1 Wednesday, 6 March 2002
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.20 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Case Number
7 IT-98-29-T, the Prosecutor versus Stanislav Galic.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
9 First of all, I hope, General Galic, that you were properly
10 informed about what happened yesterday, because I can imagine that if you
11 are in detention, that the information takes more time to get to you. And
12 on the other hand, I also can understand that especially under these
13 circumstances, even -- especially if you would not know exactly what would
14 happen, that it's an even more unpleasant experience than it is for
15 everyone else in this building.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. I was informed
17 sufficiently about what happened yesterday. I have to tell you that the
18 information actually circulated very quickly in detention. That's what
19 they say. I don't know whether that's true. This is my first
20 imprisonment, and thank you very much. And I will follow. Thank you.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Then before we proceed to examine the witness, I'd
22 like to bring a few issues to the attention of the parties. I notice,
23 Mr. Stamp, that Mr. Ierace is not there, but I assume that you can --
24 because these are not issues specific for the witness to be examined at
25 this moment. First of all -- and I am addressing now especially the
1 Prosecution -- there is some confusion as to some protective witnesses,
2 and that is also the reason, Madam Registrar, why I would ask you to see
3 whether it would be possible to be in private session just for two or
4 three minutes.
5 [Private session]
12 Page 4876 redacted, private session.
12 Page 4877 redacted, private session.
21 [Open session]
22 JUDGE ORIE: -- repeat what I have said. We are still in private
23 session as far as I can see.
24 [Open session]
25 JUDGE ORIE: We are not in private session any more. We are in
1 open session now. I have not been attentive enough to immediately
2 change to open session once we dealt with the protection of witnesses. I
3 raised that the Chamber would like to pay attention to a request of the
4 Defence for Trial Chamber's order in relation to material evidence filed
5 on the 5th of March, 2002. And I immediately went to the requests made by
6 the Defence. It's clear to the Chamber now that as far as the tail-fin is
7 concerned, the expert can inspect it as soon as the expert is in
8 The Hague. There still remains the problem of the shrapnel being
9 available. That relates, among other things, to paragraph 6 of the
10 motion, which reads: "The attempts of a witness, Sead Besic, on hearing
11 out the 4th of March 2002 tried to explain that some pieces of mines and
12 grenades are lost or through is unacceptable." Let's
13 try to put the question in objective terms.
14 Mr. Ierace, is the Prosecution at this moment, is shrapnel or any
15 other part of the projectile in the custody or under the control of the
17 MR. IERACE: No, Mr. President.
18 JUDGE ORIE: That means, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, that it might be
19 difficult at this very moment to give an order to the Prosecution to allow
20 your expert to inspect part of this projectile.
21 Mr. Ierace, is the Prosecution seeking to get control -- to get in
22 its custody or under its control any other elements of this projectile?
23 MR. IERACE: We are, Mr. President, and have been for some time.
24 And if we are ultimately successful, then of course we will notify the
25 Defence. But so far, we have been unable to obtain any pieces of shrapnel
1 that relate to that incident.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Do you think that the -- does the Prosecution
3 need the assistance of the Chamber by any order, or is it not a matter of
4 unwillingness as far as you're concerned?
5 [Prosecution counsel confer]
6 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, there have been requests made of the
7 relevant authorities, and our understanding is that those authorities are
8 cooperative, have been cooperative. The issue is simply whether those
9 pieces can be located. And at this stage, it appears they cannot by those
11 JUDGE ORIE: Would you inform the Chamber immediately once they
12 have been located, and when there's any fair expectation that they could
13 become in your custody or under your control.
14 MR. IERACE: I will, Mr. President.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Piletta-Zanin, would you like to respond
16 briefly on that or...
17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. Thank you
18 for raising this question, first of all. I think that we can say that the
19 interventions were made by the Prosecution towards the authorities in
20 Sarajevo, that is, that one fragment, that is the tail-fin, the
21 stabiliser, was given, was delivered, was handed over. Now, we have to
22 know when did the Prosecution also intervene for the other fragments, to
23 ask for the other pieces of shrapnel, and also, Mr. President, what was
24 the reply of the Bosnian authorities? That is, the authorities in
25 Sarajevo. This is a very important point because this is a very important
1 proof and very important piece of evidence.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Did you ever ask the Prosecution when they applied
3 for it and what the answer was? Because -- yes.
4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, when I last --
5 last time I asked about these elements, this was the session that we had
6 with Mr. Ierace and Mr. Mundis, and Mr. Waespi as well as the case
7 manager, and I said exactly which elements this concerned. I did not have
8 a clear answer at the time. So we did not see these fragments. We didn't
9 know about these fragments, when we could see them.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, after we heard the answer, which
11 is more or less in line of what has been said by the Prosecution before,
12 that is, that these smaller pieces could not be located, that also was the
13 testimony of Mr. Besic as far as my recollection goes. Now you tell us
14 that we should know exactly when the Prosecution asked for the other parts
15 and what the answer was. My question to you was whether these specific
16 questions have been asked by you to the Prosecution.
17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Which specific question?
18 JUDGE ORIE: The two questions I just mentioned on which you'd
19 like to have an answer, that is, when the Prosecution asked for these
20 smaller parts of the projectile, and what answer was given by the
22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well. I will see in a
23 moment in the file whether we did ask these questions. But so far,
24 Mr. President, we did not know that these items were not available, all of
25 them. So I do not believe that the question was asked in this form to
1 start with. However, I will ask my colleague to see whether there is
2 something in the file. Thank you very much.
3 [Defence counsel confer]
4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, what I can say
5 is the following: Now, to give you an element in my answer, now this is
6 very important, Mr. President, because if we have these photographs, these
7 pieces of shrapnel, that means that we can legitimately believe that these
8 photographs were in the file of the Prosecution. That means the
9 Prosecution has them. Not every time that there is a photograph we are
10 going to ask whether the Prosecution has or does not have these pieces.
11 Now, if these pieces were photographed and they are part of the
12 Prosecution case, then we must assume that they exist and they are
13 somewhere -- that the Prosecution does have them, that we have the right
14 to examine them. Thank you very much.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Piletta-Zanin, apart from perhaps slowing
16 down a bit for the interpreters, I have to establish at this moment that
17 the Prosecution says we have not in our custody, nor under our control,
18 those pieces of which, it seems to us now, I was not aware of that there
19 are photographs taken of those pieces. Just from a distance it looks very
20 much as one of the laboratory photographs made in Sarajevo, because they
21 are using the same type of measuring. You say they should be in the hands
22 of the Prosecution. The Prosecution says they are not. So there we have
23 a problem. It's a bit difficult perhaps at this moment to give an order
24 to give an opportunity to inspect the smaller parts when the Prosecution
25 says that they do not have it in their custody or under their control.
2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President, just to
3 give you an indication because I believe this is important, we have here a
4 document which was given to us by the Prosecution, and the number is
5 0026-8383, and the following, 0026-8383, that is what I just said, and the
6 next one, which is a document containing various photographs as well as
7 the stabiliser fin. The stabiliser, and immediately afterwards in the
8 order the various bits of shrapnel. So when we are given all these
9 elements dated 1994, we have absolutely no reason to believe that these
10 elements do not exist or they no longer exist. We never asked the
11 Prosecution when they will want us to ask for these pieces from the
12 Sarajevo authorities.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, let me just try to understand you
14 correctly. It is the point of the Defence at this moment that the
15 shrapnel pieces still do exist and are kept away from the Defence. Is
16 that, in short, your point?
17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] In this case, I do not know
18 whether they still exist. This could be the case; it could have been the
20 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. That will then have to be sorted out by either
21 party in the way I do understand the Prosecution is seeking to have it
22 located in Sarajevo. And of course, if the Prosecution says they are not
23 able to locate it in Sarajevo, it's up to the Defence to come up with
24 convincing arguments or even evidence that it can be located and it can be
25 produced. Of course, this Chamber at this moment cannot say whether it
1 exists or not. If I order one of the parties to bring it into this
2 courtroom, that would be an impossible exercise.
3 Let's then for the tail-fin, it's clear; for the shrapnel, it's
4 not clear yet, and I cannot clarify it at this moment. And I urge the
5 parties to do their utmost best to clarify where the shrapnel is.
6 Then, we come to point B. If I understand the Defence well, the
7 Defence seeks that the directive and orders of the ABiH main staff towards
8 its corpses as well as the order of the 1st Corps command toward Brigades
9 in its composition will be disclosed to the Defence. Is that what I
10 understand you said, to submit for the defence, but you want to have it --
11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, that is it.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Then we have the first question to Mr. Ierace. Are
13 the directives and orders sought by the Defence, are they in the custody
14 or under the control of the Prosecution?
15 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, the Prosecution does not claim to have
16 all of the orders that were issued by the ABiH in the relevant period.
17 This issue has been a subject of much correspondence between the parties
18 since February of last year when the Defence first made this request. In
19 essence, the nature of that correspondence has been to reach some argument
20 as to what was relevant. The initial request was far too broad. At a
21 meeting with the Defence approximately six weeks ago, the Defence told us
22 that they had reason to believe that the Office of the Prosecutor
23 possessed orders which it had not yet handed over. In support of that --
24 JUDGE ORIE: May I just ask you a very clear question.
25 MR. IERACE: I'm sorry.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Any of these documents mentioned by the Defence, is
2 there any document that is either in the custody or control of the
3 Prosecution that has not been disclosed?
4 MR. IERACE: Not that we are aware of at this stage, but we are
5 doing a check and I anticipate we will have the results of that check by
6 the end of this week.
7 JUDGE ORIE: So let's then wait and see what the Prosecution will
8 find in this check.
9 Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, very well,
11 Mr. President. As soon as this check is positive, and I don't doubt, then
12 I hope we shall return to this question because these elements could
13 already give us some crucial elements in the case of this important
14 witness, and I know that the Prosecution does have in its hands some of
15 the elements. Thank you.
16 JUDGE ORIE: So you say that you know that there is something in
17 the hands of the Prosecution that the Prosecution at this moment is not
18 aware of, and you're certain that they will come up with a positive answer
19 by the end of this week?
20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Not even the end of this
21 week. I do not know that. But I know it because we had a meeting with
22 Mr. Ierace and other learned friends, and we know that there is important
23 topographic material, I'm referring to the topographic material which
24 allows us to localise certain matters that of course the Prosecution check
25 whatever they like, but the Defence simply does not have that. And this
1 is a fact which I believe the Prosecution cannot deny, cannot challenge.
2 JUDGE ORIE: We'll wait until the end of this week and see what
3 the result is of the check by the Prosecution. And if then the answer of
4 the Prosecution is not satisfactory to the Defence, of course they will be
5 in a position to convince the Chamber that the answer is not a correct
7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Indeed, Mr. President. But I
8 say these elements directly affect the cross-examination which in turn is
9 important for some of the very important witnesses like the one we are
10 expecting today. And I am saying that we asked for these materials some
11 weeks ago. We still do not have it. I am speaking it very clearly which
12 will be very important for the hypothetical and possible appeal. Thank
14 JUDGE ORIE: This would mean, I would suggest, Mr. Piletta-Zanin,
15 if you think on one of the witnesses being cross-examined by the Defence
16 that you are convinced that you have not a material you could expect soon
17 from the Prosecution at the end of the final check, that you then indicate
18 so, so that we'll not finally perhaps not excuse the witness but we might
19 decide then that if your expectation turns out to be a correct one, that
20 then there might be an opportunity to recall the witness for further
21 cross-examination. But if you'd then please indicate so, so that we
22 can -- are aware of that situation.
23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I shall be very
24 happy to do so. And I wish to be precise: In order for us to be able to
25 examine these maps, we cannot do it on the spot because they are not like
1 tourist maps. They are very specialised maps, and we need a military
2 expert --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Whenever they turn up, maps or whatever documents not
4 disclosed earlier to the Defence, of course we'll take proper care that
5 the Defence has the opportunity to prepare itself for the -- for
6 cross-examining the witness to whom these -- to whom's testimony these
7 material relates.
8 Mr. Ierace.
9 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, my learned colleague has now twice
10 referred to the material in dispute being maps rather than orders. The
11 document filed this morning refers only to orders. And --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do see so. I must be honest that I did not
13 check every single number mentioned in one of the letters attached to it.
14 So at this moment, I'm hesitant to say that among these orders or attached
15 to these orders or connected to these orders there could be no maps. But
16 that's one of the things I would say if there's any misunderstanding about
17 that, Mr. Piletta-Zanin will be quite happy to explain why he's using the
18 word "maps" in this courtroom while he is talking about directive and
19 orders as well as orders toward brigades in its composition. Of course,
20 orders can be accompanied by maps explaining the orders. But I'm not
21 quite sure. But may I invite you, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, to --
22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, you are not doing it
23 over. You are quite right, as you have said. We are talking about maps,
24 of course, and equally about orders. But very often, the orders refer to
25 maps, that say such and such element, such and such line, such and such
1 strategic objective, and then it refers to maps which were in the
2 file. There are maps of the main staff which are of utmost importance as
3 to know what happened in their time and place. Therefore we are talking
4 about the maps, therefore the different maps including the orders. I
5 believe that the Prosecution understood it very well.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, may I nevertheless remind you that
7 it would be better to clarify this directly to Mr. Ierace during one of
8 the breaks to come, because even if an order would relate to geographical
9 positions, and if the order would be in the custody or under the control
10 of the Prosecution, this would not automatically mean that the map showing
11 such geographical positions is also in the custody or under the control of
12 the Prosecution. So would you please sort out that during -- well,
13 yesterday we had a lot of breaks. But to sort this out in such a way that
14 confusions and misunderstanding is avoided when the Chamber is informed by
15 the end of this week. So I think now we dealt with Item B as well.
