1 Monday, 6 September 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness takes the stand]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.
6 JUDGE KWON: Good morning, everyone.
7 Good morning, Mr. Suljevic. I thank you again for coming to the
8 Tribunal from such a long distance, despite your busy schedule. I
9 appreciate it very much.
10 WITNESS: EKREM SULJEVIC [Resumed]
11 [Witness answered through interpreter]
12 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, I take it you have three hours more to
13 conclude your cross-examination, but I believe you can do that by the end
14 of the second session today.
15 Let's begin -- let's continue your cross-examination.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
17 Good morning to all.
18 Cross-examination by Mr. Karadzic: [Continued]
19 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Suljevic.
20 A. Good morning to all.
21 Q. Is Sarajevo
22 A. Sarajevo
23 Q. That is part of a folk song of ours. That's why I'm putting it
24 in those words, Is Sarajevo where it used to be?
25 So, Mr. Suljevic, you had occasion to see an order of
1 General Milosevic related to operations against Hrasnica, and in one
2 statement, you said that you were astonished by it, or words to that
3 effect. Tell me, why was it that you were astonished? And, please,
4 could you keep it as brief as possible?
5 A. As far as I can remember, the order was to select a target, a
6 civilian target, in such a way so as to cause the largest number of
7 casualties once the projectile is activated.
8 Q. Well, the problem is in one single word. It doesn't say
9 "civilian target" anywhere, it says "select a target." Are you trying to
10 say that in Hrasnica there weren't any legitimate targets anywhere?
11 A. I don't know what was a legitimate target for you in Hrasnica,
12 and I don't know where the lines were, I don't know where the military
13 commands were, and so on and so forth. But just like Hrasnica, Sarajevo
14 was a target throughout the war. That is to say, all of us who were
15 there were casualties throughout the time. We were the victims of these
16 attacks coming from the hills.
17 Q. Excellent. Let us shed more light on this, one thing at a time.
18 Can we have 1D -- actually, I think it's 65 ter 10693. That's
19 the Serbian version, 10693.
20 So could you please read this? It's not too long. Could you
21 please read the first paragraph in its entirety? We have it in English
22 and in Serbian.
23 Could we please have both versions here for the interpreters.
24 Can you please have a look at this first paragraph: "It's
25 already been three days ..."
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. "It's already been three days that the Muslim forces have been
3 attacking the positions of the --"
4 A. "... Sarajevo
5 Q. All right.
6 A. "And the attacks are particularly pronounced in the sector of the
7 Famos factory. Several of ours soldiers and a large number of civilians
8 have been wounded."
9 Q. The next paragraph, please.
10 A. "In order to thwart the enemy and give them a warning so they are
11 forced to accept the truce, I hereby order:
12 "The Ilidza Brigade will immediately prepare a launcher with an
13 aerial bomb and transport the bomb for launching.
14 "The most profitable target must be selected in Hrasnica or
15 Sokolovic colony, where the greatest casualties and material damage would
16 be inflicted.
17 "Inform me personally of the readiness for implementation of this
19 Q. Thank you, Mr. Suljevic. Let us please focus on the first
21 "As for General Milosevic and his unit in Famos factory," that
22 was held by the Serbs. Are the civilians from Hrasnica a threat to them
23 or the Muslim forces, as is written here?
24 A. I just know that one of these air-bombs fell near my brother's
25 house. My brother lives in Sokolovic Kolonija, and there weren't any
1 targets there.
2 Q. Mr. Suljevic, we'll get to that. First of all, let us deal with
3 this order. Can we see here that as for General Milosevic's forces and
4 positions, who is the threat, civilians or the Muslim forces? And it's
5 during a cease-fire, at that; right? That is clearly stated here. Isn't
6 that right? Don't the first two paragraphs show that the Muslim forces
7 were threatening the lines in positions of the Army of Republika Srpska,
8 for which General Milosevic is responsible, during the cease-fire, and it
9 was from Hrasnica towards the Famos factory the most; right?
10 A. It says here: "To thwart the enemy and give them a warning so
11 that they are forced to accept this truce, I hereby," and so on and so
12 forth, as I read it out previously.
13 Q. All right. Let us now go to the one-and-only paragraph of the
14 order, itself. Does it say "civilians" at any point, or "civilian
16 A. It doesn't say "military targets" either, as far as I can see.
17 It says:
18 "In Hrasnica or Sokolovic Kolonija, select the most profitable
20 We can only guess what the most profitable target may be, but
21 it's the civilian areas that were hit by the air-bomb.
22 Q. Were you in the army, Mr. Suljevic?
23 A. I did my service in the former JNA in 1983.
24 Q. Did you get a rank?
25 A. No, no. Private first class, but that's not much, is it?
1 Q. "Profitable target," what does that mean to any military person?
2 Why would "profitable target" mean civilians when it's the army that is
3 carrying out the attack?
4 A. I said a moment ago that all of Sarajevo was a target throughout
5 the war, and all of Sarajevo
6 somewhere at the front-line where there were no civilians, perhaps I
7 might have thought differently. But in town, where we were all
8 casualties and victims, at home, at the market, at work -- as we went to
9 the market, or to work, and back home. A house was hit with a projectile
10 where I lived. A tram was hit --
11 Q. Mr. Suljevic, let us leave that aside now. But this is what
12 these proceedings are all about, whether Sarajevo was a helpless victim
13 of a Serb Army or was it a camp full of legitimate targets. Now I'm
14 asking you about Hrasnica. Is it legitimate to carry out a
15 counter-attack when, during the cease-fire, the Muslim Army from Hrasnica
16 is, nevertheless, carrying out attacks? You did your service in the
17 military. You should know whether this is legitimate.
18 A. Perhaps it is legitimate if only military targets are attacked.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
20 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Suljevic, just to clarify one thing, do you know
21 where the Famos factory was?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I do, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE KWON: Was it or is it in the Hrasnica area?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's the area of the municipality
25 of Hrasnica, and it's separate from the civilian area. But it is in the
1 area of the Hrasnica municipality.
2 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Suljevic.
3 Mr. Karadzic.
4 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Is it correct that the line of separation went between the Famos
6 factory and the rest of Hrasnica?
7 A. I don't know where the line was exactly, but it was somewhere
8 around there. Now, was it all of Famos that was on one side or not, I'm
9 not sure. But if the line did not go through Famos, then it went right
10 by the factory, itself, as far as I know. And I don't really know
11 because I was never there during the war.
12 Q. Thank you. Let us focus on the last sentence now, please. What
13 was it that General Milosevic ordered? Did he order fire or did he order
14 readiness for the implementation of this task, and that he should be
15 informed personally?
16 A. As we have read it out already, that all preparations should be
17 carried out, that a target should be selected, and that
18 Commander Milosevic should be informed about all of that personally.
19 Q. Thank you. However, on that day and on that occasion, was that
20 bomb actually fired?
21 A. I don't know.
22 Q. Thank you. Do you know what existed in Hrasnica as a military
23 structure, as installations, positions, et cetera?
24 A. I don't know. I know that in Hrasnica, there was a unit of the
25 BH Army. Now, I can't remember what its exact name was. Now, was it the
1 4th Company or Brigade, or -- I don't know what its name was. But I
2 don't know about the details, anyway. A few times during the war, I did
3 go there because my family, that is to say, my parents and my brother and
4 sister are there, and a few times I just went to see them. But I didn't
5 go towards the lines, and I don't know where things were, specifically.
6 Q. Do you which heavy weaponry there was in Hrasnica?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Do you know which weapons and artillery pieces were on Igman,
9 right above Hrasnica? Rather, is Igman to the south of Hrasnica, right
10 above Hrasnica, and is Hrasnica on the slopes where Igman rolls into the
12 A. It's true that Hrasnica is at the foot of Mount Igman
13 really don't know what it was that the Army of BH had either in Igman or
14 elsewhere. I don't know. I mean, from the media, what I know to this
15 day is what I found out just that way, through the media. I didn't know
16 anything else.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
18 Can we now please ask for 1D02358 [as interpreted]. Could we
19 have that in e-court, 1D20358, please.
20 Could we now have ERN number 03315973-03319574.
21 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Mr. Suljevic, while we're waiting for that, could you please have
23 a look at this and tell us whether these are documents coming from your
24 service? Are they the ones that are referred to in these tables?
25 A. I think so. Judging by the numbers, I think these are documents
1 from our service.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we admit that previous
3 document, General Milosevic's order, the one that we discussed? I don't
4 know whether it's been admitted already.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that document is already in
6 evidence as Exhibit P120.
7 JUDGE KWON: Thank you very much.
8 Mr. Suljevic, could you read the title of this document?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "An Overview of a Part of
10 Accounting Records in Sarajevo
11 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could the witness please
12 indicate where he's reading from.
13 JUDGE KWON: He's reading from the document we are seeing at this
15 Yes, Mr. Tieger.
16 MR. TIEGER: Yes, Your Honour.
17 Just for clarification purposes, and perhaps it's not necessary,
18 but the document, itself, I believe, is a document prepared by the
19 Defence. I didn't know if the Court's call for --
20 JUDGE KWON: Yes, that's why I asked him to read it out. And he
21 said that it's from his service, and I want that part to be clarified.
22 But the title in e-court says it's a -- it says it's a review of
23 Mr. Karadzic's Sarajevo
24 So if you could tell us what this document is about.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When I said that this was from the
1 service, I meant that the documents that are listed here under these
2 numbers. But this particular document is not from our service, because
3 I've never seen it before, this document I see on the screen.
4 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. If I may help, Mr. Suljevic, do you agree that this is an
6 overview of documents emanating from your service?
7 A. Well, let me look at the numbers. 02/4-233, et cetera, yes,
8 those are registration numbers from our service.
9 Q. Thank you. Please focus your attention on the three columns on
10 the right-hand side. It reads the registration number of the document,
11 the date of entering the document in the log-book, and regularity of the
12 entry. How was it possible that this one document has a smaller number
13 than the previous one, but it comes after it? I mean, line 4 as compared
14 to line 3, where we see the registration numbers. If we look at line 3,
15 the date is 19 December 1994
16 it has a smaller number than the previous one.
17 A. I don't see the problem. Numbers start from 1 every year, so for
18 every year you start from 1. And depending on the number of documents
19 received, will you get as far as you'll get, because in line 3 the
20 document is from the previous year, and in line 4 it's from the following
21 year. I don't see a problem with that.
22 Q. All right. But still there is a muddle with these numbers.
23 There's number 523, dated 10 July, on that line, and on the 10th line
24 there's 531 from 3 July. How do you explain that?
25 A. Well, it's easy to explain. These are two entries that were
1 completed in July, one on the 3rd and one on the 10th. They were
2 received under these numbers stated here. We don't see the date of
3 reception, but each entry is processed. And if two staff work on two
4 files, two entries, then one may do the work sooner than the other.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we see the following page of
6 this document.
7 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Look at the boxes marked in red. All these dates are jumbled up.
9 And what does this number 233 stand for, anyway? Because we see it in
10 all years, this number 233. What does it mean?
11 A. These are registration numbers in our office work. I'm not sure.
12 "02/4" stands for the organisational unit, and "233" is some sort of
13 classification. I'm not exactly sure what. But this is all about these
14 matters, and that's why all are marked "233."
15 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Can we see the following page,
17 Q. Take a look, and we can move on to page 4 and 5. Is it the same
19 A. It's the same, yes. There's no difference. These are
20 registration numbers.
21 Q. But, Mr. Suljevic, this doesn't say the date of completion, but
22 the date of the entry of the document, and it's such a muddle that your
23 explanation can't really account for it, because we see here "Date of
24 Entry." On this page, only three fit in some sort of chronological
1 Let us see page 4. See, it's the same here. And let's see
2 page 5 also, please.
3 A. Yes, but this document was not made by the same service that
4 received and entered these documents, these files. I think that these
5 are registration numbers, but the column that reads "Date of Entry of the
6 Document in the Log-book," I think that these are actually the dates when
7 the files were processed.
8 Q. Yes, but -- that's what you think, but this was copied from the
9 very documents, and it says when it was entered. So the first one was
10 entered on the 22nd of September, 1995, under number 749, and number 751
11 was entered on the 13th of September. Well, all right. I'm satisfied
12 with your explanation.
13 I seek to tender this document.
14 JUDGE KWON: I wonder whether this is a proper document to be
16 Mr. Gaynor, do you have any observations?
17 MR. GAYNOR: Well, yes. I quite agree.
18 First of all, it has been created by a member of the Defence
19 team. As we've said before in respect of documents of this nature, we
20 believe it would be more appropriate for them to be tendered through a
21 Defence witness, who can then be cross-examined on the underlying data
22 used to create the document in question.
23 I'd also like to point out that this was made available to us
24 this morning, and the cross-examination of this witness began on the 22nd
25 of July, and we have not been provided with an English translation. But
1 we'll leave it in the Court's discretion as to whether to admit it.
2 JUDGE KWON: You didn't have time to check whether all these
3 numbers were correctly referenced?
4 MR. GAYNOR: That's correct. We received it about half an hour
5 before court started.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If I may assist.
7 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, you can use this as a kind of
8 aide-memoir, but this is not the opportunity to tender this as a proper
9 exhibit at this moment.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellency, I could have
11 displayed all these documents and pointed out these discrepancies that
12 way, but I don't have enough time. But I can call up any of these
13 documents at random, so anyone may pick one and we can take a look at it.
