1 Thursday, 22 July 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
5 JUDGE KWON: Good morning to you all.
6 There's a matter the Chamber wanted to raise in the absence of
7 the witness.
8 Shall we go into private session briefly.
9 [Private session]
6 [Open session]
7 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. We are now in open session.
8 Let's bring in the witness.
9 [The witness takes the stand]
10 WITNESS: EKREM SULJEVIC [Resumed]
11 [Witness answered through interpreter]
12 JUDGE KWON: Good morning, Mr. Suljevic.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
14 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Gaynor, please continue.
15 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you, Mr. President.
16 Examination by Mr. Gaynor: [Continued]
17 Q. Mr. Suljevic, as yesterday, I'm going to ask you to be as concise
18 as possible in your comments. We're just going to pick up where we left
19 off yesterday.
20 And the first document, if I could have 10932, please.
21 Mr. Suljevic, as you'll see, this is a document issued by the
23 you could just tell us what that document is about.
24 A. This document is an order to issue aerial bombs to various units.
25 It is the Command of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps that compiled the
1 document, and then it says how many aerial bombs are going to be issued
2 to each and every brigade.
3 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could all other
4 microphones be switched off while the witness is speaking. Thank you.
5 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you.
6 Could I have the next document, which is 11643, please. It's a
7 fairly short document, Mr. Suljevic.
8 Q. Mr. Suljevic, if you could just describe what this one is.
9 A. This document also shows that the Command of the Sarajevo
10 Romanija Corps is urgently asking the Main Staff of the Army of
11 Republika Srpska to allow them to issue aerial bombs in order to crush
12 the Muslim offensive; namely, 30 105-kilogram bombs and 20 250-kilogram
14 MR. GAYNOR: Can I have the next document, please, which is
16 Q. Again, it's a fairly short document, Mr. Suljevic. Just tell us
17 who it's from and to and what it's about.
18 A. This is the Main Staff of the Army of Republika Srpska, the
19 Technical Department, that is writing and saying that the
20 27th Logistics Brigade will take over the aerial bomb from the Pretis
21 company once they are completed.
22 MR. GAYNOR: Can I have the next document, which is 11804.
23 Q. This appears to be a request, as you can see, Mr. Suljevic, in
24 relation to various kinds of ammunition. If you could tell us, just
25 briefly, what kinds of ammunition are being requested, and then focus on
1 items 15 and 16.
2 A. Well, the Command of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps is addressing
3 the Main
4 units that are involved in intensive combat activity. On the list, there
5 is artillery ammunition from 76- to 150-millimetre calibre, then mortar
6 shells for mortars, 82-millimetre and 120-millimetre, and, finally,
7 inter alia, the issuing of aerial bombs, 20 105-kilogram bombs and
8 10 250-kilogram bombs.
9 MR. GAYNOR: Could I have the next document, which is 11815.
10 Q. And this document, Mr. Suljevic, if you could focus on items 7,
11 8, and 9 under Section B, and tell us what the document is.
12 A. It's similar to the previous one. The Command of the Sarajevo
13 Romanija Corps is addressing the Main Staff of the Army of
14 Republika Srpska and is most urgently asking for the issuing of
15 ammunition needed for potential anti-landing combat; inter alia, it has
16 to do with the issuing of 105-kilogram aerial bombs and 250-kilogram
17 aerial bombs and 128-millimetre rockets, known as Plamen.
18 MR. GAYNOR: Could I have the next document, which is 11816.
19 Q. This document, Mr. Suljevic, you might want to cast your eye to
20 the middle of the section marked "Section 2." And, again, just generally
21 describe what this document is about.
22 A. Can you just zoom out a bit so that I can see it better, so that
23 I see the beginning?
24 This is information concerning the receipt of material and
25 financial resources, and it says that in 1995, equipment was received
1 according to this list; inter alia, a certain number of aerial bombs of
2 100 kilograms and a certain number of 250-kilogram bombs.
3 MR. GAYNOR: Can we have the next document, please, which is
5 Q. And, Mr. Suljevic, this document, could you just say who it's
6 from, who it's to, and then look at item 22 under Section A.
7 A. This document shows that it was sent from the Sarajevo
8 Romanija Corps to the Main Staff of the Army of Republika Srpska. This
9 document is a request for approval concerning ammunition in order to
10 equip units that are engaged in intensive combat operations. Ten
11 250-kilogram bombs are requested, inter alia.
12 Q. Could you just clarify what kind of 250-kilogram bombs are
14 A. Air-bombs, aerial bombs that are mentioned in all the documents
15 that we had here, that we saw yesterday, that were used for
16 construction -- actually, for constructing modified air-bombs, those that
17 consisted of an air-bomb and an engine as a launcher.
18 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you.
19 Could I have the next document, which is 11818.
20 Q. This is a document, as you can see, Mr. Suljevic, from the VRS
21 Main Staff to be delivered to Pretis and to the SRK Command. And if you
22 could tell us what it's about, and, again, just identify items 4 and 5.
23 A. This shows that the Main
24 or, rather, the Technical Department in the Logistics Sector, is writing
25 to the Pretis company. They're ordering them, actually, or asking them
1 to issue a certain type of ammunition. Inter alia, they're asking for
3 these are modified air-bombs.
4 MR. GAYNOR: Can I have the next document, please, which is
6 Q. Again, just tell us what this document is. It appears to be
7 issued by the VRS Main Staff. Tell us, briefly, what it's about.
8 A. That's right. Like previously, the Technical Department of the
9 Logistics Sector of the VRS is sending a document to the Command of the
10 27th Logistics Brigade and the Pretis company. This is a document that
11 says the following:
12 "Upon the request of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps Command (for
13 units on the north-western part of the Sarajevo front), the following
14 types and quantities of ammunition are to be issued and transported to
15 the village of Semizovac
16 Inter alia, an FAB
17 them. I think they're actually asking for four modified air-bombs.
18 That's in the first part.
19 As for meeting the needs of the units at the south-western part
20 of the front, a certain type of ammunition should be sent to Lukavica as
21 well. Inter alia, an FAB
22 actually, and an FAB
23 are those modified air-bombs.
24 Q. Mr. Suljevic, as we can see, one of the references you've pointed
25 out, in fact, reads "FAB
1 that might be?
2 A. I don't know what that means, exactly. I assume that it may be a
3 typo. Instead of typing a hyphen, somebody typed out "BA." That's my
4 opinion. I think it is air-bombs that are marked "FAB-105."
5 MR. GAYNOR: Could I have the next document, which is 12123.
6 Q. This document is from the SRK Command, and it's headed "Talas-1"
7 at the top right-hand corner. This is quite a long document,
8 Mr. Suljevic. If you could describe what it appears to be to you. And
9 then if we could go to page 2 and focus on the first three paragraphs on
10 page 2 after you've had an opportunity to look at the first page.
11 A. Could we have a look at page 2? There is a page 2, isn't there?
12 Q. Yes. If you could focus, in fact, on the very top of page 2, the
13 first three typewritten paragraphs.
14 A. This document shows that within this operation, an order was
15 issued to prepare launchers and to select a target for launching four to
16 six aerial bombs, provided that they hit the target. This document shows
17 that if that many bombs do not fall on that particular target, more bombs
18 should be used. So if they miss, the next projectile has to hit the
19 target. It also says that what should be envisaged is using aerial bombs
20 against three more designated targets in addition to the main target, and
21 that at least two projectiles should fall on those targets; that is to
22 say, two air bombs, at least.
23 In terms of the preparation of all of this equipment,
24 Colonel Tadija Manojlovic is tasked with this particular assignment, and
25 these air-bombs should be used in given areas.
1 Q. Just going back to the last few words of the first paragraph on
2 that page, do you have any observations to make on what you have read
4 A. In the first paragraph, it says that if a target is missed, it
5 should be made sure that the next projectile has to hit the target. That
6 is to say, if the launched aerial bomb does not hit the target, then, as
7 far as I understand this document, it has to be made sure that the target
8 will be hit as many times as necessary before it is actually hit.
9 Q. Very well. And just as a general matter, could you summarise
10 what this document is, to your understanding?
11 A. Could we please have the first page.
12 This is an order to act, as the document, itself, says, within
13 the context of preparing for Talas-1; that is, an action that is called
14 Talas-1. This is an order of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps Command, issued
15 to the units that are listed here in the document. These are probably
16 units that belonged to that corps.
17 MR. GAYNOR: Could I have the next document, please, which is
19 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, for the record, this has been
20 admitted as Exhibit D322.
21 MR. GAYNOR: If we could move to the second page on the B/C/S
22 version of this. Thank you.
23 Q. Again, could you describe, briefly, what this document is, and
24 then focus on the words which appear to be underlined in the version
25 which you have in front of you.
1 A. The Command of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps is issuing a very
2 urgent order related to full combat readiness for all units of the
4 the effect that the enemy is planning operations against the units of the
5 corps. In order to thwart that, what is being ordered, inter alia, is
6 what we can see from part of the text; namely, to ensure that launchers
7 and air-bombs should be prepared to fire on the city.
8 MR. GAYNOR: Can I have the next document, please, 20841.
9 Q. The next document, Mr. Suljevic, as you'll see, is a document
10 from the SRK
11 document is about?
12 A. The Command of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps is sending to the
13 Main Staff of the VRS a report.
14 MR. GAYNOR: Perhaps we can zoom in on the text a little.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So this is a report of the chief of
16 artillery of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps to the VRS Main Staff, where
17 he's informing the Main Staff that he was unable and that he gave up on
18 targeting the designated target, which envisaged, according to the
19 decision that had been made, to target the entrance to the tunnel in
20 Donji Kotorac. They decided to desist from that because their own forces
21 and the UN forces would thus be placed in jeopardy. And as we can see
22 from the document, during the reconnaissance that was carried out in
23 preparation for carrying out this task, it was established that there
24 were two UNPROFOR check-points some 200 metres, at most, from the
25 entrance to the tunnel, and that the UNPROFOR observers were moving
1 around in the town of Kotorac
2 position was some 500 metres away from the entrance to the tunnel, and
3 that the direction of the targeting would be over the Restaurant Kula,
4 which was -- as we can see, the target was, in my view, on the other side
5 of the airport. And to me this looks like a document that shows how
6 imprecise this system of launching aerial bombs was, because if they are
7 afraid that they might strike their own units, which are very far from
8 the designated target, that points to a conclusion that the chief of
9 artillery, himself, was not certain about where this air-bomb might
10 actually strike.
11 MR. GAYNOR: Can I have the next document, please, which is
13 Q. As you'll see, Mr. Suljevic, this is a request from the
14 Ilidza PBR
15 Just look down at paragraph two and just summarise what this document's
17 A. The Command of the 1st Ilidza Brigade is requesting from the
18 Command of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps to provide them assets or means,
19 as it says in the document, for the production of 250-kilogram air-bombs.
20 And for the 30 pieces -- or, rather, 30 sets of -- in my view, of these
21 modified air-bombs, they requested motors, because they didn't have them,
22 and that's what they're requesting in this document addressed to the
24 for modified air-bombs, 250-kilogram air-bombs.
25 Q. Does that fit in with your understanding of how many engines were
1 attached to a 250-kilogram air-bomb?
2 A. Well, it is consistent with that, although in the investigations
3 that I participated in, we also found air-bombs that would have four
4 rocket motors fitted on them. There were some that had three. And, of
5 course, I'm only speaking about the investigations that I participated
7 Here, if we have 30 air-bombs, and the request is for 90 rocket
8 motors, then, based on this, it would appear that these 30 air-bombs
9 would be fitted with three rocket motors each.
10 MR. GAYNOR: Can I have the next document, please, which is
12 Q. As you'll see in a moment, Mr. Suljevic, this is a document from
13 the Vogosca IKM of the SRK
14 if you can confirm that and also look at paragraph 6 of this document.
15 A. We can see from this document that there was an offensive which
16 was repelled, all the attacks were repelled successfully, and then
17 further on it says that the 27th Logistics Base had taken over a certain
18 quantity of ammunition from the Pretis enterprise, more specifically,
19 120-millimetre shells and 105-millimetre rounds, and that there were some
20 more -- there were further quantities that could be taken over from the
21 Pretis enterprise. And it further says that there were aerial bombs that
22 should be collected, FAB
23 MR. GAYNOR: Could I have the next document, please, which is
25 Q. This is a document, Mr. Suljevic, as you can see, from the
1 Forward Command Post of the SRK
2 us what this is about.
3 A. This document shows that this was -- this is a proposal, and
4 I think that we had a similar document -- that we saw a similar document
5 yesterday, where the Sarajevo Romanija Corps Command is being informed
6 that the Maintenance and Repair Depot in Hadzici has manufactured a new
7 air-bomb launcher for up to 500-kilogram bombs. And as it says in the
8 document, it is of much higher quality than any so far. The launcher is
9 mounted on a vehicle taken from the Igman Brigade, and that the technical
10 control was tested at the Maintenance and Repair Depot, but that there
11 should be a commission established - or, rather, that's the proposal - in
12 order to establish the consumption of FABs, 100 and 250 kilograms, and
13 that following the testing that it should be deployed with one of the
14 corps artillery units.
15 MR. GAYNOR: Can I have the next document, please, which is
17 Q. Could you tell us, generally, what this document is, and then
18 focus on items 6 and 7 on the first part and also items 6 and 7 in the
19 other two parts of this document.
20 A. This is a request for ammunition replenishment, sent to the chief
21 of artillery of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps, where, in the first part,
22 they are presenting the ammunition that they have available within units.
23 And according to this document, the status of ammunition at a certain
24 location is -- and then it mentions the air-bomb, 250, it says, "KT," and
25 a 250-kilogram air-bomb, and that they don't have them at this particular
1 position, whereas in the second paragraph we see that at another
2 position, Position RR, they do have one air-bomb of 250 kilograms and
3 three 100-kilogram air bombs. That is the status and the situation. And
4 then what follows is a request to replenish the ordnance.
5 Could we see -- could we scroll down and see the text further.
6 MR. GAYNOR: It's on the next page, please. Thank you.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So, as I've already said, the first
8 part shows the status and the situation as it is, a snap-shot of what
9 they have, whereas the second part is a request where they are requesting
10 five 250-kilogram air-bombs and three 100-kilogram air-bombs, which is
11 consistent with what it says there; that for the 100-kilogram air-bomb,
12 they need 1.5 combat sets, whereas for the five 250-kilogram air-bombs,
13 2.5 combat sets are required.