16 I'll now go to Item C. Item C says to submit to the Defence all
17 audiotapes with intercepted talks of General Stanislav Galic if it is in
18 the possession of such tapes. From the request the Defence made, I did
19 understand but let's just first verify it, that the Prosecution said that
20 they were not in possession of any audiotapes of intercepted talks of
21 General Galic. May I just first ask, Mr. Ierace, are there any audiotapes
22 of intercepted conversations of General Galic in your custody or under
23 your control which have not been disclosed to the Defence?
24 MR. IERACE: No, Mr. President.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps the next question: Is the Prosecution aware
1 of the existence of such audiotapes, although not in the custody or under
2 the control of the Prosecution itself?
3 MR. IERACE: We have no such knowledge, Mr. President.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Has the Prosecution ever sought to establish the
5 existence of such audiotapes?
6 MR. IERACE: The Prosecution has made inquiries as to whether
7 there are any such tapes.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MR. IERACE: And to date has been unsuccessful in obtaining any
10 such tapes or indeed establishing if any exist.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you.
12 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, I first wanted to establish the factual basis
13 of your request. You've heard the answers. If there's any reason why you
14 say that these answers are unsatisfactory, please inform the Chamber. But
15 then perhaps not right on the spot, but if you think you can do it in one
16 or two minutes, that's fine.
17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Formally we are satisfied with
18 this answer regarding this particular item. Thank you very much.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
20 Then there is another -- the Chamber is informed that you have
21 submitted the request for Visas for expert witnesses. This would mean
22 that there's -- I hope at least that there's a fair chance that the
23 Prosecution can fulfill your request to have objects inspected by your
24 experts on as short as possible notice. So that is not at this moment
25 something we should discuss further.
1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. At this
2 stage I must say that this is not so much a matter for the Prosecution
3 because we see that, concretely speaking, the shrapnel is not here, and
4 besides this object is no longer in the possession of the Prosecution, but
5 the Registry. Because it has now become -- so it has been transferred to
6 the Registry, and I believe now it is a matter for the Registry.
7 JUDGE ORIE: I think not yet, as a matter of fact. But it might
8 be soon.
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] So sorry.
10 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, I know that you don't want to engage
11 into debate but I really must say that it has never been considered by
12 the, nor has it ever been the case, that the Prosecution, at an earlier
13 time, had the shrapnel. Whilst I'm on my feet, might I raise one other
14 matter very briefly.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Could we do it after I finish the whole request, then
16 I'll give you an opportunity for that. Because the next request is that
17 the Defence suggests that the Trial Chamber should enable expert witnesses
18 of the Defence to be present during examination of expert witnesses of the
19 Prosecution. I think there has never been any request that reached the
20 Chamber whether or not to allow an expert witness of the Defence to be
21 present during the examination of an expert witness of the Prosecution.
22 So as soon as such a request is addressed to us, we'll, of course, on
23 shortest notice inform you about our decision.
24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, thank you very much,
25 Mr. President. We simply merely to inform the Chamber what we shall do
1 when the technical problem arise, or rather what we would like to do.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand. And the whole issue of experts
3 I'll spend a few minutes on that as well.
4 Then finally, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, you informed us that the evidence
5 you presented, especially I'm referring to page 583 and a few other pages,
6 concerning information from the UN has as its source annex 6 to the final
7 report. I'm quite happy that you could confirm what I thought it would
8 be, although I would prefer that next time you come up with a source
9 primarily and only not just confirm my feelings about it.
10 But let's -- so we have dealt with I think the major aspects of
11 the request made by the Defence on the 5th of March.
12 Mr. Ierace, there was another issue. And I tell you that as far
13 as it concerns expert witnesses, I'll pay some attention to it also. I
14 don't know whether it's about expert witnesses or not. Then please
16 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, I will meet the Defence at 3.45. I
17 assume that is our next break, pursuant to your suggestion.
18 Last week the Trial Chamber directed that the Defence provide
19 written submissions in relation to the application of Rule 90(H)(ii).
20 There was not a timetable mentioned for that. We have not yet received
21 any submissions. I'd be grateful if the Trial Chamber could indicate a
22 date by which the Defence and then the Prosecution is to do that. Thank
24 JUDGE ORIE: Let me first ask what the intention as far as time is
25 concerned of the Defence is. You'd make written submissions on?
1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I believe I
2 understood that would be following the decision that you will take, your
3 Chamber will be happy to hear what the parties have to say. But it is not
4 a matter of any major importance. I believe the Defence is now trying to
5 concentrate on the evidence and exhibits. We are not connected to the
6 internet, so if there is a certain delay which is very long, then yes.
7 JUDGE ORIE: At what time you expect to provide the Chamber with
8 your written submissions?
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I will comply
10 with your decision, as always.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE ORIE: Since, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, you left it to us, although
13 I would have gladly perhaps accepted suggestions from your side, I would
14 say within ten days would be fair in our view. And I keep in mind that
15 you had already a couple of days to think about it.
16 Yes, any other issue, Mr. Ierace?
17 MR. IERACE: No, Mr. President.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Ms. Pilipovic.
19 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. All I
20 want to do is ask a question which I presume will be asked during this
21 case, and that is the need to inform the Defence earlier, that is, prior
22 to the seven days' deadline, when the experts will be examined so that we
23 could communicate with our experts and so that they could arrive in
24 The Hague in time. It could pose a technical problem, so we would simply
25 like to ask our learned friends to tell us well in advance when the
1 experts will be coming so that we could contact our experts. Thank you.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Ms. Pilipovic, as I indicated, and you seem to
3 have similar problems as I have on this issue, I would spend some more
4 time to the expert witnesses. The list provided by the Prosecution to the
5 Chamber, the list pursuant to Rule 65 ter is not always clear as to
6 whether a witness will testify as a normal witness or as an expert
7 witness. It is, for example, quite clear in respect of Mirza Sabljica,
8 because he is indicated as an Expert Witness, capital letters. But for
9 other witnesses are described as experts in specific fields, but then
10 usually in the body of the summary of the statement itself, there you find
11 that there's some specific expertise.
12 If you'd like to have a copy of the names, I'll be glad to provide
13 it to you later, this concerns the witness Hamel, artillery expert; Higgs
14 mortar expert; Philips, military expert; Turner, psychiatrist, an expert
15 in trauma; expert, Robert Donia, expert in Balkan history and
16 affairs. So there we find some expertise in the summary of the
18 For some other witnesses, it is also unclear whether they will be
19 called as expert witnesses or not. For example, if we look at Witness AD,
20 the witness is presented as having acquired expertise on shelling and
21 sniping, crime site investigations. So it's not clear whether they come
22 and testify as experts or mainly as witnesses on specific investigations.
23 Although it's indicated that he'll come notably to validate his report.
24 We have similar questions as far as Witness Cekic, who is a
25 professor of political science and specialised in research and crimes
1 against humanity. This concerns Isnet Ceric, who is head of psychiatry of
2 the university medical centre and an author.
3 Another problem with the Rule 65 ter witness list is that it
4 mentioned some unidentified expert witnesses, for example a sniping insert
5 on page 1403, or a statistic expert, an artillery witness, a ballistic
6 physicalist, another ballistic expert. When you need the pages, the
7 Chamber of course will be glad to provide them to you. And the last I
8 mentioned is an expert on command and control. The Chamber would be very
9 much pleased if some clarification could be made in respect of all this.
10 And also to disclose the identity of the unidentified expert witnesses.
11 I then turn, apart from these items that still have to be
12 clarified, to the procedure under Rule 94 bis. According to Rule 94 bis,
13 the Defence shall file a notice indicating whether it accepts the expert
14 witness statement or it wishes to cross-examine the expert witness. And
15 this should be done by the Defence within 30 days after the expert witness
16 statement is filed. This is Rule 94 bis under (B). Under 94 bis (A), it
17 says that the statements of -- reports of expert witnesses should be
18 disclosed to the Defence, and it always has been my understanding that
19 whatever statements or reports of expert witnesses were in the hands of
20 the Prosecution, that they were disclosed to the Defence. Is this
21 understanding correct, Mr. Ierace?
22 MR. IERACE: When the Prosecution intends to call the witness,
23 then of course the Prosecution must provide a copy of that report to the
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But we have two different things. I think we
1 have first of all the disclosure under 94 bis under (A) Which talks about
2 disclosure, and then we have filing the report under 94 bis, under (B).
3 Am I right in assuming that for all those expert witnesses, or witnesses
4 that could be considered to be expert witnesses, that the Prosecution
5 intends to call, that all the statements or reports, if available, have
6 been disclosed at least, perhaps not filed, but disclosed to the Defence?
7 MR. IERACE: They have not, Mr. President. There's two categories
8 of witnesses that you have identified. The first are those in respect of
9 whom there are 65 ter summaries. And it's unclear to the Trial Chamber
10 whether they are being called as experts or not. That is a simple matter
11 for us to respond to, and I'll do it in due course.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MR. IERACE: The second category are those that are unnamed. At
14 the time that the -- we collide with Rule 65 ter, the old 94 bis rule
15 applied, and that did not require the Prosecution to even refer to its
16 expert witnesses until a relatively short period before it intended to
17 call them. So we provided that information although we did not have to so
18 as to better present some idea of the scope of the Prosecution case.
19 Since that time, we have identified experts in most of those categories.
20 And they are in the process of preparing their reports. And when they are
21 completed, they will be disclosed and filed so as to comply with the new
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, because the Chamber noticed that until now, I
24 think only the report of Dr. Donia has been filed and the report of
25 Mr. Higgs has been filed. For example, if, for example, Mr. Sabljica is
1 in the -- on the list clearly identified, it was the one and only I
2 mentioned, as an expert witness on the Rule 65 ter list, if I'm well
3 informed, or -- because he will be called soon, isn't it?
4 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, it might save time if I get back to
5 you on Sabljica.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 MR. IERACE: And indeed the others that you have named.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, okay. Let's not spend time on it at this
9 moment. You'll understand what our concern is, the concern of the Chamber
10 is that if reports are not yet disclosed, if they are filed just shortly
11 before the witness is called, then of course the Defence must have an
12 opportunity to discuss these reports with their experts in order to
13 prepare either for a notice saying that they would accept it or for
14 cross-examination. And if we look at the time which should be granted and
15 the time the Defence has to file a notice of whether accepting or wishing
16 to cross-examine the witness, then we should clearly keep in mind that
17 this cannot be done just shortly before calling the expert witness.
18 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, there is an issue that perhaps I
19 should raise at this stage. Some of the experts who you have identified
20 will be required by the Prosecution to give evidence in relation to
21 material which has come from the Defence, in particular, orders and other
22 documents which one would assume have come from the archival material of
23 the Sarajevo Romanija Corps. That material has come to us in batches, the
24 most recent batch approximately eight weeks ago. And I'm told by
25 Mrs. Pilipovic that we can expect more. It takes some time to translate
1 those documents and then to incorporate them. They will be incorporated
2 into reports by persons who are perhaps more properly described not as
3 experts by as analysts. It is taking us some time to complete that
4 process. And it is likely that even in relation to the material we have
5 so far received, that those reports will not be ready until the closing
6 weeks of the Prosecution case.
7 The Defence has had singular success in locating orders and other
8 documents which relate to the accused, which is mystifying to the
9 Prosecution, because we are told that the archive no longer exists. The
10 reason I mention that is simply to make the point that it is not as if the
11 Prosecution can obtain that material from any other source and complete
12 those analytical reports at an earlier time. I raise it at this stage,
13 and because it will impact upon our ability to present all our evidence
14 sequentially. There is a possibility that by the time we have called all
15 of our other witnesses, our analysts, and therefore, for instance, the
16 command and control expert, who will depended to some extent upon the
17 analytical report, cannot be called without there being a break in the
18 Prosecution case. Naturally, we are doing everything we can to avoid
20 But the wording of the new Expert Witness Rule is not helpful to
21 us because of the addition of this 30-day period. So Mr. President, I
22 will keep you informed about that.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 MR. IERACE: If you like, I can respond to all but one or two of
25 the names you have mentioned at this stage.
1 JUDGE ORIE: If you could do so, please. Yes.
2 MR. IERACE: Yes. Richard Philips is an analyst.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just try to find something to write.
4 MR. IERACE: Or perhaps more accurately I should say he will be
5 giving an analysis which is dependent in part upon the documents from the
6 Defence and in part on documentation obtained elsewhere.
7 JUDGE ORIE: May I assume that what you call an analyst is someone
8 who does not primarily testify on facts, but on his interpretation of
9 reports or whatever other thing presented to him, and I would rather then
10 say that this is a -- I would rather call him an expert than a normal
11 witness, although there's always a mixture.
12 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, the reason I use the two different
13 terms is simply to my mind an expert is entitled to give an opinion and
14 that opinion may be based on training or experience or both. An analyst
15 to my mind is someone who examines documents and essentially saves the
16 Court time by distilling the material to some basic propositions.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, whether there's not always an opinion
18 involved. For example, what is the essence of a document, is a question
19 we'll have not to answer on -- okay. Yes, you call him an analyst.
