1 Tuesday, 1 February 2011
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness takes the stand]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.
6 JUDGE KWON: Good morning, everyone.
7 Good morning, Mr. Witness.
8 Mr. Karadzic, please continue your cross-examination.
9 WITNESS: KDZ477 [Resumed]
10 [Witness answered through interpreter]
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Excellency.
12 Good morning to all. Good morning, Mr. Witness.
13 Cross-examination by Mr. Karadzic: [Continued]
14 Q. [Interpretation] As you remember, yesterday we established that
15 the bullet travelled vertically from bottom up. Did you establish what
16 the situation was on the horizontal plane in relation to a perpendicular
17 line? How did the bullet travel in relation to the walls of the room?
18 Was it under a 90-degree angle or did it go left to right?
19 A. I cannot remember exactly, so that is to say that without my own
20 report, I cannot say. After all, it's been 15 or 16 years. My report
21 should say what I did and which measures were reported.
22 Q. The Prosecution was kind enough to provide us with the entire
23 report, including your own. Can I offer you a paper copy so that you see
24 what it was you did and what you recorded?
25 A. Of course.
1 Q. Please take a minute or two to have a look at it and see what was
2 actually done.
3 MR. ROBINSON: Excuse me, Mr. President.
4 I think that this may be in 65 ter 10397. The Prosecutor
5 notified us of that this morning, and it may be that we can all look at
6 that on the e-court, if I'm correct.
7 JUDGE KWON: Very well. Let's up-load that.
8 MR. GAYNOR: If that might not be broadcast as well.
9 Now, I don't believe we have an English translation of this
10 witness's report. We just have the B/C/S original.
11 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, I think the witness has read his
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] What we have on our screens is an
14 official report. However, under that 65 ter number, on the further pages
15 we should see the crime technician's report. Can we sort of leaf through
17 Can we see the next pages? Can you go one page further?
18 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Witness, is this your part of the report? Yes, it is. Crime
20 technician's report. Right. It is not being broadcast.
21 A. Yes, this is the first page of my report, where we see the date,
22 the crime committed, the location, the subject of the attack, and then a
23 description showing that everything was described and photographed.
24 Q. Thank you. Could you please confirm, then, that a
25 7.62-millimetre bullet flew through the foil at 116 centimetres, then the
1 curtain at 116.5 centimetres, hit the person concerned in the chest, and
2 then hit a wardrobe at a height of 124 centimetres, flew through the
3 wardrobe, and exited at 131 centimetres, so it travelled according to a
4 vertical line. Let us see whether there was any horizontal change.
5 Next page, please.
6 A. This is the second page of my report. That is where the traces
7 found are recorded. So we see that it was the vertical plane that was
8 dealt with, not the horizontal.
9 Q. Don't you think that the horizontal plane is also very important
10 in order to establish where the bullet had come from?
11 A. I was not working on this investigation on my own.
12 Zdenko Eterovic, an investigating judge of the Higher Court in Sarajevo,
13 was in charge of this investigation, so he's the person who asked what
14 was supposed to be done. My report contains all the measures I took at
15 the request of the investigating judge who was in charge.
16 Q. Thank you, Witness. I am not trying to establish whose omission
17 it was, but let us just look further through this.
18 Can we see what the angle of descent of that bullet was?
19 A. Apart from the report, there was compiled by the inspector,
20 listed under number 2, and also if you look at my report and my photo
21 file, which cannot be seen properly, there is also a death certificate
22 issued by the Dobrinja Hospital. We have a statement as well. I think
23 it's a statement that was taken by a member of the Security Services, or,
24 rather, the police station in Novi Grad, and also a crime report that was
25 signed by the head of the centre. So there are no expert findings, apart
1 from what I did at the request of the investigating judge.
2 Q. Thank you. You do agree that the lines were very close there and
3 that they even split the building in two, as it were?
4 A. As for the measurements I have, that is within the apartment, and
5 it has to do with the entry of the bullet into the apartment and
6 everything that happened in that room. So the window was on one side,
7 and the bullet happened to be on the opposite wall at a height of - what
8 was it? - 132 centimetres. It is only when we look through the window
9 that we could see from where this could have been fired.