14 MR. GAYNOR: Could I have the next document, please, which is
16 Q. If we zoom in on that document, Mr. Suljevic, no need to worry
17 about the handwritten annotations. Just tell us who it's from, and who
18 it's to, and what this concerns.
19 A. Well, in the fifth line from the bottom in this text, there is
20 mention of 500-kilogram bombs. I don't know if this is an error of some
21 sort. So this is a request for 250-kilogram bombs, which corresponds to
22 the 2.5 combat sets, and then 100-kilogram bombs for which they're
23 requesting 1.5 combat sets, which we saw in the previous document.
24 Q. Just focus on the opening paragraphs of the communication.
25 Perhaps we can zoom in a little on the text of the opening
2 A. The Command of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps is asking the
3 subordinate units, as far as I can see, to return a certain number of
4 air-bombs, pursuant to a verbal order by General Miletic, from the
5 Main Staff of the Army of Republika Srpska, that these air-bombs which
6 had been captured from Pretis by the 3rd Brigade when they attacked the
7 factory, and that were deployed according to the Sarajevo Romanija Corps
8 pursuant to an order of the 24th of August, 1995, and apparently this
9 deployment was made in error because, as it says in the Command from the
10 IKM 2, the recovered ammunition should be distributed to various units.
11 And then further on, it says that in relation to the -- that the -- to
12 the above-mentioned matter, it is necessary that the units in the
13 north-west section of the Sarajevo
14 Pretis. And then they mention that there are 105 and 250-kilogram bombs
15 that need to be returned. The total number of the bombs to be returned
16 are 12 105-kilogram bombs and 14 250-kilogram bombs. And once the task
17 is accomplished, they should report to the Command of the Sarajevo
18 Romanija Corps.
19 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you. Now we're on to the final document,
20 which is 21325. And if we could zoom in on the text a little.
21 Q. And tell us who this is from, who it is to, and what this
22 document is.
23 A. This is an order from the Main Staff of the Army of
24 Republika Srpska, sent to the Pretis holding company in Vogosca and to
25 the command of some units -- commands of some units. The order says that
1 for the needs of HK units engaged in Zvijezda operation plus 94. On the
2 right bank of the Drina River
3 250-kilogram air-bombs, and for the needs of the units, to also issue
4 seven prepared 250-kilogram air bombs. But it says that the launcher --
5 the use of launchers and air bombs will be only in co-ordination with the
6 Command of the Visegrad Unit.
7 Q. And could you give the full name of that unit, if you can? Or,
8 essentially, I just wanted, as much as you can tell, what the last few
9 words of the body of the communications state.
10 A. It says in the document that the use of the launcher and the
11 250-kilogram air-bombs will be carried out in agreement with the
12 commander of the DK and the Visegrad TG. I think that the Visegrad "TG"
13 means "Tactical Group," and the "DK" is probably a corps, a reference to
14 a corps. At least that's what it says, but I'm not sure -- I'm not very
15 familiar with all of these units, nor am I familiar with the composition
16 of the corps and their units and what units were in which corps. I am
17 not familiar, either, with the composition of the Bosnian Army or the
19 MR. GAYNOR: At this stage, Mr. President, I'd like to seek the
20 admission of the 45 documents that the witness has commented upon. And
21 I'd also like to seek the admission of the documents listed in his
22 amalgamated witness statement.
23 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Robinson.
24 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. President.
25 I note that four of these documents were admitted as source
1 documents from Mr. Philipps' testimony. I don't know if you need me to
2 list them, or probably Ram already has that information. But if it's
3 necessary, I can give you the 65 ter numbers and the P numbers.
4 Apart from that, although there may be grounds for objecting to
5 some of these documents through this witness, in the spirit of
6 reciprocity and anticipated reciprocity in the future, we don't object.
7 Thank you.
8 MR. GAYNOR: In respect of the documents which have been admitted
9 as source documents previously, we're now seeking the admission of those
10 documents for all purposes.
11 JUDGE KWON: Are you tendering the associated exhibits at this
12 moment as well, or --
13 MR. GAYNOR: Yes, Mr. President, I'll tender all the associated
14 exhibits referred to in the amalgamated witness statement.
15 While I'm at it: Your Honours requested us to take a hard look
16 at the associated exhibits which concern unscheduled shelling incidents.
17 You made an oral direction to that effect. I've done that, and all but
18 one of the unscheduled shelling incidents are supported by one document
19 each. In each case, the document is a two- or three-page KDZ report.
20 And in respect of one unscheduled shelling incident, it's supported by
21 two documents. So we could -- if you wish, we could remove 09924 from
22 the list of documents referred to in the list which appears at the end of
23 the amalgamated statement of Mr. Suljevic. It's attached to the very
25 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Robinson, do you have any observation as to the
1 associated exhibits?
2 MR. ROBINSON: We don't object to them.
3 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Gaynor, in relation to 65 ter 9719 -- or, no,
4 strike that. It's okay.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE KWON: They will be all admitted. And those four items
7 which were admitted through Mr. Philipps as source documents, they will
8 be noted as having been admitted for full purpose.
9 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you, Mr. President.
10 That ends the examination-in-chief.
11 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
12 Mr. Karadzic.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
14 Good morning to everybody in the courtroom. Good morning,
15 Mr. Suljevic.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
17 Cross-examination by Karadzic:
18 Q. [Interpretation] Unfortunately, I will not be able to deal with
19 any general issues. However, I would like to clarify one point.
20 In your folder, I received a document of which I'm not sure
21 whether it belongs there. Let me ask you: Did you actually participate
22 in the war, in our war?
23 A. Could you please clarify? What do you mean when you say
24 "participate in the war"? I was, from before the war, an employee of the
25 Zrak special-purpose company up to sometime in late 1993, and then I
1 joined the Republican Ministry of the Internal Affairs. It's the
2 Department for Counter-Sabotage. And while I was there, and I'm still
3 there - only now it is a federal institution - I was tasked with
4 different duties. But my department was not a combat unit, and it never
5 participated in any combat. I was never on any front-lines, I was never
6 among BiH Army members.
7 Q. Thank you. What did you produce before 1993, when you were still
8 working at the Zrak company?
9 A. I'm an engineer, a machine engineer, and I was -- I'm a
10 mechanical engineer, and I was involved in the construction of devices
11 and machinery for special-purpose industry.
12 Q. If your CV is correct, then I would say you were involved in the
13 production of optical sights.
14 A. The Zrak company, as you know, is a company that deals with
15 mechanical and optical devices. I was engaged in the construction of
16 optical and electronic devices. More specifically, those were devices
17 and mechanisms for the navigation of rockets, for semi-automatic rocket
19 Q. But you are a mechanical engineer, not an electrical engineer?
20 A. Yes, I'm a mechanical engineer, and my specialty is production of
21 mechanical devices.
22 Q. Then, in that case, I've received a folder belonging to some
23 other Suljevic. Do you know somebody called Suljevic who was affiliated
24 with the Administration for Strategic Planning and Education of Armed
1 A. No. I heard of General Zico Suljevic. I never met him, though,
2 and I don't know where he is from. I don't know of any other people by
3 the name of Suljevic. I don't know a single person who was affiliated
4 with the army.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could the Court please show this
6 signature to the witness. I would like to be sure whether this, indeed,
7 is his document or not.
8 JUDGE KWON: If the usher could show the document to the
9 Prosecutor first, and then show it.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellency, I received this
11 only at the very last moment.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is not my signature.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. The problem's solved.
14 JUDGE KWON: That's fine. We don't have to see them?
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If the signature is not his, then
16 no. The OTP has erroneously and unintentionally included that document
17 with all the others that do belong to this witness's portfolio.
18 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Mr. Suljevic, could you please tell us which aerial bombs
20 existed? Could you tell us their weight? What kind of aerial bombs
21 existed in the former Yugoslavia
22 A. I don't know what the former Yugoslav Army had, which aerial
23 bombs they had at their disposal before the war. And during the war, in
24 the incidents -- or, rather, in the investigations that I was involved
25 in, I had an occasion to see -- or, rather, those were -- that was not an
1 investigation. It was just an inspection of a location above Bascarsija,
2 where we found an aerial bomb that had not exploded. We found it in the
3 canyon of the river. Its body was cracked, it's shell was cracked, and
4 it was a 250-kilogram aerial bomb.
5 During the reintegration of the Sarajevo
6 war, I saw photos depicting 250-kilogram aerial bombs. Some of my
7 colleagues had seen them in the Ilijas Ironworks.
8 I, myself, am not an expert. While I served in the former army,
9 I was not affiliated with any such units that would provide me with any
10 knowledge. All I know is from literature.
11 Q. Thank you. What do you mean when you say "the reintegration of
13 municipalities which belonged to the federation after the Dayton Accords,
14 Ilijas, Vogosca, the Serbian part of Vogosca, and others?
15 A. Yes, that was the process of reintegration. That's the official
16 term. After the Dayton Accords, you call it taking over, but that means
17 that according to the Dayton Agreement, some municipalities were given to
18 the federation.
19 Q. Thank you. Now you confuse me a little. Does that mean that you
20 came in touch with aerial bombs only during the last war in 1994 or 1995,
21 not before?
22 A. Yes, that's correct. In the course of the war, I came into a
23 position to acquire knowledge and information about all sorts of
24 artillery projectiles. Before the war, I had not undergone any artillery
25 training, not even in -- while serving in the former JNA.
1 Q. Thank you. When was the first time you encountered aerial bombs
2 in the last war? I'm specifically referring to aerial bombs and their
3 impact and characteristics.
4 A. I can't give you a specific date. I believe that one of the
5 first -- or the first aerial bomb exploded, and I subsequently
6 investigated that place, and that was an aerial bomb which fell by the
7 Sarajka Department Store, next to the Institute for Pulmonary Diseases,
8 in Stevo Street, I believe.
9 Q. And before that, you had not received any instruction in that
11 A. No.
12 Q. Thank you. Well, then let me ask you a few questions and see
13 whether we can agree on some things.
14 In addition to the 105- and 250-kilogram aerial bombs -- do the
15 kilograms actually denote the explosives, the quantity of the explosives
16 in those bombs?
17 A. I'll tell you what I know. I'm not an expert, and I do not
18 appear here in the role of an expert.
19 The kilograms do not denote the quantity of explosives. I
20 believe that this is the actual weight of the aerial bomb, the order of
21 magnitude. As far as I can remember, the 250-kilogram aerial bomb
22 actually contains about 100 kilo of explosives. At least that's what I
23 read in literature.
24 Q. Thank you very much. Am I right in saying that in addition to
25 those two, there were also 500-kilo, 1.000-kilo, and 2.000-kilo aerial
1 bombs as well?
2 A. I can't say, I can't answer. I am sure that probably -- or,
3 rather, I'm sure that there was a 500-kilogram bomb. Whether the former
4 army had the other two, 1.000-kilo and 2.000-kilo, I don't know. I
5 suppose that there are bombs of that sort worldwide.
6 Q. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Suljevic. And now could you please
7 tell us, according to your information, what could have been the descent
8 speed of those bombs, or, rather, impact velocity, in metres per second
9 or kilometres per hour?
10 A. I can't give you that information. I'm not privy to that
11 information at all. We never determined velocity of any of the
12 projectiles at their place of impact. I suppose it cannot be determined.
13 I suppose, for the artillery ammunition, you have to start from the
14 launch velocity to the impact velocity, and the distance, but I don't
16 Q. Am I right in thinking that while you were studying or
17 investigating the place of the air-bomb incident, did you take into
18 account the fragments that you found there and did you take into account
19 the effects of the bomb, the effects that that bomb produced, and that
20 based on that, inter alia, based on that, you arrived at your
22 A. Yes, you are right.
23 Q. Mr. Suljevic, if you don't know enough about those bombs, you
24 don't know their impact velocity, you don't know their weights, types,
25 and so on and so forth, how did you manage to cope without the necessary
1 information and knowledge?
2 A. Well, when it comes to aerial bombs, or an aerial bomb which was
3 most probably used in most of my reports, or, rather, that my reports
4 refer to, and that's the 250-kilo aerial bomb, there is a lot of
5 information in literature. There is its diametre, for example. And at
6 the air-bomb incident places, we always came across the adapter or the
7 bore that connected the aerial bomb and the motors. And based on the
8 diametre of that plate, we were able to claim that it was, indeed, a bomb
9 that we thought it was, because this particular aerial bomb, if I can
10 remember well, its diametre is about 400 millimetres. I'm talking about
11 the 250-kilogram aerial bomb.
12 Q. Thank you. And what was the largest or the biggest fragment that
13 you ever encountered? What was the biggest piece of shrapnel that you
14 ever recovered at the place of an air-bomb incident?
15 A. I can't speak off the top of my head without my reports, but
16 I can say that one of the biggest aerial bomb shrapnel was a piece of tin
17 or a piece of iron when one of the aerial bombs fell very close to the
18 house where I resided in a meadow which was about 200 metres away from my
19 house. A big shrapnel, a big piece of iron, possibly about 10
20 millimetres thick, and approximately 10-by-20 centimetres big, and that
21 shrapnel actually ended up on the roof of my house. And we found the
22 types of shrapnel that were described in our reports. I can't remember
23 their dimensions, but I don't think that we ever found anything as big as
24 that in any other places --
25 Q. Did you participate in the investigation of that particular
1 incident which took place 200 metres away from your house?
2 A. No, I didn't. I didn't know whether there was an investigation
3 at all, because there were -- there were no casualties. It was a
4 weekend, probably, because I was at home. It was in the summer. The
5 weather was nice. There were no casualties. There was a lot of material
6 damage on the facilities. Nothing was destroyed, because there were no
7 houses close to the place of impact. But, for example, on my house, all
8 the window-panes were shattered, all the glass was shattered.
9 Q. And the meadow that you're talking about, was it a soft surface?
10 A. Yes, it was a meadow. It was a grassy surface, soft, yes.
11 Q. But did you see the crater? How big was the crater? Could you
12 describe it?
13 A. Yes, I did come close to the crater, to the place of the air-bomb
14 incident, and in the place I also found representatives of the UNPROFOR
15 or whatever units were on the ground at the time. I don't know. That
16 crater was in the meadow, and its size was three by two, and its depth
17 was about a metre and a half. I don't know. I'm speaking from memory.
18 Nobody measured it at the time, so it's very hard for me to say.
19 Q. Thank you. Will you agree with me -- or, rather, did you hear
20 that those bigger aerial bombs, 250 kilos, 1.000 kilos, and 2.000 kilos,
21 that they have a popular name? How are they known, popularly?