20 Perhaps I should have stayed away from the --
21 MR. IERACE: It's an issue that may be revisited. And the same
22 could be said of Rick Butler.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 MR. IERACE: Dr. Turner is indeed an expert on the topic of
25 terror. Robert Donia is an historical expert.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we have received his report, yes.
2 MR. IERACE: I hesitate to go further at this stage,
3 Mr. President. I'll get back to you on the other names. I could have
4 pressed but I prefer to have some time in relation to that.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, perhaps wouldn't it be a better idea if you just
6 write down briefly your position as far as what kind of witness or expert
7 it is, and give perhaps a very brief explanation so that everyone knows.
8 MR. IERACE: I will, Mr. President.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. First of
12 all, I would like to thank the Prosecution very much indeed to tell us
13 that we've had some singular success. Now, what I wanted to say,
14 Mr. President, is that I believe that we have a small transcript problem,
15 is that we will have a 94 -- in the Rule 94 bis, there will be a 90-day
16 rule, and I believe that it's 14-day rule. Is that correct? I just
17 wanted to make sure so that we don't have a quid pro quo situation. Could
18 you please confirm because we are talking about new dispositions.
19 JUDGE ORIE: You indicated that there might be a misunderstanding
20 on what's in the rule. What's in the rule we all know.
21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well. Then it's only a
22 technical problem. Thank you very much.
23 JUDGE ORIE: The last one of 94 bis says that the -- within 30
24 days of the filing of the statement of the expert witness or such other
25 time as prescribed by the Trial Chamber the opposing party shall file a
1 notice...so 30 days or whatever other time limit set by the Chamber.
2 I think we went through all the issues I had in mind we had to
3 discuss. And we'll on short notice also discuss the 92 bis. We're almost
4 ready in preparing our questions to the parties for a hearing previous to
5 giving a decision.
6 Any other issue to be raised at this very moment? If there's not,
7 then -- yes, Ms. Pilipovic.
8 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if you'll allow us,
9 the Defence would like to be given information, if that is possible,
10 information from the Chamber, since our schedule was made to last until
11 the 1st of April, 2002. Now, the situation of General Galic in detention
12 is such that he has to tell one month ahead of a visit from his family.
13 Now, we are interested to be given a schedule or a work schedule for March
14 and April so that we know whether there's going to be a break so we can
15 just have some idea about the time frame. Is it so far we're working
16 until the 1st of April? Is that correct?
17 JUDGE ORIE: I think that we have -- the schedule is published
18 until the 1st of April, and, Madam Registrar, knowing that you are dealing
19 extensively with the Court calendars, is the schedule for the beginning of
20 April in such a stage that you can give any information on it?
21 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. The 1st of April is, according
22 to our schedule, 1st of April is second Easter -- is Easter Monday, and
23 the 2nd of April, the Trial Chamber is sitting.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 THE REGISTRAR: But the schedule is available.
1 JUDGE ORIE: The schedule is available. That's first of all, and
2 I think we have a break of one week somewhere in late April, but I think
3 we indicated that before to the parties, we would have one week off in
4 June, and also a week -- I'm not quite sure, but I think it was the end of
5 April. Do you know when we stay in recess, Madam Registrar, which week
6 the Galic case is not heard?
7 THE REGISTRAR: According to my schedule, in April there is no
8 recess, but there is one week in June. If you give me --
9 JUDGE ORIE: There's another week. We'll give you the information
10 after the break. I'm not even asking if there's any other thing to be
11 discussed and ask quickly to the usher if he could bring in the witness.
12 That will takes one or two minutes more than usual because I thought it
13 was not fair to have the witness to wait for 50 minutes on the corridor.
14 MR. IERACE: Please excuse me, Mr. President and Your Honours.
15 [The witness entered court]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, Mr. Besic. Another day --
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.
18 JUDGE ORIE: -- that you expect to appear again in this Court, but
19 it surprised us all yesterday. May I remind you that the fire may be
20 extinguished, but you are still bound by the solemn declaration you gave
21 the day before yesterday at the beginning of your examination.
22 Ms. Pilipovic, please proceed.
23 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
24 WITNESS: SEAD BESIC [Resumed]
25 [Witness answered through interpreter]
1 Cross-examined by Ms. Pilipovic: [Continued]
2 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Besic, good afternoon.
3 A. Good afternoon.
4 Q. Our cross-examination of the previous day was stopped at a time
5 when you told us that you arrived with your team at the site of the
6 incident. You arrived at Markale. That was 30 minutes or 35 minutes,
7 about quarter past 1.00 in the afternoon, you said that you arrived.
8 Could you tell us whether the investigating judge came with you, because
9 you said also the public prosecutor was with you at the time as well?
10 A. The judge came about five minutes after we arrived there.
11 Q. Did the investigating judge who is conducting the investigation,
12 did he tell you -- did he tell you personally what had to be done?
13 A. He didn't tell me personally, but we waited for his permission to
14 start the work, and we know what that work entailed.
15 Q. So you, as a criminal technician, you were not given a task by the
16 investigating judge what you were supposed to do?
17 A. No, the reason is because this is just a criminal technician's
18 analysis that is supposed to be done, an examination that's supposed to be
19 done at the site of the incident. The only thing that's important is that
20 the investigating judge gives his permission for the work to start, and
21 this permission was given and we started to work.
22 Q. Could you tell us, what was the first thing that you did when you
23 were given the permission to start the work?
24 A. First of all, was to photograph the site and to videorecord the
25 site as we found it. Then to check and examine the site of the
1 incident --
2 Q. Excuse me, just to be precise, you photographed the site?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. You recorded with a videocamera or somebody else?
5 A. Somebody else.
6 Q. Could you tell us who and what is the name of the person who did
7 the videorecording?
8 A. That person was Zlatanovic. He worked as a photo technician in
9 our office, and he also has the same course completed for criminal
11 Q. Thank you.
12 Apart from Mr. Zlatanovic who had the video camera, at the site of
13 the incident at the time of the investigation, were there other people who
14 were recording the site? Do you know anything about that?
15 A. Nobody except the police who was conducting the investigation was
16 not present with the videocamera on the site. Perhaps from some distance
17 it was possible to make a videorecording, a filming, but at the site of
18 the incident, no.
19 Q. So you are confirming here that Mr. Zlatanovic was the only
20 cameraman who was a member of your team and who was filming the material
21 for you?
22 A. That's right.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 After you told us that you photographed the site, my question is
25 did you fix the traces?
1 A. Yes, we fixed the traces in a sense that we -- we processed the
2 site of the -- the actual impact of the projectile, where the projectile
3 landed. We photographed the site without marking the direction where the
4 projectile came from and then also it is possible to see it in the
5 documentation, the other photographs that we took.
6 Q. So you say that you photographed the site where, according to you,
7 the projectile landed?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Did you make a sketch of the site of the incident?
10 A. No, I did not do a sketch of the site of the incident. As far as
11 I can remember, I believe that it was Mirza Sabljica, the ballistic
12 expert, who did the sketch.
13 Q. So what you say is that you did not measure, you did not take any
14 measurements on the site where you located the projectile?
15 A. Right.
16 Q. Did you determine or do you know whether Mr. Sabljica determined
17 the standing position from which he would do the measuring, in relation to
18 the place where you located the projectile and in relation to the stalls
19 and the buildings that we saw on the video material?
20 A. As it is possible to see in the video material and the photo file,
21 there is a map of the town as I explained already, and that we established
22 the north. That means that it was put on the place where the projectile
23 landed. Then the north was established, and then with an arrow, it gives
24 us the direction where the projectile came from.
25 Q. Did anyone from your team on that sketch that you say that
1 Mr. Sabljica made it, did anyone from the team put in all the elements
2 that were on the site of the incident?
3 A. Well, when the sketch is made, then you normally take a starting
4 position, a location which is immobile, you fix it. We call it a fixed
5 point. So according to this point, it is a kind of parameter for the
6 sketch. In this case, it's probably the -- probably the corner of the
7 rear part of the market that was taken as this fixed point, and
8 according -- with the help of a 90-degrees angles, this is how we
9 determined the direction where the projectile came from.
10 Q. Could you tell us who established the fixed point?
11 A. I cannot tell you exactly. Probably it was Mirza Sabljica.
12 Q. When you told us that Mr. Zlatanovic [sic] did the filming, was
13 the material that we had the opportunity to see during the
14 examination-in-chief by my learned colleague, is this the material filmed
15 by him with that one camera?
16 A. This is the most authentic material that was recorded by
17 Mr. Zlatan.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 You told us today that you took photographs of the site of the --
20 where the projectile landed. Could you tell us who found the stabiliser
21 of the shell?
22 A. I did.
23 Q. If we look at the photographs that we saw, could you tell us how
24 did you find it?
25 A. As I was cleaning the place, the location, where the projectile
1 landed, the body tissue, the blood, the soil, I came to the centre of the
2 location where the projectile landed, and I then tried to just see whether
3 there was any shrapnel from the ignition fuse because there's very often
4 that there are still some parts of the ignition left. And then that's
5 when I found the mortar shell tail which I then did not touch after that
6 until the UN team came to the site of the incident.
7 Q. Could you tell us at the time when you arrived at the site of the
8 incident, did you see any UNPROFOR personnel there? Were there any
10 A. When we arrived, there was nobody else from the UN. They arrived
11 about quarter of an hour after we arrived. 10, 15 minutes, I cannot tell
12 you exactly.
13 Q. Could you tell us, until the UNPROFOR personnel arrived, what did
14 you do with regard to securing the site?
15 A. We are not in charge of securing the site. The securing of the
16 site is done by the police station which is in that part of the
17 municipality. In this case, this is the Stari Grad Police Station. So
18 the site was secured by the police from the police station Stari Grad.
19 Q. So you're telling us that when you found the stabiliser, the shell
20 stabiliser, you then did not do anything else regarding the stabiliser
21 until the UNPROFOR people came?
22 A. That's right.
23 Q. Could you tell us, since we had the opportunity to see it on the
24 videorecording, who is the person who positioned those sticks in form of a
25 letter T?
1 A. Mirza Sabljica positioned the sticks, and Hamdija Cavcic, that's
3 Q. At the time when these sticks were positioned, you said that they
4 were positioned by Mr. Sabljica and Mr. Cavcic. Could you see the
6 A. No.
7 Q. Are you telling us here and now that the positioning of the
8 sticks, that there was no digging before the positioning of the sticks
9 around the place where the stabiliser of the shell was?
10 A. No, except for cleaning of the body tissue, blood, and any debris
11 that was there.
12 Q. Can you tell us how did Mr. Sabljica and Mr. Cavcic, how were they
13 able to position the sticks in the form of a letter T if they did not
14 determine the angle and if they could not see the stabiliser? On the
15 basis what have did they position the sticks?
16 A. They were --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp.
18 MR. STAMP: The question asks the witness about the mental process
19 of Mr. Sabljica and Mr. Cavcic, how did they do something. It is known
20 that Mr. Sabljica is a witness. That is something within his limit. The
21 witness does not have to speculate about how different specialists
22 contemplated what they should do.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Pilipovic.
24 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I understand what the
25 objection of my learned colleague is in relation to the work. But we are
1 here in a situation that we have here a witness who was present at the
2 site during the events and who said that he found himself the place where
3 the projectile landed, that nothing was done around this particular place,
4 and that it was done by Mr. Sabljica and by Mr. Cavcic. Now, we believe
5 that by cross-examining the witness here today, we can find relevant
6 information for this incident.
7 The witness precisely showed us on the video material, or we were
8 able to see these sticks in the form of a letter T. Now my question was
9 how were they able to position the sticks in the stabiliser could not be
10 seen, and the witness just confirmed that the stabiliser could not be
12 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Pilipovic, isn't it true that whether -- how they
13 could have done it is not something to determine who has not done it. I
14 mean, that's the -- the objection is not that he was not there and I don't
15 think that the objection is against any part of the testimony until now.
16 But how could this witness explain something what was in the mind of
17 another witness?
18 Perhaps before giving a final decision on the -- Mr. Besic, was it
19 explained to you on the basis of what the other persons carrying out the
20 investigation were able to put the sticks as they did it? Did they
21 explain to you how they did it, on the basis of what?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is a team that often went to
23 sites of incidents, so we worked as a team. And in this case --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just -- did they explain to you on the basis
25 of what exactly they positioned the sticks? Did they explain it to you or
1 did they not explain it to you?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, they did.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Pilipovic, would it be a suggestion to ask about
4 what was explained to the witness.
5 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
6 Q. Now, Mr. Witness, could you tell us, please, whether Mr. Sabljica
7 or Mr. Cavcic, did they explain to you on the basis of what they
8 positioned the sticks in the form of a letter T?
9 A. In order to determine the direction from which the projectile
11 Q. At that moment when they were positioning the sticks, were you
12 present there on that place where they placed these sticks?
13 A. Yes, I was.
14 Q. Could you confirm for us, tell us, or perhaps give us a reply,
15 whether at that time when they were placing it, whether you could see the
16 stabiliser of the shell?
17 A. No. No.
18 Q. So you are telling us that the place where these sticks were in
19 the form of a letter T, that this place was covered with -- as we saw it
20 on the photograph. Is that correct? And that before these sticks were
21 positioned, nobody was digging that part, nobody was cleaning?
22 A. No.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Pilipovic, if you could find a suitable moment to
24 have a break. Would this be the moment?