10 Q. Thank you. So what you did then was draw the conclusion that
11 somebody had fired from the Serb positions in the Street of
12 Miroslava Krleze; it was either you or somebody from your team that came
13 to this conclusion. It says "from Dobrinja 1"; right?
14 A. I am looking at the photo file now, and it is not legible because
15 it's a photocopy. It says "Photo 10."
16 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter's note: It is too fast for
17 interpreting everything the witness is reading.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
19 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Witness, probably you spoke a bit too fast, and
20 the interpreters had difficulty following you. Did you say anything
21 about photo 10?
22 Shall we see page 11, then. And we can collapse the English part
23 because we don't have an English translation.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is a photograph that is part
25 of my entire photo documentation. This is the view from the window of
1 the apartment where the incident had occurred. Buildings can be seen in
2 the background, and there is a caption underneath saying that an arrow
3 marks the building in Dobrinja number 1 that is under aggressor
4 occupation from which the bullet most probably arrived.
5 Now, what does "most probably" mean? The bullet might have
6 arrived from these positions. However, as I've already said, I'm a crime
7 technician, and in this case I was authorised by the investigating judge
8 to carry out the measurements and to use a string.
9 Now, is this relevant before a court of law? That was not my
10 decision. The investigating judge was pleased with what we had did. And
11 after carrying out the measures and taking the photographs, we left the
12 scene. Now, whether somebody came subsequently, that I do not know.
13 What else can I say? It says here an arrow marks the building,
14 et cetera. As you can see here on the screen yourselves, we do not have
15 a colour photograph, so you can barely discern anything. You can just
16 see certain contours.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I, or do you have anything
18 else, Your Excellency?
19 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. So now you're taking a photograph of a building that is on the
21 Serb side, and you mark that building as the most probable source of
22 fire, as you say. So there are these two planes here, the horizontal and
23 the vertical. We see that the bullet is rising, ascending, and the
24 ascent is rather sharp. How big is this room?
25 A. Well, if you take into account that this is an averaged-sized
1 room in Dobrinja, the maximum width can be between four or five metres
2 maximum. As for the vertical from 116 to 132, let's say it was
3 16 centimetres. That was the difference, in terms of height.
4 Q. So the fire came from a lower area, didn't it?
5 A. Well, it's hard to say from this point of view. However, at the
6 site, itself, this could be shown very simply. Again, if these points
7 were to be found at 132 and 116, and that line, that trajectory, would
8 show what the direction was. For example, if the firing had come from
9 the entrance into the building, perhaps the bullet could have entered at
10 116 centimetres, but it probably would have stopped on the ceiling. So
11 I think that this vertical height corresponds to this trajectory; namely,
12 that it had been fired from that distance.
13 Q. How far away is the building that you marked as the source of
15 A. It is hard to say now.
16 Q. What is the angle? What is the angle in relation to the
17 horizontal plane, the floor? It ascends 16 centimetres?
18 A. I'm not in a position to say that. I didn't do it there and
19 then. I wasn't asked to do it. The calculations can be done later. For
20 example, if we take 116 down to zero, and then you can calculate what the
21 angle is.
22 Q. Well, don't you think that we should have two angles, the
23 horizontal and the vertical angle, so that we could mark this building,
24 and that we should also have the size of the room, itself, in order to be
25 able to calculate the angle and to have the distance between this
1 building and the other building?
2 A. I think that there is one angle there. If the entry was at 116
3 and if it ends at 132, then we can say that there is a triangle there,
4 and then the line can be calculated. But this is mathematics that I
5 cannot go into now.
6 Q. However, the depth of the room is of crucial importance for that
7 angle. How far in depth does the room go? It's not the same if it's
8 three or five metres, is it? And, secondly, did you see what the
9 situation was in relation to the horizontal plane to see what the
10 building was? Was it 90 degrees?
11 A. I told you just now, and my report says what I did. I keep
12 repeating that I did not work in relation to the horizontal plane. At
13 the request of the Prosecutor -- no, not the request of the Prosecutor.