22 A. As far as I know, they call them "krmaca." I don't know whether
23 they were all known as "krmaca" or "sow." I don't know whether it was
24 just one or all of them.
25 Q. Thank you. Do you agree that "krmaca" is actually a female pig?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Do you agree that people called them that because they are fat,
3 big, and messy, and they -- wherever they fall, they cause a lot of mess?
4 A. As far as I know, aerial bombs are intended for destruction.
5 That's their purpose, to destroy.
6 Q. Thank you. What's the time of combustion of those motors that
7 you were talking about?
8 A. I don't know. I can't give you that information. We were never
9 asked to present that in our report, so I never came across information
10 of that kind.
11 Q. And do you agree -- or, rather, does it sound familiar to you
12 that the combustion time of those rockets is four seconds? You spoke
13 about that yesterday. You told us that the combustion time is from the
14 time of launching to the target. Will you agree with me that the
15 combustion time of those rockets is four minutes? No, no, I apologise,
16 four seconds, four seconds.
17 A. I said already that I don't know about that, but it is only
18 natural that a projectile will not fall automatically once the fuel has
19 all burned. There is going to be inertia. It will go on flying, won't
20 it, and then it will fall where it falls.
21 Q. Well, did you confuse me yesterday when you said that fuel is
22 used to propel a rocket -- or, no, not a rocket, a bomb to its target.
23 A. Perhaps this was lack of precision. Well, I don't know what was
24 fired, but if it's four seconds, as you said, then if it takes it four
25 seconds to get there, but if the flight is longer than that, the
1 projectile will still go on flying because there is inertia. It will fly
2 until it falls on the ground.
3 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Gaynor.
4 MR. GAYNOR: Mr. President, could I ask for page references, if
5 the accused is referring to yesterday's testimony of the witness, please.
6 JUDGE KWON: Can you identify the page number, Mr. Karadzic?
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We'll get that during the course of
8 the examination. We'll get that ourselves.
9 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Tell me, Mr. Suljevic, do you agree that these rockets, these
11 rocket engines, also have their own mathematics? There are tables that
12 are used to set the target?
13 A. I fully agree. As to their purpose, I have no doubts that all
14 the necessary tests were carried out. Now, as far as tests are concerned
15 and military checks, I am familiar with that to the extent to which we
16 tested various devices. So I don't doubt that those rockets had been
17 tested and that tables were worked out for them, but only for their basic
18 purpose; that is to say, to fire rockets that had these warheads, if
19 I can put it that way, and that were fired from multiple
21 Q. All right. But do you know or do you have proof -- since we're
22 talking about mathematics, the quantity of fuel, then time, and so on and
23 so forth, do you have information to the effect that this could not have
24 been done, regardless of what these rocket engines are carrying; one,
25 two, three, or more?
1 A. I really do not understand your question. Could you be a bit
2 more specific?
3 Q. You confirmed, when speaking of Grad rockets, that you believe
4 that very precise elements were calculated for the firing of this rocket.
5 Now, do you have any information or proof or do you believe that it is
6 impossible to attain that, regardless of how many engines there are and
7 what kind of warheads are going to be involved? Do you agree that this
8 is a question of mathematics?
9 A. I agree that this is a question of mathematics and making the
10 right calculation.
11 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
12 Mr. Gaynor.
13 MR. GAYNOR: Mr. President, again, this is the second time this
14 happened. The accused's reference to Mr. Suljevic's testimony concerning
15 the Grad rockets does not agree with the transcript I have, nor does it
16 agree with the amalgamated statement of the witness. So I simply ask, if
17 he wishes to refer to the evidence of Mr. Suljevic, either point us to a
18 paragraph in his amalgamated statement or to a page of yesterday's
19 transcript, and that would make it much easier to understand what he's
21 JUDGE KWON: So you are referring to his statement that the
22 witness confirmed, when speaking of Grad rockets, that he --
23 MR. GAYNOR: Yes, that --
24 JUDGE KWON: -- the witness believes that very precise elements
25 were calculated?
1 MR. GAYNOR: For firing of this rocket, that's right.
2 And earlier on, the accused referred to a statement by the
3 witness that fuel was used to propel a particular kind of projectile, and
4 I do not recall Mr. Suljevic saying that in his evidence yesterday.
5 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Gaynor.
6 Could you give us the reference, Mr. Karadzic?
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I was referring to what
8 Mr. Suljevic stated yesterday; namely, that a rocket is propelled from
9 its point of firing to its target. What I put to Mr. Suljevic today was
10 that the burning goes on for four seconds, and after that he spoke of
11 inertia and so on.
12 However, today, on page 26, I think, Mr. Suljevic confirmed that
13 these rockets have certain elements that had been calculated, and a great
14 deal of precision, too, and he restricted himself to the warheads that
15 they were designed for. That's what happened today. And then I asked
16 him whether he agreed that it was a question of calculating fuel,
17 precision, et cetera, that was a question of mathematics, and
18 Mr. Suljevic agreed that it was a question of mathematics. And I asked
19 Mr. Suljevic whether he had any proof that that was impossible to attain
20 if the warhead is different or if two, three, or four engines are used
21 for something else.
22 JUDGE KWON: What you paraphrased is a bit different from what he
23 originally said. In any event, the witness answered. But in the future,
24 be precise in paraphrasing or referring to his earlier statement.
25 Let's continue, Mr. Karadzic. One more question and we'll have a
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I wouldn't be paraphrasing if
3 the learned Mr. Gaynor had been following what Mr. Suljevic had been
4 saying in the first place.
5 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Now, you confirmed, Mr. Suljevic, this is a question of
7 mathematics. Do you have any proof to the effect that it is not possible
8 to calculate precision, or, rather, the firing elements if one applies
9 mathematics to other magnitudes?
10 A. When applying mathematics and carrying out all tests - in the
11 army and in the army industry, people know about that - the technical
12 requirements of a particular piece of equipment that is being
13 manufactured involves this, so all of these requirements have to be
14 tested. And after that, appropriate tables are issued, instructions, and
15 so on and so forth. That is a generally-known thing.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Would this be the right time for a
17 break, Excellency?
18 JUDGE KWON: Yes, if it is convenient.
19 We'll have a break for 30 minutes.
20 --- Recess taken at 10.29 a.m.
21 --- On resuming at 11.03 a.m.
22 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, please continue.
23 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
24 Q. Mr. Suljevic, I'm afraid that I omitted to establish the time
25 with you. You kindly referred to the place where you first encountered
1 an air-bomb. Could you tell us the approximate month and year?
2 A. I cannot say what the month or the year was. I think that we saw
3 it at some later point. We don't know exactly when it fell. Now, was
4 that the end of 1994, was it 1995? I really don't know when it happened,
5 but it was certainly considerably after the bomb actually fell, because I
6 do not have any information as to when this bomb was first noticed, let
7 alone when it was fired.
8 Q. We are talking about the crater on the meadow near your house.
9 Are you sure it was an air-bomb?
10 A. I thought that you were asking me about the first unexploded bomb
11 I had seen, and that is what my answer pertained to. As for this other
12 bomb, I'm sure that it was a modified air-bomb because there were four
13 rocket engines that were tied up there and they happened to be in the
14 crater. I'm sure that it was an aerial bomb, an air-bomb.
15 Q. Just tell us the time. When did that happen, approximately?
16 A. I told you it was summertime.
17 Q. What year?
18 A. I think it was 1995.
19 Q. Thank you. Before we move on to some of the cases that you
20 worked on, can you tell us when does a projectile have regular dispersion
21 and when does it have abnormal dispersion, and how is that established in
22 the first place?
23 A. Again, I'm going to repeat what I said. I am not testifying as
24 an expert here, but I can give you my opinion.
25 When projectiles are being examined -- or, rather, when any other
1 equipment is being examined, the examinations are very, very precise. As
2 far as I know from literature for artillery projectiles, and the tables
3 that I had occasion to see and read, these examinations take a long time.
4 As far as projectiles are concerned, when firing tables are being
5 elaborated, mathematics involves a great many factors; say, altitude,
6 ballistic characteristics, the meteorological conditions involved. As
7 I've already said, all equipment has to be examined. It is not clear to
8 me what kind of examination had taken place.
9 Yesterday, we had a document where one air-bomb of 100 kilograms
10 or of 250 kilograms is supposed to be tested -- or, rather, the launcher
11 for 500 kilograms is being tested. I don't think you even test a bicycle
12 that way. You don't test it with a child that weighs 50 kilograms and
13 then say that the bicycle can carry a 100-kilogram person, a man who
14 weighs 100 kilograms. So this could not be relevant, especially as far
15 as this specific case is concerned, to conduct the testing of a launcher
16 for an air-bomb in this one particular case.
17 Q. Do you agree that this is determined by way of a formula, which
18 is 3 VV times 3 WP?
19 A. I don't exclude that possibility, but I never worked on
20 determining ballistic characteristics. I don't rule that out, but as I
21 said, you have to take into account all factors. These tests have to
22 take into account all factors in order to have precise firing tables. Of
23 course, after that there is the probability of dispersion. So there are
24 no tables that can make sure that a target is hit with 100 per cent
25 certainty. There is always this dispersion that has to be allowed for.
1 Q. Excellent. That's what you said. 3 VV times 3 VP, is that the
2 criterion of precision?
3 A. I cannot answer that.
4 Q. All right. Do you remember that UNPROFOR asked the Muslim
5 artillery and mortar crews to move their positions at least 500 metres
6 away from UNPROFOR positions and installations so that they would not be
7 affected by retaliatory fire?
8 A. I don't know about that.
9 Q. Thank you. Now, what do you say to this: Are rocket projectiles
10 more precise or are artillery projectiles more precise?
11 A. I can't say. As far as I know, I never worked on the elaboration
12 of tables and I never carried out comparisons, so I cannot give a precise
13 answer to your question. But I know that there is always the probability
14 of hitting the target that exists in all tables.
15 Q. Yes, but didn't you have to know about that, because you were
16 dealing with the points of impact where artillery and rocket and mortar
17 shells fell; right?
18 A. Correct. We worked on investigations at points of impact in
19 order to determine what the type of projectile was and also to see what
20 the trajectory was. That's what I worked on. We did not know and we
21 could not even guess what it was that they were trying to hit, what the
22 marksman was trying to hit.
23 Q. All right. Tell me, how did you make a distinction between
24 artillery and mortar projectiles?
25 A. Yesterday, that was discussed a bit. We looked at the traces
1 that were found on site. On the basis of certain characteristic
2 designations or traces on the shrapnel found, and on the basis of what
3 this actually looked like, or, rather, what the crater looked like, or,
4 rather, the traces around the crater that was created by the impact, the
5 point of impact of a projectile that does not rotate is different. This
6 is mortar projectiles, for instance. It's different from artillery
7 projectiles that do rotate during their trajectory. That is to say, they
8 rotate around their axis once they're fired.
9 Q. So what is this difference? How can you tell at the point of
11 A. Well, mortar shells have characteristic traces. Well, they had a
12 particular name. It was called the rosette and the paw of the crater.
13 That is to say, it's around the point of impact, itself. It's a bit hard
14 to explain this by using words. It consists of some circles, or an
15 ellipsis, rather, around the crater. Well, the greater the concentration
16 of shrapnel, I mean, on that side where the projectile had landed, as
17 opposed to artillery projectiles, where the traces are not that
18 characteristic, I mean, the traces that are left by the projectile as it
20 Q. Could you sketch this difference to show the Trial Chamber and
21 the Defence -- to show what actually the crater looks like, where you can
22 tell whether it is a mortal shell or an artillery shell? That would help
23 us with examining -- or while examining and testing your findings here,
24 and it will help us understand them more easily.
25 A. Well, I can try.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Perhaps we can do this during the
2 break. Maybe Mr. Suljevic can use his break, or if he would be gracious
3 enough to use part of his break, in order to draw a sketch of the point
4 of impact in the instances of one and the other type of projectile,
5 artillery or mortar.
6 JUDGE KWON: I was advised that the witness is able to draw,
7 drawing in the e-court in a blank page, if necessary, through e-court.
8 He can do it right now.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Well, if we can do it
10 that way, then that's perfect.
11 Could we have it, then, in e-court, please.
12 THE WITNESS: [Marks] [Interpretation] As far as it was possible
13 to do it here - it is rather clumsy - but approximately this is what an
14 impact of a mortar shell would look like. In the center, we see the
15 point of impact at the moment when the projectile is activated, and the
16 dots around it are, in fact, the scrapings or the damage to the surface
17 which was impacted, and these markings were created by the fragments of
18 an exploding projectile. And, of course, this would depend on the angle
19 at which the projectile hits the surface.
20 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Thank you. Could you please tell us, do you consider this to be
22 an image of a mortar shell impact? And will you please note that down
23 and put down the date and your name.
24 A. [Marks]
25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. Would you
1 now --
2 JUDGE KWON: 22nd of July, Mr. Suljevic.
3 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
4 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Thank you very much. Could you please now, on the other half of
6 the screen, make a sketch of a trace or impact of an artillery shell and
7 what it looks like?
8 JUDGE KWON: Shall we change the colour into blue?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know how successful I will
10 be, but the traces are not similar. As far as I had occasion to see,
11 around this central point, the point of impact of the projectile, the
12 fragments would disperse and the damage on the surface that was impacted
13 would spread and disperse approximately in this manner [marks]. And, of
14 course, there are probably fragments there as well.
15 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
16 Q. Could you please again write down what this depicts and write
17 your name and date?
18 A. [Marks]
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
20 I would like to tender this, please.
21 JUDGE KWON: We'll save this, and we'll admit it as a Defence
23 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D525, Your Honours.
24 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
25 Q. In your statements at some point, and in your findings, you
1 mentioned at some point high-explosive projectiles. Could you please
2 describe what that means? What do you consider a highly explosive
4 A. Perhaps you can show me the document where that is, because I
5 cannot do it without it.
6 Q. Well, we will try to do that. But could you please tell me
7 whether there is a difference between highly explosive projectiles and
8 the contact or impact -- impact and contact projectiles?
9 A. The contact-action projectiles are projectiles that have a dual
10 possibility of action or effectiveness, the immediate-impact and also the
11 contact-impact. But I believe it cannot really be projected.
12 Q. Thank you very much. Could you tell us now, please, what is the
13 most common angle of incidence for a ricochet projectile in the case of
15 A. I don't know that.
16 Q. What would that depend on?
17 A. Well, again, this is something for experts to say. But in my
18 view, that angle would depend on the fuse. And if the fuse is not
19 activated at the point of impact, then there may be a ricochet action
20 following after that. At least, that is my opinion, but I believe this
21 is a question for an expert.