25 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Besic, I did not explain to you before that we
2 spent quite some time in the beginning on some legal issues. Now and then
3 we have to pay attention to legal issues as well as to the facts that
4 you're testifying about. I'd like to thank you for your patience, and I'd
5 like to see you back in this courtroom at a quarter past 4.00.
6 We adjourn until quarter past 4.00.
7 --- Recess taken at 3.47 p.m.
8 --- On resuming at 4.16 p.m.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Pilipovic, just before I give you the opportunity
10 to resume the cross-examination, the breaks will be in Week 18, which is
11 Monday, the 29th of April until Friday, the 3rd of May; and also during
12 Week 24, which is from Monday, the 10th of June, until Friday, the 14th of
13 June. And I'd like to make one other observation, more specifically
14 addressing at this stage of the proceedings, the Defence, may I remind you
15 that you have been instructed by the Pretrial Judge, Judge Rodrigues, on
16 the 8th of November, 2001, that if you would not accept the report of an
17 expert witness, you should give the reasons why. And apart from that, as
18 an alternative to requesting the expert witness to be cross-examined, that
19 you also could present a report of another expert on the same issue, let's
20 say a contra expertise.
21 Having said this, please Ms. Pilipovic, proceed, unless there's
23 Yes, Mr. Stamp.
24 MR. STAMP: May it please you, Mr. President, if I could ask one
25 special imposition of the Court if for perhaps about five minutes before
1 we close the taking of evidence today or at any time at the convenience of
2 the Court, I could be allowed to make some submissions to the Court or we
3 could have a discussion in respect of the status of the witness, Mirza
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we'll spend the last five minutes of today's
6 hearing to that.
7 MR. STAMP: I'm very grateful, Mr. President.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Please Ms. Pilipovic, then proceed.
9 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
10 Q. Mr. Besic, you've told us that you discovered the place where the
11 projectile had landed. Can you tell us, as you were clearing the ground,
12 did you clear it enough for the stabiliser to become visible?
13 A. We were not clearing the crater itself, but outside the crater.
14 We wanted to remove all of the debris, blood, and tissues, as I have
15 already said, in order to identify traces or marks around the crater.
16 Because it is on the basis of shrapnel marks in the asphalt one determines
17 the direction from which the projectile had come.
18 Q. So you are telling us that these two sticks were placed on the
19 basis of the direction of the position of -- position of shrapnel, that is
20 of shrapnel markings in the asphalt?
21 A. That's right.
22 Q. Can you tell us this: Who collected these pieces of shrapnel, or
23 did you at all?
24 A. Yes. Some of the pieces were collected on the scene, and the
25 firing pin was found in the crater. That is, after the stabiliser was
1 taken out, parts of the firing pin were also discovered there.
2 Q. Can you tell us, the collection of shrapnel, you said you did
4 A. Yes, I did.
5 Q. Did you take photographs of the collection of shrapnel, or was it
7 A. It was neither photographed nor videotaped because we were in
8 short supply of this material. And all the collected pieces of shrapnel
9 were photographed in black and white in the laboratory.
10 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with your leave, the
11 Defence would like to show the witness two photographs which we received
12 from our learned friends to see if Mr. Besic could identify them and
13 confirm that these are, indeed, the photographs and the shrapnel that the
14 gentlemen collected and photographed.
15 Your Honour, we have two photographs. I made a sufficient number
16 of copies of photograph 14. We marked it D60, and the second photograph
17 is photograph number 15, and we marked it D61.
18 Your Honour, the Defence copied these photographs from a file
19 given us by our learned friends, photograph 14 is 0026-8397. And
20 photograph number 15 is 0026-8398.
21 These are for the witness.
22 Your Honour, need we put D on each of these photographs, or will
23 it suffice only if we put it on the first copy, that is D numbers?
24 JUDGE ORIE: You should mark them all so that whenever we have a
25 copy, that we know immediately that it's D. I know that you're a bit
1 spoiled, perhaps, by the Registrar who did it very often for you. I'm
2 only too glad to see that you're taking the effort now by yourself.
3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, this literally
4 is being done in Geneva. The stamp comes from Geneva.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, I do not see any stamp, but --
6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, I'm saying that stamp is
7 being prepared in Geneva, and as of the next week, we shall not be having
8 any more problems of this kind. Thank you.
9 JUDGE ORIE: That's great.
10 Please proceed, Ms. Pilipovic.
11 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Mr. Besic, you have two photographs in front of you, number 14 and
13 number 15. Are these the photographs of the shrapnel that you found and
15 A. Yes. These are the pieces of shrapnel found on the site, and they
16 were photographed in our laboratory, in our criminal investigation
17 laboratory in the police.
18 Q. Can you then tell us how many pieces of shrapnel did you collect
20 A. I can't give you the exact number.
21 Q. Mr. Besic, I believe you said, and I stand to be corrected, but
22 when asked by my learned friend during the examination in chief, when
23 we're talking about the shrapnel which you found, can you bring them to
24 The Hague, and you said that had you been asked to do that, you would have
25 brought them. Will you confirm that?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. So you are telling us that these shrapnel in these photographs,
3 you said that you filed them and put them in safekeeping in the police
4 station, they are still there?
5 A. Well, I hope so because in 1996, in 1996, we redid this building
6 because it had been hit by three rocket grenades. So in 1996, we redid
7 the building, and because we had plenty of evidence brought from different
8 outside investigations, many things were discarded. So that I hope -- I'm
9 not sure, but I hope that this shrapnel is still somewhere on the premises
10 of the crime laboratory.
11 Q. Mr. Besic, when you made your statements, did you tell the OTP
12 investigators when you turned these photographs over to them that on the
13 police premises was also the stabiliser which you had brought here, that
14 is, the grenade and these pieces of shrapnel which you had photographed?
15 A. I said that the projectile was in existence. We did not discuss
16 the shrapnel.
17 Q. Were you asked to submit this shrapnel to the OTP investigators
18 for inspection?
19 A. No.
20 Q. So you are confirming that this is shrapnel of a mine which fell
21 on Markale, if I may put it that way?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Thank you, Mr. Besic.
24 Can you confirm and answer, how much later did UNPROFOR members
25 arrive? I believe you said 15 minutes.
1 A. 15 minutes.
2 Q. Did they tape, photograph the site?
3 A. Believe me, I don't know what they were doing. Because what we
4 wanted to do was to show them where the shell had landed and what was in
5 the crater.
6 Q. Do you know if UNPROFOR members performed any kind of recording
7 after arriving at the site?
8 A. I wouldn't be able to tell you, that is, answer this question.
9 Q. Can you tell us, what activities were taken by UNPROFOR members at
10 the time of their arrival?
11 A. At the time of their arrival on the site where the shell had
12 landed, we showed them where the crater was and told them to try and clear
13 the crater, because the stabiliser was in it. What they did, you can find
14 in the record.
15 Q. Can you tell us if you were present all the while as the UNPROFOR
16 members were digging that part to get out the stabiliser?
17 A. Yes, I was present there throughout, because we took that
18 stabiliser, and I took it to the laboratory. The projectile was extracted
19 by UNPROFOR members.
20 Q. Can you confirm if that moment when you say the stabiliser was
21 taken out, was that recorded?
22 A. No, it was not recorded because of the material.
23 Q. You said that you were present all of the while when the UNPROFOR
24 members were taking out this. Can you tell us how deep were the tail-fins
25 lodged in the asphalt?
1 A. Some 10 to 15 centimetres from the upper surface, that is, I mean,
2 the asphalt surface.
3 Q. Can you tell us how thick was the asphalt?
4 A. Three, four centimetres maybe. I can't say exactly.
5 Q. During the examination-in-chief, you said that on the 6th of
6 February, 1994, a team of experts went out to perform the expertise. And
7 I believe it was -- you said it was Mr. Zecevic and Mr. Sabljica. Is that
9 A. Yes, it is.
10 Q. Do you have any knowledge if their measurements and preparation of
11 the expertise was done with the stabiliser? That is, did they take the
12 stabiliser again and take it back to the site?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Can you answer, since we saw in the recording how UNPROFOR members
15 digging around the place, where you told them was the stabiliser, can you
16 answer how did you discover the existence of the stabiliser since we see
17 them digging out that part, that is, that part that they were digging was
18 discovered. Is that correct?
19 A. Yes, it is correct it was covered. But when I finished the
20 activity of cleaning to identify the markings on the asphalt before the
21 two [indiscernible] for the determination of direction were placed, I
22 looked into the hole to see if there were any pieces of shrapnel in the
23 crater, the firing pin. And then I saw that the stabiliser was wedged in
24 there and then I stopped all activity until they came.
25 Q. So you are now confirming that you were cleaning this part where
1 the stabiliser was until --
2 A. No, I did not clean the area where the stabiliser was. I did not
3 touch the crater with anything rough. I only handled it with my hands.
4 That is, I moved the earth a little bit just to see if there were any
5 pieces there, and then I spotted the stabiliser, and I ceased doing
6 anything around the crater. In the crater, excuse me.
7 Q. So you confirm to us that the stabiliser was taken out by members
8 of UNPROFOR?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Can you tell us who did they give the stabiliser to? You said to
11 you and that you took it away. But whom did they give it to you?
12 A. They gave it to me. I took it.
13 Q. So you tell us that you took both the stabiliser and shrapnel.
14 A. Yes, shrapnels, that was collected on the site, I found them more
15 or less. And another colleague who worked with me. But the pieces of
16 shrapnel from the hole, from the crater, and the stabiliser, I was the one
17 who found them there.
18 Q. Can you tell us, at what point in time did Mr. Sabljica and
19 Mr. Cavcic establish -- determine the direction from which allegedly the
20 mine came? Was it after they had seen the pieces? Are you telling us
21 that they placed the sticks when they saw the markings of the pieces?
22 A. Precisely when this was cleaned, then they placed these two --
23 these two sticks in the specific direction.
24 Q. So the direction was established before the stabiliser was taken
1 A. That's right.
2 Q. Thank you.
3 Can you tell us, when did Mr. Cavcic and Mr. Sabljica, when did
4 they give their opinion as to their belief about the direction from which
5 the mine had arrived?
6 A. Well, I wouldn't be able to tell you exactly but it could be two
7 or three days.
8 Q. Can you answer, when did you write your report about the scene and
9 your observations about it? What date?
10 A. Since I was on duty both on Friday and Saturday, I had Sunday as a
11 day off. And I did my report on Monday, I mean the photo documentation
12 and the criminal report and the sketch.
13 Q. So you are telling us that you did your criminal report on Monday,
14 and that was how many days after the incident?
15 A. The incident happened on the 5th, on Friday, so it was the 5th,
16 and the 6th were the Saturday. I believe the 7th was Sunday.
17 Q. And did you -- when compiling your report, did you have other
18 reports, too, or did you do it only on the basis of your photographs
19 and --
20 A. The criminal methodology presumes photo documentation, sketch, and
21 submit it all to the operations officers who performed the investigation
22 on that particular day.
23 Q. I will go back to your record, that is your report. Now I will
24 ask you a few questions about the incident which happened on the 4th of
25 February at Dobrinja about which you spoke during the
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
2 Can you tell us who was -- who were members of the investigation
3 team which went out to investigate on the 4th of February in Dobrinja?
4 A. Judge Zdenko Eterovic, crime technicians Samir Sazman.
5 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter has missed the name.
6 A. Then Mirza Sabljica, Zlatko Mededovic. And the operations officer
7 from the office of the genocide department.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Stamp.
9 MR. STAMP: Mr. President, I think the interpreter is indicating
10 she missed a name. So if the witness could be asked to repeat the judge,
11 I think.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, could you please give the name of the judge
13 again. Sometimes this can be done later on, but could you please repeat
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Zdenko Eterovic was the judge;
16 ballistic experts Mirza Sabljica, and Zlatko Mededovic, and crime
17 technicians Sead Besic and Samir Salman, and the operations officers from
18 the office of the genocide, I can't give you the names now.
19 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. So you were telling us that you were the only crime technician on
21 the team.
22 A. I and my colleague Samir Salman. Sorry, there was another
23 colleague, Suad Dzumisic who was doing the videorecording.
24 Q. Can you tell us the report on the criminal investigation on this
25 site for that day, did you write that?
1 A. Yes. The on-site investigation report at Dobrinja where two
2 mortar shells fell killing nine persons, 20 severely wounded and 20 other
4 Q. On the site where you were, did you make a sketch of the site,
6 A. No, I did not do the sketch of the site. It was Samir Salman who
7 did it.
8 Q. You said that two mortar shells fell. Did you, when investigating
9 the site, find any pieces of shrapnel?
10 A. Yes, a certain quantity of shrapnel was found. Where they are
11 now, I could not say.
12 Q. Can you tell us if in your report you noted that you had found
13 these pieces of shrapnel?
14 A. I don't remember.
15 Q. When you submitted your report, when you've compiled your report,
16 did you assign that report?
17 A. I do not recall now. I think I may have signed it, or perhaps it
18 was my colleague Samir Salman who did.
19 Q. Could you tell us when a report like this is compiled about a
20 criminal technical investigation of the site of the incident, is that
21 report filed after all the other reports are examined, who are done by
22 other people who carried out other tasks?
23 A. The criminal technical investigation report is accompanied by a
24 photo file. It accompanies other reports, and everything is then given --
25 added to the main report that is done by the investigating judge in this
1 case, it was Judge Eterovic.