14 He is now a prosecutor who was in charge of investigations, but at that
15 time it was the investigating judge. He asked me to do what I was
16 supposed to do, and that's what I did at his request. We specifically
17 state the address where this happened, which apartment it is. Nothing
18 has changed there. So as far as the width of that room is concerned,
19 that can be established.
20 However, I repeat, once again, I did not take the measurements,
21 and they are not contained in my report.
22 Q. Thank you. You stand by that; namely, that this happened on the
23 fourth floor in the Street of Dzavaharlala Nehrua number 10; right?
24 A. My report says "J Nehru 10/4 on the 14th of May, 1995, at
25 2345 hours." I believe that the same is written in the official reports
1 of my colleagues and the investigating judge, who were all on the scene.
2 Let me say one more thing. I am not a person who is in charge of
3 the team that goes to the site. It is the operative from the
4 Security Centre who is in charge of that. That is the person mentioned
5 under number 3. He has a very good knowledge of the area, and he took us
6 to the site when the entire team was brought together.
7 Q. Thank you. We are now interested in what you were doing; that is
8 to say, the measurements. Was a sketch made?
9 A. As far as I can see in my report, no sketch was made, because I
10 was not asked to do that. Only photographs were taken, and a crime
11 technician's report was compiled.
12 Q. Would I be right in saying that I saw in your report that the
13 room was dark, it was 15 to 12 and the room was not lit?
14 A. I have to read that. It says the blinds were down on the window.
15 There was a foil and blinds were down, so the room was dark. According
16 to the report, the room was dark.
17 Q. Does that mean that the shooter could not see inside the room?
18 A. I said it was dark. Whether he was shooting at random or he had
19 a way of seeing inside, I don't know. But the room was dark and the
20 blinds were down. It's recorded in my report. And the blinds were down
21 still during the investigation.
22 Q. Can we try to find out where you were taken? In an earlier
23 incident, the event happened in one street and the on-site investigation
24 in another. Let's see if it happened here as well. The incident
25 happened in Cvitkovica Street, and the on-site investigation was in
1 Dzemal Bijedic Street.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we see 1D03066.
3 May I draw everyone's attention to the source. This is a map of
4 Sarajevo. Navigator Sarajevo is an official web site.
5 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Hamdije Kapidzica, former name in brackets, "Dzavaharlal Nehru,"
7 do you see that the street, Hamdije Kapidzica Street, is here?
8 A. Yes, I can see that, and I see the former name in the brackets.
9 Q. In number 10 of that street, that incident happened, and
10 yesterday you marked lower down -- never mind, we'll look at that later.
11 Could you now mark more precisely where the incident happened?
12 A. This is a very simplified map, but I accept that the incident
13 happened at 10/4 Nehru Street in the apartment where Jasmina Tabakovic
14 was found. It's difficult now to go back to what we discussed yesterday
15 to find out what I marked. We have maps, however, we have old names and
16 new names of streets. Whatever the map says, I agree it was in
17 Nehru Street. After all the on-site investigations I conducted, in
18 various incidents, including burglaries, et cetera, I maybe marked it
19 wrong the last time, but there is no question that it happened in
20 Nehru Street number 10, in that apartment.
21 JUDGE KWON: Why don't we show the witness the map he marked,
22 Exhibit D893, dividing the screen.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, on a split screen. That's
24 what I meant.
25 That's the same. On the other side of the screen, we need
1 yesterday's document.
2 JUDGE KWON: It's on its way.
3 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Do you remember that Miroslava Krleze Street was 297?
5 A. Yes, I remember. That was the street that I marked with
6 number 1. I know that street, and I have friends in that street still
7 today, so I know where the building is. But yesterday I was marking with
8 number 2 Nehru Street, but I wasn't sure. That's what maps are for. We
9 can see here exactly where Nehru Street is. But I stand by my statement,
10 and I'm reading my own report for the first time after many years, and I
11 see that it was in Nehru Street, 10/4. We can now see where the street
12 is, and that's where the apartment is where the incident happened.
13 Q. So the incident happened not where you marked yesterday. Could
14 you now use the red pen to mark the building in Hamdije Kapidzica Street
15 where the incident really happened?