22 Q. Thank you. But will you agree with me that the angle of
23 incidence and the outgoing angle in the case of a ricochet projectile,
24 that they are related and they depend on each other?
25 A. Well, that would depend on the surface of -- where a projectile
1 impacts. It would not always be the same instance. For instance, if a
2 projectile lands at the same spot, the angle of incidence would depend on
3 the hardness of the surface, because if it is not irrelevant whether the
4 angle of descent of incidence is flat or the point of incidence is flat
5 or at a certain angle.
6 Q. But will you agree with me that after a ricochet, the trajectory
7 would actually go up; correct?
8 A. Yes, after a ricochet effect, that's what would happen.
9 Q. Thank you very much. In the indictment against me, there is a
10 scheduled incident of Safeta Hadzica Street. However, it is impossible
11 to understand that incident without linking it to the incident of the
12 BH RTV of 28th June, and what I would like to ask you now is whether you
13 investigated this incident involving the television building.
14 A. Yes, but I did not investigate the Safet Hadzic incident.
15 Q. Yes, thank you. But the TV incident, you investigated that;
17 A. Yes, I was one of the persons investigating it.
18 Q. You concluded that the bomb actually hit the roof of the passage
19 and that then it ricochetted; is that correct?
20 A. It was established that the roof bore the signs of an impact.
21 Now, whether this was a bomb that landed there or whether only the
22 propulsion piece hit there, that was impossible to determine, especially
23 because we were not able to find that at all, the fragments of that. It
24 probably fell off somewhere in flight. And all I had was some
25 information, although I've never seen it officially written down, that
1 this propulsion element was later seen somewhere near the Miljetska
2 River, but that is only something that I heard mentioned. I didn't
3 really -- I wasn't really able to confirm that information.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we now please have 65 ter
5 09851 in e-court. And as part of that document, I would like to see the
6 image number 3. 09851, 09851; picture 3 of that document. The pages are
8 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter correction: 3552.
9 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Mr. Suljevic, what can we see in the picture below? Is that the
11 point of original impact? Is that -- and I'm talking about the impact
12 detonation where the passage was. This is something from your
13 documentation, isn't it?
14 A. Well, I did not prepare the photo documents. My colleagues did.
15 But as far as I can recall, this was the point of impact on the roof
16 where the projectile struck. Now, whether this was actually caused by
17 the projectile, itself, or just its propulsion mechanism, and whether it
18 ricochetted, I can't really confirm that.
19 Q. Mr. Suljevic, what would happen and what are the conditions in
20 which the bomb flies forward of the propulsion area -- of the propulsion
21 element, so that the impact is caused by the propulsion element and not
22 by the warhead?
23 A. Well, that would depend on the ballistics. I don't rule out that
24 this is -- that this was caused by the bomb, itself, but I can also not
25 rule out the possibility that this may have been caused by the central
1 part, the body of the projectile, or its propulsion element.
2 Q. In the transcript, you said that you did not know the ballistics
3 of this projectile; correct?
4 A. Yes, I don't know the ballistics of this particular projectile.
5 Q. Thank you. I apologise. We will have to make pauses between
6 question and answer, for the interpreter's sake, because this is very
7 precise and we have to make sure that we are very precise and the
8 transcript reflects that.
9 Now, would you agree with me that in the investigation, this
10 point was described as the original point of impact of the first
12 A. I do agree that this is the original point of impact, the point
13 where the projectile hit the surface for the first time.
14 Q. Thank you. Am I correct - and you corrected yourself a few
15 moments ago - that this kind of impact could not have been caused by the
16 propulsion element, but, rather, by the warhead?
17 A. Well, I've already said that I cannot rule out either
18 possibility, that it struck there either with its warhead or the
19 propulsion element.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
21 Could we now please see the above photo.
22 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Can you tell us whether this is the secondary ricochet point of
24 impact? Or, rather, tell us what this photo depicts, based on your
1 A. Well, this is a photo document, and we can see below that it says
2 that this is a portion of the building of the Television of Bosnia and
4 projectile ricochetted from. And we saw a moment ago that picture. Now,
5 I don't know exactly whether the projectile struck here and whether this
6 was the point of the secondary ricochet or not.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
8 Can we now get the next page, 555. P1043, 555. I believe that's
9 photo number 9.
10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. You did go on site, you were there; correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is 552. Could we have 555,
14 please. Thank you.
15 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Mr. Suljevic, what do we see here? Is this the point of the
17 second ricochet, or, rather, did the bomb fall, after this ricochet,
18 between the Studio C and the medical office? Can you please describe
19 this picture, this photo?
20 A. Well, we can see the description below the picture, although I
21 have to say, again, that I was not the one who took this photo, nor did I
22 write this caption. But it says there that the arrow shows the point on
23 the wall where the projectile ricochetted before it fell next to the east
24 wall of Studio C.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Could we now please
1 pull up -- or, rather, could you please put a circle where the arrow
2 should be, because I'm not sure that the arrow is very visible.
3 A. [Marks]
4 Q. So what you're saying, in fact, is that this is the second
5 ricochet; is that correct?
6 A. Well, no, that's not my claim. I didn't say that this is a
7 ricochet. It is possible that this is where the detonator was activated,
8 because if this was a contact-action fuse, then it's possible -- and
9 projectile, then it's possible that when the fuse detonated, that that's
10 where the explosion was.
11 Q. And in your report, it says that the bomb ricochets from here,
12 and there is no mention anywhere that this is where it detonated,
14 A. Well, I don't know, off the top of my head, what is in the
15 report, but whatever is in the report is the conclusion we came to.
16 Q. Well, here on this photo, that's what it says. So would you
17 agree with me that this caption with this photo was taken from your
18 report, the description of the point of impact, in keeping with what the
19 report found? Could you please read the caption under the picture?
20 A. "The arrow shows the place on the wall where the projectile
21 ricochets next to the eastern wall of Studio C."
22 Q. Thank you, that's sufficient. We want to keep the same photo.
23 Could you please now describe how it is possible that the roof of
24 the passage bears visible marks of the point of impact, whereas there is
25 no damage or no visible damage on the wall where the bomb fell? And I'm
1 referring to the damage that we are talking about here, seen in this
2 photo, where the arrow is pointing to it.
3 A. Yes. And what do you want me to compare this with?
4 Q. The damage on the passage roof, the point of first impact. How
5 do you explain this? This is almost nothing more than a scratch.
6 A. Well, I wouldn't say that this is a scratch. If we're talking
7 about anything being a scratch, I would say that it was on the roof of
8 the passage, because there were no damages on the roof of the passage,
9 save of the pebble surface and the bitumen or tar insulation, and those
10 were the only damages. So the concrete plate did not suffer any damage,
11 as far as I can remember. And I apologise. I would say if we want to
12 characterise something as a scratch, that would be on the roof, on the
13 flat roof of the passage.
14 Q. And do you think that this is a bigger damage? We can see that
15 the facade is damaged. Do you think that this would tally with the
16 second point of impact of this projectile? Is this something to be
17 expected? Can this be accounted for and explained?
18 A. Well, I think that this may be expected. Can this be accounted
19 for? Well, the projectile did not explode here, so these are just the
20 traces of a mechanical impact.
21 Q. Thank you. Very well. In that case, according to your findings,
22 what could have been the angle of descent or the descent impact of the
23 bomb when it hit the passage roof?
24 A. Before the break, I told you that I didn't know. We never
25 carried out any investigations in order to determine the impact velocity
1 of either this particular projectile or any other, for that matter.
2 Q. Thank you. Do you accept what Mr. Berko Zecevic wrote in his
3 report, and that is that the impact velocity was between 150 to 200
4 metres per second, which would be anything between 540 to 720 kilometres
5 per hour?
6 A. I would not wish to say anything concrete here, because I can't
7 provide an answer to your question.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] For the transcript and for the
9 interpreters, I have to repeat.
10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. The impact velocity of the bomb on the initial contact on the
12 passage roof was between 150 and 200 metres per second, and if we
13 calculate that in terms of hours, it would be 540 to 720 kilometres per
14 hour. Do you accept this, and this was written in Mr. Zecevic's book?
15 A. As I've just told you, I don't want to provide any statements.
16 If this was written by an expert, it should be accepted in that way. I'd
17 rather have an expert talk about that, especially an expert who was
18 involved in that. I can't say whether I accept things or not. I'm not
19 an expert in ballistics. I never tried to determine any velocities, so I
20 really can't speak about that.
21 Q. Very well. Do you agree that it is information from the
22 catalogue describing this type of projectiles?
23 A. If an expert copied that from a catalogue, I suppose so. I don't
24 know where the expert got his information from, and that's why I would
25 not wish to voice my opinion about something that I really am not
1 familiar with.
2 Q. Thank you. Can you now tell us, what is the mass of a modified
3 aerial bomb, approximately? If the bomb weighs 250 kilos, how --
4 together with the motor and the fuel, what's its total mass?
5 A. Again, as I've told you already, I don't know. I can tell you
6 approximately that this aerial bomb weighs approximately 250 kilograms.
7 I don't know what the mass of the motor is. But it was not our task and
8 we never investigated what the overall mass of the flying projectile was.
9 As you can read in our reports, our objective was to determine the type
10 of the projectiles which left the traces. Possibly the trajectory or the
11 direction from which the projectile came, that was requested from us. I
12 never was involved in drafting such reports. And also the angle of
13 descent, those were the data that were requested from our department.
14 When we came to the scene, we collected data, and some of the colleagues
15 from my department collected information, analysed the crater, in order
16 to establish the direction from which the projectile was fired.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
18 And can the Court now produce -- have these documents been
19 tendered by the Prosecution? Have they been admitted? If not, could you
20 please mark the photos? Can you date them and initial them? Or maybe we
21 can admit the documents as they are, because everything is on record.
22 Whatever Mr. Suljevic told us is on record.
23 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we can identify the arrow, so we can admit it
24 as it is. But we don't have the translation. So unless it is objected
25 to, we'll mark it for identification, pending translation.
1 MR. GAYNOR: Yes. There's no objection to its admission, either.
2 JUDGE KWON: There is translation. Yes, we'll admit it.
3 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D526, Your Honours.
4 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
5 Q. Mr. Suljevic, am I right in interpreting your materials in the
6 following way: The bomb arrived at the passage roof. It continued its
7 trajectory, hit the wall and ricochetted from the building, and finally
8 fell on the ground next to Studio C; am I right?
9 A. Yes. At one point, it damaged the roof. Then it hit the wall,
10 and finally it fell on the floor by Studio C.
11 Q. Please, could you tell us, what is the distance between the point
12 of first contact on the roof of the passage and the point of the second
13 contact on the wall of the building where the bomb hit the second time?
14 A. I can't tell you exactly.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, okay.
16 Can the Court please produce 1D2202, 1D2202.
17 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. This is a visual image of your findings or, rather, an
19 illustration of your findings. Could you please take a look -- I said
20 "2202," did I not? 2 -- 1D2202.
21 Could the document please be zoomed in for everybody's benefit.
22 Mr. Suljevic, is this the visual image of what happened; the
23 passage, the building Studio C, and everything?
24 A. I've never seen this before. However, I can accept that this is,
25 indeed, the illustration of all that. I don't know who the author of
1 this drawing is. I don't know who decided on the trajectory, but I can
2 accept that this might be the distance. I can't remember exactly, I
3 can't be precise. But here you go, this is it. I can read?
4 Q. Does this correspond with the dimensions you mentioned in your
6 A. I claim that in the report that we drafted in our department --
7 or, rather, that I finalised, that information is missing. So it says
8 here "according to the claims of investigative organs." I don't know.
9 When we were there, we didn't measure the distance, we didn't measure
10 that. When I was there, we didn't measure the distance. I don't know if
11 the technician who took the photos actually measured the distance. I
12 don't know. However, if there's somebody that claims that that is the
13 distance, I cannot not agree.
14 Q. Thank you. Can I please ask you to state, for the record, the
15 type of -- the place of ricochet, the trajectory, the place of secondary
16 ricochet, the place of explosion? We want to be sure that we have
17 properly identified the visual appearance of the trajectory of this
19 A. I don't know who the author of this drawing is. I don't know
20 whether this is credible, whether this is a credible reflection of the
21 trajectory of this modified air-bomb. I don't know whether this is an
22 angle that the projectile assumed when it hit the roof on the passage.
23 But it is true that there was damage on the roof. There was an impact on
24 the vertical wall, and where you see the word "Visespratnica," that's a
25 building with several floors, and that's also a part of the television
1 building, and this is also the place on the floor where the projectile
2 finally exploded.
3 Q. Thank you. Could you please put the date, and could you please
4 initial this document?
5 JUDGE KWON: Why do we need his initially here?
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could I please ask the interpreters
7 to assist the Trial Chamber and the OTP, and translate the words from
8 right to left, [B/C/S spoken]? Could we ask the interpreters to look at
9 the image and interpret the terms for the benefit of the Trial Chamber?
10 JUDGE KWON: The interpreters are interpreting only words that
11 are spoken. This will be interpreted later on.
12 So you would like to tender this document as evidence,
13 Mr. Karadzic?
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, please, yes. Could the
15 witness please date the document and initial it.
16 JUDGE KWON: We don't need his initialling. But who drew this
17 picture, Mr. Karadzic? Your team?
18 THE ACCUSED: My team --
19 [Interpretation] My team, based on the documents provided by
20 Mr. Suljevic's investigation team.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I said that I accept that it
22 might be 50 metres, although this information is not contained in our
23 report. This building is part of the television building which is
24 connected with Studio C by a hallway or a causeway. That's where the
25 bomb fell, and I believe that the passage is also connected to the
1 buildings. As I said, I don't know and I can't claim that the trajectory
2 of the projectile was, indeed, as it is represented here. The only thing
3 that I can claim and that is true, in my view, is that on the flat roof
4 of the passage, there was damage caused by the projectile, and this is
5 this part here [indicates].
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You will be assisted in a second,
7 and then I will ask to you use a pen in order to encircle all that. It
8 will make it easier for everybody.
9 JUDGE KWON: No, Mr. Suljevic, you don't have to sign it.
10 Mr. Gaynor.
11 MR. GAYNOR: Yes, Mr. President.
12 First of all, for -- just so that it's clear from the record,
13 this diagram relates to an incident which was in the indictment in this
14 case as Incident 17 in Schedule G, and which has subsequently been
15 dropped from the indictment. Now, if the accused is tendering this
16 diagram in order to challenge the credibility of this witness, we suggest
17 that the report produced in respect of this incident also be admitted so
18 that if the Trial Chamber wishes to draw any conclusions it wishes as to
19 the witness's credibility, it has the witness's report to inspect.