2 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Defence would
3 like to show the witness the report about investigation of the scene of
4 the incident so that the witness could identify the document for us, and
5 then if he does do so, then perhaps he could give us some explanation.
6 And then I would like to ask him some questions in relation to this, and
7 we would then tender it as evidence. We also gave it from the
8 Prosecution, and the number is 0026.
9 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter missed the ERN number.
10 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] And I can also submit copies to my
12 JUDGE ORIE: May I presume you prenumbered it D62.
13 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Once a Defence or Prosecution number has presented a
15 document, we usually can see what is the ERN number. So that's not a...
16 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, as I said, 0026-8234.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Is that a report in the original language or with
19 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the report is in the
20 original language, yes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Is there a translation available? I mean, has there
22 ever been a translation provided to you, Ms. Pilipovic?
23 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, at this moment, I
24 cannot reply, but I cannot find it in the documents. I cannot find the
25 translation into English of this report.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But if it has been provided to you. Is the
2 Prosecution aware whether this report has been provided, has been
3 disclosed to the Defence also in English translation?
4 MR. STAMP: I am not quite sure if it has been. I can't answer
5 that question. What I could say is that we would probably have an English
6 translation and would, if given time, be able to supply the Court with an
7 English translation.
8 JUDGE ORIE: What to do? Because if -- my problem is two-fold:
9 First of all, the translation of elements you will ask the witness to make
10 observations about, and the second one is the context of those elements in
11 relation to the report as a whole.
12 How much time, do you think, Mr. Stamp, it would take you to find
13 out whether a translation does exist?
14 MR. STAMP: It would take about 10 minutes.
15 JUDGE ORIE: 10 minutes.
16 Ms. Pilipovic, would there be any other subject you could
17 examine -- cross-examine the witness on to start with so that we are
18 better able to...
19 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Besic, so we'll stay away from this document for
21 a while. But as far as I understand, Ms. Pilipovic will come back to it.
22 Mr. Usher, could you please for the time being return D62 to the
24 Please proceed, Ms. Pilipovic.
25 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Witness, you told us during the examination-in-chief, asked by my
2 learned colleague in explaining the photographs that were given by the
3 Prosecution to the Defence also?
4 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] I would ask the Registry if the
5 witness could be shown the photo file for the incident of the 2nd of
6 February, 1994. And that is the Prosecution Number, Prosecution material
7 that was shown during the examination-in-chief by my learned colleague,
8 and these are photographs that go up to number 11. Sorry, the last number
9 is 13.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But Ms. Pilipovic, you're talking about the 2nd
11 of February, 1994. Are you referring to P2262, which is about the 5th of
12 February? Are we talking about the Markale or the other?
13 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, we're talking about Markale,
14 the 5th of February. I don't know why it says the 2nd. It was the 5th of
15 February. It is the photo file.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Madam Registrar, that's P2262, as far as I can
18 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Witness, before I ask you some questions about the photographs
20 that you were giving explanations about, could you tell us, when did the
21 names of streets change in Sarajevo?
22 A. I couldn't tell you whether that was in 1993 or 1994, or whether
23 even in 1992. I really don't know.
24 Q. Thank you.
25 Could you have a look at the photograph number 8.
1 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] If you can please put the
2 photograph on the ELMO so that we can all see it.
3 Q. Mr. Besic, could you tell us, when was this place photographed,
4 before the UNPROFOR arrived or after?
5 A. This place was photographed before the UNPROFOR arrived. The
6 marking was done before the UNPROFOR arrived.
7 Q. Thank you.
8 Now, I would like to go back to photograph number 5. Mr. Besic,
9 asked by my learned colleague, you said that you cannot see an arrow
11 A. That's right.
12 Q. Could you tell us from which place was this photograph taken. If
13 it's not a problem, we can go back to photograph number 4 so that you can
14 give us on that photograph, photograph number 4, the place either of the
15 building or from the direction that this photograph was taken.
16 A. This site was photographed on the side of this building. This
17 was -- this was done by a man who was making uniforms for the police and
18 the army, so the photograph was done from this side.
19 Q. Thank you.
20 Could you tell us on photograph number 5, could you mark for us
21 the place and the direction of the stabiliser and the position of the
22 stabiliser and of the fins, the way that they were located?
23 A. I cannot do it on this photograph, because it's a wide-angle
24 photograph. But this is the place where the projectile fell. This is
25 where the crater is. So I cannot give you an angle, and I cannot put an
1 arrow in here.
2 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, for the transcript,
3 the witness is indicating on the photograph number 5 under which it says a
4 wide view of the market. Where there is an arrow showing the place where
5 the projectile landed, the witness indicated a part which is located
6 between the stalls a place where traces are visible, traces of clothes,
7 that is of shoes and pieces of paper. We cannot be quite specific. And
8 the witness indicated the place where the projectile landed. And the
9 photograph number 5 the witness tells us is shown on photograph number 4,
10 and a building of where the shop was where uniforms were made for the
11 police and the army. This shop is called 22nd of December.
12 Q. Witness, can you tell us, on the photograph number 4, the building
13 where you say it is from this direction that the place was photographed,
14 you said that on the ground floor, there was a shop for making -- for
15 sewing uniforms for police and army. Could you tell us what was the rest
16 of the building used for? Do you have any information about that?
17 A. I don't. I don't know what the rest was used for. I can just
18 make a correction. This is the building where the shop called 22nd of
19 December was located before the war, and this shop or this workshop made
20 uniforms for the police and the army for the previous army.
21 Q. Now, thank you.
22 Could you tell us on photograph number 4, could you explain for us
23 the buildings we can see behind the stalls? We said that this was here
24 down is a supermarket. Is that right?
25 A. Yes, that's right.
1 Q. Could you tell us the building on the left where it says
2 "Boritz Travnik," [phoen] What was this building used for? Was this a
3 residential building, was this business premise, or something else?
4 A. It's a residential building.
5 Q. On this photograph you marked with an arrow a place where there
6 was damage done to the building by an explosion of an indetermined
7 projectile. Did you establish this?
8 A. No. On this occasion, nobody -- there was no casualty, so there
9 was no investigation. And this arrow was precisely indicated here so that
10 it would make it clear that this had nothing to do -- this damage had
11 nothing to do with this particular projectile, this incident, so that we
12 would know.
13 Q. Do you have any idea when this projectile was fired, this one
15 A. No.
16 Q. So you did not do an investigation when this damage occurred?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Witness, since you told us on photographs number 4 and 5, you told
19 us from which direction the photograph was taken, photograph number 5 as
20 well as number 4. I would like to ask you to go to back to photograph
21 number 8 now.
22 Could you tell us, from which direction was this photograph taken?
23 A. This damage, the place where the projectile landed, was
24 photographed from the direction which is the rear end of the supermarket.
25 Q. Could you tell us, what is the distance from the rear end of the
1 supermarket to this place where the sticks -- these sticks make a T?
2 A. I cannot quite tell you exactly, but I believe it could be 2 to 3
4 Q. Mr. Besic, could you give us an answer as to whether the members
5 of UNPROFOR, in relation to this incident, whether they made -- whether
6 they filed a report, whether they made a report?
7 A. To tell you the truth, whatever the UNPROFOR did, we had
8 absolutely no access to it, neither reports, no records, nothing, no
9 material. Whatever they did, they did it for themselves and they never,
10 ever sent anything on to us, although on several occasions we did do work
11 together where members of the UN were killed, but we never received any
12 report or record from them.
13 Q. You said that you worked with them occasionally, so to speak, you
14 worked on investigations where UN members were killed. Could you confirm
15 for us, these were the only situations that you worked together with
16 UNPROFOR members, when someone from the UN was killed?
17 A. No, we worked together often. They came, for instance, to this
18 incident when a large number of people was killed. That's when they came
19 as well.
20 Q. Could you tell us, how many times and how many incidents did you
21 work with UNPROFOR members before this incident?
22 A. I couldn't tell you exactly. I couldn't recall.
23 Q. Could you tell us in which period did you conduct investigations
24 together with UNPROFOR members when UNPROFOR members were killed? When
25 was that?
1 A. In 1993, 1994, 1995.
2 Q. Considering that you told us the years, 1993, 1994, 1995, could
3 you perhaps situate for us the incidents as well? Could you identify them
4 and describe them, where they happened, where these incidents, in which
5 part of the town?
6 A. Everything that was under the control of the BH army, in all these
7 locations, we went and we did investigation tasks together. That was from
8 Dobrinja, Alipasino Polje, Novi Grad, Novo Sarajevo, Centar, Old Town, all
9 those areas that were all in Sarajevo.
10 Q. Could you give us an answer as to whether it was with UNPROFOR
11 members or without them you conducted investigations of incidents that
12 happened outside of the control of the BH army?
13 A. Yes. Not with UNPROFOR members; without them.
14 Q. Could you tell us when that was and which parts of town were in
15 question that you did investigations in?
16 A. Since the question is not in relation to these two incidents, I'm
17 not sure whether I have to answer, whether that's relevant.
18 Q. Mr. Besic, I'm asking you about the relevant time. Since you said
19 1992, 1993, 1994, you said that you conducted investigations in areas that
20 was under the control of the BH army. Now, I asked you whether you
21 conducted investigations outside of this area, in the years 1992, 1993,
23 A. Not in 1992 because we were surrounded. But in 1993, we had a
24 passage through the famous tunnel. So we occasionally we were able to
25 offer our services to police stations that were outside of Sarajevo.
1 Q. Could you answer, these police stations outside of Sarajevo?
2 A. Yes, I can. Hrasnica, Tarcin, Konjic, Pazaric.
3 Q. Could you tell us, on these occasions that you conducted
4 investigations at, were these investigations following sniping incidents,
5 shelling incidents, or what was the reason and obviously what were the
6 consequences of these incidents outside of that happened -- or outside of
7 the town that was under the control of the BH army?
8 A. We only went to Hrasnica because of shelling, and to the other
9 areas we went for completely different types of investigations.
10 Q. Could you tell us for these other investigations, could you tell
11 us what they were about?
12 A. To do with crimes, suicides, robberies, thefts, that kind of
14 Q. Could you tell us that these areas that you told us you had these
15 types of investigations, could you tell us under whose control were these
17 A. These areas were under the control of BH army.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 When you went to these investigations, did you have any
20 information or knowledge whether, for instance, did you know that, for
21 instance, in Tarcin there was a camp?
22 A. Yes, there was a camp in Tarcin, the so-called Silos, and we did
23 not do any investigation with regard to this camp.
24 Q. Do you have any knowledge about this camp Silo in Tarcin? What
25 nationality were the people who were imprisoned in the camp?
1 A. I believe that we have ventured quite far from the subject
2 matter. Why don't you ask me about Grbavica.
3 Q. Witness, I'm asking you to answer. If you cannot answer, then say
4 you don't know.
5 A. I don't know.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Besic, may I remind you that if a question is put
7 to you and if for whatever reason you think that it would be an improper
8 question, please do not start any debate with Defence counsel. If there's
9 anything that bothers you, please address me, and we'll find out what to
11 Please proceed, Ms. Pilipovic.
12 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
13 Q. Witness, could you tell us how often you conducted investigations
14 in the Dobrinja area?
15 A. Personally, I conducted, at most, five or six investigations in
16 relation to shelling and sniping.
17 Q. When you say "at most" in relation to Dobrinja, could you tell us
18 if you have any knowledge whether there was a command post in Dobrinja of
19 the 5th Motorised Brigade staff?
20 A. Yes, it probably was. Must have been.
21 Q. When you conducted investigations in Dobrinja on the 4th of
22 February, 1994, did you know whether near the scene of the incident where
23 you established that two projectiles had landed there, did you know that
24 the main staff of the 5th Motorised Brigade was there, or of a battalion?
25 Did you know about that?
1 A. No, we did not know. We didn't have any knowledge of that. We
2 did not know where the staff was, except we knew where the police
3 administration was.
4 Q. Could you tell us whether you had any knowledge at what distance
5 or how far was the front line in relation to the scene of the incident
6 that you located and photographed when -- where Dobrinja is concerned?
7 A. No, we did not. We did not know how far the front line was, but
8 it was probably about a hundred or so metres from there.
9 Q. Could you tell us, that part of Dobrinja, how far is it from
10 Alipasino Polje?
11 A. That area is at least 5 or 6 kilometres -- no, I couldn't tell you
12 for sure.
13 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, because my questions
14 would continue in relation to the report, the criminal technician's
15 report, if my colleagues are able to provide me, then I would continue.
16 But if not, then my co-counsel would take over, and then I would later
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp, have you been able to --
19 MR. STAMP: Indeed I have been able to locate copies which I will
20 just distribute to my friend and the Court.
21 JUDGE ORIE: The English translations.
22 MR. STAMP: Yes, the English translations.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Was it part of the file disclosed to the Defence?
24 MR. STAMP: I can't see on the face of it whether it has been
1 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
2 Would you then please distribute also an exhibit which would then
3 be D62.1, I think, for the English translation. Of course, it has not
4 been premarked. Perhaps everyone can assist the Defence by doing the
6 Yes, Mr. Stamp.
7 MR. STAMP: It might be of some assistance to the Court if I
8 indicate that the actual translation of the document, D62, begins from
9 immediately below the numbers 0026-8234 and ends on the next page at the
10 area for the signatures.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You'd say there's a bit more in the translation
12 than there is in the document.