16 A. On this map, I'm not in a position to mark the building
17 accurately. You cannot see that building here. You can only see that
18 it's Hamdije Kapidzica Street, but you can't see any buildings. It's
19 very difficult to show that here. I can only show the
20 Hamdije Kapidzica Street, which on this map is Nehru Street. But where
21 exactly the building was, it's difficult to mark now. I can only mark
22 the street with its new name.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellencies, where do you
24 suggest the marking should be made; on yesterday's map?
25 JUDGE KWON: It's up to you, but, yes, why not. On the right
1 map, if you can mark the area where the Hamdije Kapidzica Street is.
2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. May I ask you to use the red pen to mark "3" and put a circle
4 around it for the place where you think the incident happened?
5 A. I don't know exactly now, but I can mark the whole length of
6 Hamdije Kapidzica Street, as designated here [marks]. And we can later
7 establish where number 10 in Nehru Street was. We see that this is
8 Hamdije Kapidzica Street. That's where the building was, and the street
9 was formerly called the Nehru Street, and that's where, at number 10, the
10 incident happened, on the fourth floor.
11 Q. How was the apartment oriented? Which side did it face?
12 A. It's difficult to say after all this time. But photograph 10
13 could tell us that exactly, because from the window of that room, you see
14 some buildings, and I believe it faced Vojkovici. It faced the number 1
15 that I marked yesterday, Miroslava Krleze Street.
16 Q. I believe in one of your reports, it says the building and the
17 apartment faced south-east and it made an angle of 90 degrees with the
18 south-west line.
19 A. I don't see that in my report.
20 JUDGE KWON: In the meantime, we'll keep this image, as it is, as
21 a separate Defence exhibit. Is it Exhibit D895?
22 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, that will be Exhibit D971. Thank
24 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Should he also mark the left
1 photograph, the "KDZ" and date?
2 JUDGE KWON: It will be kept altogether, as it shows in the
3 current monitor.
4 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Do you now agree, Witness, that with number 2, you had marked the
6 street with the number 463, which used to be Zikica Jovanovic Spanac
7 Street, and now it is called Vahida Maglajlic?
8 A. That's what the map says, I agree. But I keep telling you that I
9 was in Nehru Street, and the map can show where you that street was.
10 Q. Do you agree that these two streets that you marked yesterday are
11 parallel, and the transverse line across them would make an angle of
12 90 degrees, whereas Hamdije Kapidzica forms an angle with
13 Miroslava Krleze Street?
14 A. Yes, we get a certain angle between these two streets. They were
15 not perpendicular.
16 Q. So all these things being what they are, the horizontal plane and
17 the horizontal inclination are decisive in determining where the bullet
18 came from?
19 A. At the moment when we were doing that on-site investigation, what
20 was important to us was to determine the point of entry and where it
21 landed in the apartment, itself, and to see visually the building where
22 it could have come from. Now, what else should have been done, I
23 couldn't say. I told you the investigation was led by the investigating
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we now please see 1D3047.
1 It's a Google view. And perhaps we should leave one of these maps on.
2 Can we get back one of those street plans on one half of the
4 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. On this Google view, can we -- can you identify
6 Miroslava Krleze Street and Hamdije Kapidzica Street, formerly known as
7 Nehru Street?
8 A. I think I could. Just a moment, because this is an aerial view.
9 Q. If you could also use the school as a landmark, and you can see
10 the bus terminal.
11 A. Yes, I can see it now. Should I mark something?
12 Q. Well, if the electronic pen is on, please mark the building in
13 Miroslava Krleze Street and the building in Hamdije Kapidzica Street, the
14 two buildings in question.
15 A. At this moment, I can only mark the streets. I would not like to
16 mark the buildings because this is an aerial view. What I am marking now
17 is Miroslava Krleze Street [marks], and what I'm marking now is
18 Hamdije Kapidzica Street [marks], as shown on this map.
19 Q. Do you agree that both these buildings in Hamdije Kapidzica
20 Street are facing south-west, not south-east? That is, if you drew a
21 perpendicular line onto this building, it would go from south to west?
22 A. South-east, south-west. I did not make these markings south-east
23 or south-west. This photograph is not oriented to the north, so, no, I
24 wouldn't say it is south-east, south-west.