20 JUDGE KWON: A report on this incident was not admitted --
21 MR. GAYNOR: No, we've never tendered it.
22 JUDGE KWON: -- pursuant to Rule 73(D) ruling?
23 MR. GAYNOR: That's correct.
24 JUDGE KWON: I think it's a fair comment.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But we are aware that this is not
1 in the indictment. However, the incident in the Safeta Hadzica Street
2 cannot be understood without -- without this incident and its
3 qualification Incident 13 on G list, which is part of the indictment, and
4 now in the following presentation we will establish the link.
5 What I'm saying is this: According to that report --
6 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Mr. Karadzic, I understand your
7 comment, but simply I think Mr. Gaynor's comment/response is fair enough.
8 In order to admit this, for the proper assessment we need to admit the
9 witness's original report in relation to this incident as well.
10 Is that fair enough?
11 MR. GAYNOR: Yes, thank you, Mr. President, that was my point as
13 JUDGE KWON: So can you give the 65 ter number? Do you have that
14 for the report?
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I would like to receive
16 another confirmation from you, once again.
17 JUDGE KWON: In the meantime, we'll admit this, marked for
19 THE REGISTRAR: As MFI
20 JUDGE KWON: And then the --
21 MR. GAYNOR: We'll provide the 65 ter number at the end of the
23 JUDGE KWON: Yes. That will be given a P number, which is ...?
24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P1341.
25 JUDGE KWON: Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.
1 MR. ROBINSON: Mr. President, I was just going to interject that
2 it might be more appropriate to do this kind of thing on redirect
3 examination in the future, but we don't have any objection to the
4 admission of the exhibit. But sometimes if Dr. Karadzic can complete his
5 entire cross-examination, it may be that some of these documents are
6 offered by our side. Thank you.
7 JUDGE KWON: Yes, it's related to the admission of specific
8 Defence exhibits, so I understand your point.
9 Let's continue, Mr. Karadzic.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Have we not admitted 09815 when we
11 started dealing with all these documents? 65 ter 09851 [as interpreted],
12 has this not been admitted already?
13 THE REGISTRAR: That is Exhibit D526, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE KWON: Yes, it was, yes.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That's one and the only report that
16 Mr. Gaynor refers to. This has been admitted. Okay, let's leave that
18 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Mr. Suljevic, do you agree that this is the position of the
20 buildings, of the facilities?
21 A. I believe that this is one whole, that all these buildings are
22 interconnected, that there are passages connecting one to the other. I
23 do not have a scheme -- the layout, but this is the TV building as a
24 whole. So these are not three different buildings, as far as I can
1 Q. Very well. But you will agree that the first impact was here and
2 that the place of explosion was here, where it is marked?
3 A. Yes, I agree that the impact is somewhere on the roof. I don't
4 know whether it is more to the right of the roof passage or to the left.
5 However, it was on the roof of the passage, because there was damage
6 there. There was also an impact on the vertical wall of the building
7 which was also part of the television building, and, finally, the final
8 place of explosion is somewhere here by the wall of Studio C [indicates].
9 That's where the bomb finally exploded. However, here [indicates], the
10 lower part where the projectile fell was lower than the entrance into the
11 buildings. It was a somewhat lower part of the terrain.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. We have problems
13 probably because we speak the same language and because we are very fast.
14 It hasn't been recorded that this incident, although it is not part of
15 the indictment, is organically connected with number 13 on List G. Can
16 this please be reflected in the transcript, Incident 13, List G.
17 Scheduled Incident 13.
18 JUDGE KWON: Yes, let's move on.
19 Mr. Tieger.
20 MR. TIEGER: As long as it's clear that that's apparently a
21 comment by the accused.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] From the point of view of Defence,
23 we have established a link, and we will demonstrate the link, and that's
24 why we are starting with first things first. And the first thing is this
1 Can the Court please produce again number 09851, image number 3,
2 I believe.
3 Can the lower image be zoomed in, please.
4 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Mr. Suljevic, do you have an explanation for this? The aerial
6 bomb weighing around 300 kilograms, together with motors, at a velocity
7 of between 540 to 720 kilometres, at a distance of not more than 30
8 metres, that it caused this kind of damage in this place at this kind of
9 impact? Do you have an explanation?
10 A. In my view, this was not an impact in the actual sense of the
11 word. This is just a scratch, as it were. The projectile just scratched
12 this surface. This is not an impact. This is just a scratch.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
14 Can we return the sketch once again. I'm referring to the
15 previous document, 1D2202, the one that we had previously.
16 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Mr. Suljevic, how do you explain that this air-bomb, which only
18 grazed that roof and, therefore, maintained its velocity to a large
19 extent, after only a very few metres it started descending, then it
20 turned around 75 or 80 degrees, and then it ricochetted off the wall of
21 the infirmary or this tall building? It ricochetted, as you had also put
22 it in your report?
23 A. Well, obviously, I'll be repeating myself, but I don't know. I'm
24 not making any assertions. I did not say that the projectile had this
25 kind of a trajectory after touching the roof of the passage. I said that
1 I accepted that it was 50 metres, but I did not measure it, so I don't
2 know. I also don't know what the velocity was. Obviously, that was the
3 range of the projectile somewhere around there. It had to fall there,
4 because it had already reached the surface as soon as it touched the
5 passage. So with that altitude, that was its ultimate range. So I'm not
6 confirming that the projectile had this trajectory. Perhaps this can be
7 an approximation of sorts. I said that I am just confirming these three
8 points that were identified in the report and that are from the
9 projectile when impacting the vertical wall and when falling on the
11 Q. Did you make a sketch or diagram?
12 A. No, I did not.
13 Q. Did anybody else do that?
14 A. I don't know. If there is a sketch, then it's got to be part of
15 the file. As I said, I did not take part in the photo documentation that
16 was compiled, and we see that it does exist.
17 Q. In order to assist all the participants in these proceedings, do
18 you believe that it should be explained how this projectile, as it made
19 initial contact with the passage, ended up on the other side of the wall
20 of Studio C, and this imagined trajectory or assumed trajectory has to be
21 visualised taking into account the angle, the mass, inertia, all of that
22 put together? Do you think that all of that was not necessary? How can
23 we explain that the bomb from here ended up on this wall of Studio C?
24 A. I'm saying that we did not do that. Again, that was not our
25 task. I am not confirming this trajectory. There is a high degree of
1 probability, but now we are discussing probability, that this projectile
2 did not fly through the air from that wall, or, rather, to the wall of
3 Studio C. Possibly, it fell somewhere around the middle, and perhaps it
4 rolled on the ground. But all of this is purely theoretical, and I don't
5 want to engage in that kind of theoretical guess-work. However, I cannot
6 confirm that this is the trajectory of the projectile in this particular
8 Q. Do you confirm the mutual relationship between these buildings?
9 A. Well, the positions of parts of these buildings, yes, but all of
10 these are actually parts of one and the same building that are
11 interconnected. As we've already said, it is not several buildings that
12 are involved here. The RTV building is a very characteristic one. It
13 has several different entities that are all interconnected.
14 Q. However, obviously, Studio C and the multi-storey building are
15 not connected here, but somewhere else. There is a distance between them
16 here, and the bomb moved from the multi-storey building to Studio C;
18 A. That is right.
19 Q. Also, in this part between Studio C and the passageway, there is
20 some kind of a passageway?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. Can I now ask you to take a blue marker and to draw your findings
23 on this image, how the bomb got to this opposite wall of Studio C?
24 A. Again, I'm going to repeat that I can just confirm what is
25 contained in the report; that is, the points of contact between the
1 projectile and a particular surface. However, we did not establish the
2 trajectory of the projectile, itself. So I can confirm --
3 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, if I may.
4 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Tieger.
5 MR. TIEGER: There's been a great deal of discussion about this
6 particular diagram. The witness has indicated what he can -- the
7 information he can provide about the general nature of that diagram, and
8 has misgivings about other aspects of that. I wonder if we're not
9 risking embedding in the record a great deal of confusion and inaccuracy
10 if we ask a witness to try to explain something on the basis of a diagram
11 he neither created nor can confirm the accuracy of, beyond some very
12 general matters, especially when the entirety of the report is coming
13 into evidence or the actual report.
14 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we heard the evidence of the witness. I will
15 leave it to the witness whether he can draw anything or not. If he
16 cannot draw anything, he can say so.
17 Mr. Suljevic.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On this schematic or diagram, I can
19 just roughly mark the points of contact of the projectile on the surface,
20 and that's it.
21 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Excellent. That would be something as well. Could you mark,
23 with a blue marker, 1, 2, and 3, and say what 1 is and what 2 is and what
24 3 is?
25 A. 1 would be the initial contact between the projectile and the
1 flat roof. I don't know the position on the flat roof, but, say it's
2 somewhere around here [marks]. The surface where the initial contact
3 was, somewhere around here [marks].
4 Q. Did I understand you correctly, Mr. Suljevic? Are you moving
5 this point closer to the multi-storey building or do you agree that it's
6 here, where it is marked on the sketch?
7 A. Please, we did not measure it, so I don't know if it's 50 metres
8 or more or less. It's somewhere on the flat roof of the passageway. I
9 don't know. I cannot remember now and I cannot say. Also, I cannot
10 speak of the passageway, itself, because it's not a rectangle. It's a
11 roof with -- well, a roof that has to do with what the entire building
12 looks like. So it's somewhere around here [marks], or left or right. I
13 don't know whether it's to the left or right of this place that is marked
14 as the point of ricochet. I don't know if I'm being clear.
15 Q. Just tell me whether you measured it from the edge of the flat
16 roof. Do you have these dimensions?
17 A. I don't think that this information is contained in the report.
18 Q. Thank you. So number 2, contact with the multi-storey building.
19 Can you place number 2 there?
20 A. Somewhere there [marks] on the vertical wall. On the photograph,
21 that position can be seen the best, this second impact of the projectile
22 with the vertical wall. Now I'm just going to mark the place where the
23 explosion took place rather than where the projectile fell, because the
24 projectile may have fallen somewhere between these two places. However,
25 I think that this part of the passageway is at a lower level, and I think
1 that the projectile fell here -- actually exploded, not fell. [Marks].
2 This is the point of explosion. This is the location where it exploded.
3 Q. Can you give us the assumed point of fall where the projectile
4 actually fell?
5 A. I don't know where it fell. It may have fallen and then rolled.
6 I really cannot say. What I cannot claim with a high degree of
7 probability, I would not like to mark.
8 Q. Thank you. Can you put the date there now and your initials.
9 And can this be admitted?
10 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, we just let it go, although this event
11 is not listed in the schedule or it was redacted from the schedule of the
12 indictment, because there's a point that it may go to the overall
13 credibility of this witness's investigation. But delving in too much
14 detail would be too much. It is also inconsistent with your allegation
15 that -- in opposing the Prosecution adducing evidence as to the
16 unscheduled events. So I'd like you to move on to the events covered by
17 the indictment.
18 Mr. Gaynor.
19 MR. GAYNOR: Yes. I was just going to note for the record, also,
20 that this particular diagram, we don't have evidence as to who the author
21 of it is, where or when it was created, or pursuant to which criteria it
22 was created. And --
23 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic confirmed that it was prepared by his
24 team, the Defence, recently for the purpose of this trial.
25 MR. GAYNOR: Yes, by his team. But if it had been presented, for
1 example, by the expert assisting him, perhaps he could -- this is the
2 kind of evidence which could be brought in through his own witnesses.
3 But while I'm on my feet, Mr. President: If Your Honours wish to
4 know the 65 ter number of the report signed by Mr. Suljevic in respect of
5 this incident, that number is 09868, should you wish to admit it.
6 JUDGE KWON: That was admitted as Exhibit P1341. We gave the
7 number already.
8 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you, Mr. President.
9 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Suljevic, could you sign this document and
10 today's date as well.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I mark something on this
12 diagram? May I say that I don't know and that I do not claim that that
13 is the trajectory, the red line, and also that I do not claim that this
14 angle --
15 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we understand. Your evidence is in the
16 transcript as well as in our memory, rest assured.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very well, Your Honour. [Marks]
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
19 Could this please be admitted?
20 JUDGE KWON: The marked version will be admitted as Exhibit D528.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 2201, 1D2201, could I have that,
22 please. We would just like to establish these relations briefly, and
23 then we are going to move on to the next incident, which is in the
24 indictment and, in our view, is related to this.
25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. You see this sketch, Mr. Suljevic?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Do you know how high up this shell ricochetted on the
4 multi-party -- multi-storey building as it was moving towards the
5 Studio C?
6 A. I don't.
7 Q. Do you know about X? Do you know what X was; that is to say, the
8 distance between the multi-storey building and Studio C?
9 A. I don't have that information either.
10 Q. Was that spelled out precisely during the investigation?
11 A. As I've said several times already, the part of the team that
12 analysed the crater and collected evidence did not carry out
13 measurements, so I do not have this information.
14 Q. Did anyone else do the measurements?
15 A. I cannot give an answer. I don't know the answer to that
17 Q. Do you know of any of these measurements? Do you know how far
18 away the point of explosion is from the wall of this multi-storey
20 A. The center of explosion is right by the wall of Studio C; that is
21 to say, it would be close to line X, the end of line X. Now, whether
22 it's a metre or whatever from the wall, I don't know. I just know that
23 on the wall of Studio C, there was this big hole in this wall made of
24 reinforced concrete, and that is what I remember from the scene.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
1 Then there is no point in tendering this sketch, because the
2 gentleman, the witness, does not know these measurements that are very
3 important for us in order to --
4 JUDGE KWON: Move on to your next topic, Mr. Karadzic.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.
6 Can we have the previous document, 65 ter 09851, image number 1.
7 JUDGE KWON: Exhibit D526.
8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Is this the place that we are talking about, the location of the
10 explosion? This was taken from your findings, the passageway?
11 A. That's correct, and we can see in the background that there is
12 this debris and the skeleton of a bus that used to be there.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
14 Could we please have the next image.
15 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, I told you to move on to the incident
16 covered by the indictment. Unless you are going to show the relation
17 between the TV building shelling and the number 13 incident, I would like
18 you to --
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Precisely so, Your Excellency,
20 because our findings are quite different and they are very relevant to
21 incident number 13; namely, to establish what exactly transpired here and
22 how this relates one to the other.
