.
19 Q. Now, in these photographs in this folder, there is writing below
20 the photographs. Who did this writing?
21 A. I did. I'm the author of both the text and the photographs.
22 Q. Now, the photograph in this folder numbered 1, could you have a
23 look at that, please. It says it's a view of M. Baseskije Street?
24 A. That's right.
25 Q. And it refers to an arrow which points to the market. Is there an
1 arrow in that photograph? Can you show us an arrow if there is one?
2 MR. STAMP: Could the witness be allowed to use the device there.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 Please, Mr. Usher, could you assist the witness.
5 A. Because we had to work here, because we had to do it very hastily,
6 we made some omissions. And there is no arrow to point at it, but I can
7 tell you that to the left is the market, and this is the view towards old
8 bastia [phoen].
9 MR. STAMP:
10 Q. Could you point out on that photograph, Mr. Besic, where the
11 market is.
12 A. [Indicates].
13 Q. Is that the front of the market or the back of the market?
14 A. The front part of the market, the market ends in a large
15 supermarket which is still there. And this is the lateral part.
16 Q. Now, the -- what's the name of this street which abuts the front
17 part of the market and which is shown here in this photograph?
18 A. Now it is called Mula Mustafe Baseskije, formally it was called
19 Marsal Tito Street.
20 Q. Now, could you have a look at photograph number 2.
21 A. Same street, but the photograph is taken from the different
22 direction. That is looking from Bastacija towards Marin Dvor, and the
23 market is to the right.
24 Q. Could you just point to the right.
25 A. [indicates].
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp, if the witness is pointing, could you
2 please describe it for the record. If I could assist, the witness is
3 pointing to some iron structures just below the letters "TRAV."
4 MR. STAMP: I'm grateful for your guidance, Mr. President.
5 Q. Could you have a look at photograph number 3. This on the text is
6 a view of Markale market with an arrow indicating point of impact and
7 explosion of mortar shell. Is there an arrow on the photograph?
8 A. There is no arrow. I just told you, because we were doing -- we
9 were working there very quickly, we forgot to put the arrows. But I can
10 point at the place where the projectile fell.
11 Q. Could you point to that, please, on the photograph, please.
12 A. [Indicates].
13 MR. STAMP: For the record, Your Honour, the witness indicates a
14 structure to the lower right-hand section of the photograph.
15 Q. Is that a building there?
16 A. A moment ago I told you it was a supermarket. So it is a
17 structure made of solid material. That is in the rear. So this is the
18 rear part, and the front part is this one here.
19 Q. That impact site, was that an impact of the same day?
20 A. Yes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Sorry to disturb, but again
23 for the transcript, could we in line 13 mention what is it that the
24 witness pointed. Thank you.
25 MR. STAMP: The witness pointed to the structure to the right,
1 lower right section, of the photograph.
2 Q. Witness, you said you indicated the point of impact and explosion
3 of mortar shell. Which mortar shell is that?
4 A. It is 120 millimetre mortar.
5 Q. Now, have a look at photograph number 4. And this is a panoramic
6 view of Markale with arrows indicating point of impact and damage to
7 neighbouring building caused by unidentified projectile. Do you see the
8 arrow in that photograph?
9 A. Yes, it is in the upper left corner. This damage is older. It
10 was -- it did not happen that day. But we merely recorded it on this
11 photograph simply so as to show that this area had been targeted -- was
12 targeted before, that this part of the city was targeted even before that
13 day, or rather the area around the Markale market was already a target
14 before that day.
15 Q. Now, apart from that arrow, to the top left of the photograph,
16 there's another arrow to the photograph.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. What does that arrow point to?
19 A. That arrow is pointing at the site of impact of that mortar
20 projectile, the arrow that is missing on the previous photograph.
21 Q. And right across the bottom of this photograph, number 4, there
22 are some metal structures. What are those?
23 A. It is a table, like a stand, market stand. And the detonation
24 simply sent it back to the wall, so it flew over towards the wall.
25 Q. Could you have a look at photograph number 5, please. That's a
1 photograph of inside the market itself?
2 A. That is right. Taken from -- it's a side view of the market.
3 Q. Is there an arrow in this photograph?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Could you point out to the Court the point of impact of the mortar
7 A. [Indicates].
8 MR. STAMP: The witness indicates an area of a pathway in the
9 centre of the photograph, may it please, Your Honours.
10 Q. Now, in this photograph, can you see a crater for the projectile?
11 A. No, not really because the crater is covered and therefore hidden
12 by rubble as you can see for yourself.
13 Q. So when this photograph was taken, you had not cleaned the area as
15 A. No, not yet. This photograph shows what the situation was like
16 when we arrived there.
17 Q. And have a look at photograph number 6. This photograph also
18 shows the condition of the market as it was when you arrived?
19 A. True, because one can see blood here, traces of blood.
20 Q. Could you have a look at photograph number 7. This is a
21 photograph of what? Could you describe what you see there, please.
22 A. This photograph shows the crater, that is, the point of impact of
23 the projectile, the crater, and the damage in the pavement caused by
24 shrapnel. The photograph was taken after the site was cleared, and I
25 personally cleared it, that is, removed blood, tissue, and various objects
1 from the site.
2 Q. And if you will, please, have a look at photograph number 8. The
3 description you wrote is the point of impact of mortar shell photographed
4 after incoming direction is determined.
5 What are those articles there looking like a "T"?
6 A. The cross -- the crosspiece of wood, a stake that we found there,
7 is put at the furthest parts of the damaged pavement, and we also used a
8 ruler at 90 degrees in order to point at the angle from which the
9 projectile made the impact.
10 Q. Where these items meet, is that the centre of the crater?
11 A. That's right. This is the centre of the crater, that is, where
12 the projectile hit the ground.
13 Q. Who placed these sticks in this area?
14 A. These two sticks were placed there by experts -- ballistic
15 experts, Cavcic and Sabljica. They were present at the investigation.
16 Q. Now, when your team set off to investigate shelling incidents
17 involving casualties, was it a normal thing for ballistic experts to
18 accompany the team?
19 A. By and large, yes. They were not always present, though, but it
20 depended on the number of victims. Where there were more victims, they
21 would invariably come out. And if it was only woundings or material
22 damage, they would not come out.
23 Q. Could you have a look at photograph number 9, please. The
24 photograph indicates a map and a compass. The map and the compass, I take
25 it, were used by the ballistic expert?
1 A. That's right. In this particular case, we see here the map of
2 Sarajevo which we used -- rather the ballistic experts used. It is always
3 positioned near the centre of the point of impact, and then the north is
4 established and compass helps us to establish the direction from which the
5 projectile came. That was the usual procedure.
6 Q. Now, could you have a look at photograph number 10.
7 A. It is the same photograph but taken at a smaller distance, and the
8 arrow points at the direction from which the projectile came. On this
9 map, the arrow points at a part of the city of Sarajevo which is in that
11 Q. And have a look at photograph 11, please. Could you describe this
13 A. On this photograph, one can see the tail-fin of the mortar shell
14 in the pavement. I found this tail-fin because when I was cleaning the
15 ground, that is removing tissue and blood, and when I examined the point
16 of impact, I could see that the tail-fin was there. And I left it there
17 pending the arrival of the UN soldiers.
18 Q. By "UN soldiers," you mean UNPROFOR soldiers, United Nations
19 protection force soldiers?
20 A. Yes, in this case, members of the French battalion.
21 Q. Now, this is a photograph of the mortar tail-fin after you had
22 cleaned the vicinity. In your experience of investigating, as you
23 described, many shelling incidents, had you ever seen the mortar tail-fin
24 lodged in the ground at the point of impact before?
25 A. Yes, of course, repeatedly. Repeatedly.
1 Q. And the last photograph, photograph 13, is a photograph of what?
2 A. This is the tail-fin, that is, destablising device, of the mortar
3 shell which I took from the scene and took into the laboratory for the
4 crime investigation techniques. This is the so-called macro photograph
5 done in black and white.
6 Q. I take it you're saying that this photograph was taken at the lab?
7 A. That's right, in the lab, and it was done black and white because
8 we didn't really have colour prints, so we had to use them sparingly.
9 Q. The tail-fin, if you saw that tail-fin again, would you be able to
10 identify it?
11 A. Of course I would, yes.
12 Q. Now, in respect to your collection of the tail-fin, did you have a
13 report done?
14 A. No, because we do not -- our job description does not involve the
15 record of traces found. They are, instead, included in the crime report.
16 There is a column which says "traces discovered" and what was done with
17 them. Now, the description of that item then includes the type of the
18 trace, where it was found, and its filing number.
19 Q. Very well. May I ask you this way: Did you do a report on the
20 criminal technical investigation into the site?
21 A. Yes, yes, it is an integral part. It accompanies the photo
22 documentation and sketches. I mean, it always makes a part, such criminal
23 technical investigation, or rather report.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp, if it would be a suitable moment.
25 MR. STAMP: Convenient time.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll adjourn until 11.30 a.m.
2 --- Recess taken at 10.59 a.m.
3 --- On resuming at 11.32 a.m.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I indicated to the parties that two decisions would
5 be taken after the break. The first one is about the admission into
6 evidence of three documents, D56, D57, and D58. The documents are
7 admitted into evidence because they contain information on the
8 circumstances around the relevant period in time. But of course, this
9 Chamber will, in proper time, assess what the exact probative value will
10 be. The Defence has suggested not only one but even two reasons for its
11 probative value, being both a delay in drafting a report on an incident,
12 or the movement of military people in this period of time. But we'll have
13 to assess that at a later stage, whether any of these -- whether it will
14 have any probative value in this respect or not.
15 The second decision I indicated that we would give the after break
16 about the protective measures. The Prosecutor has convinced the Chamber
17 that the measures sought are needed to enable the witnesses to continue to
18 make a normal living, or to look after their legitimate interests without
19 any disturbance. So therefore, the protective measures as sought are
21 I think, then, yes, Mr. Usher, would you then please bring in the
23 Just in order to avoid whatever misunderstanding, Mr. Stamp, could
24 you please repeat but quite in detail the name of the first witness, not
25 the lady, but the businessman so that we have no misunderstanding in who
1 it exactly is.
2 MR. STAMP: It is Mirza.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Sabljica?
4 MR. STAMP: Yes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Then there is no misunderstanding.
6 Please proceed.
7 MR. STAMP: Could the witness be shown again the folder identified
8 as P2262.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Usher, could you please assist Mr. Stamp in
10 giving the folder containing photographs to the witness.
11 MR. STAMP:
12 Q. Now, I had taken you a little bit too quickly through those
13 photographs and had moved from photo 11 to photo 13. So could you please
14 quickly have a look at photo number 12.
15 That, Witness, as described by you is a stabiliser of the 120
16 millimetre mortar shell photographed next to a comparison scale.