14 This is totally unacceptable, the way they do business there. It may be
15 propaganda purposes, for war propaganda. But in criminal law, such
16 jumbled dates really are intolerable.
17 JUDGE KWON: You'll have another opportunity to tender this as an
18 exhibit. We'll do without it at this moment.
19 Let's move on, Mr. Karadzic.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
21 Could we please see 1D2194.
22 I apologise. This was taken out of the indictment, so if there's
23 enough time left, we'll deal with this incident, because it doesn't
24 feature in the latest version of the indictment anymore. So we have to
25 be economical and focus on what is in the indictment first.
1 Could we please see it.
2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Do you remember the incident in Mis Irbina, Mr. Suljevic?
4 A. I don't know what exactly you're referring to.
5 Q. The incident that happened on the 17th of June, 1995. I will
6 make a reference to the table, but I believe there was only one on the
7 17th of June, 1995.
8 A. Without a report, I really cannot remember. There were many
9 incidents on many dates. I don't remember everything.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we see ERN 0213-5485, please.
11 Perhaps this can assist: 1D02342, if we could see that. Possibly all
12 this is already admitted as a P exhibit.
13 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] All right.
14 Q. Do you remember this map, Mr. Suljevic? Do you remember this
15 report, Mr. Suljevic?
16 A. Just let me look at it.
17 Could I please see the second page, too. It seems familiar, but
18 just in case, I'd like to be sure.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Let us see the second page, please.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, this report was drafted by
21 Predrag Kurtes, as we can see here, so I was not involved in writing this
23 Q. But it's a report from your service?
24 A. No, this is a report from the CSB. Predrag Kurtes was at the
1 this event, and we worked on it, but this wasn't our report.
2 Q. Did you work on this incident? Were you a team member, and if
3 so, your name would be in first place?
4 A. I did work on this event. I don't know about my name being in
5 first place, but it doesn't matter. It is clear who conducted the
6 on-site investigation. I was merely a team member.
7 Q. Thank you. In this event, which happened on 17 June, whereas the
8 report was written on the 1st of July, one boy was killed and six more
9 persons were injured. Out of six injured persons, five are children;
11 A. Correct.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we please see the previous
13 document, where the map was. The previous document before this one, it
14 was a map. Yes.
15 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Mr. Suljevic, is this a map where we see the Mis Irbina Street
17 the center?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Who was Mis Irbi [phoen] after whom this street was named?
20 A. I'm not sure. I couldn't really say exactly, although I know it.
21 Q. Do you know that Mis Irbi was a great British humanitarian worker
22 who was with the Serbian Army throughout the First World War?
23 A. Yeah, I guess.
24 Q. What's the name of that street today?
25 A. I believe it still has the same name.
1 JUDGE KWON: What is the relevance of these lines of questions?
2 What is your question, Mr. Karadzic? You said that this incident had
3 been taken out of the indictment, and you're coming back to this matter
4 again. Move on to your -- what is your question?
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Dositejeva Street was renamed, or,
6 rather, was taken out, but these very things that were taken out of the
7 indictment strengthen the position of the Defence, and we must deal with
8 them because these are examples of what should not have been done. And
9 it all goes to show how the Serbian side was unjustly accused, and I
10 cannot fail to mention this since one of my generals has been convicted
11 already. And the relevance, Your Honours, is that mostly all streets in
13 Serbian and Croatian personalities were all -- their names were all
15 JUDGE KWON: Do you have the schedule number of this incident you
16 are going to refer to, which allegedly took place on 17th of June?
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, the map has the number down
18 here, and it's 1D --
19 JUDGE KWON: I mean the schedule number of the indictment.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We'll see in the table.
21 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Gaynor, do you have --
22 MR. GAYNOR: There might be some confusion. There was an
23 incident on the 16th of June, 1995, at Dositejeva Street which has not
24 been removed from the indictment. That's incident number 14 in
25 Schedule G.
1 JUDGE KWON: Yes. So that was the reason why I asked the
2 question. I don't see any incident which allegedly took place on the
3 17th of June.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
5 Could we then now see 65 ter 09808.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this document has been admitted as
7 Exhibit P1327.
8 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
9 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
10 Q. Are you familiar with this document, Mr. Suljevic?
11 A. Yes.
12 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Suljevic, would you like to see the last page of
13 this document, where your signature appears?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We can have a look at it,
15 Your Honours. But judging by the introduction, I remember this document
16 and this incident as well.
17 JUDGE KWON: Very well. Let's continue, Mr. Karadzic.
18 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
19 Q. This was the incident in Dositejeva Street. Can you just briefly
20 tell us what happened on this occasion?
21 A. In this incident, the Pomology Institute was hit by a modified
22 aerial bomb, which exploded there.
23 Q. What was your role in this examination?
24 A. I was at the site in the status of an employee of the
25 Counter-Sabotage Department. We were collecting what remained after the
1 explosion. And then after on, I was involved in the expert analysis of
2 the traces of the explosion.
3 Q. What was the goal of this investigation? What were you supposed
4 to establish?
5 A. Just like in any other on-site investigation, we acted on the
6 orders of the judge who was in charge of the on-site investigation.
7 Q. Was that a ballistic expert analysis or did you focus only on the
8 consequences of the explosion, the damage and so on?
9 A. Well, we from the KDZ, in general, did not deal with assessing
10 the damage. That was not our main goal. Our goal was to analyse the
11 crater, if we can call it that, because in this case the shell hit a
12 wall, and also collecting traces. I'm not sure whether, in this specific
13 instance, we also tried to establish the direction from which the
14 projectile flew. We can only see that if I read through the entire
15 document, because I cannot say this off the top of my head.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we please provide this document
17 to Mr. Suljevic? I have it here, so I can give him a hard copy, or
18 perhaps we can move on to the next page.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's sufficient if I just have a
20 look at this document.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If you agree, I can provide a hard
22 copy of this document to the witness, and we might show up 1D02194.
23 JUDGE KWON: Very well. Unless the Prosecution opposes, I would
24 like the witness to have the hard copy of this document, and we move on
25 to another document.
1 MR. GAYNOR: Very well, Your Honour.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we please see 1D02194.
3 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Parts of which motor did you find there? Was it Plamen?
5 A. We found three rocket projectiles of the Grad type, and calibre
6 of 122 millimetres. And at the site, we also found the metal part of
7 irregular shape, with the markings which you mentioned, and that's what's
8 stated in the report.
9 Q. It's Plamen, the name of the motor is Plamen, which means
10 "flame"; is that correct?
11 A. Three rocket projectiles of the Grad type were found, and one
12 metal part, which is mentioned in the report, most probably was not part
13 of the device that exploded. And I can explain that, in a way, because
14 people in Sarajevo
15 journalists did that, and I don't know whoever else. Quite often, people
16 would collect the parts which they found someplace, and they would keep
17 them as mementos or souvenirs of a kind. And it says here that this part
18 most probably was not part of the device that fell.
19 Q. Let us try to be more specific. Who conducted the on-site
20 investigation and who collected the fragments?
21 A. I participated in the work of the team which collected the
23 Q. When did that take place; how long after the explosion?
24 A. I don't know exactly how long after the explosion, but probably
25 you can see from the CSB
1 was not at the official premises. I was at home, as far as I can
2 remember this incident, and they called me to come there. I thought
3 it -- I think it was one of the days of a weekend and that I came to the
4 on-site investigation from my home. But how long after the explosion it
5 was, I couldn't specifically say, because I cannot remember such details.
6 Q. What did you find there? Was the site properly secured for the
7 forensic examination?
8 A. I think it was.
9 Q. Who did you find at the site? What did you find there when you
10 got there?
11 A. Well, you couldn't find anyone at such sites. When shelling was
12 in progress, you couldn't find anyone there who was not there because of
13 their duty. I don't have the report here, which would show whom we found
14 there and whom was at the site. And from this point in time, I cannot
15 remember every incident and every on-site investigation and who was
16 involved, because the personnel in teams changed. It was not always the
17 same people, always the same investigating judge and so on. So from this
18 point in time, I cannot remember such details without reviewing certain
20 Q. Well, this was a major incident, wasn't it? What is the name of
21 the street now? Can you please mark on this map Dositejeva Street?
22 A. I can mark the street, but whether it has retained the name or
23 not, I really wouldn't know.
24 Q. Am I right that it is the street which is the continuation of
25 Djuro Djakovic Street, that is to say, Kralja Tomislava, the name of
1 which was changed and it's now called Kosevo; is that correct?
2 A. I will mark approximately where I believe that the street is.
3 It's not the street up there you mentioned. Dositejeva Street is, I
4 believe, here [marks]. I think there or thereabouts is
5 Dositejeva Street
6 Q. All right. So we see that the BiH Railway Company is there, so
7 is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Presidency of Bosnia and
9 A. In the vicinity, yes.
10 Q. And do you know where the command of the helicopter unit on
11 Dositejeva Street was?
12 A. I don't even know that there was a helicopter squadron, to be
13 honest, so I couldn't say.
14 Q. The explosion was at 4A, and the command of the squadron was at
15 4. That's the neighbouring building; correct?
16 A. I don't know. I know where the explosion occurred, but where the
17 command was situated, I wouldn't know.
18 Q. All right, thank you. How did you enter the street? From which
19 end of the street did you come to the site?
20 A. I really don't know. I think you can reach the site from four
21 sides; that is to say, from two sides of the street once you enter the
22 street. And I don't remember how I entered the street.
23 Q. And where did you live?
24 A. I lived in Cengic Vila.
25 Q. You came by car, didn't you?
1 A. I don't know. I cannot remember whether I came on foot or
2 whether someone came to pick me up. I really don't remember such
3 details. I did not record that, I did not keep a diary, so I cannot
4 answer such questions. It's possible that I got there by car. I really
5 don't know how important that is in this context.
6 Q. Please allow for the possibility that it's very important for the
7 Defence. Cengic Vila is about four kilometres away from this place, is
8 that correct, if not more?
9 A. It's possible, because from work we usually needed 50 to 60
10 minutes to arrive, though sometimes we would need up to three hours due
11 to shelling. So, more or less, it was like that.
12 Q. So we have to assume that you did not come to the on-site
13 investigation, this incident, on foot, but, rather, by car; is that
15 A. I'm not certain how I got there, so I wouldn't --
16 Q. Well, and at what time did the explosion occur?
17 A. As one can see from the report, the projectile hit at about
18 11.05 a.m.
19 Q. And when did you arrive there?
20 A. Well, I've told you. I don't know when I got there, but the
21 on-site investigation was conducted on that same day.
22 Q. Ah-hah. And now please tell us, once you got there, what did you
23 find there? Did anyone else come to the site before you? I'm not
24 talking about the public, about people, but someone was doing something
25 there. Who did you find on the spot when you got there?
1 A. I think I have answered that question. I cannot remember all the
2 people who were members of the on-site investigation team, or whom I
3 found on the spot, or who arrived there after me.
4 Q. But you were certainly involved in the on-site investigation;
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And you collected the fragments of the projectile which were
8 found after the explosion; correct?
9 A. Yes, I was involved in collecting the traces. And I remember
10 that there was another colleague of mine there who was a member of the
11 Counter Sabotage Protection from my department within the CSB.
12 Q. Thank you. Can you please mark, with numbers, the BiH Railway
13 Company with number 1, and the Presidency with number 2, and the Ministry
14 of the Foreign Affairs with number 3?
15 A. Yes, it's written here on the map. You can see the BH Railway
16 Company, number 1. [Marks]. Here it is.
17 Q. And the Presidency?
18 A. Here's the Presidency. [Marks]
19 Q. And the Ministry of the Foreign Affairs?
20 A. [Marks]
21 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Suljevic. It was because we couldn't
22 read in the Bosnian. But did they exist at the time, i.e., in 1995, at
23 the same place?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours, they existed
25 there at the time, and they are still there now.
1 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
2 Q. Can you please write the date and your signature or your
4 And I would tender this document into evidence.
5 A. [Marks]
6 Q. What you encircled here, is that the site of the explosion? So
7 that we can be a bit more specific, can you please put number 4 there.
8 That's 4A. I think the name of the street is Branislav Djurdjev now, and
9 it used to be Dositejeva Street; correct?
10 Can we please return to the screen what Mr. Suljevic signed so
11 that he can add number 4 to the exact site where the explosion occurred?
12 A. Yes, I think --
13 JUDGE KWON: It won't be necessary, because well aware of the
14 marking where it is. And then with the comments of the witness, another
15 marking of the number won't be necessary.
16 We'll admit it as a Defence exhibit.
17 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D552, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE KWON: And we can move on, Mr. Karadzic.
19 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Do you agree, Mr. Suljevic -- actually, can we just keep the map
21 a little longer?
22 Is the regional SUP
23 A. That's right. The CSB
24 I think that the street is a bit to the right, if I can mark it with the
25 red marker. Perhaps I did not place Dositejeva correctly. I think it
1 was towards the left a bit more, towards the cinema called Dubrovnik
2 before the war.
3 Q. Do we agree that Dositejeva is moving from north to south, not
4 the other way around?
5 A. [Marks]. The Institute of Pomology
6 is there as I marked it. Now, as for Dositejeva, whether that runs from
7 north to south, I really don't know. I mean, it's no problem to check
8 that on maps that were contemporaneous.