25 Q. This map is properly oriented. The north is up and the south is
1 down, and we can even see a white meridian going across Dobrinja,
2 I think. This is properly oriented, according to all cartographic rules,
3 and this building is facing south-west, not south-east.
4 Could I ask you to draw a perpendicular line to one of these
6 A. Across my present markings or on the side? I'll do it across all
7 this. [Marks]
8 Q. That would be north; right? Do you see the marking in the right
9 angle, where it says "North," what looks like a clock with hands?
10 A. I can now see that the building is oriented south-west.
11 Q. And the report says "south-east"?
12 A. The report contains no orientation at all.
13 Q. Could you just draw a perpendicular line to the building, a line
14 that goes through the building at 90 degrees?
15 A. I just drew a vertical line through the building. Now I can only
16 draw a perpendicular line to the building, like this [marks].
17 Q. And that's the south-west. You can now see that the building is
18 facing south-west?
19 A. According to all of this, the building is oriented south-west,
20 this side that's closer to me, the apartment where the incident happened.
21 Q. Do you agree that between this building in Miroslava Krleze
22 Street and this building, part of the building is hidden from view by the
23 buildings that are perpendicular to Miroslava Krleze Street?
24 A. Yes, I can see some buildings that form an L with the building
25 where the incident happened.
1 Q. Thank you. Can you put your witness number, your initials, and
2 the date. And then we can save the whole screen.
3 JUDGE KWON: In order to understand better, can you up-load on
4 the right side of this image Exhibit D970? Oh, we'll lose it. On the
5 right side as well?
6 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
7 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
8 Could you put your pseudonym and date of today, which is already
9 February 1st, on the left picture, on the left side.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] KDZ477; right?
11 JUDGE KWON: 477.
12 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
13 JUDGE KWON: Yes, that will be admitted.
14 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D972, Your Honours.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
16 MR. GAYNOR: During this pause, could I just check if
17 Mr. Karadzic intends to tender the witness's report and the photo file?
18 Because if he doesn't intend to tender them, then I can do so in
20 JUDGE KWON: Which was 10397.
21 Mr. Karadzic, can you answer the question whether you intend to
22 tender that report?
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, by all means. It is very
24 important for it to be in evidence. It would also be good if we could
25 see the photographs in colour, the originals, so that we can see what
1 things are, actually.
2 JUDGE KWON: We need to admit it under seal, Mr. Gaynor?
3 MR. GAYNOR: That's correct, Mr. President.
4 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we'll do that.
5 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
6 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we'll put it -- we'll mark it for
7 identification, pending translation.
8 MR. GAYNOR: Very well, Mr. President.
9 JUDGE KWON: Which is Exhibit D973, then.
10 THE REGISTRAR: MFI D973, Your Honours, under seal.
11 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Gaynor.
12 MR. GAYNOR: We've had a look for better colour versions of those
13 photographs. We haven't found them, but I believe we can obtain them, so
14 I'll endeavour to do that and submit them to the Court.
15 JUDGE KWON: That being the case, this will be replaced with
17 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you, Mr. President.
18 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Gaynor.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
20 Can we now have the first page of the official report again, and
21 then you will decide whether it is going to be broadcast. 09766, that's
22 the 65 ter number. Was there a new number? 09766, that's the
23 65 ter number, and then page 2. Page 2, please.
24 No, no, the previous page in Serbian, and probably the next one
25 in English.
1 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. The last paragraph here says:
3 "Following the examination of the scene, it has been determined
4 that" so-and-so "was killed at the moment when she was in the bedroom
5 which is located on the south-eastern side of the apartment building,
6 facing the aggressor positions of the Bosnian Serbs based in the
7 neighbourhood of Dobrinja 1 and in the area of the Miroslava Krleze
8 Street. Damage caused by the entering projectile fired from a fire-arm
9 has been found on the left window casement, looking from the window, on
10 the plastic foil that was placed inside the glass at a height of
11 116 centimetres from the floor," and so on and so forth.
12 We see here that a conclusion was drawn without establishing the
13 angle in relation to the horizontal line; right?
14 A. This is not my report, so you'll have to ask the person who wrote
15 up the report. How and why this person wrote "south-east," I really have
16 no idea.