17 A. Yes, that's right. Yes, we call it a scale determinant.
18 Q. [Previous translation continues]... some damage to the flaps of
19 the fin.
20 A. Yes, you can see the way the tail-fin is slightly crooked in its
21 lower part. The deformation probably arrived when it arrived on the
22 surface because there is the entry bit which is deformed, and then the
23 other part is in its normal position.
24 Q. You also said that you did a criminal technical report in respect
25 to your investigations.
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Thank you.
3 MR. STAMP: With your leave, Mr. President, may I ask the witness
4 to have a look at the document designated P3209.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please.
6 MR. STAMP:
7 Q. And is that a copy of the criminal technical report that you made?
8 A. Yes, that's right. Yes, this is a part of the criminal technical
9 report, and I am the author of it. And precisely in the column, the
10 traces found, it says that the traces found was the tail of the mortar
12 Q. Sorry, one moment. Before we get to that column, you said you
13 made this document. Did you sign it?
14 A. I did not sign it, but it was checked by our chief at the time,
15 Muhamed Hadzisakovic.
16 Q. And the signature on the second page, bottom right, is his
18 A. Yes, considering that we were working as a team, Sefo, Edin and
19 Mikalem Sarvan, and Sead Besic, I was the team leader, but it was the
20 chief who signed this document.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes. I would like to check
23 the -- to help the interpreters. I believe that one part of what the
24 witness just said was not audible, I'm afraid.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Were the interpreters able to hear what the witness
1 said or...
2 THE INTERPRETER: Not the names, Mr. President.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Not the names. Could you please repeat the names,
4 Mr. Besic, because the interpreters could not hear you.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Sefo, Edin, Mikalem Sarvan, and Sead
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
8 Please proceed, Mr. Stamp.
9 MR. STAMP:
10 Q. You were directing us to that part of the report referring to
11 traces found at the scene, and that's the part of number 6 in the
13 A. That's right.
14 Q. And the traces you found are as written there, I take it?
15 A. Yes. That's right.
16 Q. You found shrapnel on the scene?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. You said that you also found the tail-fin, which was stored by the
19 police authorities. Could you say what happened to the shrapnel that you
21 A. The shrapnel was also taken to the criminal technical department,
22 and whether they are still there I wouldn't know.
23 Q. And in paragraph 4, there is a description of a criminal act
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And I take it you received information that as a consequence of
2 the shelling, there were 66 persons dead and 200 persons wounded?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. You indicated that you'd be able to identify the tail-fin if you
5 saw it again.
6 MR. STAMP: With your leave, Mr. President, I'd like to show him
7 an artifact or an article.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so, Mr. Stamp.
9 Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. I would
11 like to take this opportunity to indicate that this has been weeks and
12 weeks now that the Defence has been asking to be given these pieces of
13 this shrapnel so that we could have it examined, but we have not had any
14 reply. So we were not able to prepare for the most important allegations
15 against General Galic, and I would like to say that these shrapnel pieces
16 were not given to us for examination. And I believe this is a major
17 violation of the fairness of this trial.
18 JUDGE ORIE: There may be some misunderstanding. I did understand
19 that it was not shrapnel that was presented to the witness, but the
20 stabiliser fin. I don't know whether you --
21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, any part of a
22 projectile should be treated in the same way, whether it is shrapnel in
23 the strictest sense or any residual element, it's exactly the same thing.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, I'm quite willing to accept that
25 your observation is valid for both type of artifacts. But I just wondered
1 whether there was any misunderstanding since I thought a different thing
2 was presented to the witness as you talked about. But I do understand
3 that your observation is valid for both.
4 This Chamber has not been informed before that there were any
5 problems, as far as I know, is that you must have had an opportunity to
6 inspect whatever is in the possession of the Prosecution. I do understand
7 that you want to have it examined by experts or -- I'm not aware of it.
8 It's totally new for me. So I'm a bit surprised that we were not informed
9 by any wish which seems not to be fulfilled by the Prosecution. But
10 Mr. Stamp, could you clarify the position of the Prosecution.
11 MR. STAMP: Thank you very much, Mr. President, Your Honours. The
12 article has been on our exhibit list since last year, and therefore the
13 Defence was on notice that it was in existence, it was in our possession,
14 and it would be tendered. Subsequent to that, on the 15th of February by
15 records in my possession, the article was included in the list of exhibits
16 which the witness would be referring to. And in respect to this
17 specific article, and possibly having regard to the fact that the Defence
18 had not asked to inspect it before, we made a specific invitation to the
19 Defence, if I may read it: "With regard to the Prosecution's intention to
20 tender into evidence artifact Exhibits 3624, mortar tail-fin, the Defence
21 is hereby invited to --"
22 THE INTERPRETER: Could you please slow down, counsel, you're
23 reading. The interpreters have trouble following you.
24 MR. STAMP: I'm so sorry. I'm so sorry. I'll start again: "With
25 regard to the Prosecution's intention to tender into evidence artifact of
1 Exhibit 3624, mortar tail-fin, the Defence is hereby invited to inspect
2 the physical exhibit at their earliest convenience." And that was as I
3 said subsequent to them being put on notice last year that we intended to
4 use it in this trial.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, you were talking about a request
6 from the side of the Defence to have an opportunity to examine these or
7 have them examined, these artifacts. Could you please indicate when you
8 requested this, because you said it was without any answer.
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. Gladly.
10 The request was rephrased last time in one of the offices of the
11 Prosecution in the presence of Mr. Ierace and Mr. Mundis and Mr. Waespi,
12 and we then learned that these pieces were being transported in a special
13 way and that they then had then arrived at the Hague. This meeting was
14 probably about two weeks ago, our last meeting. We then said that -- we
15 indicated to the Prosecution urgently that we wanted to have this examined
16 by our own ballistic experts who would come to The Hague, and I don't know
17 how long we have been waiting for a possibility to get the Visas for these
18 two experts who are able to say this, because I am just a humble lawyer,
19 so these experts would be able to tell us what these exhibits are.
20 Now, we waited for the arrival of these experts, and while these
21 pieces were not given to us, so our experts were not able to examine it,
22 and then we were not able to discuss it in our Defence team.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, what's the problem? Is the
24 artifact not made available to the Defence to have it examined by an
25 expert, or is the problem that the expert could not arrive in The Hague
1 because there was no Visa? It's not quite clear to me what exactly the
2 problem is. I mean, if the expert would be here, if he would have a Visa,
3 would he then be able to inspect the artifact or not?
4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Well, Mr. President, first of
5 all, these elements were not furnished to the lawyers, so we were not able
6 to examine them. Secondly, since these elements were not furnished, if
7 the experts were here, they would not have been able to examine it. So we
8 were not able to get the Visas which were refused, so today when we are
9 facing cross-examination, it's going to look very bad.
10 JUDGE ORIE: But you have, under the Rules, since there is this
11 reciprocal disclosure in effect, you're entitled to inspect whatever
12 artifacts the Prosecution has. Did you ever ask access to this specific
14 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I apologise. I would
15 like to add something to what my co-counsel said. Everything that was
16 related to the incident of Markale on the 5th of February, the Defence
17 asked on several occasions in writing from our learned colleagues to be
18 given this material so the Defence could examine it. The last meeting
19 that my colleague talked about, which was two weeks ago, and as it was
20 suggested by Mr. Ierace, said that this was in possession of the
21 Prosecution and we could have a look at it. We arrived at the meeting at
22 2.30, and Mr. Ierace said that we first of all had to furnish him with
23 photographs so that they would be able to know what we were asking. So we
24 are now very surprised to learn about the existence of this document in
25 the Prosecution.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Are we talking about a document or are we talking
2 about an artifact?
3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, Mr. President. At the
4 time of the meeting last week that we're talking about, Mr. Ierace said,
5 what are the elements you'd like to see? So we indicated that in the file
6 of the Prosecution there were certain photographs, and Mr. Ierace asked me
7 for ERN numbers of these photographs, and I indicated them -- and I'm
8 still speaking from memory -- so I talked to his case manager --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Please slow down, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I apologise.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Please resume.
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I apologise, Mr. President.
13 Thank you very much. At the time of the meeting, the case manager was
14 also there, who is also here in this courtroom, and I was asked what are
15 the elements we would like to see and examine. And so I said and
16 indicated which elements on the photographs. Mr. Ierace asked me about
17 the ERN numbers. There was a dialogue immediately with the case manager
18 who remembered very well which photographs were in question and indicated
19 the photographs, said that it was if it was necessary, I would give the
20 ERN number to Mr. Ierace but I could see which photographs they were.
21 Since then, we never received anything, not information, not a
22 possibility to see any particles of these material, whether it was
23 shrapnel or tail-fin stabiliser. So when we were promised things, we then
24 went from the principle that it would arrive to us, but we would like to
25 do the opposite, to actually receive these pieces to examine. Thank you.
1 JUDGE ORIE: First of all, if we are talking about artifacts, I
2 think that under the Rules -- but I have to check it carefully -- that you
3 are entitled to inspect it, not to be given. I mean, if you would lose it
4 in the street, then of course an exhibit of the Prosecution would not be
5 available any more. What surprises me most is that there seems to be an
6 exchange of these -- there have been meetings, and the result was not
7 satisfactory to the Defence. And why has the Chamber not been informed
8 about this unsatisfactory outcome of your discretions?
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, we had
10 meetings, that's fine. And the Prosecution -- and I am talking here
11 before the case manager who is here now and who was also at the meeting
12 --- said that it would be possible to have these pieces examined.
13 However, nothing arrived. This is not our responsibility if the
14 Prosecution promised something and then doesn't deliver it. Every time if
15 I came before you and say that we were not given something we were
16 promised, then where would we be?
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, I always urged the parties to sit
18 together and to see whether they could solve their problems or not. If
19 finally they could not and if especially the Defence would suffer from it,
20 then of course this Chamber wants to be informed about it, and not on the
21 very last moment, but let's first see what happens. But do I
22 understand you well that apart from that you have not seen the artifact,
23 although entitled to inspect it with your own eyes, which is a different
24 thing from it being given to you, that your expert did not receive a Visa
25 in order to look at it and to examine it in the way an expert would do?
1 Am I correct in my understanding, so that we have two problems,
2 first of all you said we couldn't see it, and apart from that even if we
3 would have seen it, then our expert was not in a position to examine it.
4 When was it for the first time asked that your expert would like to
5 inspect or to examine the artifact, specifically this one?
6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I am unable to
7 answer this question from memory. We do not have the possibility to
8 communicate with email, so we have to speak directly as the Prosecution
9 can between them. But I believe this was several months ago that we've
10 asked to see these pieces, and I am talking about myself and I believe
11 Ms. Pilipovic could confirm this as well. If we have to retrace it in the
12 correspondence exactly the very first letter that we raised this question,
13 we could do it but we couldn't do it right at this moment. We could do it
14 in a few days, and I believe that Ms. Pilipovic who was involved in this
15 issue could do it, could give you the answer.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Ierace.