13 Yes, please proceed, Ms. Pilipovic.
14 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
15 Q. Mr. Besic, do you have before you the document where we can see
16 the file number 234/94?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Do you recognise this document?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Could you please turn the page.
21 Is this document -- was this document compiled on the 4th of
22 February, 1994?
23 A. Yes, after arriving at the premises of the criminal technicians'
24 department, that's when it was compiled.
25 Q. Today you told us that this incident that you conducted your
1 investigation of the site of the incident, that there was a team present
2 there headed by the investigating judge, and I will read the first two
3 lines of this text. And I will remind you that you told us today that on
4 this place, the investigation was carried out regarding the landing of two
6 You said in your report --
7 A. Yes, that's correct.
8 Q. You said in this report at 11.25 that the aggressor from their
9 locations in Lukavica fired two projectiles of 120 millimetres to the
10 neighbourhood of Dobrinja.
11 A. Yes.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Pilipovic, you were reading perhaps from the
13 original text that -- no, not from the original text. In the transcript
14 it reads in English that two projectiles of 120 millimetres, and as far as
15 I even can detect from the original language, it says three. And in the
16 translation, at least it says three 120 millimetre mortar shells.
17 So when you -- I did not hear what you said, whether you said two
18 or not in B/C/S, but the translation says two.
19 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the witness has
20 confirmed that he investigated on the 4th of February, 1994, the scene in
21 Dobrinja where the incident happened and where two mortar shells fell.
22 JUDGE ORIE: You're quoting the -- yes, the transcript. I have
23 not, perhaps, been attentive enough. You're quoting the transcript and
24 not the report. Yes.
25 Please proceed.
1 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Sorry, page 60, line 2, it says -- the
2 question says: "You said in this report, you said in this report at 11.25
3 that the aggressor from their locations in Lukavica fired two
4 projectiles." But according to the translation at least, and I think the
5 original three projectiles are mentioned. That's what we have to
7 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
8 Q. Witness, can you confirm for us that you said that at the site
9 where you conducted investigation with the Judge Eterovic's team, that you
10 answered my question that it was an incident involving two mortar shells?
11 A. Yes, I said we investigated the case of two mortar shells having
12 landed there.
13 Q. Thank you. After that, I read out to you the report of the
14 criminal investigation of the site which you identified, and beneath Item
15 4 where the text begins, "On the 4th of February, 1994, at 11.25, the
16 aggressor fired three mortar shells from its position at Lukavica."
17 Did you note this?
18 A. Yes, we noted and wrote this down. However, the third shell fell
19 a block of buildings outside this site where we investigated these two
20 shells. And as I said, the priority task of these investigations was the
21 site of these two projectiles because there were more casualties, more,
22 that is, fatalities and people injured. The third projectile did not
23 cause injuries so we did not investigate it. And the photo documentation
24 and the recording was done only with regard to these two mortar shells
25 which killed nine people.
1 Q. Witness, I will show you, from the photo documentation given us by
2 the Prosecution relative to the incident of the 4th of February, 1994,
3 photograph number 9.
4 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be
6 Q. Witness Besic, will you look at the photograph number 9. You do
7 not have photograph number 9 before you.
8 A. This is Markale. This is Markale.
9 Q. The photograph for the 4th of February, 1994.
10 JUDGE ORIE: It's P2247.
11 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Mr. Besic, you have before you photograph number 9. Did you
13 photograph this site?
14 A. I did.
15 Q. Can you answer for us, in this part where you say a 120 millimetre
16 shell fell, did you find a stabiliser there?
17 A. Yes, we did.
18 Q. Can you tell us where was the stabiliser in this place?
19 A. The stabiliser here was here, there is an arrow marking it. So it
20 was here. You can't really see the arrow properly.
21 Q. You merely noted the point -- place of impact. You did not say
22 that a stabiliser had been found there?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Can you tell us, in relation to this point where were the shrapnel
25 pieces? Were there any?
1 A. Pieces were in this area here where you can see the damage. You
2 can see here the damage done to the walls, and some earth which was thrown
3 against this wall.
4 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, for the transcript,
5 the witness on photograph number 9 explains or rather clarifies that in
6 the place number 1 where the stabiliser was found, the stabiliser of a
7 shell, and in relation to the window and the darkened part next to the
8 window, and the part which is looking from -- to the left with certain
9 damage to the material, is built, he is explaining that this is where the
10 pieces of the shrapnel were.
11 Q. Can you tell us if it was recorded officially, that the stabiliser
12 and shell shrapnel were found in this part?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Can you tell us who on your team noted about this part, what was
15 there on the site?
16 A. There is a record which the judge makes. It is his record which
17 says that the point of impact of the shell was here, that there were
18 pieces of the shell, and the projectile itself.
19 Q. Since you told us that in this part of Dobrinja, there were two
20 more sites which you identified as the place which had been hit by the
21 mortar shells, did you also find for these two places the shell
22 stabilisers or mines?
23 A. This photograph shows the platform which we investigated two
24 mortar projectiles. In this photo documentation is the documentation for
25 these two projectiles. The investigation of the site of impact of the
1 third projectile was not done. If you look at the front of the photograph
2 number 1, you'll be able to see it.
3 Q. I'd like to ask you to look at the photograph number 1 and tell us
4 in relation to these two sites where you identified these two sites, where
5 is it that you didn't conduct the investigation?
6 A. On this photograph, you can see -- this is a broad view of the
7 area where the investigation is conducted. There are no photographs of
8 the impact point of the third projectile which fell -- which landed in a
9 residential block behind.
10 Q. Can you answer for us for which of these three incidents which we
11 have identified here, and you marked them, which of the incidents you did
12 not investigate, on this photograph or on photograph number 9?
13 A. I do not know. This documentation was done only for the two
14 projectiles which landed here. The third projectile fell a block of
15 buildings beyond, that is, beyond the range of this area. And it is not
16 in this area at all, the third projectile.
17 Q. So, Mr. Besic, you are confirming for us that this photograph,
18 number 9, reflects the site where a mortar mine fell which is marked and
19 which can be seen on this photograph?
20 A. We used a marker to -- yesterday -- to mark the place where the
21 second mortar projectile landed. It is this area here.
22 Q. Are you telling us that this is the site, the one that we see on
23 photograph number 9?
24 A. Correct.
25 Q. Can you tell us, this third projectile, in which street did it
2 A. West. Looking from here, from this direction, to the west of it.
3 That is, the next block of buildings over here.
4 Q. Isn't that part of the site sketched and who made the sketch?
5 A. Samir Salman did the sketch, and it shows where and on what street
6 the third projectile landed.
7 Q. Can you tell us what the name of the street is?
8 A. I can't remember.
9 Q. In relation to this photograph, can you tell us where is the
10 police station?
11 A. North of this photograph.
12 Q. Can you tell us the name of the street?
13 A. No. I don't think I really could tell you the name of the street.
14 It used to be Mitsubishi Avenue in peacetime.
15 Q. Can you tell us if this third projectile landed on the ground?
16 A. I repeat: We never investigated the third projectile.
17 Q. I'm sorry. Then on the basis of what did you write "three mortar
19 A. On the basis of statements by witnesses who were present there.
20 Q. So at the time when you wrote this criminal report, you wrote
21 three mortar shells without checking the third site about which you tell
22 us that that is where the fall of the mine occurred?
23 A. We thought that a priority was to investigate this place where a
24 number of people suffered and were killed so that when we completed that
25 part of our work, as the day was drawing to a close, we did not go out to
1 the point of impact of the third shell because there were no injured --
2 because there were no casualties.
3 Q. Mr. Besic, can you tell us if when writing the report you had any
4 knowledge of what the ballistics report looked like?
5 A. I see the text. I did not, however, know how they drew it up. I
6 did not participate in the drawing up of the ballistic report. It was
7 done by Sabljica and Cevic.
8 Q. Are you telling us that no sooner did you complete the
9 investigation than the communication was issued about the incident, and
10 they also gave the opinion as to the direction from which it was fired?
11 A. Yes. This was done on site, as in the previous case, that is the
12 map of the city was placed there. It was guarded. And the direction was
13 determined from which the projectile had been fired.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Pilipovic, being it's five minutes -- 25 minutes
15 to 6.00, could you find within the next one or two minutes a suitable
16 moment to stop so that we have another break.
17 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
18 Q. Witness, in relation to this incident, I'd like to -- I'd like you
19 to answer us: In which part of this photograph, photograph 1, did you
20 identify the site where the largest number of casualties were?
21 A. It is this part, this part here. This area right here.
22 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, for the transcript,
23 the Defence wishes it to be written down that witness, on photograph
24 number 1, identifies the area marked with an arrow as the site of the
25 incident where there was the largest number of victims.
1 And I believe this is a convenient time, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much, Ms. Pilipovic. We'll adjourn
3 until 5 minutes to 6.00.
4 --- Recess taken at 5.34 p.m.
5 --- On resuming at 5.56 p.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Pilipovic.
7 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
8 Q. Witness, on this photograph number 1, you located or you indicated
9 two places about which you said where you conducted the investigation.
10 You said that you did not do the investigation of the third site.
11 A. No, I didn't.
12 Q. In relation to these two places, how far away was the site where
13 the third projectile landed in relation to these first two places, how far
14 is the third one?
15 A. I believe it was about 50 metres, perhaps maybe 70.
16 Q. If you tell us now that you did not go to this third site to do
17 the investigation, could you answer on the basis of what did you say three
18 mortar shells in your report?
19 A. When we arrived to the site of the incident, we found several
20 witnesses who told us that three projectiles had landed. So one landed
21 one block behind, and the two projectiles landed there. So it was on the
22 basis of the witnesses, of what they said.
23 Q. Do you know whether your colleague who you said did a sketch, did
24 he also mark on that sketch the place of the third projectile?
25 A. Yes, he did, and he did go there, and he went and he did it. He
1 did a sketch, but I was not present there.
2 Q. Do you know whether Mr. Sabljica, who was a ballistic expert, and
3 Mr. Mededovic, did they go to that third site?
4 A. I don't think they did. I don't think they went there.
5 Q. So you confirm that in your report, you put three mortar shells,
6 three 120-millimetre mortar shells, and you confirmed that you went to two
7 investigations. And for the third, for the third shell, you just wrote it
8 in your report of basis of witness statements?
9 A. Yes, that's correct.
10 Q. Is it in your job description, the job that you do -- the work
11 that you do, is it allowed for you to write something in your report, to
12 write about such incidents on the basis of witness statements without
13 checking it out, without corroborating it, saying it was a shell?
14 A. Considering that the investigating Judge Eterovic was present, he
15 put it in his report, in his record, and I presume that investigating
16 Judge Zdenko did see the site and probably established that it was not
17 necessary to do an investigation of the third site. But in the record it
18 was established that three projectiles had landed, three shells, three
20 Q. Thank you.
21 Mr. Besic, there's just another question I'd like to ask. In the
22 course of making -- writing your report about the investigation, the
23 criminal technicians' report of the site of the incident regarding the
24 Markale incident, when you submitted your report, did you also have in
25 mind the ballistic experts' report done by Mrs. Sabljica and Mr. Cavcic?
1 A. Yes, I did have the opportunity to read it, but I did not
2 participate in the making of the report because I did not take part in
3 that part of the investigation.
4 Q. When did you have this opportunity to read it, after how many
6 A. I couldn't answer that precisely.
7 Q. If I tell you that in your report, criminal technician's report,
8 which was shown to you by my colleagues, you stated that on that day,
9 there was a shelling from the aggressors' position. On the basis of what
10 did you write that report? What data, on the basis of which data?
11 A. This was on the basis of the arrow which indicated the direction
12 from which the mortar shell came. This is from the area of Lukavica, area
13 which is -- area which is in the easterly direction.
14 Q. So you wrote your report, the criminal technician's report, you
15 wrote that the shell was fired from the agressors' positions?
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Stamp.
17 MR. STAMP: Just as a matter of clarification, Mr. President, I'm
18 wondering if the previous response of the witness or the question was
19 referring to the incident of the 5th of February or to the incident of the
20 4th of February, if that could just be clarified, which incident was
21 counsel referring to in --
22 JUDGE ORIE: If I understood Ms. Pilipovic well, she was referring
23 to the report which states on that date there was shelling from the
24 aggressors' positions, I think she was still referring to the report of
25 the 4th of February. But if I'm wrong, Ms. Pilipovic.
1 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. This is the
2 report I'm talking about, for the 5th of February, the incident I'm
3 referring to is about Markale.
4 A. Then you did not ask me the question properly if we're talking
5 about the shelling of Dobrinja, then we should have stressed that.
6 Q. I asked you about the incident report in Markale.
7 A. You did not mention the location or the date.
8 Q. I will now show you the report in a sufficient number of copies
9 for you in English, and I would ask you to read -- or I could read you
10 this part of the report.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Pilipovic, let me just try to clarify. Is the
12 report that you are distributing now -- oh, that's P2309, which is it
13 right that it's already tendered by the Prosecution? Even the
14 Prosecution's number is on it. Is there any reason, do you want to have
15 any markings made on it, or is it just -- I mean, you can just ask the
16 Registrar to show the witness already --
17 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] No.
18 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]...So then perhaps
19 D65 should then be returned in order to avoid whatever confusion, and the
20 witness should be shown P2309, I think.
21 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Witness, you identified this report during the
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. On the report, the date is 5th of February, 1994.