9 Q. Did you live in Sarajevo
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Doesn't Dositejeva link Marsal Tita and Mis Irbina?
12 A. I don't know exactly. I don't know where it started and where it
13 ended; Dositejeva Street, that is.
14 Q. Do you agree that within this complex that you marked just now,
15 there are no residential buildings? This is a bank, the Dubrovnik
16 Cinema, then the old Austrian building of the railways, then the Foreign
17 Ministry, the Regional Centre of Security?
18 A. And then after the CSB
19 buildings towards Mis Irbina and that entire area.
20 Q. What you marked with red, there is no residential building there;
22 A. I don't know whether there are any residential areas there. I
23 really don't know.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
25 Let's use the same number so that we know exactly where the site
1 of the explosion was.
2 JUDGE KWON: I wonder whether we can keep this new map and admit
3 it, keep it as D552. So we replace the previous D552 with this one.
4 Thank you.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The CSB is there on the corner of
6 Mis Irbina and August Cerares. I guess August Cerares did something
7 wrong, too, so he lost his street as well.
8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. It's called Musala now; right?
10 A. The CSB
11 have no idea what it was called before the war. The CSB is nearby, and
12 that's that street.
13 Q. La Benevolencije, yes, and it used to be Augusta Cerares. Right.
14 Now, do you recall that during the NATO bombing of Serbia, NATO hit
15 practically all the government buildings of Serbia at the time?
16 JUDGE KWON: Irrelevant.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right, I'll withdraw it.
18 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. How was it that you determined the direction from which this
20 modified aerial bomb, as the reports call it, came?
21 A. In this case, what was taken into account was the position of the
22 remnants of the rocket motors that remained in the wall at the site of
23 the explosion. The wall had been hit from the northern side. The
24 building was hit on its northern side, rather, so that's the side that
25 was affected.
1 Q. Do we have a photograph? Did you take any photographs there?
2 A. I didn't take any photographs. There was a member of the team
3 whose task that was, and I think that the site was photographed.
4 Q. Do you have that photograph? Do we have that photograph?
5 JUDGE KWON: Just a question for the Registry, why we lost the
6 red markings.
7 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
8 JUDGE KWON: We'll bring up the new marking -- D552 with the red
10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] While we're waiting for all of
12 Q. Mr. Suljevic, did you determine the angle of decent of that
13 projectile? You know which side of the building was affected. However,
14 did you determine the angle of decent of the projectile?
15 A. We did not determine the angle of decent of the projectile at
17 Q. Did you need that? What were you able to conclude on that basis,
18 in view of the fact that you did not have the angle of descent?
19 A. We could conclude what the approximate direction was from which
20 the projectile had come. As far as aerial bombs are concerned, modified
21 aerial bombs that fell on the city, well, we didn't have any tables and
22 we didn't have the resources. Even if we wanted to, we could not
23 determine the angle of descent. I don't think there would have been any
24 point in doing that in the case of these modified aerial bombs that were
1 Q. Did you know what the mass of the projectile was or of the
2 warhead? How heavy was it?
3 A. No, in this case we did not actually establish which aerial bomb
4 that was. We couldn't do that. So the report says that it is most
5 probably an aerial bomb, so this modified aerial bomb was probably the
6 mechanism that was involved.
7 Q. What bomb could this have been, according to your knowledge?
8 A. I can just guess now. What we established at the time on the
9 spot is what is recorded in our reports. Was it -- if it were possible
10 to determine it then, it would have been in our reports.
11 Q. So what was possible, 100 kilograms, 250 kilograms; right?
12 A. 100 kilograms and 250 kilograms. We saw that in those orders
13 where modified aerial bombs were referred to, and launchers as well.
14 Q. Thank you. Now, tell us, you established the approximate
15 location from which the projectile had been fired; right?
16 A. We did not establish the approximate location. We established
17 the direction, and that's what the report says, that the direction
18 coincides with the direction in which the enemy positions are in
19 Pionirska Dolina.
20 Q. I see. So it was only Serb positions in Pionirska Dolina?
21 Weren't there Muslim positions only 50 metres away from them?
22 A. The separation lines were somewhere in Pionirska Dolina. I don't
23 know. I don't know what you're getting at, what it is you want to define
25 Q. We want to specify how it was that you determined the distance.
1 You don't know the angle of descent, you don't know so many other
2 factors, and you determined the actual distance involved. In that area,
3 Pionirska Dolina, towards the north, it goes all the way to Tuzla
4 doesn't it?
5 A. We did not establish the distance. We said that this direction
6 from which the projectile came coincides with the direction of enemy
7 positions in the broader area of Pionirska Dolina. It coincides with
8 that, with that locality. It doesn't say what the distance was. It
9 wasn't determined, it wasn't measured. And we know where state -- how
10 big it was.
11 Q. When you say "Pionirska Dolina," you're not saying only what the
12 direction is, but you're saying what the distance is, too; right? Why
13 not between Pionirska Dolina and the actual site, along the same axis,
14 couldn't it have been fired from somewhere else?
15 A. The direction coincides with that locality and from the site
16 where the projectile fell, so, I mean, that's the trajectory that the
17 projectile took.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm afraid that the transcript does
19 not reflect that they did not establish the mass of the bomb and so on.
20 This is LiveNote, so I hope that my fast speech will be corrected during
21 the night.
22 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. So all these conclusions, do they coincide with what you had
24 established? From Pionirska Dolina, did anyone else determine anything
1 A. I don't know whether anyone else carried out investigations,
2 besides us. But I say, once again, that it says here that the direction
3 of firing coincides with that locality where enemy positions were in the
4 broader area of Pionirska Dolina. There is no specific reference to
5 where it had been fired from, but I'm sure that it's from that locality
6 that it was fired.
7 Q. How can you be certain of that?
8 A. Well, that is confirmed by the orders that we saw during the
9 previous two days of my testimony, where there is constant repetition of
10 launchers being made and these modified aerial bombs being made. I don't
11 know of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina having a single one of those, at
12 least within the Sarajevo
13 aerial bombs, I first saw them inactivated or, rather, ready during
14 reintegration at Zeljezara Ilijas, a photograph, rather, because our
15 teams went to different locations after the Dayton Agreement had been
16 signed. And within reintegration, we were carrying out preparations,
17 and, if necessary, we were removing mines, explosive devices, and the
18 like, so that the inhabitants could return to their homes safely.
19 I saw these modified air bombs on the photographs that were in
20 Zeljezara Ilijas. There were metal barrels, 200-litres metal barrels
21 full of explosive, and tyres from freight vehicles had been mounted on
22 them. They were used in order to get these mechanisms down from the
23 hills and activated somewhere in town.
24 Q. So the Serbs did that. They would fill a barrel with explosive
25 and then let it roll downhill; right?
1 A. Well, this is what was found in Zeljezara Ilijas that throughout
2 the war was under the control of the Army of Republika Srpska.
3 Q. Was it a possibility that they were captured from the Muslim
4 Army, and do you know that the Muslim Army used that from Igman when
5 attacking Serb houses? We'll find a document to that effect here. Are
6 you aware of that?
7 A. I'm not aware of that, but I know that in Sarajevo there were
8 cases that such things had exploded somewhere above Bistrik, and the Army
9 of Bosnia-Herzegovina certainly couldn't have rolled them uphill.
10 Q. Although they had sophisticated artillery, the Serbs used these
11 barrels; right?
12 A. If you are asking for my opinion --
13 Q. Thank you. Are you trying to say that the Muslim Army in
15 A. I think the answer is no.
16 Q. Thank you. What does this mean, "100 kilograms and 250
18 A. If you're referring to aerial bombs, I think it is the total mass
19 of the bomb.
20 Q. What is the weight of the explosive therein?
21 A. I really don't know exactly what the mass of the explosive is
22 there, but, say, 30 to 40 per cent. However, there is data in
23 literature. I cannot say now exactly. I think that an air-bomb of 250
24 kilograms has about 100 kilograms of explosive, perhaps a bit less. But,
25 tentatively, say it's about 100 kilograms.
1 Q. 100 kilograms of TNT
2 buildings or wherever it may fall, Mr. Suljevic?
3 A. Well, it depends on the place where it falls. Every situation is
4 different. It depends on what the building had been made of, where the
5 projectile exploded. There are many factors involved, so it is hard to
6 give a specific answer to your question.
7 Q. Where did this one explode, on which wall, and what was the
8 damage inflicted?
9 A. What kind of damage it inflicted you can see on the photo
10 documentation. I think that the wall was a brick wall. I don't know. I
11 cannot remember now. But we can only see that in the photographs.
12 Q. But you do recall, on the spot, what was it, what was the debris?
13 Was it bricks or was it reinforced concrete? Wasn't that an old Austrian
15 A. It certainly wasn't reinforced concrete, but I cannot remember
16 from this time distance. That was not the only on-site investigation
17 that I carried out during the war. Perhaps I would not remember
18 anything, given the time that has elapsed.
19 Q. Let us be serious and precise, Mr. Suljevic. 100 kilograms of
21 inflicted? What happens when a 100 -- when a bomb of 100 kilograms of
24 A. Again, you are saying that this air-bomb is of 250 kilograms,
25 containing 100 kilograms of explosive, but the report does not show that
1 at all, that it was 250 kilograms. It was either 100 kilograms or 250.
2 The report does not say specifically. However, the destruction there was
3 vast, and you can see that in the photo documentation.
4 Q. Give us this photo documentation.
5 Can the OTP give us this photo documentation?
6 The transcript does not reflect that you could not establish
7 which bomb it was. However, you do agree that there are no aerial bombs
8 that are lighter than 100 kilograms; right?
9 A. I don't think that there are any that are lighter. Without
10 referring to literature, I cannot say anything with 100 per cent
11 certainty. Perhaps those were the smallest aerial bombs that existed.
12 Q. You state in your report that it had three rocket engines of the
13 Grad type.
14 Can we please see 65 ter 09808 on our screens. That's the
15 report, but you have it in front of you anyway.
16 Is it true that you state there that three rocket motors of the
17 Grad type were found there? How did you arrive at that conclusion?
18 A. It's stated in the report remains of a rocket motor, that is,
19 tubes, found at the site.
20 Q. Which pieces are required to establish the number of motors?
21 A. The bodies of the motors don't get destroyed in the explosion.
22 They can be found at the site only damaged or deformed. Only at the RTV
23 Centre; we didn't find any at the site. Probably the rocket motor got
24 separated from the aerial bomb, itself, during its trajectory.
25 Q. Well, that would have been a unique instance. You said to us
1 that it happened when it ricochetted off that roof?
2 A. Yes, that's what I thought, and that's why I said it.
3 Q. You know why you found those pieces from the RTV Centre? You
4 found them in Safeta Hadzica, because it landed there, but we cannot
5 leave this so messy and unexplained.
6 Is it correct that you needed three vital parts of any motor to
7 be able to establish that there were indeed three motors? There must be
8 three jets, twelve wings, et cetera?
9 JUDGE KWON: Can we see the part which is referring to what you
10 just said, motors of Grad type? What page is it?
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Here on page 1, if I may assist.
12 It says four large metal tubes were found, seven large metal pieces of
13 irregular shape.
14 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. What are these four large metal parts? Are these four motors?
16 A. On page 2, there is a description of the parts. They are marked
17 by numbers, and then their dimensions are stated, as established by
18 measuring, and some characteristic traces visible on the parts.
19 Q. So you found four, and you say that there were three motors. And
20 one of these motors belonged to Plamen, correct, according to you? I
21 mean, that's what your report says.
22 A. If it says so in the report, then that's the way it is.
23 Q. So three motors would propel the bomb, and the fourth motor would
24 belong to a Plamen missile; right?
25 A. The fourth wasn't a Grad motor, because those parts were found at
1 the site.
2 Q. Let us look at paragraph 3 on page 1. You say here -- but it may
3 be on page 2, after all. You say here that the missiles were used to
4 propel it, to propel the whole thing? Actually, it's on page 2,
5 paragraph 3.
6 A. On the last page, it says that the missiles were used to propel
7 the bomb. It's on page 5.
8 Q. Then do you -- would you say that missiles and rocket motors are
9 the same thing? Because it says here that missiles were used to propel
10 the bomb.
11 A. Yes, rocket motors.
12 Q. But read all of this: "Based on the material brought for
13 forensic analysis." Who brought it?
14 A. The material was collected at the site and taken to the CSB.
15 Their requests for forensic analysis were filed, and these were attached
16 to material from the site. No matter whether somebody from our
17 department conducted the on-site investigation, with the request to
18 conduct forensic analysis, traces had to be attached.
19 Q. But you did that?
20 A. Yes, I took part in collecting evidence. That's what I said
22 Q. Now take a look at the following paragraph:
23 "A metal fragment of irregular shape ..."
24 A. "A metal fragment of irregular shape with the stamped mark, 128
25 millimetres, M63 and BK comes from the exhaust duct of a 128-millimetre
1 Plamen M-63 missile, which most probably was not a part of the device
2 that exploded."
3 Q. But what was that motor doing there? It's part of a missile;
5 A. I explained that. At the site, there were also pieces of other
6 projectiles, things people left there, souvenirs and the like.
7 Q. Could it have belonged to some military facility or military unit
8 of the Muslim Army there in that street?