17 Q. Thank you. While preparing for this trial, you remembered this
18 incident, and you said that you remembered, when you looked at your
19 diary, that you used string to establish the direction of fire; right?
20 A. That's right, that's what I did. However, it is not contained in
21 my report. However, that is what we do when we have such points. On the
22 basis of that and on the basis of this string, I could make this
23 photograph and mark that building with an arrow, the building in
24 Dobrinja 1 from which the bullet had arrived, because I was not saying
25 things just off the cuff. I did it after I used the string.
1 Q. I'm a bit puzzled, because your diary does not refer to this
2 string at all, and you said, when preparing for this trial, that it was
3 your diary that jogged your memory. Right?
4 A. Yesterday, I explained what was entered in the diary. So when I
5 go to my office to type up my report on the basis of the measurements
6 entered in the diary, I remembered that I used the string. I did not
7 write everything down in my diary. That diary was used only to jog my
8 memory. However, as soon as I saw that the height was measured and that
9 any measurements were carried out, I realised that a string was used. So
10 my diary is not a detailed report. It is just a reminder for me that I
11 use when typing up my report.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I'm afraid that that
13 page remained on the ELMO, and I would actually like to have it admitted,
14 that page, if possible.
15 JUDGE KWON: The part of his diary?
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The page of his diary that pertains
17 to this incident.
18 JUDGE KWON: Do we have it in e-court, Mr. Gaynor?
19 MR. GAYNOR: We don't. I think yesterday we were using a
20 photocopy of it. Is that right? I believe that's what Mr. Karadzic
21 submitted, and I don't actually know where that photocopy is, myself.
22 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think it wasn't returned to me
24 from the ELMO, but we'll get it after the break.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's my original diary, but it's
1 no problem, you can use it.
2 JUDGE KWON: Yes. I don't see any problem in admitting that
3 page. Mr. Gaynor?
4 MR. GAYNOR: No objection, Mr. President.
5 JUDGE KWON: So we'll mark it for identification, pending
6 translation, that page only.
7 THE REGISTRAR: As MFI D974, Your Honours.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
9 Can we now just cast a glance at 1D3047. 1D3047. One will do.
10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Do you see that building again, the one in Hamdije Kapidzica?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Could you now please mark all the possible directions from which
14 the bullet could have come? Do you agree that it is 180 degrees, that is
15 to say, half a circle?
16 A. I disagree. This is the building [indicates], this is the
17 building. I'll put a dot next to it, the building [marks]. But, again,
18 I would like to emphasise that I'm talking now from a particular time
19 distance, so I don't know where the apartment was. So this is the
20 beginning, this is the end [marks]. That's the way it should be. And
21 the bullet came from here, roughly [marks]. I'm going to draw an arrow
22 now, in terms of the approximate direction from which it had come.
24 Q. How come you know that? How did you rule out 179 degrees and how
25 did you decide for this 1 particular degree from a lower level? Do you
1 assess the distance to be 300 metres, three football fields? Right?
2 A. I stand by the photograph that I took that is an integral part of
3 my photo file, and that is photograph number 10. So the arrow marks that
4 building. Here we have a black-and-white version again. I say, again,
5 that it is certain that I carried out my work quite properly, as best I
6 could, at the request of the investigating judge. On the basis of the
7 measurements I carried out, there could only have been one direction from
8 which the bullet had come. It is not that there could have been several
9 directions, as you had put it.
10 Q. Thank you. Perhaps the other participants are going to find it
11 hard to understand this, but we have a saying that says "doing things in
12 a make-shift way by using a stick and string." So that's the method that
13 you applied.
14 Can you say from which floor it was fired from the building in
15 Miroslava Krleze?
16 A. I cannot say that. I said that the arrow marks the building
17 where the fire had come from. I do have to say that when I took this
18 photograph, I took a personal risk at being hit from that very same
19 building. We were not working under normal conditions. We were working
20 under abnormal conditions.
21 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us now what the horizontal plane is?
22 A. Again, I underline what my report says. It was compiled 16 years
23 ago, and I cannot do it, given the time that has elapsed.
24 Q. KDZ477, could you place that number again, and could you write
25 down the date as well?