17 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, I've become aware of what my learned
18 colleagues have said in the last few minutes. I apologise if what I'm
19 about to say does not entirely reflect their submissions. It's explained
20 by the fact that I haven't had a full opportunity to read over my friends'
21 submissions. That said, I understand that my learned colleagues have
22 raised the issue of the inspection of the tail-fin. The tail-fin came
23 into the possession of the Office of the Prosecutor within the last few
24 months. When it was transported to The Hague and had passed through the
25 necessary procedures, which is required of any piece of evidence, I
1 indicated to the Defence that we had it, and that it was available for
2 inspection, and that if they wanted to inspect it, they should arrange a
3 mutually-convenient time for that to happen.
4 I have not received any communication from the Defence as to a
5 date or time for its inspection. There is some -- I think there is some
6 correspondence on it. It has been done, as I recollect, partly by way of
7 correspondence and partly by way of oral discussion. But that is the
8 situation. Thank you.
9 MR. STAMP: Mr. President.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Stamp.
11 MR. STAMP: May I just add as you rightly indicated, this artifact
12 is not something that we would give, hand over, to any party. The
13 circumstances are such that it would be for the Defence, having been
14 invited by us, to indicate when they would like to inspect it. Our
15 records indicate that they have not done so. However, the problem could
16 be solved in this way: This witness is here merely to identify the
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes.
19 MR. STAMP: He will not go much further than that. They are
20 invited again to indicate when it would be convenient for them to have it
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, once again, we
24 are now placed between a the rock and a hard place. If we didn't answer
25 immediately when, it is simply because we said that we would need other --
1 the use of others, not the lawyers, but experts. And we asked that these
2 experts come to help us in The Hague, and we have been asking
3 it for weeks on end. This Tribunal has still not answered that request.
4 So we shall be in the same position tomorrow, the day after tomorrow,
5 until the experts are authorised to come. They are Yugoslav experts who
6 live in Yugoslavia and therefore need Visas which have not yet been
7 authorised in order to help us. And therefore, we are simply faced with a
8 technical impossibility. And however, that is not our fault. Thank you.
9 JUDGE ORIE: What I see, as a matter of fact, that there are a lot
10 of -- there seem to be a lot of problems being a bit confused. One of
11 them is whether the Defence had an opportunity to inspect this tangible
12 object in accordance with Rule 66(B) where I do understand that the
13 Defence expected to receive that tangible object, to have it examined by
14 an expert, which is something quite different. And the third issue is
15 that whether the Prosecution would allow any examination by an expert of
16 this tangible object once this expert arrives in The Hague, and it's my
17 understanding that a Visa has been applied for by the expert? Yes,
19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, we have already
20 interceded with the Tribunal, with the Registry, Mr. President. But I
21 must however clarify one thing. We are not necessarily requesting to be
22 given -- to enter into the possession of that object. We simply need the
23 presence of experts to help the Defence of General Galic.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand that you need your experts to
25 inspect this object. When did you apply for the Visa? Did you apply
1 through the -- since, of course, the Registry will certainly play a
2 certain role, but the Visa has to be provided by the Dutch government, I
3 assume? Yes.
4 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, let me clarify this
5 matter: The Defence has requested a Visa for a military expert,
6 Mr. Rabinovic. So far, we have not yet received an answer from our
7 distinguished colleagues when we could have a look. All the material
8 available about the incident at Markale, and for that reason, we have not
9 applied for the Visa because we did not see that it existed.
10 JUDGE ORIE: So there's no Visa applied for. I think it needs
11 perhaps some extra time. Mr. Stamp, did I understand you well that the
12 only thing you're going to do at this very moment is to have this object
13 identified by the witness? And I do understand that it's the sincere wish
14 of the Defence that the object will be inspected sooner or later by one of
15 their experts. I think for the cross-examination, I mean if there's
16 nothing in the examination-in-chief specifically on this object, we could
17 discuss what would be the best way for the Defence to have the information
18 their expert would provide presented at trial. Because that's what I
19 expect you to seek, is that whatever the expertise of your expert would
20 be, that it will be presented to this Chamber. So we'll -- I'm certain
21 that we'll find a solution for that sooner or later without making great
22 drama out of it at this very moment.
23 I suggest that we just proceed now and that the parties sit
24 together, see to what extent they can solve the problems amongst the
25 parties. That means that if the Prosecution would say, Well, this
1 tail-fin is available from now on for the next three months in order to be
2 inspected by an expert, you'd ask to come to The Hague -- the application
3 for Visa and then finally he'll come and inspect it and of course you can
4 call him as an expert witness or present his expertise in written form or,
5 well, whatever way we'll find for it.
6 So then at this very moment we'll proceed with the examination of
7 Mr. Besic as a witness.
8 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Mr. President.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp, proceed.
10 MR. STAMP:
11 Q. Have a look at that article, please. Have a look at that
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Just a remark: This incident
15 shows something that is important, and that is the Prosecution seems to be
16 always relying on an email system which allows them to resort to it when
17 they need it. Fine. But I must note that this procedure has been denied
18 the Defence from the beginning, and what is a technical and delicate
19 problem the Defence does not have this technical possibility. The Defence
20 are completely cut off from the world electronically, which is not the
21 case for the Prosecution. So it seems there are two different yardsticks,
22 and I have already indicated it.
23 JUDGE ORIE: It's not quite clear to me, to be quite honest.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just reread the transcript. You said the
1 Defence is completely cut off from the world electronically which is not
2 the case for the Prosecution. To be quite honest, I don't understand
3 you. Do you mean to say that you have no email available for your
4 communication? Is that what you mean?
5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Indeed, we do not have this
6 possibility when we come here to invite the help of whoever. This is not
7 the case of the Prosecution. That is merely what I said, that here, the
8 Defence has completely different means at its disposal from the
9 Prosecution, and I am talking again about the quality of arms, from the
10 moment that we enter the courtroom, we have no such means at our disposal,
11 and therefore the equality of arms is in question.
12 JUDGE ORIE: In the courtroom?
13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Indeed, because one can ask
14 the case manager, isn't it, and she sends an email to Mr. Ierace, and then
15 he turns up here, and he answers. Obviously we have just seen that the
16 answer is yes. However, such means are not at the disposal of the
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, whenever the actual situation of
19 this courtroom would require you to get in touch with anyone outside of
20 this courtroom and if the technical facilities are failing, you of course
21 always can ask for a short break and see whether you can make the
22 necessary communications.
23 Please proceed, Mr. Stamp.
24 MR. STAMP: Thank you very much, Mr. President.
25 Q. What is that article you have there in front of you?
1 A. This is the tail-fin, the stabilising part of a mortar shell which
2 I personally found in situ. It is marked DM74 and it says in Cyrillic
3 what it means is Krusik Valjevo 8701, which means that it was made in
4 January 1987. I'm referring to the inner part. This here is in my
5 handwriting. This is a projectile which I marked and then filed in our
6 file of traces.
7 MR. STAMP: If the witness, with your leave, Mr. President, could
8 be shown the folder marked 2262 again.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the photographs. Yes, please.
10 MR. STAMP:
11 Q. Could you compare the article there, the tail-fin you have in
12 front of you, with photos number 12 and 13.
13 A. Yes, these are identical photographs, close-ups, where one can see
14 the markings on this part of the tail.
15 Q. And in -- that is in respect of photograph number 13. Have a look
16 at photograph number 12, please. Could you compare the damage on the
17 flaps of a tail-fin with the article that you have in front of you.
18 A. Yes, it should be this one here.
19 Q. I take it by your answer you're saying that the photograph depicts
20 the same article you have in front of you?
21 A. Identical. Identical.
22 Q. Thank you very much.
23 MR. STAMP: May I just indicate. You may take them, Mr. Usher.
24 Mr. President, I suspect that in the course of this case, there
25 will be many references to that tail-fin. We have photographs of the
1 tail-fin which were taken by our evidence unit. They would not be
2 exhibits, but I would propose, subject to the exercise of your discretion,
3 photographs of the tail-fin so that if persons are referring to various
4 aspects of it, you would have the photographs for ease of reference. When
5 the experts come, we will leave it to Your Honours' decision instead of
6 having to pass the article around.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I understand, Mr. Stamp. Would this mean that
8 you would tender the photographs first and not the object itself? Because
9 I am just thinking of what would happen with this object once it is
10 admitted into evidence because usually our Registrar keeps a close eye on
11 whatever is tendered and admitted into evidence and if it is to be
12 inspected by any experts later on, I have to give it some consideration on
13 how this is done.
14 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
15 JUDGE ORIE: It is the suggestion of the Registrar that this
16 exhibit would first be marked for identification, because that means that
17 it can be returned to you, that you keep it in your custody for the time
18 being, and that it can be examined by whatever expert, which might be more
19 difficult if our Registrar keeps it. And --
20 MR. STAMP: I see. I must confess that I was hoping that the
21 difficulties of the Defence inspecting the artifact would be -- would
22 disappear if they had to inspect it from the Registrar. But I see she
23 would prefer if we keep it.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Especially if an expert would need to -- I don't know
25 whether any test would have to be done or -- I've got no idea what an
1 expert does with this kind of artifact, so I'm a bit hesitant in -- it's
2 not just looking at it, perhaps. Perhaps measuring or I've got no idea,
3 but I'd like to give it some consideration before we finally make any
5 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, of course, another way of doing it is that it
7 would be tendered into evidence, that our Registrar keeps it under her,
8 and that it will be given to a party which shows a specific interest in
9 having it temporarily available to it so that it can be inspected by, but
10 then of course it will be under close control by the Registry.
11 MR. STAMP: Indeed, Mr. President.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Any observation as far as the Defence is concerned?
13 [Defence counsel confer]
14 JUDGE ORIE: No. Okay, then. Pictures will be easy anyhow, in
15 order not to come up with the artifact again and again.
16 Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. Sorry,
18 but to begin with, the Defence does not make any observation whatsoever
19 regarding the manner in which this artifact will be treated. I mean the
20 tail-fin. Secondly, I've already drawn your attention to it. Photograph
21 15 represents all the debris from the beginning. It is these elements
22 which we would also like to study, that is, all the shrapnel, but we would
23 like an expert to inspect them and all that is referenced on page 14, that
24 is the photographs 14 and 15, if that is how they are numbered.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, my photographs go until number 13,
1 so I'm a bit confused if you talk about 14 and 15.
2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Indeed. In that case, the
3 question arises if the photographs 14 and 15 will be shown at a later
4 stage by the Prosecution, but I also need those photographs, and we see
5 that the same problem would arise with them. Thank you.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, whenever photos 14 and 15 come, I've got no
7 idea. We'll see what happens then.