9 A. There, in that institute, most certainly not.
10 Q. Do you want to hear what I think, Mr. Suljevic? I think that no
11 aerial bomb ever flew to Dositejeva Street, number 4, although that's an
12 area full of legitimate targets. And the neighbouring building housed
13 the command of the helicopter squadron of the Muslim Army, but,
14 Mr. Suljevic, even if there was only 100 kilograms of TNT there, the
15 whole building would have been blown to pieces. But I don't understand
16 how they made you draw such conclusions to establish even the direction
17 and the distance from which it had come based on totally unclear elements
18 from which nothing can be concluded, and we don't even have a photograph.
19 A. Nothing is unclear here. What is stated in our reports is not
20 unclear. Never, during my work in on-site investigations or forensic
21 analyses, did I put on paper anything that I haven't seen or that I
22 wasn't certain of. Never did I receive instructions from anybody to put
23 on paper something I wasn't certain of and that couldn't be proved.
24 Nobody, to this day, instructed me to say something behind -- to say
25 anything to which I wouldn't stand.
1 Q. Was there a fire there?
2 A. Not at the time.
3 Q. But wasn't there -- wasn't there the mark for "inflammable" on
4 the jet of that device?
5 A. I don't remember. But if I did say so, then I stand by that.
6 Q. Well, I seem to be too fast for the transcript, but I want to
7 finish today.
8 I would like your statement given on 19 June 1995 to be referred
9 to in the transcript, where you say that the Plamen exhaust jet was
10 marked "flammable."
11 A. If that is stated in the report, then I stand by that. But if it
12 isn't stated in the report, then it isn't that way. But I cannot see the
13 report now, so I cannot confirm.
14 Q. Well, since you know about these things: Where is the
15 "flammable" mark placed, and how is it applied; by stamping, by colour?
16 And where is it placed, on the motor or on the warhead?
17 A. As far as I remember, and what I am about to say doesn't refer to
18 aerial bombs or modified aerial bombs, with rocket motors to propel them,
19 but on artillery shells the marks are applied by painting them, and I
20 believe that in the Eastern Bloc, in the arsenal of the former JNA, a red
21 band meant flammable, whereas a yellow band meant chemical missile. I
22 don't think that NATO has the same system of markings. But I didn't
23 prepare for this line of questioning, so I didn't consult the relevant
24 literature, but there are books where that can be found.
25 When we speak about marking ammunition, we relied on the
1 textbooks of the Military Technical Academy
2 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
3 I note the time is time to break, but before we do: Yes,
4 Mr. Gaynor.
5 MR. GAYNOR: Yes.
6 A few lines ago, the accused said -- referred to part of the
7 report of the 19th June 1995, and he said that there was a reference to a
8 marking of "flammable" on the Plamen rocket. I request the accused to
9 direct us to the paragraph he's referring to.
10 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] After the break, if I may. I now
12 have just another question.
13 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Who manufactured a Plamen missile with flammable heads in Bosnia
15 Because you'll agree with me that the other Plamen missiles were not
16 flammable and that only certain special versions were flammable and who
17 made them in Bosnia-Herzegovina? Do you agree with me when I say it was
18 a Soko Mostar?
19 A. I really don't know what Soko manufactured and what Pretis did.
20 I really don't know. But in the former Yugoslavia, there were industries
21 manufacturing such projectiles. But where exactly, what type was
22 manufactured, I don't know. I worked for the Zrak company, which didn't
23 manufacture projectiles, so I don't know. I don't know which factory
24 exactly manufactured what.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. We will continue after
1 the break, because were must clarify what happened in Dositejeva Street,
2 because what is stated in the indictment never happened, Mr. Suljevic.
3 JUDGE KWON: That's your statement, Mr. Karadzic.
4 We'll break for half an hour and resume at five past 11.00.
5 --- Recess taken at 10.37 a.m.
6 --- On resuming at 11.10 a.m.
7 MR. ROBINSON: Excuse me, Mr. President.
8 If I could just let you know that Dr. Subotic, who's been
9 assisting us as an expert, is present and will continue to be assisting
10 Dr. Karadzic during this testimony. Thank you.
11 JUDGE KWON: We noted it. Thank you.
12 Yes, Mr. Karadzic, let's continue.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
14 I need to discuss at least two other incidents with this witness,
15 as there is no better witness than this one I can discuss that with,
16 because he was involved in them. One of them is in the indictment;
17 that's the flea market. And the other one is not in the indictment, but
18 it has been admitted as P and some number, all the documents. I really
19 don't know the exact number now, so we really have to review all that.
20 And I would ask you to consider allowing me sufficient time to discuss
21 this incident as well.
22 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Mr. Suljevic, let us just briefly conclude with the incident in
24 Dositejeva Street
25 because the Muslim Army did not have modified bombs; is that correct?
1 A. That's not what the report says, but I will now state my opinion.
2 This is so, and there is no doubt that these aerial bombs were launched
3 by the Army of Republika Srpska, whose supreme commander you were. This
4 was also confirmed by all the orders which we saw on the previous two
5 days of my testimony.
6 Q. I'm not asking you that. We will establish that. But did you
7 found your claim, that it's indubitable that it was the Army of
8 Republika Srpska, on the basis of the fact that the Muslims did not have
9 modified aerial bombs and that Serbs were in Pionirska Dolina, and what
10 else were the grounds for such a conclusion?
11 A. Well, I said the report does not say whose bombs these were, but
12 I have stated my opinion after that.
13 Q. Ah-hah. So you could not establish what kind of bomb it was, 100
14 or 150 kilos. It was probably not 500 kilos. You could not establish
15 whose it was. You are stating your opinion, and you say that only
16 Serbian positions were on this direction; is that correct?
17 A. No, you are not precise, so it's not exactly as you just stated.
18 Q. Well, on the basis of what do you claim that this was a Serbian
19 bomb, when you couldn't establish in the report that it was?
20 A. The bombs that fell on the city of Sarajevo, it's well known
21 where they fell from, all of them, both artillery projectiles and bombs.
22 Q. So you concluded it on the basis of that. Was it on the basis of
23 that that you decided what was falling on Sarajevo had to be a Serbian
24 bomb; is that correct?
25 A. We cannot speculate here or offer theses. One projectile cannot
1 be both launched and explosions staged in the same place, just like with
2 the bomb on the RTV Centre.
3 Q. Mr. Suljevic, I'm asking you this: During the on-site
4 investigation, you could not establish what kind of bomb it was or where
5 it came from, but you concluded that it could have come from
6 Pionirska Dolina because Serbs were there. But Muslims were also in
7 Pionirska Dolina, 50 metres away from the Serbs. I'm asking you this:
8 Judging by certain circumstances, you concluded that this was a Serbian
9 bombs, because the Muslims did not have such bombs and because what was
10 falling on Sarajevo
12 A. You want me to say that all bombs and all projectiles which did
13 not have any effect on the target, in the sense that they wounded or
14 killed someone, that they were launched by you and your army, and
15 whenever there were any victims, that we were the ones who launched it
16 against ourselves. That's absurd.
17 Q. Let us not enter into a debate. Your conclusion was that the
18 Serbs had that, that they were in Pionirska Dolina, and that what was
19 falling on Sarajevo
20 specific than that on the basis of which you concluded it was a Serb
22 A. If we take as our position the report, whatever is in the report
23 was concluded at the on-site investigation and it was like that.
24 Q. Let us leave aside the report. I'm asking you now, here in the
25 courtroom, on the basis of which do you conclude it was a Serb bomb? Was
1 it anything exact or were these the reasons that you just stated that led
2 you to conclude that it was a Serbian-launched bomb?
3 A. Well, look, I'm now certain that these were the bombs which were
4 launched from the positions of the Army of Republika Srpska. And what
5 convinced us that it was so were also the orders issued by the command.
6 Q. Let us leave that aside now. On the basis of which did you
7 establish, for this specific bomb, which allows you to claim that it was
8 launched by the Serbs? On the basis of what?
9 A. Let me not repeat. Just like with all other bombs, this is my
10 opinion, and the report does not state whose bomb it was. There is not a
11 single report that says whose projectile it was, but what's written there
12 is so.
13 Q. Thank you, thank you. Please tell us another thing. Do you make
14 a difference between a motor and a projectile?
15 A. Yes, a distinction should be made between a motor, which is a
16 propelling agent and propelling part, and the projectile. It should be
18 Q. What is the distinction?
19 A. Well, the assembly of a rocket includes the head, with the
20 charge, and the propelling part.
21 Q. So when you say it's a projectile, then it has the motor and it
22 also has the warhead; is that correct?
23 A. It would be better to say that it's a rocket.
24 Q. Thank you. How many statements did you give since 1995? We are
25 still searching for a document which says that you saw that it said
1 "inflammable." How many statements did you give in 1995?
2 A. I don't know how many statements I have given so far. I really
3 don't remember, but I always responded to the call of the Prosecutor
4 whenever I was requested to give a statement. I do not remember that I
5 ever said that it was an inflammable projectile. But as I said a while
6 ago, I stand by all my reports and what they contain, if it is properly
8 Q. Thank you. But do you agree that if you saw that there was the
9 word "inflammable" on a projectile, that then it had to be the warhead,
10 because such a word would not be placed on the motor; is that correct?
11 A. Well, in general, only warheads are marked in this way, depending
12 on the type of projectile and the type of charge which the projectile
14 Q. Thank you. We'll move to the next incident, the flea market the
15 22nd of December, 1994. Are you familiar with this incident?
16 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
17 Yes, Mr. Gaynor.
18 MR. GAYNOR: Mr. President, before we move to the next incident,
19 I'd just like to clarify one matter for the record.
20 Mr. Karadzic, before the break, said:
21 "I would like your statement given on 19th June 1995 to be
22 referred to in the transcript, where you say that the Plamen exhaust jet
23 was marked 'flammable.'"
24 Now, that's a clear reference to P1237, which is the report of
25 this incident drafted by the witness concerning this incident. That
1 report does not contain -- that statement, I understood, Mr. Karadzic was
2 going to make that absolutely clear on the record, and we ask him to do
4 JUDGE KWON: Yes, you promised to come back to that point,
5 Mr. Karadzic.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Perhaps just the date was wrong.
7 It was not necessarily the 19th of June, which is my birthday, but
8 probably some other date. But it's quite certain that in one of the
9 statements from that period, Mr. Suljevic said that in Dositejeva he saw
10 the word "inflammable," and we will obtain that; not in this statement,
11 but in some other documents. We're trying to locate the specific
12 document that contains this reference.
13 JUDGE KWON: You need to give us a specific reference by the end
14 of this session.
15 Let's move on.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. My associates will try
17 to locate the document.
18 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Mr. Suljevic, do you remember this incident which occurred on the
20 22nd of December, 1994, at the flea market?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Did you participate in the investigations?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Did the incident occur at 9.10 in the morning?
25 A. If that's what the report says, then it was so.
1 Q. It's G9 from the table, from Table G, Incident 9.
2 A. The time when the projectile fell and exploded were established
3 at the site by interviewing witnesses, because we didn't know when which
4 projectile fell. We would establish that once we came to the scene.
5 Q. When did you come out to the scene?
6 A. Once again, it's the same question as the one you asked me before
7 the break. I think that you should take all the documents which relate
8 to this incident, and whatever they contain is correct. Once again, I
9 don't remember when we would arrive to the scene. In one of the CSB
10 reports, it should say at what time the on-site investigation began. We
11 did not do that because we were the Counter-Sabotage Department and we
12 conducted the on-site analysis.
13 Q. This is nothing against you, personally, Mr. Suljevic. I'm
14 interested in what it looks like when we do not rely on 92 ter and
15 statements, but your testimony. You are a witness here. You were there.
16 What was the time when you came out to the scene?
17 A. After the call from CSB
18 the on-site investigation team.
19 Q. Was that at 10.00, 11.00, or 12.00? When was that?
20 A. I don't know when it was. It's possible -- it couldn't have been
21 at 12.00. It was probably earlier than that. But from this distance in
22 time, I don't know who could remember whether he came out to the scene at
23 a specific time, because such incidents occurred practically on a daily
25 Q. Well, do you have any notes that could serve as an aide-memoire?
1 Did you use any notes in your work?
2 A. No, we did not keep a diary, or a log, or any sort of notes.
3 Q. Ah-hah, all right. Can you tell us, what was the weather like
4 that morning?
5 A. I cannot remember what the weather was like. I know that there
6 was no precipitation, but what it was like, whether it was cloudy or not,
7 I can't remember that.
8 Q. What was the visibility like?
9 A. I also cannot remember what the visibility was like, whether it
10 was good or not.
11 Q. Well, we both used to live in Sarajevo. We know what sort of
12 weather you normally get in Sarajevo
13 A. In Sarajevo
14 but when it's windy, then it's clear. So on that specific date, I don't
15 remember what it was like, and I cannot rely on the general assumption
16 about what the weather is usually like and then claim that the weather
17 was like that on that specific day. At least I cannot do that.
18 Q. All right. There are many things you don't remember,
19 Mr. Suljevic, and that would be of great help for us. I will recall you
20 that in the trial of General Milosevic, Witness W-12 testified that it
21 was foggy. How come that you don't remember that it was foggy?