23 Could we have image 5, please, in e-court, photo 5.
24 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Your team established that the bomb exploded outside Studio C and
1 that the blast opened the hole in the wall. Is that the hole that we see
2 in this photo here depicted?
3 A. Yes. We can see this dark blotch, and then we can see the
4 reinforced wires of the reinforced concrete. The netting is broken, but
5 it wasn't destroyed.
6 Q. Could you please mark that, what you've just told us? Could you
7 just mark it, and could you also show the direction from where the bomb
9 A. Well, we see this, the reinforcement, the mesh, the metal mesh,
10 and I will try to draw the lines to show where that mesh -- how it --
11 what it looks like. [Marks]
12 Q. Thank you. Could you now please put your initials and the date?
13 A. [Marks]
14 Q. Please tell us, because we -- before we tender this image: Would
15 a bomb, which would roll to this spot, would it actually produce this
16 kind of effect?
17 A. Yes. Well, this is not just the impact -- the physical impact,
18 the physical blow, but, rather, the effect of a detonation, an explosion
19 of this bomb.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
21 I would like to tender this into evidence, please.
22 MR. GAYNOR: There's no objection.
23 JUDGE KWON: While we are able to recognise those parts, I didn't
24 see the point of asking the witness to mark it. But, in any event, we'll
25 admit it.
1 Let's move more efficiently, Mr. Karadzic.
2 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit D529.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellency, you are right,
4 this is relevant.
5 Could we now have image 6 or photo 6, please. Photo 6 from this
6 same document. We've seen 4 and 5. These are 4 and 5, so I want the
7 next photo, please.
8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Do you agree with me that here we see shown the same spot, but
10 the photo was taken from inside the building, and that we can also see
11 this mesh, the armature of the reinforcement concrete?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Which way is the mesh bent? Or, rather, would you agree with me
14 that there are two levels of armature here, because in a wall that is
15 wide 40 centimetres, you would have to have a double mesh; correct?
16 A. Well, I'm not a construction engineer, so I can't tell you,
17 really, how many levels of armature they would have to have. But I do
18 recall the width and the thickness of the armature, and it is bent
19 towards the inside.
20 Q. Well, but do we see it on this photo? Are they actually bent
21 towards the interior or towards the exterior?
22 A. Well, I think this is towards the interior.
23 Q. Well, what about on the right-hand side, what we see there? Is
24 that the -- does that show that that mesh is bent towards the interior?
25 A. Well, as far as I can recall when I was there on site, it was
1 actually bent going inwards. But on this photo, we cannot really judge
2 that. On the left-hand side, perhaps, yes, but -- because we can see
3 that towards the focus of the explosion, the crater, we can see that that
4 is bent in the direction going inwards, and that's how they were.
5 Q. Could we now look at it again. Would you look at these -- the
6 armature towards the right edge of the photo and at the bottom. Where we
7 see this one piece of wire at the bottom, what do we see, this iron rod;
8 which way is it bent?
9 A. Well, I think that we can see, even in this photo, that they were
10 bent inwards, and that's how it was on site when I visited the site.
11 Q. But, Mr. Suljevic, there are photographs, coloured photographs,
12 which clearly show, and I think we can all see the armature on the
13 right-hand side, that this one single wire at the bottom --
14 JUDGE KWON: We can see the picture, and then you can move on,
15 Mr. Karadzic. I'm really doubting the relevance of this line of
16 questioning. Move on to your point.
17 Yes, if we zoom in on the picture, we can see what it is like.
18 What is your next question, Mr. Karadzic?
19 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Well, just the general question. Do the bars -- or does the mesh
21 always bend in the direction of the explosion or in the opposite
22 direction? To be more precise, was it possible for this piece of mesh to
23 actually bend in the opposite direction of the blast?
24 A. Well, I really wouldn't want to go into details and theoretical
25 assumptions. But when there is an explosion, everything goes outwards
1 from the focus of the explosion, and I can't see here any part of the
2 mesh that is bent in the other direction.
3 Q. Thank you. Would you please put your initials here and the
4 date --
5 JUDGE KWON: No.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Oh, no, all right, the whole
7 document has already been admitted, so this is not necessary.
8 Now I would like to move on to an incident related to what we've
9 just seen here. That's the incident in Safet Hadzic Street that preceded
10 this one by a month. I believe it was on the 24th of May. The 26th of
11 May, I've just been told. And that is the Scheduled Incident 13 on
12 List G of the indictment.
13 Could you please pull up 65 ter 0614-9638. The document number,
14 65 ter, is 10273, 10273.
15 THE REGISTRAR: This has been admitted as Exhibit P456.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Could we then have
17 1D2212. We can stay with this document.
18 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. What do we see marked here? What buildings are these?
20 A. I can't really tell, without being given some instructions, or
21 landmarks, or some additional information. This is a part of the town.
22 Q. Well, am I correct in saying that this is part of the
23 documentation relating to the incident in Safet Hadzic Street, number 2?
24 A. I did not have the occasion to inspect the phone documents
25 relating to this investigation at Safet Hadzic Street, nor was I on site.
1 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Safet Hadzic Street
2 number 52.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And I cannot find my bearings here,
4 just based on the photos, what building exactly that would be.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we then have 1D2212.
6 Could we just zoom out a bit, because the resolution is not very
7 high here.
8 Q. Mr. Suljevic, can you recognise what's in this photo? Do you
9 know what part of town this is?
10 A. Well, instructed by or informed but what you've just said, that
11 this is related to the Safet Hadzici incident, I know. But had I seen
12 this photograph without any of that introduction, I would have no idea.
13 But I assume that this is part of the Novi Grad municipality, the
14 intersection there, the entryway to that.
15 Q. Can you see the TV building here in this photo?
16 A. Yes. In that case, if this is -- if these are the approaches
17 from Stratinsela [phoen] and if this is the boulevard, the Mese
18 Selimovica Boulevard, then that would be TV building. But we don't see
19 the whole building, just one part of it.
20 Q. Thank you. Would you please now mark the television building
21 using that pen?
22 A. If this is what I think it is, the Mese Selimovica Boulevard
23 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- this then here would be the
25 television building, across the Mese Selimovica Boulevard. I think that
1 is the building of the radio/television, because across from the
2 television building there is a street leading from Svrakino Selo to
3 Mese Selimovica Boulevard. I think that's what we see in this photo
4 here. [Marks]
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Can we please have
7 JUDGE KWON: Would you like to keep this document he's marked?
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, yes, we could, but we'll
9 probably want to go back to this document. But, yes, we could have it
10 marked now.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, if this is Mese Selimovica
12 Boulevard, if that's the street, then that is the television building,
13 and that's what I would have -- that's all I'd have to say about this.
15 JUDGE KWON: We'll admit this as Exhibit D530, and we'll have a
16 break for half an hour.
17 We will resume at five past 1.00.
18 --- Recess taken at 12.37 p.m.
19 [The witness stands down]
20 --- On resuming at 1.11 p.m.
21 JUDGE KWON: I was told that Mr. Robinson has something to raise,
22 or Mr. Karadzic. Yes.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I wanted to explain to
24 the Trial Chamber why I opted for the route that I did.
25 The incident in Safeta Hadzica Street is represented in the
1 indictment as an intentional shelling of a residential area by the
2 VRS Army, and we saw and we hoped to be able to prove that what had
3 happened during the previous incident that the OTP has excluded from my
4 indictment means that it would be absolutely impossible for such a huge
5 bomb -- for such a fast bomb to do pirouettes and to flutter, and that
6 something different happened in Safeta Hadzica Street.
7 The second thing that we are going to show, probably after the
8 recess, is this: The zone where several incidents happened in
9 Safeta Zajke Street, Majdanska Street, Safeta Hadzica Street, and
10 Kalebidja [phoen], near the television, the one that we have just seen,
11 this is a zone with several legitimate military targets; the arms
12 factory, the wire factory, Energoinvest, Astra, the Geodesic Institute,
13 the Municipal Assembly building. This is a densely populated area, but
14 it is not a residential area. When the time comes, we are going to prove
15 this. However, what we are trying to say here is that the way it has
16 been represented, that the air-bomb ricochetted and exploded below Studio
17 C, is absolutely not one and the same bomb.
18 What happened in Safeta Hadzica, that's the bomb that had
19 ricochetted from the passageway within the complex of the television
20 building. So you can absolutely see, and we will prove it, that
21 everything was done in a very amateurish way and that everything was
22 misrepresented. And if we do not clarify all that, what remains is a
23 question and a possibility that that shell had, indeed, been fired to
24 target a residential area.
25 However, Your Honours, when we shed more light on this zone, will
1 you see that there are no residential buildings there, that all of those
2 facilities are industrial facilities, most of which are legitimate
3 military targets that were used for the production of military equipment.
4 JUDGE KWON: So to be clear, what you're saying now is what is
5 ricochetted at the roof near Studio C landed at Safeta Hadzica Street
6 it correct?
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, no. What ricochetted from the
8 passage -- from the roof of the passage did not end up in the wall of
9 Studio C, but, rather, in Safeta Hadzica Street. And that's the incident
10 that we would like to explore within the next session.
11 JUDGE KWON: Very well, thank you. That's your argument.
12 Yes, let's bring in the witness.
13 [The witness takes the stand]
14 JUDGE KWON: My apologies, Mr. Suljevic. There was something we
15 had to deal with in your absence.
16 Mr. Karadzic, please continue your cross-examination.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
18 Could the Court please produce 1D2175. 1D2175.
19 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
20 Q. Mr. Suljevic, could I please ask you to tell us whether you
21 recognise this part of the city.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Thank you. Could you please recognise the television building,
24 and can you mark it?
25 JUDGE KWON: You are very good at it. Let's start it.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The television building should be
2 here [marks]. I don't know whether the facility comprises any other
3 buildings. I believe it does. And this is the radio/television hall
5 Q. Can you please write that next to the drawing?
6 A. [Marks]
7 Q. Thank you. And could you please mark the building in
8 Majdanska Street housing the transmission line -- rather, the transformer
10 A. I don't know what transformer station you have in mind. I don't
11 where that is in Majdanska Street.
12 Q. Do you recognise Majdanska Street?
13 A. No, I can't say where Majdanska Street is. I don't know exactly
14 which of the streets would be Majdanska.
15 Q. Very well. I apologise to the interpreters. Could you please
16 mark the building of the police station in Prvomajska Street? Currently,
17 it is the Police Administration, Novi Grad, and the address is Prvomajska
18 Street, number 21 or 22.
19 A. I just can assume or -- it is probably somewhere around here.
20 [Marks] I don't know whether it would be this particular building here
21 or -- that's where the police station should have been or, rather, the
22 Police Administration, Novi
23 building or next to it, but thereabouts.
24 Q. Could you please mark it with the letters "PS"?
25 A. [Marks]
1 Q. Thank you. Do you agree that this "P" is on Majdanska Street
2 that this is actually Majdanska Street?
3 A. If that's Majdanska Street, then "P" is on it. I don't really
4 know the names of all the streets. I know this is Mese Selimovica
5 Boulevard, and where the police station is, that used to be
6 Prvomajska Street
7 And if you're saying this is Majdanska, I'm not going to challenge that.
8 But in that case, "P" would be on that street.
9 Q. Could you please mark the building of the Municipal Assembly of
11 A. It's across the road from the radio/television hall building.
13 Q. Could you mark that with the letters "SO"?
14 A. It should be somewhere around here, I suppose. [Marks]
15 Q. Could you please also mark the Geodesic Institute?
16 A. The Geodesic Institute is adjacent to the Municipal Assembly
17 building, and I suppose it should be somewhere around here. [Marks]
18 First Municipal Assembly building and then towards the bridge is the
19 Geodesic Institute.
20 Q. Let's now use numbers. Could you please mark the
21 radio/television building with the number 1?
22 A. Okay, "1." [Marks]
23 Q. Put number 2 next to the police station, please.
24 A. The police station, number 2. [Marks]
25 Q. The Municipal Assembly building, Novi Grad, number 3.
1 A. Okay. [Marks]
2 Q. The Geodesic Institute, number 4.
3 A. [Marks]
4 Q. Thank you. And could you please mark the Zica factory, the wire
6 A. The Zica factory is approximately across the road from the
7 radio/television hall, but it is across the river as well. I don't know
8 exactly, from this perspective, where it would be, but I believe that it
9 should be somewhere around here, the facilities behind. [Marks]
10 Q. Put number 5 next to that.
11 A. [Marks]
12 Q. Thank you. And could you please mark Safeta Zajke Street for us?
13 A. I can't remember which street that is.
14 Q. Perhaps it was Drinska at one point.
15 A. Well, if it was Drinska at one point, then it's above the railway
16 line [marks]. Possibly that's the street.
17 Q. Could you please put number 6 next to that?
18 A. [Marks]
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] For the record, number 6 marks
20 Safeta Zajke Street.
21 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. And now on the opposite side, can you also mark Safeta Hadzica
23 Street ?
24 A. I believe that this is Safeta Hadzica Street. [Marks] I don't
25 know how long it is. I really don't know how far it goes.
1 Q. It goes in both directions, left and right.
2 A. But I don't know how far. Yes, that's the direction of the
4 Q. Could you please put number 7 next to it? And, for the record,
5 number 7 marks Safeta Hadzica Street.
6 A. [Marks]
7 Q. And can I now ask you to mark the Energoinvest building?
8 A. Which building do you have in mind, the transmission lines
10 Q. Yes, between the police station and Zica.
11 A. I don't know if I can pin-point the building. I can do it just
12 roughly, because there is a testing ground for the testing of
13 transmission lines somewhere around here [marks], and it's somewhere
14 around here. I don't know which facility -- which building it is,
16 Q. Can you put a number 8 to denote the Energoinvest compound?
17 A. Yes, that's somewhere around here. [Marks]
18 Q. Can you please mark the Sik factory? As far as I can remember,
19 it is a building adjacent to Zica, a building next to Zica.
20 A. As far as I know, I believe that it is somewhere on this side --
21 on this side of the Zica factory. [Marks]
22 Q. Excellent, that's exactly how it was. Can you please put a
23 number 9 next to the Sik factory, for the record?
24 A. [Marks]
25 Q. Do you remember where Astra was? Astra was a very well-known
1 building, was it not?
2 A. Astra was approximately across the road from Sik. I don't know
3 how far from it it was or at what angle it was from that.