8 Mr. Stamp, you may proceed.
9 MR. STAMP: Thank you very much, Mr. President. I think before I
10 proceed, may I just make the observation for the Court, there are, as
11 indicated by the witness, many photographs. We did not think it
12 appropriate to flood the Court with unnecessary photographs, especially of
13 bodies and things which might not be too helpful. Those photographs are
14 in the possession of the Defence, I believe. If they wish to
15 cross-examine or if we wish to raise those photographs, they are, of
16 course, quite entitled to do so. If they need any assistance in respect
17 to any of the photographs, other photographs, we will be very, very happy
18 to assist them. Thanks, Mr. President.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I'm really
21 sorry. We're not talking here about bodies or wounds or whatever --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, we have 13 photos. If you want to
23 use any other photo either during cross-examination or during
24 examination-in-chief of one of the Defence witnesses, you're entirely free
25 to do so. But we cannot discuss photos 14 and 15 if we have just got 13
1 photographs. So introduce them in one way or the other, we can discuss
2 it, if not, this Chamber has no idea what we are talking about.
3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President, for
4 the decision. And of course, you are quite right. What I'm saying is
5 that insofar as the Prosecution should enable -- should give us access to
6 the shrapnel, it is referenced in photographs to come, that is, 14 and 15.
7 And I want to indicate to the Prosecution so that things are clear, it is
8 this shrapnel here that we want to be in the possession in order to
9 examine them, to inspect them, so that the things are quite clear for the
10 Prosecution what we need. It is this shrapnel.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand that it is the same for the
12 shrapnel as the tail-fin.
13 MR. STAMP: May I proceed.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 MR. STAMP: Thank you very much.
16 Q. Mr. Besic, you indicated that pieces of shrapnel were found at the
18 A. Yes, they were found. And in the crater itself, we also found
19 parts of the fuse, of the firing pin.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Sorry, Mr. President, but we
22 shall now be preparing the cross-examination here. Everybody in this
23 courtroom, including the Chamber, could see this tail-fin, and the only
24 ones who did not see it are the counsel for General Galic.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think if you would have asked me whether I
1 could give it to you right now, I would have asked the usher to give
2 it to you. Mr. Usher, could you please give the tail-fin to
3 Mr. Piletta-Zanin and to Ms. Pilipovic.
4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you very much,
5 Mr. President.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Of course, if Mr. Galic would like to inspect it as
8 Yes. Would you need time or may Mr. Stamp continue?
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Well, a few seconds at least
10 because this is the first time that we are discovering this object. We
11 are sorry. This is only to conduct an initial first inspection.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher, could you please...
13 Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Stamp.
16 MR. STAMP:
17 Q. Can you say what was done with the shrapnel which was found on the
19 A. Well, this object and shrapnel was then filed and kept in the
20 Criminal Investigation Department in Sarajevo.
21 Q. And for the purposes of this case, have you been able to
22 location -- locate the shrapnel which was found on the scene?
23 A. Well, that is part of my job, to try to collect all that is found
24 on the scene, including the shrapnel found on the scene.
25 Q. And the shrapnel which you found and you filed away, have you
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 subsequently been able to find it to bring it here?
2 A. Well, had you told me so, I could have brought it. I would have
3 brought it, that is, I would have to check first whether it is still at
4 the Criminal Investigation Department.
5 Q. Very well. Let's move on.
6 Now, you said the website was -- sorry. The scene of the incident
7 was videoed.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, I apologise very deeply,
10 but I think this is very important, even more so than before. I believe
11 that what we talked about between the parties that was two or three weeks
12 ago, these pieces of shrapnel had also arrived in The Hague. This is what
13 I believed I heard at the time of the meeting. If I understand correctly
14 what the witness just said, it seems that we simply do not know where the
15 debris is, the pieces of shrapnel, but we do know is that it is not in The
16 Hague. So the Defence would like to know if we have asked for
17 months to see the pieces of shrapnel, is it possible or not?
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, what I want the parties to do is
19 to first sit together during either today or tomorrow's break and see
20 exactly on what part of the events of the last couple of weeks they do
21 agree, on what part they do disagree as far as what has been -- I mean
22 you're telling me that it was your understanding that the shrapnel would
23 be in The Hague as well. Let's first try to find out to what extent the
24 parties agree on what has been discussed. Whatever disagreement then
25 remains or whatever requests then remain, please inform the Chamber so
1 that we'll be in a position to give decisions on that. But let's not -- I
2 do fully recognise the importance of these issues, but let's not interrupt
3 again and again the examination of the witness, and let's first proceed.
4 Mr. Stamp.
5 MR. STAMP:
6 Q. Who made the video of the scene at Markale?
7 A. It was a colleague, a technician who was also a member of the
8 team, together with me.
9 Q. And have you ever seen that video subsequent to it being made?
10 A. Yes, because it was somewhere put in the file, in the archive of
11 the Sarajevo MUP.
12 Q. Do you appear on that video?
13 A. Yes, I also appear on that video.
14 MR. STAMP: With your leave, Mr. President, could the witness be
15 shown the video designated P2279.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. With the assistance of our technicians, could
17 we please have the video on our screen.
18 [Videotape played]
19 MR. STAMP: Could you pause there. Just go back slightly to where
20 the sticks are.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Could the technicians help us in going back a bit.
22 You give the instructions, Mr. Stamp.
23 MR. STAMP: Pause there, please.
24 Q. What is being shown here, Mr. Besic? Could you describe it,
1 A. This is a videorecord which is practically identical to the
2 photograph. We can see a crater here, which is marking the direction from
3 where the projectile arrived as well as the damage on the ground which
4 happened due to the impact of the projectile.
5 MR. STAMP: Could we go ahead.
6 [Videotape played]
7 MR. STAMP: Pause here, please.
9 Q. What is happening at that stage?
10 A. The actual site, the actual location of the impact, was processed,
11 and we did not touch it until the UN members arrived. When they arrived,
12 we then showed them where the projectile was, and then they started to
13 clean it, which you can see from the video. You can see a member of the
14 French battalion, and there is also my voice heard asking for the
15 interpreter so that he could come and indicate to them that the projectile
16 should be taken out. That could be heard on the recording.
17 Q. And the person with the knife cleaning the area you describe as is
18 where the projectile impacted, that is a member of the French forces that
19 arrived there?
20 A. That's right. Yes, a member of the French forces of the French
21 battalion. I don't know his name and surname. At the time it was not
22 possible to obtain a name and surname of a soldier like that.
23 Q. Do you notice the United Nations' insignia on his right arm, on
24 the sleeve of his shirt?
25 A. Of course, on the right-hand side they have the insignia, and this
1 is not the first time that we investigated the scene with their presence.
2 Q. Thank you.
3 MR. STAMP: Could you proceed, please, madam. Could you proceed.
4 [Videotape played]
5 MR. STAMP: Pause here briefly, please.
6 Q. Now, we see that there is a marking on the ground with a stick
7 across it. Could you say who placed that stick there and who did that
9 A. I was not present when it happened. This is the following day,
10 the 6th of February, and I was not there. This is the investigation
11 procedure, but this was not an official one done by the police, but this
12 was done by an expert witness who came, and he was authorised by the Court
13 who then conducted this marking by indicating the direction, the angle,
14 and so on. I was not present when this was done.
15 Q. Did you record the name of this expert witness?
16 A. Personally, at the time I did not see him. But then later I went
17 to the site later on, there was a truce, and this is Berko. And on that
18 day, Mirza Sabljica was also present.
19 Q. You said "Berko." Could you please tell us what you mean by
20 Berko. What is that name?
21 A. Berko, I'm sorry, I don't understand the question. The name is
22 Berko, and the last name, I think it's either Zelic or Zekic. I cannot
23 quite remember. It's something like that.
24 Q. All right. Thank you.
25 MR. STAMP: Could you please proceed with the tape.
1 [Videotape played]
2 MR. STAMP: I was asking if I could move a little bit quickly past
3 the scene with the crater. Next scene.
4 Okay, stop there. Proceed.
5 [Videotape played]
6 MR. STAMP: Could you pause there, please.
7 Q. Do you see some damage on the building there?
8 A. Yes, this is the damage which predates this incident, which has
9 nothing to do with this actual case.
10 MR. STAMP: Could you proceed, please.
11 [Videotape played]
12 MR. STAMP: Stop there, please.
13 Q. This is a scene of the market after it had been cleaned up?
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President, I'm sorry
16 to intervene, but for the transcript there was one question that was asked
17 in relation to an image, and perhaps my colleague could perhaps describe
18 the scene that he was asking the question in relation to.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, would you please do so, Mr. Stamp. Your
20 question was: "This is the scene of the market after it had been cleaned
21 up." And then of course it's not clear for the transcript --
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE ORIE: It's suggested by one of my colleagues,
24 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, that you were referring to the question about the
25 damage to a building which predates the incident, or were you referring to
1 this last question?
2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No. Thank you for this
3 question, but what I would have wanted is that the question was asked in
4 relation to an image, but there was no indication for the record what was
5 on the image. So perhaps we could have it for the transcript.
6 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]...the last
8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] It was before last.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Then perhaps we should move the video back so you
10 could give a description. That's the question about the other damage done
11 to a building, that you indicate when you ask a question what is exactly
12 on the screen at that moment.
13 MR. STAMP: Could you go back on the video slowly, please.
14 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone to the counsel, please.
15 MR. STAMP: Could you move back on the video slowly, please.
16 [Videotape played]
17 MR. STAMP: And stop there.
18 Q. Where we have stopped, the video shows damage to a building. Is
19 this the same damage as you referred to as having been caused previously
20 by a mortar round?
21 A. Yes, this is the damage that I explained also on the photograph
22 that we observed, that in the top left corner there was an arrow pointing
23 at this damage.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps for the clarity of the transcript, it gives
25 us the time 13.56, and it's a building which is covering I would say some
1 80 per cent of the image and damage to the upper part of the building.
2 Please proceed, Mr. Stamp.
3 MR. STAMP: Thank you very much. Could we move on from the video
4 for the time being.
5 No, could we move on from the video for the time being.
6 Could we stop the video.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Of course that's what I understood that you
8 intended to be done. Move off from the video.
9 MR. STAMP: Yes, indeed.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
11 MR. STAMP: I'm trying to lower the time somewhat, but I may
12 return to the video.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 MR. STAMP:
15 Q. Now you said that the crater analysis was done by the ballistic
16 experts by the Cavcic and Sabljica?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Can you say what has happened to Cavic? Before you answer that,
19 his full name is Hamdija Cavcic?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Can you say what has happened to him?
22 A. Hamdija Cavcic died in 1994, in November 1994. It was natural
23 causes. These were consequences following a heart attack.