22 A. The fog wasn't so thick that I would remember it. I'm certain
23 that it wasn't the Sarajevo
24 see a thing. I think that the visibility was relatively good.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
1 Could we please look at 13172. That's 65 ter 13172.
2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. On the second page, that's ERN 102-5464, can you please have a
4 look at the second paragraph, line 16.
5 I think there's been a confusion with the ERN numbers. I have
6 established that in many of the searches, the ERN is 102-5464.
7 Is this 65 ter 13172? Yes, now we have the version in Serbian.
8 This is the statement of Salih Djedovic, but in English we do not
9 have the right document.
10 Could I please ask you to read outline 16 from the second
12 A. Line 16, you mean, from the title "Statement," and then the 16th
14 Q. Yes, yes.
15 A. "... which hit -- caused by a shell, which hit the window of a
16 privately-owned shop in Petra Kocic Street across the street from the
18 Is this what you mean?
19 "The explosion of the second shell caused the confusion and
20 screams among the citizens to increase at the market, and soon the
21 employees of the market and then also members of the police and members
22 of the Army of BH came to assist the wounded. After the explosion of the
23 second shell, I started in the direction of the place where the shells
24 fell, and the distance between the places where the first and the second
25 shell was around 10 metres."
1 Should I go on reading?
2 Q. And what was the time between the fall of the first and second
3 shell? Does the report contain that or did you note that in the report?
4 A. We did not. I and my colleagues who worked on this did not
5 establish how much time elapsed between the two shells. Perhaps that is
6 contained in some report, but I don't know what the situation was.
7 Q. Did you establish that the first shell fell in the shop window?
8 A. Look, when we came to the scene, we found two craters there. The
9 only thing that can be established on the basis of witness statements is
10 which one was the first to fall and which one was the second to fall. So
11 if it says here the first one fell in the shop window, and after that the
12 second one, that's the way it was, but that is based on the statement of
13 the person who made the statement. I cannot assert now whether that
14 statement made by that person is correct or not, and I do not wish to do
15 that. And I cannot say which shell fell first, the first one or the
16 second one.
17 Q. But this is an eye-witness though, and he says the first shell
18 fell into the shop window. How do you establish that?
19 A. No, it's not that the shell fell into the shop window. It fell
20 in front of the wall of some shop, some craftsman's shop.
21 Q. Very well. Now, let us see whether you find this a bit strange,
22 that the police and the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina just happened to be
23 there all at the same time and all at once.
24 A. I would not like to comment on this statement made by this person
25 who made the statement. I mean, what does that mean, "members of the
1 police" and "members of the army"? Does it mean one, does it mean ten,
2 does it mean an entire brigade? I really wouldn't want to comment on
4 Q. Is this statement part of your investigation material in respect
5 of this incident?
6 A. I have seen the statement. And as I said, I accept all the
7 statements that I saw, I accept them as such, because it is only the
8 person who gave the statement that stands by these statements. As a
9 matter of fact, even the person who took the statement cannot stand by
10 the information provided in the statement. In this particular case, it
11 was Curevac. It is only the person who actually made the statement who
12 stands by the information provided in the statement. We can only accept
13 it or not accept it as such.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
15 Can we have 103541. That is a sketch of the scene.
16 JUDGE KWON: Just before we move on, I note this is page 70 of
17 that document, and what we see in English seems to be a partial
18 translation thereof. Can you confirm that, Mr. Gaynor?
19 MR. GAYNOR: Yes, the --
20 JUDGE KWON: Page 70 seems to be the page in Serbian. The
21 English translation has only 32 pages, compared to the 92 pages -- 91
22 pages of the original.
23 MR. GAYNOR: I understand the difference in the number of pages
24 may be because the English translation contains translations of a number
25 of the originals on one English page.
1 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
2 So for the purpose of future reference, you need to indicate the
3 e-court page numbers, Mr. Karadzic.
4 Let's move on.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
6 Can we have this ERN number, 102-5411. It's the same document,
7 but it is 5411. That's the page number.
8 JUDGE KWON: Page 17, I take it.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I do apologise. We are
10 short of human resources. We don't have enough people.
11 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, the Registry has set up various
12 regimes to help you, and you have a lot of associates. I don't like to
13 hear that complaint again. Let's move on.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It's not a complaint. I'm
15 grateful. Can you imagine how hard it would be had they not made these
16 improvements? We wouldn't have been able to do a thing.
17 Can we have that sketch, the one that was on the screen a moment
19 JUDGE KWON: Page 18. This is page 18, and now we are seeing
20 page 17.
21 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Mr. Suljevic, are you familiar with this sketch?
23 A. Yes. I saw it in the previous period. I'm not the author.
24 Q. Can you mark on this sketch the locations where the persons who
25 had lost their lives were?
1 A. I can't do it without a legend. And I think that those locations
2 are actually marked. As I said a moment ago, we had no way of knowing
3 when the projectiles fell, and, therefore, we could not know when persons
4 died. That was established on the basis of statements or, rather, on the
5 basis of the locations where the corpses were found. When we came to the
6 scene, we did not find scenes on this location. They had already been
7 removed, both the wounded persons and the corpses.
8 Q. Did anyone register where these people were hit, where they died,
9 and where they were wounded? Did anyone mark these places?
10 A. This sketch should have a legend of its own, and we will see what
11 is marked by the numbers that we see here on the sketch. Numbers 1
12 through 30, it seems. We should see the legend, and then that will show
13 what is denoted by each and every number.
14 JUDGE KWON: So you do not have your own independent knowledge
15 where the dead people were or as to this map?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't have that knowledge,
17 Your Honour, but I can assume, on the basis of this sketch, that
18 number 8 --
19 JUDGE KWON: There's no point of asking those questions to this
20 witness. Let's --
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have the previous page,
22 please, so this one and the previous one. On the previous one, we can
23 see the legend, so then let us help Mr. Suljevic help us understand what
24 it was that happened here or what is claimed to have happened here. The
25 previous one with the legend.
1 JUDGE KWON: Page 16.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we have pages 16 and 17
3 together on the screen. No, we don't need the English one. We need the
4 sketch and we need the Serbian text.
5 JUDGE KWON: Well, then we can print out this 16 and hand it over
6 to the witness, and we can see if we can the sketch at the same time.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would appreciate that. Could
8 page 17 be on the screen, please.
9 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Is it easier for you now, Mr. Suljevic, to tell us what is on
12 this sketch?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Could you please do that, then?
15 A. Well, I'm sure, and I assert and I saw that 1 and 2 -- actually,
16 I agree with that 100 per cent, that those are the craters where the two
17 projectiles fell. One is in front of the wall of the shop window, of
18 some shop there, and the other one is on the pavement, marked number 2.
19 And then I can continue along with this legend. 3 and 4 are the
20 locations where two fragments were, probably of the projectiles. Then 5
21 and 8 are pools of blood. Number 7 is a shopping bag of one of the
22 injured persons. Number 9 is part of the fuse of the projectile; that is
23 to say, the place where that happened to be. Then 06 and 30 are also
24 fragments of the projectile. 10 and 11, again, places where fragments of
25 the projectile were. Then 12 is a lamp post, and 13 is a landmark from
1 which you can see how far away the crater is. And it says here
2 "Landmark, corner of the house in Oprkanj Street."
3 Q. It used to be called Danila Ilica or Petar Kocic; right?
4 A. I don't know what it was.
5 Q. One was called Danila Ilica and the other one was Petar Kocic,
6 but they poor souls did something wrong and they lost their streets.
7 A. I wouldn't want to go into a debate of these street names.
8 Q. Well, their mistake was that they were Serbs. One was a great
9 Bosnian writer, Serbian, Petar Kocic, and the other one belonged to the
10 Young Bosnian Movement. All right, I'm sorry.
11 JUDGE KWON: You can't complain about the shortage of time at
12 all, wasting your time on these subjects.
13 What is your next question?
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, it took five seconds to say
15 what I said about the street name, Excellency.
16 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. All right now. Did anyone die in this incident?
18 A. I think there were some fatalities. The report says exactly how
20 Q. Two persons; right?
21 A. That's right. It says here two persons were killed on this
22 occasion and several persons were wounded.
23 Q. Where is that marked?
24 A. Numbers 5 and 8 denote the pools of blood. Again, I don't want
25 to speculate, but then there is a contour of a person here that is marked
1 on the sketch, so I assume that that is one of the persons who was
2 killed. But, again, that can be established through the witnesses there,
3 the persons who removed those persons, I mean, during the explosions.
4 That's the way it happened. That's how things happened. I mean, I don't
5 really see what you're getting at. What are you trying to get at, where
6 the person was, 20 metres, and then, say -- a person would be 20 metres
7 away and get killed, and another person would be 5 metres away and only
8 be injured. I really don't want to go into a discussion of this kind,
9 because discussions like this lead us nowhere, and we cannot draw any
10 conclusions, and, well --
11 Q. Mr. Suljevic, this is a criminal investigation. This is a matter
12 of criminal law. Two persons were killed, several were wounded. Why is
13 that not marked on this sketch? How can we establish how it was that
14 they got killed and injured, or are we supposed to take the word of
15 someone? This criminal investigation was carried out in a sloppy way,
16 and it cannot be used in this court or in any other court, for that
18 JUDGE KWON: I don't understand how this witness would be able to
19 answer that question. Ask relevant questions which the witness is able
20 to answer.
21 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Mr. Suljevic, is there a better, more accurate, more proper
23 investigation than this one? Do you have anything else?
24 A. I can testify about what I did, and I can confirm what I know and
25 what I saw and what I did on the scene. I am not the author of this
1 sketch. As I said, I can confirm with 100 per cent certainty from this
2 sketch the place where the two projectiles fell. That much I do know,
3 because that happened to be there on the scene when we came to carry out
4 the on-site investigation.
5 Q. Mr. Suljevic, you came to testify about some incidents in whose
6 investigations you participated. One of these, for which the Serb side
7 is being blamed, is this particular incident. Please help us clarify
8 this part of the indictment that the Serbian side is being charged with.
9 You were part of that team. Please tell us where these persons were,
10 what happened, so that we can establish beyond a reasonable doubt, yes,
11 this is what happened, and then we are going to find out who it was that
12 fired those shells. This way, please tell me just where these dead
13 persons were lying and also where the wounded persons were here. Tell me
15 JUDGE KWON: As we heard, this witness does not know that.
16 There's no point repeating the same question. It's simply a waste of
17 time. Move on to your next question.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
19 Can we now have a page from this document, ERN 10 --
20 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: It was too fast for
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't know -- it's a photograph.
23 JUDGE KWON: What's the ERN number again? Not exactly ERN,
24 but --
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 102-53 -- or, rather, 5434 --
1 25434, that's it. Page 40 of this document.
2 Excellencies, the electronics seem to be way too slow. We can
3 see that here. And also while I'm preparing for this, it is horrendously
5 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Do you see this image, and is it familiar?
7 A. As it says down here underneath the photograph, this is a
8 cover -- a protective cover where you can see damage sustained due to the
9 explosion. However, what we can see here on this photograph, actually,
10 it's barely noticeable, it's blurred, but we do see the damage on the
11 cover or shutter. This is the wall on one of the shops that were there
12 in a single line.
13 Q. So what do you infer on the basis of this photograph?
14 A. What should I infer, except for what is written under the
15 photograph, that there is visible damage to the shutter, damaged caused
16 by the fragments of a projectile?
17 Q. Thank you. Let us now take a look at the panoramic photograph of
18 the site, DSCN -- just a minute. 1D02187. 1D02187.
19 Here in this photograph, while we still see it, can you see some
20 circles marked with chalk on the shutter?
21 A. In this photograph, I see damages. Whether or not they are
22 marked by chalk, I don't know, but there are some lighter portions.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Can we see the entire
24 panoramic photograph?
25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Do you recognise this location? Is this the site of the
3 A. I think that this is a postwar photograph. Yes, I think this is
4 the site. I think this is the site. I can see the sign "Hotel." After
5 the war, a hotel was opened here which wasn't there before the war. This
6 could be the place. I don't see the tram line up there, but it should be
7 somewhere by those buildings in the rear?
8 Q. Can you mark the exact site of the incident here?
9 A. One of the projectiles, hereabouts [marks]. There was a curb at
10 the time here. It's been changed since. And the other place of impact
11 was hereabouts [marks] towards the tram line.
12 Q. But where's the tram line?
13 A. Well, if this is the place, then this is the tram line towards
14 Bascarsija [marks], if this is the site. It looks like it, but I said
15 that I can't see the tram line. If it's there, then the rails should be
17 Q. Could it be another place? We can see the mosque as an important
18 landmark, so was this the flea market where the incident happened?
19 A. This is the plateau [marks]. Let's take it -- let's assume that
20 this was the place, and then here there was the flea market [marks].
21 Q. Please mark it 1, 2 and 3; 1 and 2 being the places of impact and
22 3 being the plateau.
23 A. 1 [marks] is the place of impact somewhere in front of a wall by
24 a shop. I cannot mark it accurately. Number 2 [marks] is the second
25 crater, the impact of the other projectile. 3 [marks] is the plateau
1 where there was a flea market. It may extend into the foreground. And
2 the arrow marks the position of the tram line.
3 Q. Please date it and sign it.
4 A. [Marks]
5 JUDGE KWON: And, Mr. Suljevic, you're confident this is the site
6 which that incident -- where the incident took place?