4 Q. But it was next to the Bulevar, was it not?
5 A. Yes, yes. I think it was somewhere around here, possibly.
7 Q. Could you please put a number 10? It is probably a bit more
8 closer to the Bulevar, but never mind. That's it. Number 10 is the
9 Astra factory.
10 A. [Marks]
11 Q. And could you now mark Uniklima and Igman at your furthest right
12 side, if memory serves me well?
13 A. Well, you see, I am just marking locations, but I'm not sure
14 where the facilities were. Uniklima was very close to Astra, as far as
15 I can remember. I don't know if it was here, whether this would be --
16 no, this is something else. This is a city location. This is a public
17 company, a public utility company, and Astra was perhaps to the right,
18 and Uniklima perhaps would be -- [Marks]
19 Q. Very well. That's the complex. Can you put number 11 next to
20 Uniklima, and Igman is below it, number 12?
21 A. What Igman do you have in mind?
22 Q. The Igman factory in Kalica Street on the corner of
23 Mese Selimovica and Alije Kucukalica boulevards.
24 A. I don't know. I'm not familiar with that, but I'm not contesting
1 Q. Okay, let's forget number 12. Could you please initial the
2 document, and before that could you please mark the building on
3 Safeta Hadzica Street which was hit?
4 A. I can't, because I was not at the incident site in
5 Hadzica Street, so I don't know which building had been hit. I do not
6 want to speculate which one of the buildings was hit.
7 Q. And can you identify the Safeta Zajke Street building that was
9 A. I was not in Safeta Zajke Street at the place of the incident, so
10 I can't identify that building, either.
11 Q. And can I ask you to look at the localities that we have marked,
12 and can you draw a circle to encircle all of them together?
13 A. [Marks]
14 Q. Thank you very much. Could you now put a date, and could you
15 please initial the document?
16 A. [Marks]
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] For the record, let's describe the
19 Mr. Suljevic, our witness, has encircled all the places marked
20 with numbers from 11 [as interpreted] to 11, all of them around the
21 radio/television buildings in the centre and all of the other facilities
22 that we have mentioned. Thank you very much.
23 Can the document please be admitted into evidence?
24 JUDGE KWON: Before that, yes, Mr. Gaynor.
25 MR. GAYNOR: Yes. I just want to do note for the record,
1 Mr. President, that this appears to be a Google Maps representation of
2 terrain from August 2009, and the witness has been asked to comment about
3 locations in May and -- around May 1995. I simply want to note that for
4 the record.
5 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
6 We'll admit this.
7 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D531, Your Honours.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
9 Just for Mr. Gaynor's information, all of these buildings are
10 old, and nothing has changed from that time.
11 Can the Court please produce 65 ter 09809.
12 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, please refrain from making a speech.
13 Your speech is of no point, unless you ask the question and you hear his
14 evidence from him on that.
15 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Okay.
16 Q. In that case, Mr. Suljevic, the situation as you see it in the
17 photo, has it changed from 1995? In other words, did the same buildings
18 exist then as they do now?
19 A. Yes, I believe so. There have possibly been some little changes.
20 Some buildings may have been reconstructed, but I believe that the
21 situation hasn't changed much.
22 Q. Yes. The 11 that we have marked?
23 A. Yes. I don't know whether Astra still has the same purpose, but,
24 in any case, the buildings are still there.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I believe that we have resolved
1 this, Your Excellency. I think this is better now.
2 Can we now see 65 ter 09809.
3 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, this appears to be a duplicate of
4 65 ter 16828, which has been admitted as Exhibit P1325.
5 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
6 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
7 Q. Mr. Suljevic, could you please describe this document for us?
8 Since there is an interpretation, you can just give us a summary.
9 A. This is a report on traces of an explosion caused by the fall of
10 a projectile in Dositejeva Street on 16 June 1995.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In that case, we don't have the
12 same document. This is 65 ter 09809. Is this possibly a 1D document?
13 It is from the same batch, but it is the 65 ter document 09809. The
14 numbers are different. The type of the documents may be the same, but
15 the numbers differ. And the ERN page number ends in 256. 0037-5256 is
16 the ERN page number. If it's not in e-court, could we please place this
17 on the ELMO.
18 Thank you. I believe that the OTP has the translation of this
20 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Mr. Suljevic, could you present the document to us now?
22 A. This is a report, an expert report, on the projectile traces that
23 was referred to on the 26th of May, 1995, in a document of the Centre of
24 Security Stations. The projectile hit the roof of a residential building
25 in Safeta Hadzica, number 52, and that's where it exploded.
1 Q. Am I right if I say that in the request dated the 26th of May, it
2 is stated that around 11.30, from the west and south-west, a heavy
3 projectile came; is that what is written here?
4 A. That is what is written, but that's the request. However, the
5 request is actually dated the 30th of May, 1995. However, that is the
6 data referred to in the request of the Centre of Security Stations that,
7 while conducting our analysis, we simply copied out. This is the
8 information that we had received.
9 Q. Thank you. So why is it that they had asked for your findings
10 when they had already determined the trajectory, that is to say,
11 west/south-west, and how did they do that? How did they manage to do
12 that? It's stated in the request, where the shell had come from?
13 A. I don't see the content of this document. I can't see what the
14 request actually says, so I cannot answer before seeing that. After what
15 I see written here, what was submitted and then further on as for the
16 traces of the explosion, it is clearly stated what is sought through a
17 particular request.
18 Q. Could you please read the first sentence of the second paragraph?
19 A. The request states that:
20 "On the 26th of May, 1995, around 11.30, a heavy projectile came
21 from the direction of west/south-west.
22 Q. Could you read the next sentence, too?
23 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Gaynor.
24 MR. GAYNOR: Mr. President, we found an English translation of
25 this document. We can put that on the ELMO, as you wish, whichever you
2 JUDGE KWON: I'm wondering how can you put both documents on the
4 MR. GAYNOR: We can provide it directly to Your Honours, if you
6 JUDGE KWON: Yes, that will be most convenient.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Excellency, is that 02/4-233-442?
8 JUDGE KWON: Yes, I do confirm that.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. So the request says that this projectile landed. How was it that
12 they set this direction or trajectory? How did they manage to define it
13 already in the request?
14 A. I cannot say how someone had determined a particular trajectory.
15 It is true that it was defined in the request, because we did not write
16 anything down just like that. But I don't know if they asked for our --
17 for us to confirm that. That is not what they asked for in the request.
18 If we have the rest of this request, we can see what is actually stated
19 in the document.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we scroll down a bit, then, so
21 the witness can see.
22 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. So read what was found there.
24 A. It says that:
25 "The following has been submitted for testing:"
1 That is to say, collected on the spot and submitted.
2 "Nine large metal particles," that are marked with a certain
3 number, and:
4 "Six smaller metal particles in a cardboard box without a lid."
5 Those pieces were not marked.
6 Further on, it says the request refers to a request to determine
7 the type of projectile involved; that is to say, that they did not ask
8 for the trajectory of the projectile to be determined.
9 Q. On the basis of testing the traces of the projectile, did you
10 define the type of projectile that fell on this building?
11 A. May I suggest that we have a look at the entire report? Things
12 are the way they were stated in the report. I don't know what we wrote
13 up finally. I cannot recall, after this many reports. I really was in
14 no position to remember everything that was stated in each and every
15 report. But I do stand by what the report says.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we ask the OTP to let us have a
17 look at this report?
18 JUDGE KWON: Do we have the exhibit number, Mr. Gaynor?
19 MR. GAYNOR: Yes. I'm informed that it's part of P1325. It's on
20 page 6 in both languages.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] So we're going to have it in
22 e-court; right?
23 Could we please have the next page in Serbian to see what else
24 had been requested. Then we want the next one, page 5, not page 2.
25 Actually, can we have the same in English and in the original. It
1 probably starts with the word "Findings."
2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Can you tell us, briefly, what it was that you found here?
4 A. So this is page 2. A moment ago, we had page 1, where it was
5 stated what had been requested, and that was the type of projectile
6 involved. On the next page, we have the findings, where individual
7 pieces that had been submitted for expertise had been dealt with.
8 So in the first bullet point of the findings, you can see that
9 what was submitted were the remains of a rocket motor, and it says what
10 the length was. There's a general description of all these parts. And
11 further on, there is a description of all the fragments that were
12 submitted for testing. I don't know whether there's any need for me to
13 read all of this out.
14 Q. I believe not. I believe that everyone can read this.
15 Actually, were you in a position to refer to the markings that
16 you found on these fragments?
17 A. Had there been any markings on any of these fragments, it
18 probably would have been stated here. Even if only part of a particular
19 marking could be seen, that was still referred to in the findings.
20 Q. How could you recognise things, then?
21 A. On the basis of dimensions.
22 Q. Can you tell us what dimensions led you to establish exactly what
23 was what?
24 A. The metal fragments of cylindrical shapes, those were the bodies
25 of the rocket motors, pipes. There's nothing else that would be similar
1 to that. It's not that small that it couldn't be identified. These are
2 bodies that had stabilisers on them. Some were more elaborate, some
3 less, but it depended on the actual case involved.
4 Q. How can we understand this part that says "probably" and "most
5 probably"? How should we read that? Was that established beyond a shade
6 of doubt or is it most probably the case?
7 Can we have 459, two pages. We have seen the findings - anyone
8 can read that - but can we have the opinion?
9 In the opinion, you stated the following: You said "most
10 probably" or "probably." Last page in Serbian, please have a look at
11 this, have a look at the opinion, and then tell us.
12 A. Yes, the opinion specifies what was established incontrovertibly.
13 As for markings where there was no characteristic trace, then what was
14 written was "most probably," et cetera. It says here:
15 "Most probably originating from an aerial bomb."
16 Further on, it says:
17 "... the type of which cannot be established on the basis of the
18 submitted material," because there were no characteristic traces or
19 anything else on the basis of which the type or size of bomb could be
21 However, there is no doubt that these are modified air-bombs.
22 Q. Actually, there is no doubt that what exists are rocket motors
23 or, rather, the remains of these rocket motors. However, you cannot say
24 anything about the actual warhead?
25 A. Things are the way they were written up. Those were the rocket
1 motors, and probably the traces come from an air-bomb, and it is
2 impossible to establish the type of air-bomb. That is what was
3 established on the basis of the traces submitted for expertise. Also,
4 there is a reference to some tin that probably made this a single compact
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
7 This has already been admitted; right? It's part of a
8 Prosecution exhibit, isn't it?
9 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
11 Q. Mr. Suljevic, can I please ask you to tell me: What was the
12 provenance of the weaponry and equipment of the Army of
14 A. I cannot give an answer to that because I don't know the answer
15 to that question.
16 Q. Would you accept that professional military officers, and
17 equipment and weapons, at least before the contingents arrived from Iran
18 and other countries, actually originated from the JNA?
19 A. I don't know where they came from later, but there's no doubt
20 that the little bit that was there probably originated from the former
21 Yugoslav People's Army. Now, did it come from some storage facilities
22 that hadn't been emptied? I think that most of the weapons came from the
23 former JNA.
24 Q. Thank you. Do you know and do you agree that all the ammunition
25 in the storage facilities of the Yugoslav People's Army was subjected to
1 compulsory overhaul after 15 to 20 years?
2 A. I know that there were compulsory overhauls, but I don't know
3 what the actual period was. I cannot say.
4 Q. Thank you. Do you accept that when they decided not to overhaul
5 something, that then that kind of equipment would be destroyed or
7 A. I don't know what they did with that. If it could not be
8 overhauled, I don't know whether it was used further in production. I
9 cannot speculate.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
11 Can we have 65 ter 09780.
12 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Can you tell us what type of document this is, and have you ever
14 seen it before? Do you recognise it?
15 A. This is a report on a forensic on-site investigation, and it was
16 prepared by the Forensics and KDZ Department. Here, it says, actually,
17 "Public Security Station of Novi Grad municipality." And it's a report
18 prepared by the investigators who conducted the on-site investigation.
19 This is an investigation into an event of 26 May 1995, at Pavle Goranin
21 Q. This is the incident that we were discussing earlier; correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Thank you. Would you please read out the portion beginning with:
24 "Two shells did not explode ..."? That's the third paragraph from the
1 A. "Two shells did not explode. One ricochets, one struck the
2 pavement and broke up. On the portion that did not explode, we found a
3 fragment with swastika, and the shells probably come from World War II,
4 which was established when inspected -- when the fragments were
6 Now, if I may just add, this does not relate to the fragments of
7 the projectiles that were submitted for testing or examination, because
8 in the earlier part of the report it says that a projectile exploded on
9 the roof of an apartment building in Safet Hadzic Street.
10 And if I may just add something here. I recall, at least in one
11 case, that we received for expertise fragments of these shells -- of this
12 shell bearing the insignia of this eagle and the swastika on it, and when
13 we researched literature, we established that this was an 88-millimetre
14 artillery shell probably dating from World War II. Now, where and how
15 this was launched, I don't know how it was fired, because I don't know
16 that there were launch pads or launching devices of 88 millimetres, but
17 they were probably fired from a 90-millimetre cannon.
18 Q. Thank you. May I just point you to the first part of the
19 sentence. Is this that shell of -- a high-explosive shell that struck
20 that building at number 52?
21 A. No, no, these are two different shells, two other shells. They
22 probably landed at about the same time, and the investigation team
23 clearly said that. They said that one of the shell's fragments was sent
24 for examination, and it was established that these were fragments of an
25 air-bomb. And this is a different case, these shells, and I assume that
1 these shells were 88-millimetre shells because we did not come across any
2 other shells of this calibre. These were artillery-type shells.
3 Q. Thank you. Was this insignia -- or these markings, were they
4 painted or were they printed into the metal?
5 A. As far as I can recall, there was an imprint on the metal, but it
6 was probably photographed. And I have to say that I didn't have an
7 opportunity to see these photographs. But when I examined these
8 fragments, I had occasion to see those fragments at the KDZ Department,
9 where I worked at the time.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
11 Your Excellency, it would be very helpful if we could see -- if
12 we could ask our learned friends to show us this photograph, to pull it
13 up in e-court.
14 MR. GAYNOR: I don't believe I've seen a photograph of a shell
15 with a swastika and eagle on it.
16 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Mr. Suljevic, let me ask you this: This shell, other than this
18 imprint that it had, were there any markings painted on it by applying
20 A. I don't really know. I can't remember -- I don't remember. I
21 can't really answer that question.
22 Q. Do you agree that the Yugoslav People's Army had the duty, after
23 each regular overhaul, to actually mark and put its own markings by
24 painting a fragment or such assets that have been overhauled?
25 A. As far as I recall, the overhauled ordnance was painted, but I
1 don't know how it was marked, exactly. It probably depended on the type
2 of projectile.