1 A. [Marks]
2 JUDGE KWON: That will be given another number.
3 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D975, Your Honours.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 1D3048, can we have that now,
6 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Could you please focus on this trajectory that was marked. This
8 shaded area is the area from which the bullet could have come to the
9 left-hand angle of the apartment in number 10 from the territory held by
10 Republika Srpska, taking account these two buildings through which the
11 shaded area goes. The remaining 179 angles belong to the territory that
12 is under the control of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
13 Do you agree -- do you agree that 5 degrees is the area held by
14 the Army of Republika Srpska, whereas the difference is much bigger
15 compared to the area held by the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
16 A. You can see here where it might have come from, and the area is
17 shown very nicely, the building from Miroslava Krleze 10, that it could
18 have gone through these buildings and ultimately arrived at the building
19 where Jasmina Tabakovic was hit. In the previous one, where I marked the
20 previous direction of fire that I marked, it is possible, and it
21 coincides with what I see in the photograph.
22 Q. Although you don't know what the horizontal plane is, and we do
23 know what the vertical plane is, that it goes up 16 centimetres?
24 A. I stand by that, because the vertical plane was my yard-stick. I
25 used the string to measure this. Unfortunately, we didn't measure how
1 long the room was, but this coincides with this photograph and the
2 possible directions of fire that came at that building.
3 Q. Why didn't you document that, Witness? Why did you decide on
4 this 1 particular degree, and the remaining 179 degrees belong to the
5 Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina? How did you decide for this narrow
6 passageway between the buildings? Give us proof. Why, how?
7 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Gaynor.
8 MR. GAYNOR: My objection is that the accused has stated that the
9 remaining 179 degrees belonged to the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
10 He's twice said that. Now, I don't believe that's in evidence. It
11 appears to be the accused giving evidence. Unless he can show something
12 that's in evidence to support that assertion, he should put that to the
13 witness and ask the witness about it, rather than giving evidence
15 JUDGE KWON: Yes, I agree.
16 And in addition to that observation, I don't think I follow the
17 meaning of 1 degree, 4 degrees, 5 degrees. Did you, Mr. Witness?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not understand what I was
19 specifically being asked to do.
20 I keep trying to explain that on the basis of the points that I
21 measured, we used a string, and in this way we got a view of the building
22 from which the bullet had been fired. That is to say, I did not
23 establish exactly which window it was, but with an arrow, number 10, I
24 marked the building from where the bullet had arrived.
25 I underline, once again, that we were not working in normal
1 peacetime conditions, so I could not expose myself for too long at that
2 window where the photograph was taken -- from where the photograph was
3 taken. So after using this string, we saw exactly the building where the
4 bullet had come from.
5 I can say that I ran a risk when I took this photograph that is
6 pasted under number 10 in my photo file regarding this incident.
7 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
8 Q. Witness, please look at this shaded area. Is it correct that the
9 bullet could have come to the fourth floor of this building only through
10 this shaded area?
11 A. This perspective, this view we have now, cannot show that. This
12 is a view from above. Now, I don't know how tall the building on
13 Miroslava Krleze Street is, how tall the building in the former
14 Nehru Street is, how tall the buildings are that form an L with the
15 building of the incident where Jasmina Tabakovic is hit. We can only see
16 the shaded area that shows that there is a passage between these
17 residential buildings to the building where the incident happened. What
18 you are asking is impossible to establish with this view.
19 Q. Witness, with a bullet that ascends, where would it have come
20 from if its source was outside this shaded area? That's what I'm talking
21 about when I say "179 degrees." Where did it come from if it didn't
22 follow this shaded area?
23 A. I don't know that. But it did follow this shaded area, and I
24 established that with the usual procedure with a rope. It came -- the
25 trajectory is marked with this red shaded area. It was shot from one of
1 the lower floors of that building, so it had an ascending trajectory, but
2 it certainly did not come from outside this shaded area.
3 JUDGE KWON: Just a second, Mr. Karadzic.
4 I'm not sure whether the witness has agreed with the place of
5 where that incident took place, which is now marked in blue. Do you
6 agree that that place is the very house?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, we've cleared that up, that
8 that's the building. The blue is probably the entrance into the
9 Nehru Street number 10, and this beam shaded in red is the area where the
10 bullet had come from. And you'll see the building where this beam begins
11 and follows this trajectory to the building of the incident.