7 We can keep it for the moment, and can we go back to page 17 of
8 the previous document.
9 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
10 JUDGE KWON: We keep it. Yes, we admit it as a Defence exhibit.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D553.
12 JUDGE KWON: Page 17 of the previous document, which appears to
13 have the note of a tram line and some further space, and then whether you
14 can confirm that this is consistent with the picture. Page 17 in B/C/S.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If this is what we see --
16 JUDGE KWON: Do you see the sketch on the left side? We can
17 collapse the right part. Do you recognise the tram line there, and could
18 you read the letters which appear below that tram line?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE KWON: Could you read that for our purpose so that we can
21 hear the translation?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I can mark it,
23 if required. It reads "tram rails." It's by the figure 30. So between
24 the arrow pointing north and the figure 30, it says "tram rails." And
25 under that, it says "Telali Street." In the upper left corner, it says
1 "Mosque." And the street going down is Oprkanj Street. By the spot
2 marked "2," that is Oprkanj Street. And this matches the photograph,
3 but --
4 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Suljevic, it seems that this sketch is
5 consistent with the photo on which you marked previously?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, although I'm not
7 sure whether that wall was the wall of the shop or the wall of the
8 building closest to the spot marked "2." But it's 100 per cent certain
9 that this is the site. That's what we established.
10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Do you agree that there is a mark for geographic north?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Where is this place, then? Where is the tram line in the north,
14 in the part next to the town hall or elsewhere?
15 A. This is the part of the tram line which goes toward Bascarsija
16 from the town hall.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
18 Let us see the shutter once more, and that's page -- I think it's
19 page 40, this metal shutter.
20 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. How do you explain that there are some markings on the shutter,
22 most probably marked by chalk, whereas we see now no damages inflicted by
23 fragments on the wall?
24 A. I wouldn't dare claim that, based on this photograph. If we were
25 to examine it more carefully, we may be able to find some damages, but
1 they aren't marked. But the narrative under the photograph says that the
2 purpose of this photograph was to show the damage done to the metal
4 Q. Does that satisfy you, as an investigator?
5 A. Yes, one may refer to it as to the scope of our authority.
6 Q. Now we'll speak about the photographs made by your investigators.
7 I think that it's ERN 102-5429 -- ERN 102-5429?
8 Yes, this is the photograph.
9 Can you explain to us what this depicts?
10 A. This photograph shows the place of impact of one of the
11 projectiles, and that's what the narrative under the photograph says. It
13 "Place of where a projectile fell on the curb of Oprkanj Street
14 marked by figure 2."
15 Q. Where do you see this number 2?
16 A. Number 2 is on the sketch, but I can maybe mark the crater,
18 Q. Yes, please do. We can see the number 2 here.
19 A. [Marks]
20 Q. Thank you. How do you, as an expert, account for this
21 semicircular arrangement of objects in the background, and the
22 arrangement is convex toward the crater as if something had fallen there,
23 rather than here?
24 A. I don't understand what it is that you're putting to me.
25 Q. Please connect these bits and pieces in the background on the
1 white surface. Can you connect them with a line?
2 A. You mean the fragments, these pieces?
3 Q. Yes, the pieces that you can see here. Can you draw a line that
4 would all connect them?
5 A. One line to connect all the pieces? [Marks]
6 Q. Do continue.
7 A. [Marks]
8 Q. Thank you. How do you account for the semicircular arrangement
9 of these fragments and the convex shape from the vantage point of the
10 place of impact?
11 A. Obviously, these are not fragments of projectiles, certainly not
12 the larger pieces. I don't know what their origin is. And what is due
13 to the first projectile and what is due to the explosion of the second
14 one, I also can't tell.
15 Q. Did the investigation established that?
16 A. The investigation established that the spot marked "2" was the
17 crater where one of the projectiles exploded, and the second location,
18 which must be to the left somewhere, there is another crater where
19 another projectile exploded.
20 Q. Did the investigation establish what these two black, most
21 probably, metal parts are, where they came from, and what made them be
22 arranged in this manner so that they are convex towards this side and
23 concave to the other?
24 A. The purpose of the investigation that we conducted was to collect
25 fragments of the projectile. We didn't collect any other fragments on
1 site, and they weren't sent to us for analysis to establish their origin.
2 Q. What exploded here, Mr. Suljevic?
3 A. We should -- we would have to look at the report. Two artillery
4 shells exploded here, which was established, and the calibre was 76
6 Q. Did you collect fragments here at this site?
7 A. Yes. And based on the fragments, an expert analysis was made and
8 a report was produced.
9 Q. Well, why do you think -- why did you think that it was of no
10 interest to the investigation to establish the reason for this impossible
11 arrangement of these fragments and two black pieces at the site? Why
12 wasn't this registered and accounted for?
13 A. The purpose of the investigation was to establish the direction
14 from which the projectile had come and to collect all traces of the
15 projectile to establish its type, or the type of the two projectiles that
16 were activated at this site.
17 Q. Mr. Suljevic, I'm dissatisfied with your answer. The purpose of
18 the investigation is to establish everything, isn't it?
19 MR. GAYNOR: Objection, Mr. President.
20 JUDGE KWON: It's not for the witness to answer those questions.
21 Please go on.
22 MR. GAYNOR: He's inviting speculation from the witness. The
23 witness has explained as well as he can. Much of this is highly
24 irrelevant, in our submission.
25 JUDGE KWON: Agreed. I think -- I haven't counted the time, but
1 I think you have less than half an hour. Please try to conclude your
2 evidence as soon as possible, Mr. Karadzic.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That is really deplorable, then.
4 Then I cannot dwell on this any longer, and I must move on to Mis Irbina,
5 which was admitted as a Prosecution exhibit.
6 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. But, Mr. Suljevic, I must say to you that this is extremely
8 sloppy and unusable for criminal law purposes. You don't know what
9 happened, what the weather was like. You don't know what you
10 established. When you came to the site, you had limited objectives of
11 the investigation to accuse the Serbs for propaganda purposes. But in
12 criminal proceedings, this is not good enough. You do not have relevant
13 evidence that we can rely on to prove what happened on the flea market.
14 JUDGE MORRISON: You're making observations, which you are
15 entitled to make in the Defence case, but there is no point in putting a
16 series of statements to a witness. They are not questions. You are
17 simply making observations, which is tantamount to giving evidence. As
18 the President has indicated, you are wasting precious time.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellency, I have stated some
20 claims, and I'm asking the witness to confirm it or not, because I'm
21 claiming that all these incidents in Sarajevo were staged, and I'm saying
22 that the evidence do not allow me to conclude anything, or actually
23 disqualifies this for the purpose of criminal proceedings. I want the
24 witness to say what he has to say to this claim.
25 JUDGE KWON: No, the witness is not able to answer that question,
1 since he was not there. And you can make that submission later on, as
2 Judge Morrison indicated to you.
3 Are you minded to tender the previous exhibited documents into
4 evidence, i.e., the 65 ter 13172, the whole of it, or you're minded to
5 only those parts which you used?
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The parts which I used.
7 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. And I would kindly ask Mr. Suljevic to note the date and his
9 initials on this page as well, and then I will tender it too.
10 A. [Marks]
11 JUDGE KWON: If my memory's correct, Mr. Karadzic didn't use many
12 pages, about five of them or six of them, and most of them were
13 translated, I take it. But you would like to have the entire document be
15 MR. GAYNOR: Yes, parts of this dossier have already been
16 admitted, not all of the parts which have been discussed with the
17 witness. It might be just easiest to admit the entirety of 65 ter 13172.
18 JUDGE KWON: Can you give us an indication of the number, the
19 exhibit number which we already admitted, albeit in a partial manner?
20 MR. GAYNOR: Yes. Parts have been admitted as P1317, 1318, 1319,
21 and 1320.
22 JUDGE KWON: Well, then we'll admit it in its entirety, and we'll
23 mark it for identification until we have a full translation.
24 MR. GAYNOR: Yes. In respect of the translation, as I mentioned
25 earlier -- in respect of the photographs, for example, the translations
1 of maybe 15 or 20 pages are reproduced on 2 pages in the English, so I
2 believe it is, in fact, a full translation, although the number of pages
3 in English --
4 JUDGE KWON: I take your word.
5 Then we'll admit it. We'll give it a new Defence number.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. That will be Exhibit D554, and
7 the photo will be Exhibit D555.
8 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
10 Let me just say, for the transcript, that we have not clarified
11 the line for humanitarian aid in Dobrinja, not Alipasino Polje, nor
12 Safeta Zajke.
13 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Mr. Suljevic, can you help me, what was the previous name of the
15 Safeta Zajke Street?
16 A. I think it was Drinska.
17 Q. Thank you. And what about Safeta Hadzica Street, what was its
18 previously name?
19 A. Perhaps Prvomajska, but I'm not quite sure.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Now I have to move on
21 to Mis Irbina Street.
22 Can you please consider that I be granted another session, or at
23 least half of another session, because it would be a pity if this witness
24 left without helping me clarify some issues.
25 And until you decide, could we please have 14945, 65 ter.
1 JUDGE KWON: How long would you need for your re-examination,
2 Mr. Gaynor?
3 MR. GAYNOR: Very little time at the present, not more than 10
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE KWON: We've just decided that you will have another half
7 an hour in the next session.
8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
9 Q. Do you remember the incident in Mis Irbina Street, number 18,
10 which occurred on the 27th of June, 1995?
11 A. Yes. This is the report about the incident, what we can see on
12 the screen right now.
13 Q. So this is the report. Can you just briefly tell us what was
14 established by the expert analysis in this case?
15 A. The request was to establish what sort and calibre of the
16 projectile was and what was the direction from which it flew in.
17 Could we please see page 2 so that we can see what the
18 conclusions are or, rather, the opinion? And the next page, please.
19 Q. Thank you. Can you just briefly explain to us what was
20 established in the expert analysis?
21 A. It was established that in this incident, a contact fuse shell of
22 the 120-millimetre calibre for a mortar exploded. And on the basis of
23 the azimuth, which was taken down, the direction from which it came was
25 Q. What does it report say? Where was it launched?
1 A. The report says that the direction which was established on the
2 scene corresponds to the enemy positions in Miljevic.
3 Q. Mr. Suljevic, when you say "Miljevic," then you also take a
4 position in terms of the distance; is that correct?
5 A. No. The report doesn't say that. It says that the direction
6 corresponds with the direction of the enemy positions in the general
7 Miljevici area.
8 Q. Let us try to say that again. Between Miljevici and the place of
9 impact of the shell, are there any other positions?
10 A. Yes, the separation lines are there.
11 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, did you say this incident had been
12 taken out from the indictment?
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, the incident, but this has
14 been admitted. This has been admitted in evidence with this witness.
15 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Gaynor, could you help us?
16 MR. GAYNOR: Yes. The correct position was it was an unscheduled
17 incident, so it never was in the indictment. We have included it in the
18 amalgamated statement of Mr. Suljevic.
19 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
20 Continue, Mr. Karadzic.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Should we call up the map of
23 impact is, and who was between these two places? Or, as you said, these
24 were the separation lines. That means the Muslim position as well?
25 A. There is no doubt about that, because Miljevici were in an area
1 controlled by the Army of Republika Srpska, and it's normal that between
2 these positions and Sarajevo
3 Q. With both Serbian and Muslim positions; correct?
4 A. Well, on one side was the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina
5 the other side was the Army of Republika Srpska.
6 Q. When you said "Miljevici," you didn't just mention the direction
7 but also the distance, and why couldn't it have been launched from the
8 separation line in the same direction?
9 A. Because the azimuth was measured, and simply in every incident,
10 with every projectile which fell on the city of Sarajevo, one could say
11 that it flew from the direction where enemy positions were located during
12 the war, that is to say, the positions of the Army of Republika Srpska,
13 because Sarajevo
14 Army of Republika Srpska, and between the Army of Republika Srpska and
15 the BH Army, there were, of course, separation lines.
16 Q. So your position is that it was the Serbian position, though it
17 could have been Muslim, and it could have flown from the same direction;
18 isn't that correct?
19 A. It was Serbian, it was certainly Serbian, just like all the other
20 projectiles which were falling on the city of Sarajevo, including
21 everything up to the modified aerial bombs.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we just please call up map
23 number 1 from this special Sarajevo-specific court binder. And the
24 number up there is 0546-6574. It's map number 1 from the special binder.
25 The ERN number is 0361-5780. If that can help us, that's the map.
1 MR. GAYNOR: I'm told that's P815.
2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Mr. Suljevic, may I kindly ask you to mark approximately where
4 Mis Irbina Street is located. You can see where Skenderija is. So in
5 relation to Skenderija, where is Mis Irbina Street?
6 A. Could we please zoom in a little bit, because nothing can be seen
7 here as it is, not even Titova Street, let alone Mis Irbina.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we then please zoom in on the
9 part below which are the words "SA Centar," and then you see the
10 Okur [phoen] area. If we can zoom in even more in the central part.
11 Yes, that's what I mean, the densely-populated area.
12 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Can you see where Skenderija is close to the separation lines
14 here; that is to say, next to the municipality border, and the separation
15 lines were at the Jewish cemetery. Can you find your bearings on this
17 A. This is approximately where [marks].
18 Q. Yes, that's Skenderija, that's where Skenderija is. Could you
19 please mark it with number 1?