24 Q. Are you sure about the date that he died?
25 A. Yes, because I was with him.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, I am sorry,
3 Mr. President. I cannot see what has been written in the English
4 transcript. Page 61, line 7. I think there is a word missing, and perhaps
5 my learned colleague could perhaps rephrase his question since there is a
6 gap in the text. Thank you very much.
7 JUDGE ORIE: I think that there's hardly any misunderstanding
8 possible. I think who did the crater analysis. This could be easily
9 corrected during the evening hours. Please proceed, Mr. Stamp.
10 MR. STAMP:
11 Q. Yes, I was asking if you are sure about the date of his death.
12 A. Yes, I am sure. It was at the end of 1994, beginning of 1995. It
13 was late 1994, end of 1994 when he died.
14 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
15 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
16 MR. STAMP:
17 Q. Now, the day before the 5th of February, 1994, did you also
18 investigate another shelling incident?
19 A. Yes. The day before, I worked on the 4th of February in
20 Dobrinja. I did an investigation where two mortars fell, and there were
21 nine people who died and several wounded.
22 Q. You said that this was in Dobrinja. Do you remember which part of
23 Dobrinja this was?
24 A. Dobrinja has several parts, I, II, III, IV, V. Whether it was III
25 or II, I can't tell you exactly.
1 Q. You said that you investigated two projectiles in Dobrinja. With
2 respect to the information you had on the 5th of February, 1994, how many
3 projectiles fell in the vicinity that you investigated?
4 A. We're talking about the 5th of February. It was Markale, only one
5 projectile fell.
6 Q. On the 4th of February in Dobrinja --
7 A. On the 4th of February in Dobrinja two projectiles fell, and we
8 investigated the scene of the incident for those two projectiles. Another
9 projectile fell, but we didn't investigate it because this was a priority.
10 Q. I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean when you say "because
11 this was a priority." From your answer I take it you mean that three
12 projectiles fell in Dobrinja, but you investigated two. Is that correct?
13 A. That's right. We only -- there were only two at the end of the
14 parking lot, the garage, two of them fell. It's a common parking lot of a
15 garage, and the projectile landed on the beginning of a plateau, and then
16 the other one fell near a building.
17 Q. Now, did you take photos of that scene when you went there?
18 A. Yes, photos were done and also a videorecord of it.
19 Q. Let's begin with the photographs.
20 MR. STAMP: With your leave, Mr. President, may I hand to him a
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher, could you please assist.
23 MR. STAMP: Designated P2247. And if I could indicate, there's a
24 translation, P2247.1 at the back of it.
25 Q. Just briefly look at the contents of that folder and tell us
1 whether or not these are photographs that you took at Dobrinja on the 4th
2 of February, 1994.
3 A. Yes, these are the photographs that were taken on the 4th of
4 February, 1994.
5 Q. Have a look at photograph 1. There is writing below that
6 photograph in respect of the other photographs. Did you make that
8 A. Yes, I did. I'm the author of the text and of the photo file.
9 Q. Photograph 1 is a wide angle of the scene, and that is the area
10 between Oslobodilaca Sarajevo, and could you look at what you wrote and
11 tell us what street that is, Dz. Nehrua Street?
12 A. Yes, street is Oslo Borndna Sarajevo Street. It's the plateau
13 that you can see where two projectiles fell.
14 Q. You describe that area as a plateau. Could you be a little bit
15 more specific in two sentences to describe the area here. What exactly is
16 this area?
17 A. It's a surface made of concrete, and the intention was to have it
18 as a football pitch and for children playing area.
19 Q. And there's an arrow on this photograph.
20 A. Yes, this arrow indicates where one projectile landed, marked with
21 number 1. And the second projectile which fell is to the right on this
22 photograph. It cannot be seen, and it's numbered with 7.
23 Q. Can we make out the numbers on these photographs?
24 A. On the following photographs, you can see it. Not on this one.
25 Q. But let's speak about photograph number 1. The two arrows which
1 are on that photograph points to two impact sites.
2 A. That's right. Yes, they indicate two spots where two projectiles
4 Q. And these are two red arrows, one to the left --
5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I'm very sorry,
6 but I only see one arrow on this photograph. Could perhaps the witness
7 indicate on the ELMO where the second one is. I don't know whether it's a
8 problem of image that we have.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you please indicate -- perhaps, yes.
10 THE WITNESS: [Indicates]
11 [Interpretation] This is the location where the second projectile landed.
12 JUDGE ORIE: And it's indicated by an arrow, Mr. Besic?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is, yes.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed, Mr. Stamp.
15 MR. STAMP: Before I proceed, I don't know if I may ask the Court
16 or ask the Court through you, Mr. President, whether or not the arrow
17 which is a little bit blurred here which does exist on my photograph, if
18 the Court has been able to identify it or see it.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Otherwise I would have asked. It took me some
20 difficulty but finally I found something, and I think the same is true for
21 all the others.
22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, we managed to finally
23 discern something, perhaps there will be some light at the end of this
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 Mr. Stamp, but apart from all the arrows, perhaps one of the first
2 things you could do after the break which might be, if this is a suitable
3 moment for you, we'll restart at 2.30, perhaps ask the witness to mark the
4 same arrows again in blue so that it will save us a lot of time when
5 looking later on through these pictures to locate the arrows again.
6 Mr. Besic, we'll have a break anyhow for one hour and a half.
7 We'll adjourn until 2.30.
8 --- Luncheon recess taken at 1.01 p.m.
2 --- On resuming at 2.34 p.m.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp, before I ask you to continue the
4 examination of the witness, I'd like to inform the parties that while we
5 were intended to sit next Friday, the 8th of March and not on the 15th,
6 for all kind of technical reasons, this has changed. That means that
7 Court maintenance which prevents us from sitting will be on the 8th of
8 March; on the other hand, we'll sit on the 15th of March, and that will be
9 from 9.00 until a quarter to 2.00 in the afternoon.
10 Yes. Then please proceed, Mr. Stamp.
11 Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, I do not wish to
13 interrupt my learned friend, so I would like to say it now. I'd like to
14 raise two matters, mostly clarifications concerning the deposition of
15 Mr. Karel Lambr and Strand Oystein. I hope I have pronounced them
16 correctly. We have the following problem: The Registry, as you will
17 remember, authorised it would seem that these two statements be admitted
18 on the basis of 92 bis. I do not know whether that means that the
19 Tribunal will follow up on that decision, that is exclusively that when an
20 officer of this Tribunal is named to receive a deposition which is or is
21 not accepted on the basis of Rule 92 bis. What I'm saying now, we have
22 received formally these measures on the 25th of February, 2000, and we do
23 not know whether we have to react now, which is today, which will be the
24 deadline to file a motion against these two statements, and I do not know
25 whether we shall be able to do it only this afternoon. That is, now,
1 because the Registry, I believe, closes at 4.00, and we would have to do
2 it right now. This matter needs to be clarified.
3 Now, I did not hear the response of the Chamber regarding the lot
4 of these two witnesses on whose statements the Registry has passed a
5 decision, but we have not yet heard the reaction of your Chamber. Thank
6 you very much in advance.
7 JUDGE ORIE: It's not quite clear to me, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, what
8 the procedure is as far as Rule 92 bis is concerned, that first of all the
9 Registry will take care that all the formalities are fulfilled. Let me
10 just have a look. Especially 92 bis [B] asks that the declaration is
11 witnessed by a person authorised to witness such a declaration in
12 accordance with law of procedure -- the presiding officer appointed by the
13 Registrar of the Tribunal for that purpose. So whenever the Registrar
14 appoints a presiding officer, that only means that at least the formal
15 requirements are fulfilled, and then of course it's up to the Chamber to
16 decide whether or not we'll admit the evidence presented, which is not an
17 oral statement but is a written statement.
18 So I do not see at this moment whether there has to be a motion
19 filed. What's your understanding of what the procedure is?
20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. As
21 presently we have filed these two statements which already have their ERN
22 numbers, I do not want -- we received them on the 25th of February, 2002.
23 We need -- does it mean in advance that the Defence would accept them as
24 statements made under 92 bis? The Defence continues to challenge it, and
25 that whatever statements which are made on the basis of Rule 92. But
1 there is a deadline which has to be respected, that is seven days. If I
2 understood you well, this statement does not imply that the Chamber will
3 admit them; the Chamber has not yet accepted them. But I'm saying that
4 for the time being, the Defence does not have to take care of this
5 deadline. However, if that is not the case, then I shall be ready to --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, what exactly do you mean? You're
7 talking on -- about Rule 92, but that should be Rule 92 bis, I assume.
8 Rule 92 is about confessions. I do not think you refer to that.
9 What deadline exactly do you mean? You're talking about a
10 deadline of seven days.
11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. I will
12 look at it right now. But I believe we have seven days within which we
13 have to respond objecting to whatever decision. I'm now looking at my
14 text. I believe that according to -- according to 92 bis, we have seven
15 days to object against the production of such statements. But this
16 statement has already been produced, and it was communicated to us on the
17 25th. I'd merely like the things to be completely clear --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's --
19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] -- because the document
20 obviously came from the Registry, and there could be a confusion between
21 the two authorities. However, it is up to the Defence to clarify the
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's seven days on from the day you have been
24 notified by the Prosecution as soon as the Prosecution seeks to adduce a
25 written statement. But as far as I know, but I may be wrong, that until
1 now, what the Prosecution has done is to ask the Registrar to appoint a
2 presiding officer.
3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] That is also how we understand
4 it, Mr. President. But as we see here, that the Registry has appointed
5 that person, but the decision obviously has already been taken. I'd
6 really like to be quite sure that no problem arises because -- and the
7 Defence does not have to respond now, because we have these two decisions
8 which have been taken, but they have not been taken on the basis -- they
9 have not yet been admitted by the Chamber. Thank you.
10 JUDGE ORIE: May I just ask the Prosecution to respond.
11 MR. STAMP: I think my friend was asking for some clarification as
12 to whether or not he would be held to a deadline.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 MR. STAMP: The Registrar did appoint a presiding officer and the
15 92 bis declarations were taken. It has been indicated to the Court for
16 some time that we would propose to the Court that these were declarations
17 that could be adduced pursuant to the Rule, and I think the Chamber had
18 indicated that you would hear the parties in respect of 92 bis. The
19 relevant provision I think is Rule 92 bis [B], which makes the issue of
20 the deadline subject to Rule 127, and Rule 127 deals with the variation of
21 the time limits. So it is really matter which is in the hands of the
22 Court, if the Court feels that the matter could be conveniently disposed
23 of in oral arguments on a date when the Court sits, then I don't think my
24 friends should have any problems. And I think a date would be indicated.
25 JUDGE ORIE: I think there's no problem.
1 Okay, then, please proceed.
2 MR. STAMP:
3 Q. Mr. Besic, could we move very quickly through --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Stamp.
5 MR. STAMP: Mr. Usher, could you hand to the witness the folder
6 marked P2247.