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Could you tell us when did you compile this report?
3 A. This report was compiled -- the report was compiled on Sunday,
4 because I was called by the chief to finish the report. And the photo
5 file was then on the 7th, because the lab, the photo lab, couldn't finish
6 their work.
7 Q. So you're telling us that this report was written after the
8 photographs were finished?
9 A. No, before the photographs. After arriving from the
10 investigation, the investigation is logged, and they are numbered in the
11 record number. This is what the number is here, the book number, 240/93.
12 It's just an error. It should be 94. After that, we type up the criminal
13 technicians' report, and then a photo lab photos are done, and then the
14 following day we finish the photo file.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 When you were compiling this report of yours, did you also have a
17 ballistic's report?
18 A. No, I did not. I was not -- I did not have the opportunity to see
19 it on the same day, but I saw it on Monday, on Tuesday. When everything
20 was gathered together, I had an opportunity to see the ballistic's report
21 which was then made.
22 Q. Could you tell us on the basis of which did you write that it was
23 from the agressors' positions that the shelling of the city was carried
24 out on that day?
25 A. On the basis of the position, that is, the front lines, the
1 demarcation lines were quite far away. And the direction was established
2 after the arrow was placed showing the direction, and the direction was
4 Q. So you're confirming that you wrote your report on the basis of
5 placing of the arrow, which we were able to identify on the photographs,
6 and that is what your answer is?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Thank you, Witness.
9 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Now, Your Honour, the
10 cross-examination will be continued by my co-counsel.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Please, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, proceed.
12 You'll further be cross-examined by Mr. Piletta-Zanin, counsel for
13 the Defence, Mr. Besic.
14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
15 Cross-examined by Mr. Piletta-Zanin:
16 Q. [Interpretation] Witness, good afternoon. Thank you for being in
17 this courtroom.
18 I will ask you a number of questions, and I will attempt every
19 time to be as specific as possible in relation to what we'll be talking
20 about. The first question is -- refers to sniping. You said that you did
21 a number of investigations that were to do with sniping, and I presume
22 that this is the principal that you can confirm for us. Is that correct?
23 A. Yes, that's correct.
24 Q. Thank you, Witness.
25 So when we were doing such investigations, and when we are using
1 the string or a tube technique, could you please confirm the existence of
2 such techniques, the tube and the string?
3 A. Yes, there are such measures. With a string, we can connect two
4 or a number of -- or a number of points. We can also connect to several
5 other points with a tube. And what happens, that can happen, is that the
6 bullet or the projectile first hits a glass. If we're talking about
7 double glass, for instance, it goes to one glass, and then it cannot break
8 the second layer of glass.
9 Q. Thank you, Witness.
10 I believe that you have a certain expertise in this. Is that
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Could you then tell us, what are the standards that you are using,
14 or the criteria, to take into consideration the necessary modification,
15 the alteration of the projectory of the projectile?
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Stamp.
17 MR. STAMP: If it please you, Mr. President, notwithstanding that
18 the witness said that he did have - to use my friend's word as
19 translated - "a certain expertise", a certain expertise in the area of
20 using strings or tubes, the witness has clearly demarcated the area of his
21 expertise, what he is trained to do in criminal investigations and what he
22 can speak about in terms of his training. And it might not be helpful to
23 the Court for him to be speaking about matters outside of his training and
25 JUDGE ORIE: I think the first thing we have to establish is
1 whether the question was within the expertise -- the question was about a
2 matter within the expertise or outside the expertise.
3 Would you please, first, then, ask that to the witness,
4 Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes.
6 Q. Witness, so, in effect, during your work, your professional
7 experiences, did you have a task to find out where a projectile could come
8 from, one or several?
9 A. If we are talking about a small calibre ammunition, for instance,
10 a rifle, what we do in the investigation, in an investigation of a site,
11 we are just connecting two points that could possibly indicate the
12 direction where the projectile or the bullet came from. So by linking up
13 these two points, one point could be inside a room, and the second point
14 could be in the glass, or the third, if there is one, so for instance, if
15 there is a cover outside or a roof outside of the building. So this is
16 only the direction of the bullet of the trajectory, where it came from.
17 In those cases, if it is not possible to link up these two points, then we
18 do not say that we can determine where the bullet came from.
19 Q. Thank you, Witness.
20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I believe that
21 according to what the witness just said, I believe that I can now ask the
22 question that I wanted to ask. Do I have your authorisation?
23 JUDGE ORIE: I'm also looking to Mr. Stamp, because it's not quite
24 clear to me whether the question you've put to the witness really brings
25 us any further as far as his expertise is concerned.
1 Let me try to do it more directly. Mr. Besic, you've told us
2 about a system of connecting two points in order to establish where a
3 small projectile came from. Did you have any knowledge and do you take
4 into account when you're working that a bullet usually does not fly in a
5 direct line, but makes a trajectory which is not a straight line from the
6 point where fired to the point where it lands? Do you take it into
7 account? Have you any knowledge of this phenomenon?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Normally every bullet loses some
9 force as it is fired; and after a certain time, it does fall, so there is
10 a landing angle. Of course, it's not a straight line. It loses its
11 speed, its force, and the force is lower. And of course, there is a
12 slight fall. In this case, because we are talking about short
13 distances --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Besic, my question was whether you take this into
15 account while establishing the source of the fire in general. Do you do
16 some mathematics on that part as well? Have you specific knowledge, apart
17 from the global knowledge that you have, and what criteria would you use?
18 What methods would you use to calculate this phenomenon in your findings?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, we didn't have training like
20 that. We didn't do any calculations. This is only determining two points
21 and determining where the projectile came from. That's all.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, I expect that this will give you
23 enough guidance to know where the expertise of the witness is and where it
24 might not be. Yes.
25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes, but I have a third
1 question in this field.
2 Q. Witness, since you conducted these investigations, is it possible
3 to have ricochets, as they are called, when a projectile is fired?
4 A. Yes, of course, there is ricochet. So a bullet or a projectile
5 which comes to an obstacle then changes its direction, its trajectory.
6 Q. Thank you for your answer, Witness.
7 So it is theoretically possible that a projectile which would go
8 through the very first obstacle, which is more or less solid or
9 consistent, it could deviate to the right or to the left. Is that right?
10 A. Yes, exactly. In fact, if we're talking about a bullet or about
11 shrapnel, if it comes to an obstacle, it is possible that it will change
12 its course, whether to the left or to right. But it is then possible to
13 see a deformation on it.
14 Q. Thank you. So the deformation could go up to it being actually
15 broken up?
16 A. In some cases, it does happen. It depends on the obstacle. It
17 could burst. But in most cases, no. That happens quite rarely.
18 Q. Thank you for your answer. And I believe that I'm making myself
19 clear that we're talking about deviations to the left or to the right, so
20 any direction in space. It is possible, to the left and to the right;
21 also, it can go up or down.
22 A. It does depend on the obstacle that it encounters.
23 Q. Yes, absolutely. We agree. Thank you, Witness.
24 Now, since we clarified these points, I would like to go back to
25 some other questions. I would like to go back to the questions regarding
1 Markale. You told us that the photographer was with you. I am not sure
2 that I remember his name. Could you give us the name of the cameraman,
3 the man who was manning the videocamera?
4 A. Zlatan Sadikovic.
5 Q. So if I understand you correctly, Witness, he filmed the entire
6 scene, the entire site, what we saw yesterday - I'm talking about on
7 site - on Markale site?
8 A. Yes, he filmed all that.
9 Q. He did it with the same camera?
10 A. Yes, with the same camera.
11 Q. Thank you for your answer.
12 Witness, now I'm going to go back to the chronology of the events
13 and the photographs. But first of all, I would like you to tell us
14 whether there were operations on site. I'm talking about the Markale
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp.
17 MR. STAMP: The objection really is vagueness. "Operation on
18 site", it could lead us anywhere.
19 JUDGE ORIE: I had some difficulties because I changed channel.
20 MR. STAMP: The question is about operations on site. Witness
21 could take us anywhere. The question I object to, it is too vague.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, could you please be more precise,
23 Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes.
25 Q. The question was clearer in French. But by "operations", what I
1 meant of course, I meant surgical -- I meant surgery, surgical
3 A. I don't know what you mean. What do you mean "surgery"?
4 Q. Did you see with your own eyes that there were surgical
5 operations, surgeries, on site trying to sewing up injuries, tending to
6 the wounds?
7 A. No, that was not done on site. The conditions were not such to do
8 that on site.
9 Q. Thank you, Witness, for your answer.
10 So you are absolutely certain there were no surgical operations on
11 the Markale site?
12 A. I cannot answer because I wasn't on site immediately. I arrived
13 about 35, 45 minutes after it happened, to the site of the incident. We
14 didn't find any people or corpses or the wounded. We found the space that
15 was secured, as I explained.
16 Q. Thank you, Witness.
17 As far as you know, was there a medical facility on site, a kind
18 of field medical facility on site?
19 A. No, there was nothing like that on site.
20 Q. Thank you for your answer.
21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, at this time, I
22 would like to have a look at the video that we saw yesterday, and I've
23 already informed the technical booth. This is the P29 -- 2278. And if it
24 is possible, we could just stop to have a look at it, and then I can say
25 when the projection will actually start.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could the technical booths --
2 MR. STAMP: Could we just clarify the number. Is it P2278 or
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's at least what my understanding in French
6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. Usher, could tell us
7 because he has it in his hands.
8 [In English] Please check the number.
9 THE REGISTRAR: It is 2278.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Is my recollection correct when I say that 2278 was
11 the incomplete version, and 2279 was the complete version of the tape,
12 Mr. Stamp?
13 MR. STAMP: I beg your pardon. May I have a moment.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 [Prosecution counsel confer]
16 JUDGE ORIE: We had two versions of the tape, one more or less
18 MR. STAMP: May I express my understanding. I think the version
19 shown earlier --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MR. STAMP: -- which was an extract was 2279. What was shown
22 later we have designated 2279A, and that is a Court original or part
23 thereof. What I think is being tendered up now is something which we
24 disclosed to the Defence but has not yet been tendered into evidence.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 MR. STAMP: This is a tape --
2 JUDGE ORIE: So that's a tape we have not seen yet in this
4 MR. STAMP: It is not in evidence.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Is there anything else on that tape compared to the
6 tapes we have seen?
7 MR. STAMP: If I may describe what the tape depicts, it really
8 shows the scene of Markale before the police arrived.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MR. STAMP: The wounded and dead casualties being removed from the
11 scene, and it shows aspects of a hospital. This tape was intended to be
12 tendered through a witness who was on scene before the police arrived.
13 And I think we did indicate that to the Defence. But I think that is
14 where the confusion has arisen. This has not yet been put in evidence.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 Then, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, what Mr. Stamp tells us, that this is not
17 the video that we saw yesterday. Is that correct? And is this number
19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I believe that
20 this is a tape which originates from the Prosecution, which is the summary
21 of what the Prosecution wanted to put in its case. And I thought it would
22 be useful to see it. But perhaps if we could go back to the witness
23 tomorrow and then have a look at the video together, if -- I don't know
24 what Mr. Stamp would like us to do.
25 JUDGE ORIE: One moment, please.
1 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, when you introduced the videotape you were
2 about to play, is that what you said, "Mr. President, at this time I would
3 like to have a look at the video that we saw yesterday, and I have already
4 informed the technical booth, and that is...", and you came up with the
5 number 2278. But that is not the video we saw yesterday.
6 Am I correct in my understanding? Because that's what Mr. Stamp
7 tells us.
8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well. First of all, I'm
9 sorry about yesterday; we only saw just smoke yesterday. But we are
10 talking about Monday. This cassette is most probably the summary of what
11 we saw, what we saw in the course of Monday. Is that right?
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, Mr. Stamp has explained to us that
13 we have -- that there are two videotapes used on Monday, one is the
14 complete version of - let me say the police videotape; I'm just putting it
15 short - and a redacted one, just showing portions of it. Initially, the
16 Prosecution thought they could do with the redacted version, but finally
17 it turned out that they needed all the information on the tape. So I
18 think finally they will only tender the complete version. But these both
19 were police tapes.
20 What you are about to present to this Court is, in your own words,
21 the tape of yesterday - and of course, we are talking about the day before
22 yesterday - but is not the police video. Am I correct in my
23 understanding? Because I now understand far better a few of your
24 questions, perhaps. But would you please be clear on whether you are
25 replaying a video or part of a video we've already seen, or that you're
1 playing a video which has been disclosed to you by the Prosecution as a
2 totally different kind of video. This means a video, as explained by
3 Mr. Stamp, a video made by someone before the police arrived.
4 Am I correct in my understanding?
5 MR. STAMP: That is quite correct.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Would you be quite clear on that, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
7 Are we playing the police video we have seen already, or are we playing a
8 totally different video?
9 THE INTERPRETER: The counsel's microphone is not on.
10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Well, we should see this tape,
11 but there is no time. But we shall do it tomorrow when we proceed. We
12 shall have to see --
13 JUDGE ORIE: No, Mr. Piletta-Zanin. I want a clear answer from
14 you whether the tape you asked to be played. Whether it will be played
15 now or not is a different question. I want a clear answer whether the
16 tape you presented us is a tape --
17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] May I have the tape back, and
18 then I will ask the witness a direct question.
19 JUDGE ORIE: I just put a question to you, Mr. Piletta-Zanin. I'd
20 like to have an answer.