20 A. [Marks]
21 Q. And further on after Skenderija is Djuro Djakovic Street. Can
22 you please find your bearings, approximately, and try to find Mis Irbina
24 A. I can just approximately say where it is.
25 Q. That will be fine, thank you.
1 A. [Marks]
2 Q. Can we now show the total image, and if you can then draw a line
3 depicting the direction of Miljevici. Can you please mark this with
4 number 2?
5 A. [Marks]
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If we will lose this if we now zoom
7 out, then I would ask for this to be marked and admitted. Number 1 is
8 Skenderija and number 2 is approximately Mis Irbina Street.
9 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Can you now please just note the date and write your initials?
11 A. [Marks]
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I move to tender this.
13 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
14 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D556, Your Honours.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now see the whole image,
16 please. Thank you.
17 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Could you now indicate approximately where Miljevici is located?
19 A. Could we please see the report again, because I don't know the
20 azimuth. I have to see where Miljevici is. I cannot see it unless we
21 zoom in. So if I can just see what the azimuth was so I can determine
22 what the direction of Miljevici is.
23 Q. You can have a look at the report. Do you have it with you?
24 I will provide you with it.
25 Number 14945, that's the report.
1 THE REGISTRAR: This had been admitted as Exhibit P1335,
2 Your Honours.
3 JUDGE KWON: Speaking for myself, Mr. Karadzic, I think this
4 exercise is a waste of time, because the witness already confirmed there
5 was a Muslim position between this place and Miljevici. So asking the
6 witness, who is not an expert on geography, to mark on the map is a total
7 waste of time. You have --
8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] All right.
9 Q. Do you agree Miljevici is somewhere around the place on the map
10 where it says Novo Sarajevo? So that we shouldn't waste any more time,
11 if we bring up the map again where it says "Lukavica" and
12 "Novo Sarajevo
13 that the direction would cross the separation line up there on Trebevic;
14 is that correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Thank you. Could we then agree that children of your boss,
17 Mirza Jamakovic, were also involved in this incident?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Did one of these children lose its life?
20 A. Yes, one was killed and the other one was injured.
21 Q. Did Mr. Jamakovic lose his hand on that occasion or did that
22 happen earlier?
23 A. That happened earlier.
24 Q. How did he lose his hand?
25 A. At the time, I was not a member of the MUP, so I do not know the
1 details of the incident. But I think that a hand-grenade exploded in his
3 Q. A hand-grenade or some other device?
4 A. As far as I know, it was a hand-grenade.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we now please see 1D02342.
6 JUDGE KWON: I note the time. We'll have a break for half an
8 Before we do that, Mr. Robinson, last week you referred to D459,
9 for which the translation has been complete, and you asked for admission
10 of the document. We'll do that. So we checked the document, and the
11 document is ready for proper admission. But in the future, for the
12 convenience of the Chamber, I would like you to file a written
13 submission, covering a number of MFI'd exhibits, instead of informing the
14 Chamber the prepared exhibits in a piecemeal fashion. That would be much
15 more convenient on the part of the Chamber.
16 My understanding is that you e-mailed our Legal Officer a number
17 of exhibits, so if you could file a motion in that regard as well.
18 We'll resume at 1.00.
19 --- Recess taken at 12.32 p.m.
20 --- On resuming at 1.03 p.m.
21 JUDGE KWON: Welcome, Ms. Edgerton.
22 You will have half an hour, Mr. Karadzic, to conclude your
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. With kind co-operation,
25 Mr. Suljevic, we'll be able to achieve all that, I hope, although a great
1 deal will remain unexamined.
2 1D0342, could we have that now in e-court.
3 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Do you recognise this report, Mr. Suljevic?
5 A. Yes, but we didn't compile this report. It was one of the
6 members of the CSB
7 Q. But here it says, number 6, that you took part in this too;
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. Since we haven't got much time, I would like to ask you to look
11 at the one-but-last sentence: "At the moment of the fall ..."
12 A. "At the moment of the fall, an explosion of the artillery
13 projectile in the yard, as well as at the two entranceways, number 18 and
14 20 in the Street of Mis Irbina, children from the neighbouring village
15 were playing."
16 Q. So could you please explain this to the Trial Chamber? In the
17 yard and also in the entranceways of these two particular street numbers;
19 A. That's what's written here.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
21 Can we have the next page, please.
22 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Could you please read this from the beginning? Actually,
24 starting with: "Calibre 100 --"
25 A. "Calibre -- 122-millimetre calibre fell and exploded on the
1 surface near Mis Irbina. The artillery projectile was fired from the
2 positions of the aggressors, from the south-west, azimuth 205 degrees,
3 which corresponds to the aggressor's positions on the locality of Vrace.
4 When the projectile fell due to the explosion at the entrance number 18,
5 Mis Irbina Street, the following person --"
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That will do.
7 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Suljevic, did you say 122 millimetres or 120
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I should have said "120
10 millimetres," that is what's written here. So a correction has to be
11 made. It's 120 millimetres.
12 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
13 Q. And now it says here that someone was killed?
14 A. Jamakovic, Haris, son of Mirza, mother's name Azra, born in 1984,
15 permanently residing in Mis Irbina number 18. Serious bodily injures
16 were sustained by the following persons: Children who were playing in
17 the yard at the moment when the explosion took place.
18 1. Jamakovic, Jazenka born in 1981, residing in Mis Irbina,
19 number 18.
20 "2. Habul Adi [phoen], born in 1981, residing in Mis Irbina,
21 number 18.
23 "4. Davor Mitic, born in 1979, Sutjeska number 2.
24 "Alija Strogorac, born in 1962, residing in Mis Irbina, number
25 20," and --
1 JUDGE KWON: I don't think the witness has to read all that.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right, he doesn't have to.
3 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. However, Sutjeska 2 is my address, and there was no Mitic family
5 living there. Is that some kind of mistake?
6 A. I told you that I was not the person who compiled this report,
7 and I was not present when these children were removed, were taken to
8 hospital, those who were seriously wounded. I don't know the names.
9 Q. Perhaps somebody moved in in the meantime. Just let's deal with
10 one more sentence: "In the entrance ..."
11 A. "At the entranceway of the building in Mis Irbina, number 18,
12 where Haris Jamakovic was killed, large pools of blood were noted, as
13 were remaining shrapnel that went through the metal door."
14 Q. Thank you. Does it seem that in the yard and at numbers 18 and
15 20, Mis Irbina, children from the neighbouring buildings were playing?
16 A. Yes, that's right. Some children were in the yard, and others
17 were in the building itself, the entranceway.
18 Q. That's right. Somewhere in the stairwell too?
19 A. Well, it's inside. I don't know if it's the stairwell exactly.
20 It's probably somewhere near the entrance, since they were injured.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
22 Can we now have 1D2194. 1D2194.
23 Can the previous document be admitted, unless it's been admitted
25 MR. GAYNOR: No objection. I don't believe it's been admitted
2 JUDGE KWON: We'll mark it for identification, pending
4 THE REGISTRAR: MFI
5 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
6 Q. Can you please mark the location where the projectile fell?
7 Could you mark that on this map, please?
8 A. [Marks]. It should be around here or in that area, but that's
9 where that entranceway should be. There's a passage from Mis Irbina, and
10 I think this is it.
11 Q. Thank you. Could you please write the date, and could you
12 initial this?
13 A. [Marks]
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this be admitted?
15 JUDGE KWON: Yes, it will be Exhibit D558.
16 MR. GAYNOR: I would just like to note for the record,
17 Mr. President, that this again is a post-conflict map, and the witness is
18 marking --
19 JUDGE KWON: We dealt with this map when we admitted D552, on
20 which the witness marked the place where the -- I don't remember --
21 Schedule G14 took place.
22 MR. GAYNOR: That's correct, Mr. President.
23 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Branislava Djurdjeva, to the north on this map. When did you
25 arrive on the scene as regards this incident?
1 A. Well, I don't know how many times you've already asked this.
2 I think the reports say when the on-site investigations started, because
3 I saw a few moments that it says when it was over. We usually came there
4 immediately after a particular incident.
5 Q. Please don't get angry at me, Mr. Suljevic. If you were
6 testifying viva voce, that would be a very important element in terms of
7 your credibility, but that's why I'm asking you. To the best of your
8 recollection, when did you get there, what time of day was it? You
9 compiled a report concerning your expert examination of the site of the
10 explosion; right?
11 A. That's right.
12 Q. What we saw was your report; right?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. How was it that you concluded that this had come from the
15 aggressor positions?
16 A. It came from a direction that corresponds with the positions of
17 the aggressor in the area, as stated in the report.
18 Q. Briefly, the same question: The aggressor positions, the Serb
19 positions, that is, from there to the point of impact there's also a
20 Muslim line, isn't there?
21 A. Any projectile that fell on Sarajevo
22 of descent and the Serb positions, there were the separation lines as
24 Q. Thank you. In your report, 024-233576, dated the 13th of July,
25 you gave your opinion that this 120-millimetre shell that -- came from
1 the Serb positions in the broader area of the area concerned. And you
2 and your boss, Mirza Jamakovic, signed this report; right?
3 A. Probably, but I have to confirm it.
4 Q. The ERN number is --
5 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We did not catch it.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It's the second page, and that's
7 where the signatures are. Can we have it on the screen, 02 -- 14945 is
8 the 65 ter number. This map has already been admitted. P1335, it's been
9 admitted as P1335. This is the first page. Right.
10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. What is requested is to establish the calibre and the direction
12 from which it came. Is the distance noted here from where it had been
14 A. No. It says here that this is what was requested, expert
15 analysis of the traces of explosion and the direction from which it had
17 Q. Why does the previous document from the MUP say "from aggressor
19 A. It says "from the area that corresponds with the positions of the
20 aggressor." That's where the projectile came from.
21 Q. Mr. Jamakovic lives on this address. One of his children was
22 killed and one of his children was injured. Is it customary for a victim
23 to participate in an investigation?
24 A. As far as I know, the victim did not take part in the
25 investigation. It is correct that as chief of the department, he signed
1 the report that I had worked on, but he did not take part in the analysis
2 of the traces, themselves, and the analysis of the crater, either. I
3 mean, I don't think anyone would have been capable of taking part in
4 something like that in that situation.
5 Q. In the previous document, it doesn't say "in the direction." It
6 says that it corresponds to the positions of the aggressor in the
7 locality of Vrace. And in your report, it says "in Miljevici," so did
8 you note this difference?
9 A. Yes, and I stand by what it says in the report, that this
10 direction matches the one stated in the report. From the direction of
11 Vrace, it's all from that direction, and that -- and that coincides with
12 those degrees.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
14 Can we now see P -- correction, 1D02343. 1D02343.
15 I'm afraid that this is not usable. Can we see the following
16 page, please.
17 Yes, that's the one. The ERN number, or the last three digits,
18 are 488.
19 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Can you explain what this is about?
21 A. This is a yard where a projectile landed.
22 Q. What are these bags?
23 A. I believe that this was the place where a police officer had his
24 position, because behind his bag there is the CSB very nearby.
25 Q. So what would you call this? This bunker made of sandbags
1 actually protects the sentry of the CSB
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Can you say how high this bunker is? You can see there is a car
4 next to it and a man standing.
5 A. Well, considering all these, we could say about two metres.
6 Q. Thank you. Is a bunker of this kind a legitimate military
7 target, as far as you know?
8 A. If there's a police officer in here, and uses it to protect
9 himself from shelling, then, to my mind, no.
10 Q. And the CSB
11 A. I don't know. But I can say, for myself, that I would have been
12 carrying around a bunker with me all the time so as not to be hit. But I
13 cannot say whether or not a police facility was a legitimate military
15 Q. Do you know that 15.000 police officers in Sarajevo took part in
16 combat activities regularly; yes or no?
17 A. I don't know if there were that many police officers in Sarajevo
18 at all.
19 Q. Do you know that the Laste and other police units were included
20 in regular combat activities?
21 A. Yes, I do, but I don't know whether their headquarters was here.
22 Q. Well, is it wise to erect bunkers and then let children play
23 around them?
24 A. The place where the children were injured is not even 20 metres
25 away from this. What do we do with the children; not let them leave
1 their apartments?
2 Q. Can you please mark here where the place of impact was? This is
3 a photograph taken by your investigation group. This is your
4 investigative material; right?
5 A. Correct. The projectile most probably fell here [marks], but I
6 don't really remember where exactly it was. Most probably it was here.
7 Q. And on the lower photograph?
8 A. I'm not sure. There is no arrow marking it. We can see that the
9 bags are damaged [marks]. Even in the upper photograph, we can see the
10 same section [marks]. But I don't know where exactly the projectile
11 fell. I suppose it was here, but given the time that has passed, I can't
13 Q. Well, whatever you say. Just mark where it fell, mark it in this
14 photograph, and sign and date it, please.
15 A. Well, from today's vantage point, I would say that it fell on the
16 spot marked "1" [marks], but as I said, I can't remember exactly where
17 each and every projectile fell, and the exact hour when I arrived at the
18 site, and so on.
19 Q. This is the place where one projectile fell; right?
20 A. In this specific instance, yes. Whether or not projectiles fell
21 here earlier without consequences, I don't know.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I seek to tender this document into
23 evidence, and I'll show a sketch. Maybe that will make things easier for
25 Can we please see 1D2344, if this document is admitted. Maybe
1 it's in the OTP's associated documents.