7 Q. Referring to photograph number 1, when we last broke, you were
8 showing us a second arrow. It's not very clear on the photograph. I
9 asked the Registrar to provide you with a blue pen. Could you mark on the
10 photograph where that arrow is to the right of the photograph.
11 JUDGE ORIE: It's the blue marker that is used? Yes, please
13 A. [Marks]
14 MR. STAMP:
15 Q. Photograph number 2, Witness, that's a view of the same area from
16 a different angle?
17 A. Yes, from a different angle, that's right.
18 Q. It says "a wide-angle view of the scene where the first shell
19 landed." Are you in a position to tell us what sequence the shells landed
21 A. I do not have that information, and it is not in the record,
22 because we did not know and we were not on the spot when it happened.
23 Q. The photograph on page 3, therein number 1 marks where the shell
24 landed photographed close-up.
25 A. That's right. Yes.
1 Q. I beg your pardon. Marks where the shell landed and exploded.
2 Now, could you compare photograph 3 with photograph 1. Is that shell in
3 photograph 3 the one designated by the bright red arrow or the one you
4 just marked in blue?
5 A. The red arrow.
6 Q. If I could move on quickly to photograph 5, this is the place
7 where the shell landed, with the number 1 beside it. Is that so?
8 A. It is, yes.
9 Q. And the arrow is pointed to the east?
10 A. The arrow is pointing in the direction from which it came.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President, the
13 question seems, to me, leading, because he immediately -- because in the
14 question immediately, the direction is given as to the alleged direction
15 of the shot.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Your objection is sustained, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
17 MR. STAMP:
18 Q. In that photograph, who put the map and the compass there? Can
19 you say?
20 A. This map, the compass, and the direction from which the shot came
21 were made by Zlatko Medjedovic and Sabljica because they are ballistic
23 Q. By Sabljica, you mean Mirza Sabljica?
24 A. Yes, Mirza Sabljica.
25 MR. STAMP: Mr. President, it's a little bit late to respond to
1 the objection. Notwithstanding that, I will not repeat the question
2 asked. I was merely quoting the writing in respect to that photograph.
3 JUDGE ORIE: If you say -- let me just look at the text of your
4 question again.
5 Yes, I do agree with you that it refers to the text underneath.
6 But as far as I understand, is that an arrow always has some meaning,
7 apart from that it's just going to the east. And keeping in mind the
8 significance of arrows we've seen before, there is certainly a leading
9 element in it which becomes not quite clear from the text under the
10 photograph. Yes.
11 MR. STAMP: Very well, Mr. President.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
13 MR. STAMP:
14 Q. And there is photograph number 6 with bloodstains, et cetera. Is
15 that correct?
16 A. Yes, yes, this is blood, yes. Bloodstains.
17 Q. And the same in respect of photograph number 7?
18 A. In this case, it is a set of denture.
19 Q. And photograph number 8, what is depicted there?
20 A. I can see part of -- it's some footwear, whether a sneaker or
21 perhaps a shoe. I would say a sneaker is there.
22 Q. Can you say what would cause the condition it is in, in this
24 A. I suppose that person was nearby when the projectile landed so
25 that a part of this sneaker, the canvas part, was torn off. I suppose
1 that is how all this damage was done.
2 Q. Have a look at photograph number 9, please. This is a wide-angle
3 view of the scene next to the building where the 120 millimetre shell
4 landed, and the arrow marks where the shell landed and exploded. Could
5 you please point to that arrow, please.
6 A. [Indicates]
7 MR. STAMP: I do believe that this one is sufficiently clear.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it's sufficiently.
9 MR. STAMP:
10 Q. And photograph number 10, in that photograph, the number 7 marks
11 where the shell landed, photographed close up. Is that correct? Please
12 don't nod. Please --
13 A. Yes, it is.
14 Q. Thank you.
15 A. That's quite right. That is where the projectile was found.
16 Q. Now, comparing photograph 10 with photograph 1, is this photograph
17 in photograph 10, is this impact site in photograph 10 --
18 A. Yes, it is.
19 Q. -- the one designated or pointed to in photograph 1 with the blue
20 arrow which you marked?
21 A. That's right.
22 Q. And photograph 11 has on it a map, a compass, and an arrow.
23 Again, who used the map and the compass for their work?
24 A. The ballistic expert who were members of the team, Mirza Sabljica,
25 and Zlatko Medjedovic.
1 Q. Now, there are in both photograph 4 and photograph 11 two
2 stabiliser fins still intact. Is that correct? Please don't nod.
3 A. Yes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: The problem is, Mr. Besic, when you nod, it will not
5 be in the transcript since only spoken words are in the transcript. So
6 whenever you agree with something, say it. Yes?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Stamp.
9 MR. STAMP:
10 Q. Did you do anything in respect of those two stabiliser fins?
11 A. Yes, these stabiliser fins were photographed and they were marked
12 on the sketch, and they were taken and they were sealed in the criminal
13 technicians' department.
14 Q. Have you been able to locate them, those two stabiliser fins,
15 subsequent to them being left there?
16 A. Yes, we were able to locate them because they were visible.
17 Q. After they were filed and taken to your department, did you manage
18 to locate them for the purposes of this case?
19 A. I think there was a problem here because what happened on the 4th
20 of the February was that the 5th of February followed, and so we really
21 didn't pay due attention to these two stabiliser fins because on the 5th,
22 we had to go to the Markale scene of the incident because it was much more
23 serious than this one. These two fins were recorded. They were entered
24 into the logbook. Whether they are still in the department, I couldn't
25 say because there were certain changes in the premises because we had an
1 awful lot of this material. And there was some alteration of the
2 premises, renovation, and it is quite possible that these projectiles or
3 these other pieces of material were removed, thrown away, disposed of.
4 Q. Were you able to locate them, though, for the purpose of this
5 case? Just tell us if you were, or if you were not.
6 A. No.
7 Q. Thank you.
8 Now, that scene, the scene of the 4th of February, 1994 shelling
9 in Dobrinja, was it videoed?
10 A. Yes, a video record was made where I can also be seen. As it
11 happens, you can also see the experts, Mirza Sabljica and Zlatko
12 Medjedovic can also be seen on the recording. And you can see the video
13 was made just like the Markale case, there was a photo file, a
14 videorecording, and a sketch.
15 Q. Now, did you bring that video to the ICTY recently?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And that was last week?
18 A. Yes, that's right.
19 Q. Finally, Mr. Besic, I would like to take you back to the tape, the
20 videotape, in respect of the Markale incident on the 5th of February, and
21 I would like to take you very quickly through some aspects of that video.
22 MR. STAMP: If I may, Mr. President, I had started with that
23 earlier, but what was being shown was an excerpt of the video which was
24 taking a little bit too long to get to where I wanted to refer to. At the
25 same time, I have decided to show just the beginning from the original
1 video which is on the exhibit list and has been tendered, just to save
2 some time. We could get quickly to what I want shown.
3 So the video designated P2279A.
4 JUDGE ORIE: That's an excerpt of the other --
5 MR. STAMP: This is the full-length video.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Full-length video.
7 MR. STAMP: Could it be shown, please.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could the technicians assist us in showing the
10 [Videotape played]
11 MR. STAMP: Could you stop there, please.
12 Q. What is the scene that is being shown now?
13 A. Here you can see the scene where the projectile landed and the
14 damage to the ground. You can see traces of blood, of body tissue. There
15 are items that have been thrown around. That's what it is.
16 Q. Please proceed with the tape.
17 [Videotape played]
18 MR. STAMP: Would you stop there, please.
19 Q. There is what appears to be a metal garbage dumpster in that
20 frame. Could you describe it, in particular, the damage there to it.
21 A. On this recording you can see the damage to this metal trolley and
22 the damage occurred because of the shrapnel in several parts of it, on the
23 rear side and on the left side as well.
24 Q. And these apparent holes on this metal container would have been
25 caused by the shrapnel?
1 A. Yes, only shrapnel. Nothing else.
2 MR. STAMP: Please proceed with the video.
3 [Videotape played]
4 MR. STAMP: Could you go back slightly.
5 [Videotape played]
6 MR. STAMP: Stop there.
7 Q. There is on this -- in this frame what appears to be an attache
8 case on a stall. Do you know notice anything in particular about that
9 attache case?
10 A. No, there should not be any damage to the briefcase. These are
11 just some of the materials that has been sold at the market, for instance,
12 these rings for the gas and anything that's sold there.
13 MR. STAMP: Please proceed with the tape.
14 [Videotape played]
15 MR. STAMP: Could you stop right here.
16 Q. The stall to the right of the frame, could you describe that,
18 A. Well, on this stall, from this recording, you cannot see very well
19 whether there is shrapnel damage. Probably there is a lot of material
20 that's fallen over it during the detonation, so it's hard to say whether
21 this is shrapnel damage or not and I would not like to say, to state
22 things that I'm not sure about.
23 MR. STAMP: Please proceed with the tape.
24 [Videotape played]
25 MR. STAMP: Could you stop here, please.
1 Q. That is a sign in B/C/S. What does it say, can you say?
2 A. On all of these stalls, it was usually a piece of paper where it
3 would say what people were exchanging, changing flour, exchanging butter
4 and flour for sugar, oil or something else. So here it says I am buying
5 flour, exchanging oil, cigarettes, salt or beans, goods, cigarettes,
6 clothes, et cetera.
7 MR. STAMP: Proceed, please.
8 [Videotape played]
9 MR. STAMP: Okay. Could you stop there, please.
10 Q. We just saw what appeared to be a leg or a foot. Could you
11 describe that.
12 A. It's a part of the lower leg that they were not able to transport
13 it to the mortuary of the Kosevo Hospital. We found it on the scene of
14 the incident, but it wasn't just a leg. In the videorecording, there was
15 not showing just the leg, but there was also other body parts, there was
16 hair, blood, et cetera.
17 MR. STAMP: Could you please go on.
18 [Videotape played]
19 MR. STAMP: Could you stop here, please.
20 Q. At the bottom of the picture is a map, and at the top there are
21 the cross sticks. Could you say who placed those articles there.
22 A. These items were placed there by Mirza Sabljica and Hamdija Cavcic
23 who were members of the ballistic team and they were both experts.
24 Q. In the middle of the photographic frame where the sticks meet,
25 where is that exactly?
1 A. That is the location, the place, the site where the projectile was
2 found, the place of impact.
3 MR. STAMP: Could you proceed with the running of the video,
5 [Videotape played]
6 MR. STAMP: Could you stop there, please.
7 Q. Did you proceed to the hospital and to the morgue to photograph --
8 to video, I beg your pardon, the scenes of the injured and dying in the
9 hospitals and some of the dead persons at the morgue?