3 Q. Thank you. Can you then explain why it was not possible to
4 identify, based on such a number, the provenance of these shells, because
5 if they were from the Yugoslav People's Army's depots, then they would
6 have had to bear that number of the regular overhaul or the general
7 overhaul that was done on it?
8 A. Well, you're asking me about things that I did not do, and no one
9 ever asked us to establish anything of that sort.
10 Q. Well, whom, then, should we attribute this shell to,
11 Mr. Suljevic? Who did it belong to?
12 A. Well, this shell can be attributed to those to whom we can
13 attribute all the other shells that landed on the town of -- on the city
14 of Sarajevo
15 Q. Thank you. I will not go into that discussion here as to who
16 fired what shells. But at this point, I would just like to confine our
17 conversation to who or which side was the -- where was the provenance of
18 these shells, and which of the sides had this type of shell, because this
19 shell was probably from World War II, which would mean that it would have
20 had to be overhauled twice, at least. So we have to attribute this shell
21 to someone. We have to determine whose it was and whether it was from
22 the JNA depots or not.
23 A. From my point of view, there is absolutely no dispute about this
24 shell having been fired from Serbian positions, because there were so
25 many shells fired from there that I cannot believe that it was fired by
1 Nazis. Now, during the war, there were two opposing sides, and, in my
2 view, the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina did not fight its own ranks or
3 the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina, so they wouldn't have been able --
4 they couldn't have fired this shell.
5 Q. Do you have any other evidence on which you base your conclusion
6 that this was a Serb shell, other than that the BH Army did not fire on
7 its own ranks or that it was imprecise?
8 A. Well, I have nothing to add, as far as this question is
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
11 I wonder if this report has already been admitted into evidence,
12 or can we admit it now?
13 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we'll admit this.
14 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D532, Your Honours.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
16 Can we now see 65 ter 09781, 09781.
17 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. While we wait for this to come up: Mr. Suljevic, would you agree
19 with me that in Safeta Hadzica Street, at number 102, some type of
20 projectile landed, and this photo should depict that location? Do you
21 recall we mentioned this number earlier, 102?
22 A. Well, I can't recall -- I can't remember until I see the
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, it would appear that this was
25 not in e-court, although this is a P number, and perhaps it's better to
1 leave this on the screens because the quality is better. Or, rather,
2 could we have this on the ELMO, please. It won't be perfect -- or maybe
3 you have it in e-court. Now, if the Prosecution knows that this has
4 already been up-loaded into e-court, perhaps we can get it.
5 ERN 0037-5290.
6 MR. GAYNOR: Yes, I believe this is now in e-court under 09781,
7 and it's just been released.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. In that case, we will
9 have it in e-court in a moment, and I believe it will be of better
11 Could we zoom in, please.
12 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Do you recognise this location, Mr. Suljevic?
14 A. Well, unless there was this caption beneath, I really couldn't
15 guess what this might be, because this is a shed of some sort, a garage,
16 there is a kind of garden behind, but that could be -- that could have
17 been anywhere. But if we look at the caption, we can see that this was
18 somewhere on Safeta Hadzica Street, but I cannot really affirm where
19 exactly this is, nor can I even guess at it.
20 Q. Well, is this a document that was used during the investigation
21 done at the police? Is this something that you would commonly be using?
22 A. Well, yes, but this was done by the CSB members and their crime
23 technicians, so this constituted part of the photo documents.
24 Q. Thank you. Do you see where they put an arrow to indicate the
25 point of impact of this shell?
1 A. Well, yes, I can see the arrow. It's up on the shed, itself.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
3 Could we just have a much larger picture. Could we blow this up,
4 this photo up, so that we could have a better view. Thank you.
5 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Now, Mr. Suljevic, what type of shell, according to this report,
7 landed here, causing this kind of damage here in this garden?
8 A. Well, I don't see that there is much damage. But as far as I can
9 see from the document we saw a moment ago, and we also see that there is
10 a caption here, I believe that one of these artillery shells exploded
11 here. And we can determine that and establish it if we look at the text
12 above the picture.
13 Q. Thank you. Well, you said this was not devastation, that there
14 wasn't much damage. I was just really trying to make a joke. I mean,
15 this looks more -- to me, it looks more like a shuttle exploding rather
16 than a shell.
17 A. Well, I can't comment on such statements, but you can see that
18 there was a blast here. But the surface is such that you cannot really
19 expect more devastation from that type of shell; if this was, for
20 instance, a 90-millimetre shell or approximately so.
21 Q. Thank you. Now, don't you find it strange that the blast wave
22 did not even move or displace the lettuce heads that we see there and
23 that there is absolutely no trace of any damage on the wall of this hut?
24 The only trace that we can see and find are the traces that are normally
25 left behind if you shovel the ground, if you till the soil?
1 A. Well, I cannot really go into theoretical assumptions here, and I
2 don't know when this projectile detonated. Maybe it detonated when it
3 was already embedded in the soil, because obviously this is some kind of
4 cabbage patch where -- I can't really go into assumptions as to how this
5 might have happened.
6 Q. Thank you. I'm a bit concerned about the transcript, because
7 there was -- it did not enter in the transcript that the wire fence was
8 not affected in any way. But I trust our interpreters to correct this.
9 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Now, Mr. Suljevic, tell us, please: Any type of detonation, does
11 that imply that there would also be an explosion of fragments and that
12 they would fly in all directions; correct?
13 A. Correct. If an artillery shell explodes, that is the case,
14 artillery shells that are meant for sowing destruction by shrapnel
16 Q. Well, do we see any traces of shrapnel fragmentation on the wall
17 of this shed?
18 A. Well, I can't really say for sure. Looking at the wall where the
19 arrow was drawn, I can't claim anything about that. But I see to the
20 left of that that there is some damage that could have been caused by
21 shrapnel, but I am only assuming that based on what I see here. I did
22 not actually conduct an investigation there. I did not go to the site,
23 itself, so I can't say any more than what we can all see on this photo.
24 Q. Thank you. But you are familiar with these holes in these old
25 slabs of concrete? These were just damages to the slabs of concrete?
1 A. Well, I was not really referring to these big holes on the slabs
2 of concrete, on the blocks of concrete. I meant the minor -- the smaller
3 holes. But it's possible that this was -- that these bigger holes, too,
4 were caused by some kind of -- by fragments exploding. Perhaps some
5 shells had fallen there earlier. I don't know, but we determine anything
6 just based on this photo.
7 Q. Yes. But, in any case, one would expect that there would be
8 fragmentation traces in the very vicinity of where a shell exploded and
9 not further out?
10 A. Well, yes, one would expect it to be there if a projectile
11 detonated -- exploded above the surface of the ground. However, if the
12 projectile explodes in the ground or underground, then we couldn't really
13 expect that kind of damage. But looking at this photo, and I don't want
14 to speculate here, but maybe we can see traces of some detonation and
15 explosion on the right-hand side as well. But as I said, I don't really
16 want to speculate. And as I've already said, one would expect -- when a
17 projectile explodes above the surface or on the surface of the ground,
18 one would expect to see traces of projectile debris or damage of
19 projectile fragmentation.
20 Q. Thank you. Can you offer an explanation for the fact that the
21 roof over the shed is intact? Do you really believe that the roof
22 wouldn't have been blown away or damaged by the shrapnel?
23 A. Again, I would have to speculate in order to provide an answer.
24 I don't know what was going on when the projectile landed. Some things
25 sometimes defy logic, and those things did happen in practice.
1 Q. Would you expect, if such a huge projectile landed, the material
2 of this roof, which is brittle and that's an asbestos roof, it should
3 have been damaged?
4 A. If a projectile explodes below the surface of the ground, then I
5 wouldn't expect more damage than I can see here. Actually, I don't see
6 any damage here on the asbestos boards. You can see that these are
7 asbestos boards, but you don't see any damage on the boards because the
8 roof is really horizontal; flat, almost. I don't know if there are any
9 holes on the roof, itself. We can't see that, can we?
10 Q. Very well, Mr. Suljevic. So neither the lettuce heads, nor the
11 wire fence, nor the wall, nor the asbestos board, nothing is affected.
12 Do you agree that the only thing that is missing in the photo is,
13 actually, the shovel?
14 A. I don't see the painted wall. I don't want to proffer any
15 comments. I can see just a shadow of the roof. And on the right-hand
16 side, there are no boards. You can see points of damage. Based on the
17 photo, I would not be able to make any inferences, and I don't want to do
18 that, but it is obvious that here a lot of asbestos boards are missing.
19 If you look at the photos, you will see the shadows of wooden beams. You
20 can see the shadow of the asbestos roof on the left, and on the
21 right-hand side you can only see beams, but not the asbestos boards,
22 which means that they are missing.
23 Q. But will you agree with me that this is not immediately above the
24 point of impact, it's a bit further away, it's probably a bit older?
25 Wouldn't you expect that on the very place of the impact?
1 A. I believe this is above the place of the impact, because the
2 furthest beam is around the crater or very close to the crater. It all
3 depends on where the projectile came from, where the impact point was.
4 From my point of view, this is something that could have been expected at
5 the point of impact on the scene.
6 Q. Thank you. And if this explosion had damaged this roof, although
7 we do not see it, would the fragments of the roof land somewhere around?
8 They should be here, shouldn't they?
9 A. Again, you're asking me to speculate. I don't know whether roof
10 fragments would be -- whether what we can see by the wall originates from
11 the asbestos roof or not. If the impact wave came from the bottom, and
12 if it hits the roof board, I suppose that that roof board would have been
13 blown away. I'm speaking based on the photo, and I'm sharing my opinion
14 with you.
15 On the roof, on the right-hand side where the beams are, you can
16 see some fragments of asbestos boards. I don't know whether it's just my
17 impression. And then if you look on the left-hand side, you can see just
18 a shadow, and the asbestos boards are not damaged. And in several
19 places, you can see things. I suppose nobody climbed the roof to leave
20 something on the roof. I suppose that something had landed on the roof,
21 some fragments, as a result of explosion, either from the boards or just
22 the soil.
23 Q. However, you, yourself, are not happy with the way the incident
24 site was analysed and how things were processed?
25 A. I don't know what you mean. What do you expect from a photo, and
1 what do you expect from a comment next to the photo?
2 Q. Well, I expect that all traces would be depicted and help us to
3 land at a conclusion. You, yourself, are saying that you have to resort
4 to a lot of theoretical considerations. If the photo had been done
5 correctly, everything should have been done clear, and if the description
6 was better, then we wouldn't have to speculate or infer.
7 JUDGE KWON: You don't have to argue with the witness. We heard
8 the evidence. Let's move on to another topic.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
10 Can the document please be admitted into evidence?
11 MR. GAYNOR: No objection, Mr. President.
12 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D533.
14 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellencies, within the next
16 eight minutes I'm not in a position to complete the topic that I'm about
17 to broach.
18 I would like to remind you at this point why we wanted so much
19 time for this important witness, because he can shed some light on crime
20 investigations. And all the incidents have to be clarified before this
21 Trial Chamber, and he is best suited to provide a good analysis of the
23 JUDGE KWON: We allowed you six hours to cross-examine
24 Mr. Suljevic, and you have spent so far about a bit more than three
25 hours. So after the recess, you will have three hours. But you do not
1 expect to conclude your cross-examination in three hours' time; is that
2 what you're saying?
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I hoped that this witness --
4 or, rather, that the OTP has called this witness in order to prove the
5 criminal and legal relevance of the incidents in the investigation of
6 which he participated. And the Defence has a completely different task,
7 and that is to show that the incidents transpired in a completely
8 different way. We do have the basis to prove our case, we can prove our
9 case, but if we're not allowed time to do it in the sufficient detail, we
10 will not be able to do so. And that's why I don't think we will be able
11 to complete the cross-examination of this witness within the next three
13 JUDGE KWON: I was asking: How much longer do you need to
14 conclude your cross-examination of this witness?
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We will see how things go, but I am
16 convinced that three hours is not enough. You see, yourself, that there
17 are so many elements that have to be presented in respect of every single
18 incident. We will see. I'll do my best to do things as fast as
19 possible, but you will appreciate that this must not be done at the
20 detriment of the Defence, or, rather, the Defence must not tie its own
22 JUDGE MORRISON: Well, Dr. Karadzic, that's a truism. But out of
23 the last half hour, speaking for myself, about 25 minutes was spent
24 asking this witness to speculate, which is not useful to anybody.
25 JUDGE KWON: Fine. We'll assess how much longer you would be
1 given at the end of the six hours you will have.
2 Mr. Suljevic, we find it very unfortunate not to be able to
3 conclude your evidence before the summer recess which is forthcoming. We
4 planned our trial schedule a long time ago, and we are unable to continue
5 tomorrow, so I apologise.
6 Mr. Tieger.
7 MR. TIEGER: I'm not sure if the Court is aware of this or not,
8 through -- either through VWS or any other source, but my understanding
9 is it would be either impossible or an extreme inconvenience to the
10 witness to return as soon as we convene. I gather he's available after
11 the 20th of August.
12 JUDGE KWON: Thank you for the information.
13 So on behalf of the Tribunal, I apologise for your inconvenience,
14 that have you to travel to The Hague
15 So I would ask you to return to The Hague, liaising with the Victim and
16 Witness Section on the time which it would be convenient for you.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very well, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. So is it correct that you are not able
19 to come to The Hague
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is true, Your Honour. I've
21 planned my summer holiday from the 2nd of August to sometime around the
22 20th, so, yes, it would be a problem.
23 JUDGE KWON: So we'll liaise with you, through the Victim and
24 Witness Section, and then the Prosecution will set an appropriate date in
25 consultation with you. Thank you.
1 You are free to go. Have a nice holiday.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
3 JUDGE KWON: Before we adjourn, I was wondering whether there's
4 any administrative matters to be dealt with.
5 [The witness stands down]
6 JUDGE KWON: Then --
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If I may be heard, Your Honour.
8 The rhythm is fierce for the Defence, for myself, personally. I
9 was hoping that we would be able to return to the regime of sitting of
10 three days a week.
11 JUDGE KWON: I take it as a joke, Mr. Karadzic.
12 We'll resume on 17th of August, at 9.00; that's Tuesday. And by
13 that time, the Chamber hopes it would resolve the issue related to the
14 scheduling of the hearing.
15 And then I wish all the parties, and the staff as well, have a
16 nice summer recess.
17 We rise.
18 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.29 p.m.
19 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 17th day of
20 August, 2010, at 9.00 a.m.