2 JUDGE KWON: You're tendering only this page, the picture on
3 which the witness has marked? Yes, it will be admitted.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] There will be more. I would like
5 to tender the entire document, and I believe that the OTP tendered at
6 least the statement of this witness.
7 JUDGE KWON: I think the previous report was admitted as
8 Exhibit P1335, and we'll admit this marked photo as a Defence exhibit.
9 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit D559.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we please see 1D2344. It's a
11 sketch that may assist us -- or actually assist you to clarify things.
12 The same document, page 2, actually. The ERN -- the last three digits of
13 the ERN number are 487 [as interpreted].
14 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, 497, the last three
16 JUDGE KWON: Last page of that document, 1D2344, page 3. Yes.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is it.
18 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Is this the sketch of the event that happened in
20 Mis Irbina Street, Mr. Suljevic?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Can you mark these elements in the sketch: the bunker, the CSB,
23 the entrance to the building, and the place of the explosion?
24 A. As far as I remember, I believe that this is the location of the
25 bunker [marks], and I can mark it "1" [marks]. This may not be very
1 precise, but the entrance is here [marks]. That's the building
2 number 18.
3 Q. Mark it "2," please.
4 A. [Marks]. And the CSB
5 far it is, but it's the block of buildings that goes as far as the
6 La Benevolencije Street that meets Mis Irbina Street.
7 Q. Then mark it "3," please.
8 A. [Marks]
9 Q. And number 2 marks the buildings numbers 18 and 20?
10 A. Well, this is actually building number 18. This building 20
11 could actually be here [marks], because there's another entrance there.
12 Q. Could this structure of an unusual shape be the bunker?
13 A. No, it wasn't this size, because you saw in the photographs that
14 it has a rectangular shape, a square shape.
15 Q. Thank you. Now, where did the shell land?
16 A. I see no legend, so I can only suppose that the distances marked
17 are the distances between the crater and some landmarks.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we perhaps reduce this and
19 exhibit the legend, too, for the benefit of Mr. Suljevic? But if that
20 cannot be done before saving the document, then we should first date and
21 mark it and then save it.
22 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I seek to tender this.
24 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, you'll have five minutes.
25 We'll admit this.
1 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D560, Your Honours.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That won't do, by any means, but
3 what can I do?
4 Can we please see the previous page.
5 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. And you will see, Mr. Suljevic, that the spot marked "1" by you
7 is actually the place of impact. "1" stands for the place of impact or
9 A. That's right.
10 Q. And you see this structure that resembles a spade in shape has
11 next to it the bunker marked "18." How do you explain that the fragments
12 went through all this and hit the metal door at the entrance of building
13 number 18?
14 A. I don't know what exactly your question is. But from the spot
15 where the projectile landed, there were no obstacles in the direction of
16 that entrance. And with regard to that spade-shaped structure, well, I
17 don't know. But, anyway, from the place of impact to the entrance, there
18 were no obstacles.
19 Q. But if north is up, on which side did the shell actually fall; in
20 the north, south, east, or west?
21 A. According to the legend, the projectile landed here [marks]. The
22 square, to my mind, represents the bunker. And that other shape, I
23 really don't know what it is. Maybe it's a lawn or something. But there
24 was nothing between that structure made of bags and the entrance.
25 Q. What is the distance between the place of impact and the entrance
1 to building 18?
2 A. Well, we can tell from the sketch, but I think it may be up to 30
3 metres, if at all. But we don't have to speculate. We just have to
4 enlarge the sketch.
5 Q. It says "17 metres 16 centimetres." Is that possible?
6 A. Yes, it is, and I'm sure it's accurate.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 1D02343, please. The page is 490,
8 the three last digits, that is, and it's the third page of the document.
9 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Shall we keep this new version of
10 the witness's marking with blue?
11 MR. GAYNOR: Yes, Your Honour. I was just going to object to
12 this procedure, in general, that the witness has been asked to make
13 markings before he was provided with the legend to the map. The legend,
14 itself, describes the locations on the diagram. What the witness is
15 essentially being asked to do is carry out a memory test about an
16 investigation that he participated in over 16 years ago, without having
17 the opportunity to review the legend and the diagram beforehand.
18 JUDGE KWON: I was minded for him to read the legend, but given
19 the time, I just let it go. But it's on the record, and we can bear that
20 in mind when we are reading his evidence again in the future.
21 Let's move on.
22 But we'll admit this as a new exhibit, Exhibit D561.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And I kindly request another 15
24 minutes just to finish at least this incident.
25 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, you will have five minutes from now.
1 You have to finish by 20 to 2.00. You have just exactly five minutes.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It will be insufficient, you will
3 see. Well, I won't be able to complete it. I'll break off.
4 Could we see 1D02343.
5 While we're waiting, let me just say that it's unfortunate that
6 we don't have more viva voce witnesses, because then we would have
7 problems in this courtroom.
8 Let us see the following page of this document, 490.
9 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Is this the door through which the fragment flew, and is that
11 marked "3" on the door?
12 A. This is a door. And as we can see, number 3 marks the spot that
13 was probably caused by the fragment.
14 Q. Please mark it for us and explain to us what -- this one
15 fragment, only one, that went through the metal door, what did it cause
16 inside the building? It killed one child in there and wounded several;
18 A. I can't see that it says anywhere that one fragment killed one
19 child and wounded several. If -- this reads that this was a damage
20 probably caused by a fragment. I can see damages to the wall, but I
21 don't want to go to speculation now.
22 Q. Well, please do not consume my five minutes. Tell me, did
23 anything happen to those children behind this door? What happened on the
24 ground floor and what happened on the first landing? You know what
25 happened. You investigated it. Children were playing cards there, and
1 somebody came to harm. How did those shrapnel enter?
2 A. It could only come from -- could only have come from
3 here [indicates]. Maybe the door wasn't fully closed. Don't make me
4 speculate now. The children were in the staircase. Maybe they were
5 standing next to the door. One boy was wounded outside. I don't know
6 whether he was coming out or going in. But according to the statements,
7 one boy was wounded outside, and the others in the staircase. Whether
8 the door was closed, as in this photograph, or fully open, I really don't
9 know. And let me not speculate, because this photograph was taken after
10 those injured and killed had been taken away.
11 Q. How does this door open? Does it open inward or outward?
12 A. I don't know. Usually, such doors open on the yard.
13 Q. But, sir, if you can't tell us who was hit here, who was injured
14 or killed, if you cannot tell us, then who can? And what about the
15 children behind this door?
16 A. You must take all the reports and the entire file and review it
17 to learn all the details. What we did was only to establish the type of
18 shell, its calibre, and the direction from which it had come. Other
19 reports that are parts of the file, it probably can be found there, and
20 you have to review that if you want to know all these details. Based on
21 this one photograph, it's impossible to go into further analysis.
22 Q. Mr. Suljevic, you are here. We are fortunate enough to have you
23 here. So can you explain to us how these children were the victims of a
24 Serb mine, as you had put it, in an entranceway where the door was
25 closed? The children were victims, but there were other children who
1 were victims on the landing as well; right?
2 JUDGE KWON: All speculations. I will allow you two more
3 questions, and that's it.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] With all due respect, Excellency,
5 this is not speculation. There are statements that we're going to put to
6 the Trial Chamber when we have enough time, and they are going to show
7 all of this inconsistency involved.
8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Now, the last two questions.
9 Q. Mr. Suljevic, I have no feeling whatsoever towards the evil
10 tongues that say this: This could have happened because Mr. Jamakovic
11 had some devices that were being prepared there in his house, some
12 explosive device was being prepared there, and the Serbs have to be
13 accused of that. What do you say to that? Is it very strange that this
14 happened where Jamakovic lived and he is precisely in that line of work?
15 A. I think that what you are saying is totally exaggerated.
16 Q. Secondly, Mr. Suljevic: When you worked on all of these
17 investigations, did you count on all of this reaching some court of law
18 or was this done only for the purpose of blaming the Serbs?
19 A. These reports were not done to blame the Serbs. They showed what
20 it was that had been established on the scene. It is true that on-site
21 investigations were carried out - how should I put this? - according to a
22 faster rhythm due to the circumstances involved. If we were to carry out
23 on-site investigations for two days, we wouldn't have enough time to
24 carry out even a small part of the necessary on-site investigations.
25 However, on the scene, we made an effort not to leave before the scene
1 was properly viewed and before all the circumstances were clarified,
2 those that were required by the judge who was in charge of the on-site
4 Q. You did not answer my question. For what purpose was this done;
5 for the purpose of being presented in a criminal court or for propaganda
7 A. We did nothing for propaganda purposes.
8 JUDGE KWON: He answered the question.
9 Before I give the floor to Mr. Gaynor, two things.
10 If there remains some part which you couldn't cover, it's purely
11 because you didn't conduct your cross-examination efficiently.
12 Secondly, you promised to ask -- that you will come back to the
13 witness's prior statement you referred to. Do you have that reference
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm still looking for it,
16 Excellency. With your leave, we are going to put it when the next
17 witnesses come from the same investigation team.
18 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
19 Mr. Gaynor.
20 MR. GAYNOR: We have no questions in re-examination,
21 Mr. President.
22 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
23 Then it concludes your evidence, Mr. Suljevic. Thank you for
24 coming to The Hague
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
1 [The witness withdrew]
2 JUDGE KWON: We'll have a protected witness for the next witness.
3 There are a couple of rulings I'd like to give in relation to that
4 witness, so for that purpose we'll go into private session briefly.
5 [Private session]
11 Pages 6235-6236 redacted. Private session.
25 [Open session]
1 JUDGE KWON: Now we are in public session, and, Mr. Gaynor, you
2 may be excused.
3 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you.
4 JUDGE KWON: The next witness is a protected witness. And to
5 hear his evidence, we need to go into closed session.
6 Before that, Mr. Robinson, do you have anything to raise?
7 MR. ROBINSON: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President.
8 We would like to make a motion to postpone the testimony of this
9 next witness, pending appeal of the decision that the Trial Chamber
10 rendered in private session. That held that the witness would not have
11 his protective measures modified and that no inquiry would be made
12 concerning the circumstances to the witness, and before continuing those
13 protective measures. We believe that certification to appeal that
14 decision should be granted, and I'm speaking simply now about the
15 decision of whether to inquire with a witness, who has been completely
16 unavailable to the accused or the Chamber, whether or not protective
17 measures should continue for that witness, and, if so, what objective
18 reasons exist at this time for continuing those protective measures.
19 This is a witness who we requested meet with the accused prior to
20 giving his testimony, and he declined, as is his right. And so the only
21 information that the Chamber has is that given by the Prosecution, both
22 in the earlier case, in which the Prosecution made those representations,
23 and in private interviews with the Prosecution. And we think that it
24 substantially and significantly affects the fairness of the trial that a
25 witness can be given protective measures or protective measures can be
1 continued without the opportunity of either the accused or the Chamber to
2 determine for itself whether there are objective reasons for these
3 protective measures to continue or even if the witness wants those
4 protective measures to continue when asked in court by the Chamber, as
5 opposed to by the Prosecutor. And I note the witness has been a suspect
6 and has been notified of such by the Prosecution, which may influence his
7 decision in that regard.
8 We also think that an immediate decision by the Appeals Chamber
9 on this issue is necessary, because it's going to be a recurring one.
10 This is the first of several witnesses who will have protective measures
11 concerning their testimony, and if the Chamber is not willing to provide
12 an opportunity for such witnesses to be questioned about that in court,
13 we feel that that could affect, ultimately, the outcome and fairness of
14 the trial, and that it would be far better for the Appeals Chamber to
15 have decided the issue at the outset rather than having recurring issues
16 which may ultimately be found to be erroneous and under appeal from a
17 final judgement.
18 So for those reasons, we ask that you suspend the testimony of
19 this witness, pending appeal, and that you grant us certification to
20 appeal your decision today.
21 Thank you.
22 JUDGE KWON: Ms. Edgerton or Mr. Tieger, do you like to respond
23 to this submission?
24 MR. TIEGER: Well, Your Honour, I think our response should come
25 as no surprise to the Chamber. We oppose the motion.
1 The accused has essentially reiterated the arguments brought
2 before the Chamber and rejected before. To some extent, I note that
3 they -- the submissions slide over the fact that the Chamber made every
4 effort, clearly, to ensure compliance with the Rules, and instead this is
5 a continuing attempt by the Defence to somehow establish a new regime,
6 after many, many years of an established practice, with respect to
7 protective measures, a practice that has been followed by the Chamber in
8 this case.
9 So we oppose this and would note, in particular, that this
10 witness's testimony has been scheduled for a long time, has been
11 postponed already, as the Court will recall. We need to move forward,
12 and there's no basis for again postponing this witness's testimony.
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE KWON: We will rise briefly, and we'll let you know whether
15 we can continue or not during the course of today through the
16 Legal Officer.
17 --- Break taken at 2.02 p.m.
18 --- On resuming at 2.18 p.m.
19 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Robinson, your motion for certification is
20 denied. Written reasons will follow in due course.
21 Let's bring in the witness.
22 Before that, we go into closed session.
23 [Closed session]
11 Pages 6241-6248 redacted. Closed session.
12 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.38 p.m.
13 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 7th day of
14 September, 2010, at 2.15 p.m.