10 A. Yes. After we finished the work, after we investigated the scene
11 of the incident, we then joined another team that was already at the
12 morgue in the Kosevo Hospital. They were registering the bodies by
13 numbers and their names and surnames as they were being identified. On
14 this photograph, you can see a characteristic damage to the tissue which
15 can only happen by shrapnel. It cannot be done in any other way, and I am
16 talking about any calibre bullets.
17 Q. And without us going through all of these bodies, the bodies which
18 you filmed, which you videoed, show these types of injuries which you just
20 A. On many of them, you can see injuries and the others were covered
21 by the material, by their clothes. There's also in the head --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, I'm sorry,
24 Mr. President. I have a technical problem here. I think that my
25 colleague just said that he wasn't going through all the bodies in
1 question, but my first question would be, is there on this videotape -- I
2 don't know whether we can have an answer to this from my learned
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, could you please respond, although --
5 MR. STAMP: I'm afraid I'm not sure of the question. Are there
6 bodies on the videotape? Yes, that is what I was proceeding to ask the
8 Q. The videotape which you produced, Witness, went on to depict
10 JUDGE ORIE: Is that what you would like to know? Because in the
11 English translation --
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, if we are not going
13 through all the bodies, but if this is all on tape, is there a tape that's
14 going to be tendered as evidence, but neither Defence nor the Chamber will
15 be able to see the -- its total contents? Now, we have to know whether we
16 have seen everything, whether this is only partial, whether there is more
17 on this tape and why we shouldn't look at it all.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please.
19 MR. STAMP: I was going to indicate to the Court that to save time
20 we would not go through the hospital scenes and the morgue scenes that are
21 on the tape. But if the Court wants to see it and my friend wants to play
22 it for the Court, he is welcome to do so.
23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] So should we consider that
24 this tape is not going to be tendered?
25 JUDGE ORIE: As far as I do understand, Mr. Piletta-Zanin,
1 Mr. Stamp indicates that although there's more on that tape, that he'll
2 show us those parts which are relevant for his questioning, and he more or
3 less invited the Defence that if they thought that it would be good for
4 the Defence to show the other parts as well, that of course they could do
5 so either while cross-examining the witness or while examining other
6 witnesses. Is that --
7 MR. STAMP: Quite right, Mr. President.
8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President, the
9 question is to find out in relation to this video, is it going to be
10 tendered, and does it contain other information? It is not up to the
11 Defence to do this work. If there is more information on the tape or
12 whether this tape has redacted. We have to find a technical way to do
13 this. We cannot tender something which has not been examined by the other
15 JUDGE ORIE: But do I understand, has this tape been provided to
16 the Defence?
17 MR. STAMP: Indeed it has.
18 JUDGE ORIE: In its fullness?
19 MR. STAMP: In its entirety.
20 JUDGE ORIE: So this whole tape is a tape that has been provided
21 to the Defence, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, as far as I understand it. If this is
22 not correct Mr. Piletta-Zanin, please let me know.
23 MR. STAMP: We had intended and had given to the Defence recently
24 and explained to them that it was a redacted copy of this full tape which
25 was just played, and that redacted copy, a part of it was played this
1 morning earlier today. What has been played now is a part of the full tape
2 which is on the exhibit list which the Defence has had. There is more to
3 it. As I said, the Defence is welcome to use it for whatever purposes
4 they think fit.
5 JUDGE ORIE: One of the problems that might arise, Mr. Stamp, is
6 that if you give a redacted part of the videotape for the Defence, of
7 course they will prepare for this redacted part only to be used in the
8 examination of the witness, while when you change your mind and use the
9 whole videotape, this might cause the Defence some problems in their
10 preparation for the cross-examination.
11 MR. STAMP: In the circumstances, I will stop here on this video,
12 and they are in possession of everything there is, in respect of videos
13 taken by the police for this scene. And I will proceed no further with
14 this video.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, is there anything at this
16 moment -- is it clear to you? So the original videotape will be
17 tendered into evidence. You have been provided with a copy, but you might
18 be a bit confused by the way it's used.
19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Well, first of all, we would
20 like to know the number of the item that was given to us so that we can
21 check; and also secondly, I have a worry, that is that you will have,
22 Mr. President, in your hands, is that a document that you will have which
23 is more important than what we have actually seen? That is the real
25 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just explain. This is the problem we have
1 faced before when a witness was examined on certain parts, for example, of
2 a statement or of a document, we have not always admitted the whole
3 document in evidence since there might be a lot of other information which
4 was not part of the examination of the witness. So perhaps it's a
5 practical solution. Would it be possible to prepare a redacted part of
6 this videotape but with all those parts on it that we've seen? Wouldn't
7 that be the best possible solution, so that we are not having access --
8 uncontrolled access to whatever's on the tape and of which the Defence is
9 not aware that we're going to view it and when it has not been a part of
10 the presentation of the Prosecution's evidence in this courtroom.
11 MR. STAMP: I will ensure that is done as it pleases you,
12 Mr. President.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
14 MR. STAMP: That, if it pleases you, Mr. President and
15 Your Honours, is the examination-in-chief of the witness.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Since the Prosecution is so
18 good, I'd like to seek the number of this exhibit, and I haven't been
19 given it. Could my learned friend give us the number of this exhibit,
21 JUDGE ORIE: We did give the number, it was 227A. Mr. Stamp gave
22 the number, I think.
23 THE REGISTRAR: There are two tapes. The tape that was played
24 this morning, P2279; and the tape that was played this afternoon, P2279A.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Would it not be wise, Mr. Stamp, to not already to
1 tender them into evidence and prepare the other tape containing all those
2 parts shown to the Court and tender that in evidence?
3 MR. STAMP: Yes, I will have that done.
4 JUDGE ORIE: And what number we will then get, we'll see,
5 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, but it's a tape that does not yet exist.
6 Please proceed.
7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I suppose if I
8 understood properly, this was the end of the examination-in-chief. Is
9 that right? Now, we have a technical problem, Mr. President, because as
10 you know, the principal elements for this particular witness, that is, the
11 elements which have to do with the explosion of this shell, are not
12 available to us, and therefore we should like to ask from your Chamber to
13 allow us to cross-examine this witness in quasi tandem. Mrs. Pilipovic
14 will begin, and I will then round it off, of course, with the permission
15 of the Chamber. Thank you very much in advance.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE ORIE: We'll allow you to split up the cross-examination in
18 two parts, yes, and then subsequently you can put questions to the
20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed. Mr. Besic, you'll now be examined by
22 the Defence.
23 Cross-examined by Ms. Pilipovic:
24 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Besic.
25 A. Good afternoon.
1 Q. Can you confirm for us that on the 20th of November, 1997, you
2 gave a statement to the Prosecution's OTP?
3 A. Yes, I did.
4 Q. Can you confirm for us that you signed that statement?
5 A. Yes, I did.
6 Q. Did you then, with your signature, confirm that what you said in
7 the statement is true?
8 A. Yes.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Stamp.
10 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
11 MR. STAMP: This is not an objection, just to clarify something
12 for the record. The date indicated here is the 20th, 2-0, of November. I
13 think my learned friend had asked about the 28th, 2-8, of November.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you for the clarification.
15 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the 28th. Yes I
16 believe now it is all right. The 28th November.
17 Q. Mr. Besic, did you also on the 21st of September, 2001, also have
18 an interview with the investigators OTP?
19 A. Yes, I did.
20 Q. Did you sign that, too?
21 A. Yes, I did.
22 Q. And confirm that what the statement said accurately reflected your
23 statement to the OTP investigators?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 Today, and in your statements, you said that you were a policeman,
2 and that you had been working as a senior criminal investigator since
3 1975. Is that correct?
4 A. No, 1975 is not correct. I completed the course in 1989, and I
5 work as an operations criminal investigator until 1997 when I was promoted
6 to a senior crime investigator.
7 Q. So if I understood you right, you completed the course for the
8 criminal investigators in 1989. Is that so?
9 A. Yes. It was a six-month course.
10 Q. Can you tell us, sir, at this course which lasted six months, what
11 was briefly this syllabus of yours in 1989?
12 A. We learned about the theories and practice of criminal
13 investigations and criminal analysis, and it applied to all types of
14 criminal investigations, that is, traffic accidents, murder cases, and
15 even part of the ballistics methodology, but only as far as siting is
17 Q. In other words, you say that that course in 1989, you were not
18 trained with regard to analysis of shell or mortar cases?
19 A. No, we did not.
20 Q. Today, when asked by my learned friend whether you had
21 investigated cases of sniping and shelling, and you answered that you did
22 and that you investigated great many such incidents.
23 A. That's right.
24 Q. You also told us that it was in 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995,
25 specifically I'm interested in 1992, 1993, and 1994. When you say "great
1 many" what did you mean by that? What is it, "great many"?
2 A. Well, the order of magnitude, I would say there would be one
3 criminal investigator, and we were 15 altogether, I think that each one of
4 us had more -- over 20, maybe 30 on-site investigations, but I cannot give
5 you the exact figure. Be that as it may, more than 20 times, less than 50
6 certainly. So this is great many.
7 Q. When you say 20 and less than 50, do you mean also both the
8 shelling and sniping investigations?
9 A. Shelling investigations more, at least in my case, less -- I had
10 less sniping cases.
11 Q. Can you tell us, in relation to that figure, more than 20, less
12 than 50, how many -- how many of these cases were shelling incidents?
13 A. I would say 90 per cent more, or 80 per cent.
14 THE INTERPRETER: Excuse me. The interpreter apologises. 80
15 per cent more cases.
16 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation].
17 Q. You said to us in 1992 you conducted the investigation of shelling
18 cases and sniping cases. Can you tell us the first investigation in 1992,
19 where and in which place did you do it?
20 A. My first investigation, 1992, is when I was a member of a team
21 which conducted the investigation on Vase Miskina Street where on the 25th
22 of May, if I remember well, three projectiles landed killing about 25
23 persons and many more wounded. I cannot give you the exact number.
24 Q. Sir, Mr. Besic, can you tell us, so that was your first
25 investigation. What kind of experience did you have in investigating
1 shelling incidents prior to that particular investigation?
2 A. At school we had no training of that nature, which means that in
3 the time of peace, there was no opportunity for us to go to a scene of
4 such an incident, so that my experience related to shelling, or my
5 colleagues' experience, of course, equaled zero.
6 Q. Can you tell us, when you went out to the first site of shelling
7 and you told us it happened in 1992, what -- which operations did you
8 undertake within your expertise, or specifically, what was your duty when
9 you arrived on the scene that 25th of May, 1992?
10 A. As a member of the team, I assisted my colleagues who were in
11 charge of it. I was present there, and I helped them, that is, we tried
12 to collect evidence, or rather the shrapnels around bodies, doing
13 sketches, photographs, preparing the photo documentation, and as you
14 remember, also the videorecording of that incident.