21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I need to confer with my
22 colleague. Thank you
23 [Defence counsel confer]
24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] It is a tape which we received
25 on Saturday, Mr. President, and therefore it is obviously an integral
1 tape. But we shall now confirm it. We received this tape on Saturday,
2 and chronologically the answer has been provided.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp, has a tape with a number 2278 been
4 provided to the Defence last Saturday?
5 MR. STAMP: It was disclosed to them on the 27th of February.
6 They might have received it or picked it up on Saturday, but it was
7 disclosed on the 27th of February.
8 JUDGE ORIE: How was it indicated to the Defence that this was
9 not, as I call it, the police video?
10 MR. STAMP: It was indicated because it bore a different number.
11 And whereas the police video would have been referenced to this witness,
12 Sead Besic, this other video was referenced to another witness, Esad
13 Hadzimuratovic, on our letter of a date I can't recall.
14 JUDGE ORIE: When I look at -- you're talking about
16 MR. STAMP: Hadzimuratovic, yes.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Hadzimuratovic. On my last list, I see as exhibit
18 numbers mentioned for Esad Hadzimuratovic only 3121, not 2278.
19 MR. STAMP: On a letter addressed to the counsel for the Defence
20 and copied to this Chamber dated the 27th of February, we sent by fax to
21 the Defence and filed it immediately for Court, we indicate in the second
22 paragraph --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just find it first, Mr. Stamp. You said a
24 letter of the?
25 MR. STAMP: 27th of February.
1 JUDGE ORIE: 27th.
2 Yes, I have it. Yes, I have here a letter of the 27th of
4 MR. STAMP: And I refer to the second paragraph, Mr. President.
5 And I did make an error. It was not disclosed on the 14th of March -- it
6 was not disclosed on the 27th of February. The 27th of February is the
7 date of the letter. It was, in fact, disclosed on the 14th of March.
8 JUDGE ORIE: So it was approximately one year ago. And where does
9 it clearly now indicate that this is not a police video? Is this from the
10 list of exhibits? Can we see it there? I haven't got a list of
11 exhibits. Could you please read for us entry 2278, which should not be
12 too difficult? Have you got a list? No, it's not the list of exhibits
13 tendered into evidence but the exhibit list that has been filed in
14 accordance with Rule 65 ter. That means the long list of exhibits.
15 MR. STAMP: In the exhibit list, it reads "2278".
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then?
17 MR. STAMP: And video in respect of the shooting of Sarajevo
18 market, Markale, 5 February, 1994. And it is -- the ERN number is
19 V000-0350 disclosed on the 14th of March.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Could you tell us what does it read on 2279?
21 MR. STAMP: 2279 is excerpt of videotape, and I'll ask you to
22 forgive my B/C/S. It's a quotation from B/C/S. Labelled "Mati Grejala
23 Obseja Za Otegrevaca, Genocide 1, Rane Zude Ena, CSB Sarajevo, Markale"
25 CSB Sarajevo is a reference to the police department. Acronym in
1 B/C/S to the police department. But the two tapes bear different evidence
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand. But you indicated, and it was
4 of importance for this Chamber to find out, and it must have been clear to
5 you, whether there was any risk of anyone in this courtroom being misled
6 by the type of video that would be played. That's the reason why I put
7 the questions to Mr. Piletta-Zanin. And I did that also on the basis of
8 you saying that it has been made clear to the Defence that this was not a
9 police -- not a police exhibit, not a police video, as I just said short.
10 I now do understand that from the quotation in B/C/S, in the number and
11 the absence of such quotation in 2278, it should have been clear that it
12 was a different type of video.
13 Well, at least now it's clear to me what you meant by saying that
14 it was indicated to the Defence that this was not a police video.
15 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, you told us that it was about a video that was
16 given to you only last weekend. Was this the redacted video, 2279, that
17 was given to you? Because the Prosecutor tells us that approximately one
18 year ago, 2278 has been disclosed to the Defence. Could you please
19 clarify that.
20 Yes, Ms. Pilipovic.
21 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'll resolve the
22 problem. Two videotapes I collected on Saturday from the locker when I
23 was also given the -- got the binders under 92 bis. It is Dobrinja, the
24 5th of February, 1994, and the tape which I do not have now, which is here
25 with the Registrar. In October, and I think it was October 2002 [sic],
1 the police tape was disclosed to the witness -- to the Defence which the
2 witness identified, and it is 3274.
3 JUDGE ORIE: My English translation says October 2002. That's
4 perhaps a bit too futuristic for this Chamber.
5 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] I don't know why it says 2002,
6 when the Prosecution disclosed all the video evidence. That evidence
7 including a tape, which said a videotape, police report of 5th February,
8 1994, Markale, Markale market. And I'd like to ask our learned friends to
9 tell us what video evidence do they have in their possession?
10 JUDGE ORIE: You just give me one second to read again what has
11 been said.
12 Ms. Pilipovic, you told us that you collected -- one of the two
13 videotapes you collected last weekend from your locker was a video
14 concerning the 5th of February, 1994. Was that Number 2279 or was that
15 2278, or was that 2279A?
16 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the tape which I have
17 now is 3822. That is what I collected on Saturday and the tape which is
18 now ready to be shown. That is what I collected on Saturday. Now, I do
19 not know what the number is, and I do not know who has the tape. So they
20 might tell us the number. The tape says?
21 JUDGE ORIE: May I just see the tape.
22 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
23 JUDGE ORIE: The two videos that are with the Registry at this
24 moment are 2279 and the second one, 2279A. The third one, which was in
25 the hands of the usher, is exhibited number P2278. And it reads:
1 "Extract from V000 or VODO" - I can't read that properly - "0350
2 pertaining to Markale shelling."
3 So that's the video of which you say, Mr. Stamp, that it's a video
4 made not by any police force?
5 MR. STAMP: Not by any police force.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Not by any police force.
7 MR. STAMP: If I may clarify one other thing.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Stamp.
9 MR. STAMP: The other tape which was put into counsel's locker,
10 which she just referred to, was one which from the evidence Mr. Besic said
11 he brought in very recently and which this Court sometime last week
12 directed us to give a copy to the Defence immediately.
13 JUDGE ORIE: But this video has not yet been shown?
14 MR. STAMP: P2278 has not yet been shown.
15 JUDGE ORIE: No, but that's the -- is that the video in the
16 locker? Because this is the one, 2278, which has been disclosed you
17 said --
18 MR. STAMP: Last year. We gave them another copy, as the letter
19 of the 27th indicates.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MR. STAMP: Yes.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I've seen that.
23 MR. STAMP: That's for convenience.
24 JUDGE ORIE: That's for convenience. That's the letter of the --
25 MR. STAMP: 27th. And the letter goes on, "Another new video
1 exhibit that we received recently is also being listed and planned to be
2 tendered through Mirza Sabljica. We are also placing this video in your
4 THE INTERPRETER: Slow down, counsel, please.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Stamp, you are requested to slow down.
6 MR. STAMP: The difficulty really arises in respect of the tape
7 which was just produced by my friend. That tape was clearly designated as
8 a different tape from what has been shown before in the Court by the
9 number, the exhibit number, and the ERN number, and the description on the
10 exhibit list. They are different tapes.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So what you say is you provided, just for the
12 convenience of the Defence, a video, P2278, which you additionally were
13 planning to tender through Witness Esad Hadzimuratovic.
14 MR. STAMP: Yes.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand this. I do not understand why
16 this video does not appear any more on the -- among the exhibits indicated
17 in your letter of the 6th of March, which is of -- if I look at the 6th of
18 March, it's the most recent one. If I look at the potential exhibits for
19 witnesses of the 6th to the 15th of March, 2002, I see Esad
20 Hadzimuratovic. I only see one exhibit, 3121.
21 THE INTERPRETER: Mr. President, please slow down.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do apologise.
23 MR. STAMP: In the letter of the 6th of March, if I may respond to
24 that, Mr. President.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 MR. STAMP: In the third paragraph --
2 JUDGE ORIE: I see, it has disappeared from Mr. Hadzimuratovic,
3 but it appears with another witness. It's additional information. It's
4 clear to me. Thank you for assisting me and better understanding where
5 this exhibit, how it changed from Mr. Hadzimuratovic to another witness.
6 Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes.
8 JUDGE ORIE: You were standing.
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, I simply do not know if my
10 presence was still of any use in this Court, and I can only see that the
11 time is passing. And that now, it is literally impossible to go through
12 this tape regardless of its origin, and therefore I suggest that we return
13 to it tomorrow.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let me just confer.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, the Chamber agrees that it would
17 be wise to start tomorrow. You can put whatever questions on this video.
18 At least it has been clarified now, I hope at least, or perhaps by
19 questioning it might not be clear at all. I do not know.
20 But one thing is for sure, as far as I can see, this is not a
21 video we have seen before. I think that's the only thing we possibly
22 could establish at this very moment, and we heard from the Prosecution
23 what in the view of the Prosecution is the origin of this video. And
24 whenever you have any other view, perhaps rather let you first question
25 the witness and then see what comes out.
1 Where would you like it to be kept until tomorrow morning? I
2 think you would like it to be returned.
3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [In English] We will see that tomorrow. Thank
4 you very much, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We still have a few minutes left, if there are
6 other subjects which would not take up much -- yes. Please proceed,
8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] If I may continue my
9 cross-examination for about 5 minutes, I shall do so gladly. If not --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps it's wiser. I promised Mr. Stamp five
11 minutes on another issue. So perhaps this confusion --
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [In English] He already had five minutes.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but not on the subject he asked for five minutes
15 Mr. Besic, you have seen there has been a lot of confusion about
16 just what about what video will be played to you. Looking backwards, it
17 might have been wiser to have this debate not in your presence. Let me
18 say this to you: Whenever a video may be played tomorrow for you, the
19 parties may have different views as to the origin of the video. None of
20 these visions is as it is now been established for this Chamber. I'd like
21 you to keep that clearly in mind when you return tomorrow morning and
22 answer whatever questions on a video when it will be played to you. I'll
23 ask the usher now to lead you out of the courtroom since we need another
24 five minutes to discuss another issue not related to your testimony.
25 Would you please return tomorrow morning at 9.00 in this courtroom.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Yes, Mr. Usher, would you please lead --
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, thank you.
3 JUDGE ORIE: -- the witness out of the courtroom.
4 [The witness stands down]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp.
6 MR. STAMP: May it please you, Mr. President and Your Honours, at
7 the beginning of today's sitting you had indicated, Mr. President, that
8 there was some areas that need to be clarified in respect to the status of
9 certain witnesses, whether they are experts or not.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 MR. STAMP: I have to confess that as far as the 65 ter summaries
12 are concerned, perhaps the expression "expert" has not been used in a way
13 that strictly confines it to Rule 94 bis. It has been used rather
14 loosely. And --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed, Mr. Stamp.
16 MR. STAMP: And for the time being, I'd like to clarify the status
17 in respect of the witness Mirza Sabljica.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, just for this one witness.
19 MR. STAMP: Yes. Your Honour had referred to quite a number of
20 witnesses, and we will clarify all of them in due course. But this one is
21 one scheduled to testify soon. He is here. Everything relevant to his
22 testimony has been served on the Defence for quite some time now, and they
23 have been notified that he is to testify soon. He, as is indicated by the
24 65 ter summary, is a -- or was a police officer with specialist training
25 in a particular field.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 MR. STAMP: He is not an expert for the purposes of Rule 94 bis.
3 He, like many other police officers who are trained in a particular area
4 of investigations, will certainly have over the years gained expertise and
5 experience in a particular area that he can testify upon.
6 But he is primarily a fact witness. He participated in the investigation,
7 made observations of fact, and on the basis of his training as a police
8 officer, he is --
9 JUDGE ORIE: That's quite clear to us. You regard him as a normal
10 witness and as a witness which potentially could -- Rule 94 bis could be
11 applied upon.
12 MR. STAMP: Indeed, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, any observation you'd like to make
14 after this clarification.
15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I was about to
16 say that in view of what the Prosecution says, I'd really like to answer,
17 but there is no time to do so. I need to consult with my colleague, and
18 perhaps we shall do so, that is, respond tomorrow if all goes well.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But let me just see. We asked for a
20 clarification to the Prosecution in order to be sure whether we are
21 dealing with a witness or an expert witness to which Rule 94 bis might
22 apply or not. I wonder if you would agree with the Prosecution, I wonder
23 whether the Defence could force the Prosecution to qualify one of their
24 witnesses as an expert. It's a question. I'm just putting it as a
25 question. But I'm wondering if that's the issue you want to think over
1 overnight, I'm curious to hear what you'd like to say about it tomorrow.
2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] There are a number of things
3 that we can do overnight, Mr. President, and that could be one of the
4 things that we wish to clarify. However, what we wish to clarify is how
5 many times -- and I know how Prosecution is precise in what he wants to
6 do, how often they have called people witnesses and at times expert
7 witnesses. I do not have my whole file here, but I chose to remind that
8 the letonical (phoen) system that we were made access to does not
9 function, and we have to simply check for this witness and for other
10 witnesses. Thank you.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Of course, well you feel that this Chamber also
12 needed some clarification on this point. Being it's 7.00 now, we'll
13 adjourn until tomorrow morning, 9.00.
14 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at
15 6.59 p.m., to be reconvened on
16 Thursday, the 7th day of March, 2000,
17 at 9.00 a.m.]