15 Q. Can you answer this: In 1992, how many more investigations did
16 you participate in, I mean of shelling incidents?
17 A. I cannot tell you the exact number. I don't know. How could I?
18 I cannot tell you that it was 20 or 50. I simply do not know the exact
20 Q. Mr. Besic, can you answer this: How many investigations did you
21 perform of incidents caused by mortars and those caused by artillery
23 A. Well, since we found ourselves in a war, we were learning very
24 quickly so that we learned how to tell apart projectiles fired from rifle
25 barrels and those from smooth barrels. The difference between -- the
1 difference between a 120 mortar and 82 projectile whereas where you have
2 a rifle barrel, then the projectile rotates and it leaves a completely
3 different trace in concrete, in the pavement. The shrapnel bursts in a
4 completely different manner and scatters differently. And to give you the
5 exact number how many were artillery incidents and how many were mortar
6 incidents, I could hardly tell you that.
7 Q. Sir, so far you told us that you had no training in investigations
8 of shelling or mortar incidents?
9 A. No, I did not have any such training.
10 Q. Can you answer, then, where did you personally conduct the
11 investigation of the effects of a mortar shell?
12 A. I can't recall that.
13 Q. Since you answered that you were -- that you attended many
14 investigations between not less than 20 and less than 50, in 1992, 1993,
15 1994, and you said in 1995, too, can you, then, explain what is the
16 difference between a crater made by a mortar shell and the one made by an
17 artillery shell? What is the difference?
18 A. Well, depends on the ground, whether the ground is soft or hard,
19 because there is a difference between the projectile landing on grass or
20 concrete or asphalt or whatever. As you can see from our videorecording,
21 this projectile was wedged, lodged, within the asphalt itself.
22 Q. Can you tell us what are the investigations that you performed,
23 and in which the projectiles landed wedged into the asphalt?
24 A. I can't hear. Oh, yes. Well, specifically, these two cases that
25 we covered here. Both the projectile at Dobrinja and at Markale, both of
1 them landed, that is, were wedged, were lodged in the ground, that is
3 Q. Are you referring to photographs or to the video?
4 A. I am referring both to the videorecording and photographs
5 referring to these two cases.
6 Q. Can you tell us, that is, do you know, if a mortar shell
7 immediately prior to hitting the ground, does it fly at a supersonic
8 speed or a slower speed?
9 A. I wouldn't be able to tell you that. But one can hear it. It is
10 important. If you hear it, it means that it's on its way. If you don't,
11 then it's under you. But you hear it.
12 Q. Can you answer this: How does one determine the direction from
13 which the shell came when you conducted an investigation?
14 A. Well, since we did not learn this at school, because we were not
15 in that situation, we had an opportunity to observe UN members determining
16 the direction from which the projectile had come. And it was on the basis
17 of the work they did. We simply observed them, and then learned very fast
18 how to determine this. And it is this system which we saw in Markale
19 case, that is, when you put together two -- you put together the rear part
20 of the damaged part in the asphalt or the site of the fall, and then you
21 place one stick or a ruler at a 90-degree angle, and that is how we can
22 determine the direction from which the projectile arrived.
23 Q. Since you mentioned the angle, can you tell us which is the
24 maximum impact angle of a mine?
25 A. Well, I can't tell you, I'm not an ballistic experts.
1 Q. You don't know, you mean.
2 A. [No audible response]
3 Q. The witness shrugs. Can you tell us how can one establish the
4 type and calibre of the projectile in situ?
5 A. Well, it is very easy to distinguish a mortar, projectile --
6 one from the 10-millimetre from the one of 82 or even those smaller ones,
7 even though of the latter we heard less. But 82 and 120-millimetre ones
8 yes, we learned how to tell them apart.
9 Q. Can you tell us what is the difference, how different are they, in
10 what is this difference reflected?
11 A. In the size of the tail and its flaps. The 120, of course, has a
12 larger one, the 82 has a smaller one, and the 80 has even a smaller -- 60
13 calibre because there are simply three different calibres, 120, 82, and
15 Q. Do you know what kind of shell can be fired from a mortar, 120 and
16 82 millimetres?
17 A. I don't understand your question.
18 Q. What type of a shell can one fire from a mortar of 82 and 120
20 A. What type of shell? I wouldn't know.
21 Q. Can you tell us how do the shrapnel scatter after the explosion?
22 Can you tell us?
23 A. Well, from the investigation, it mostly depends on the angle of
24 the impact and the damage on the ground, that is, in the asphalt, and the
25 damage is much bigger in the direction from which the projectile came. So
1 if it comes -- no, I don't really how to demonstrate this to you. When it
2 falls at an angle, that is, its inferior part, when it falls at an angle,
3 you have considerable damage in the asphalt or in the ground, and the
4 shrapnel, a large part of the shrapnel, will scatter outward.
5 Q. You told us about shrapnel. Do you know what is the maximum
6 range, the lethal range? What is the maximum lethal range of the
8 A. No, I wouldn't know that, believe me.
9 Q. You spoke today about an incident -- about the incident at Markale
10 on the 5th of February, 1994?
11 A. That's right.
12 Q. Can you tell us when were you notified of the explosion at
14 A. About 30 or 40 minutes after the shell landed. We were notified
15 and told to get the team ready because you know going out for an
16 investigation, you have to go together with the Prosecutor and the
17 magistrate so you have to find the magistrate and the Prosecutor and the
18 whole investigation team was ready and we went together to the scene of
19 the explosion some 30 or 40 minutes after it had happened.
20 Q. You say that both the investigating magistrate and the public
21 Prosecutor went with you to the scene?
22 A. Yes, that's right.
23 Q. Can you tell us, then, which investigating magistrate conducted
24 the investigation that day?
25 A. I wouldn't be able to tell you now. I mean, the name really
1 escapes me.
2 Q. You do not know or you don't want to say?
3 A. I think that you can find his full name in these records.
4 Q. Did you go out to do any investigations with the same magistrate
6 A. No, that was the first time that we went out to the scene
8 Q. Can you tell us who is it that notified you and what were you
9 exactly told when that incident happened?
10 A. The notification came from the central office, that is, it was the
11 operations duty officer who was informed about that, and he was in charge
12 of putting the team together.
13 Q. Can you tell us when did you get the news about the incident, at
14 what time?
15 A. Oh, dear, it could have been around 1300, 13 -- quarter past 1300,
16 perhaps 10 to 1.00, that is 12.50.
17 Q. How far is the Markale market from the place where you received
18 the call?
19 A. The Markale market is between 800 to a kilometre away from the
20 police administration of the Sarajevo canton that was known at the time as
21 the CSB, Security Services Centre.
22 Q. Can you tell us, what was the weather that day in Sarajevo?
23 A. As far as I can remember, it could have been cloudy. It was
24 wintertime, so it would be cloudy and cold.
25 Q. How long did it take you, since you told us that your workplace
1 was about 800 to 1.000 metres away, how long did it take to you get to the
3 A. Well, not much, because the investigating team had its vehicles,
4 so that we got there fast enough.
5 Q. Apart from the investigating magistrate and the public Prosecutor
6 who were with you, who else was on the team? I will help you. I will
7 remind you. You told us that you had Mr. Mirza Sabljica with you, and
8 late Hamdija Cavcic.
9 THE INTERPRETER: Witness confirms.
10 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Who else was on the team with you and who else joined in this
13 A. It was the following: The operations officer, responded for valid
14 crimes, then a genocide expert, operations officer from the Stari Grad
15 police station who guarded that post, and they were also the
16 representatives of the anti-sabotage service, and also our chiefs, our
17 superiors, who supervised our work.
18 Q. And if I ask you to write down all those names, the names of all
19 those who were with you, would you be able to remember the names of those
20 people who were with you?
21 A. Well, my colleagues -- I mean, these who were members of this
22 criminal investigation team, yes, yes, I could do that. But as for the
23 other operations people, no, I don't think I would be able to do that.
24 Q. Did you, all of you, did you go to the scene of the incident in
25 one go, or did you go severally?
1 A. Well, we all met at the scene, because of course we could not fit
2 into one or two vehicles, and we didn't have enough vehicles so that those
3 who were in the same building with us went together with us and those
4 operations officers from the Stari Grad Police Station followed.
5 Q. In relation to the team which you have just listed to us, and you
6 told us who was there, can you tell us who was the first one to arrive on
7 the scene?
8 A. We, the employees from the Security Services Centre, that is the
9 criminal technique and the operations people from there, were the first to
10 arrive there, but we couldn't start working until the investigating
11 magistrate arrived. He arrived some five minutes later. That is, you're
12 not supposed to do anything there until the investigating magistrate
14 Q. Now, before you arrived there, these criminal investigators and
15 analysts, was there anyone else there present, I mean, on the part of the
16 police in that part where the incident had happened? Was there a police
17 team there?
18 A. Yeah, the scene was guarded by the Stari Grad Police Station.
19 There were no civilians or military. There were only police workers,
20 police workers from Stari Grad Police Station.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Pilipovic, if you could find a suitable moment to
22 interrupt the cross-examination, this would be the moment? Yes.
23 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, may we just have the
24 witness confirm this.
25 Q. So you arrived there at a quarter past 1.00?
1 A. Well, thereabouts, yes.
2 Q. And when you arrived to the scene, there were no civilians there,
3 is that it?
4 A. No, there were not. Only the policemen. Only uniformed policemen
5 who were guarding the site, and this was within the jurisdiction of the
6 Stari Grad Police Station, and they were the only ones who were there.
7 Q. Thank you very much.
8 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, I will
9 discontinue now and will resume tomorrow. Thank you very much.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much, Ms. Pilipovic.
11 Before we adjourn, let me just ask one question to
12 Mr. Piletta-Zanin. I tried to get more information about the problems you
13 faced with getting Visa for your experts. Am I well informed that you
14 still have to give some details on your expert before they can handle your
15 Visa application?
16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, I was told at the end of
17 last week that Mr. Christian Rohde's department wanted to get his
18 curriculum vitae or curricula vitae, plural of the experts. I submitted
19 this information but I couldn't get those documents meanwhile, but I am
20 quite sure that this week we shall get it. And as soon as we get it, we
21 shall of course transmit it. There is no doubt about that, Mr. President.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So the application at this moment, we are
23 waiting -- not we, but the OLAD is still waiting for the information to be
24 provided in order to --
25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, but this is a request
1 which was transmitted to us by OLAD only at the end of last week.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 Mr. Besic, this is the end of your examination for today, the
4 cross-examination. We will resume tomorrow morning at 9.00, so not 9.30,
5 in this same courtroom. We're adjourned until then.
6 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at
7 4.00 p.m., to be reconvened on
8 Tuesday, the 5th day of March, 2000,
9 at 9.00 a.m.