12 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. This is the most favourable position of that apartment. If it
14 had been anywhere else, the angle would have been even smaller. Now, if
15 the bullet had come from outside the shaded area, from which position --
16 from whose positions would it have come from?
17 A. I really don't know, because I didn't know who held this
18 building, and I don't know it now.
19 Now, looking now, I see that this area that is between
20 Miroslava Krleze and Vojkovici Street -- Vojkovici neighbourhood was
21 under the control of the Serbs, the neighbouring area also, but the
22 airport settlement, I believe, was held by the Army of
23 Bosnia-Herzegovina. Now, who held which building, I don't know, because
24 I didn't walk these lines.
25 Q. So you are not familiar with these adjacent buildings outside the
1 shaded area? You didn't know who held these buildings?
2 A. I don't know. For instance, this building in
3 Miroslava Krleze Street, that's the part of Dobrinja 1 that belonged to
4 the Army of Republika Srpska. Whether they also crossed to the other
5 side across this wide street, I don't know.
6 Q. Where's the separation line here?
7 A. I don't know exactly. It's possible that the separation line,
8 and I'm talking now about something that was 16 years ago, it's possible
9 that this wide street between Miroslava Krleze Street and this parallel
10 building on the other side was the separation line. I don't know what
11 the name of that wide street is. I believe it's Vahida Maglajlic Street.
12 Q. It is. Can you draw that separation line? The marker is off.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The pen needs to be turned on.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, according to what I heard
15 from other people, and I didn't go into these streets myself, this should
16 be the separation line [marks], and perhaps the whole length. I don't
17 want to ruin this shaded bit. Now, how far it stretched, I see
18 Dobrinja 4 here, where I lived. I know it was held by the Serbs.
19 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Can you extend that line? It went all the way to Trapari, the
21 village houses?
22 A. Yes, I'm drawing the whole length now across the houses in the
23 neighbourhood where I lived during the war [marks].
24 Q. Do you now see that you could only get to the Serbian side
25 through the shaded area?
1 A. Yes, which does not rule out that it came from there.
2 Q. I agree it doesn't rule out. You did not rule it out, in fact,
3 but it doesn't rule out the remaining 189 [as interpreted] degrees.
4 A. Unfortunately, I did not deal with the horizontal plane in my
5 report, but I did draw that string, and it pointed to that building in
6 Miroslava Krleze Street where this beam of shaded lines begins. And I
7 stand by the work that was done at the time.
8 Q. Let's finish with this bit, Witness. Do you agree that 1 degree
9 to the left and 1 degree to the right from this shaded beam are the
10 positions of the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and all the remaining
11 degrees outside?
12 A. I told you, I don't know the exact positions. I didn't deal with
13 that at the time. I was always accompanied by one of the colleagues who
14 said where the location was, and you probably have other witnesses who
15 could confirm who was occupying each of these buildings if that's
16 relevant to this Court. I'm unable to say exactly now.
17 I believe that's the separation line, but, again, that's from the
18 stories I heard before or after. I did not go there, because it was
19 dangerous. And I'm not qualified to tell you now who was in those
20 buildings, whether these people occupied them all the time or came
21 occasionally. I really don't know.
22 Q. Could you put your number and date, please?
23 A. [Marks]
24 JUDGE KWON: We'll admit this with the caveat that all the
25 markings done by this witness is only the extended confrontation line,
1 while all the others are prepared by the Defence. Yes, that will be
2 given the next exhibit number.
3 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, that will be Exhibit D976.
4 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
5 Q. Witness, is it the case that all these buildings were occupied,
6 inhabited, from both sides, or were they vacant?
7 A. Before the war, all these buildings were inhabited by civilians.
8 This is a civilian neighbourhood. Now, during the war, which of them
9 were vacant, evacuated, or destroyed, I don't know.
10 Q. You came to perform an on-site investigation in a place where
11 people were living. You said you were in fear for your life. You came
12 to do an on-site investigation, and you said you were aware where the
13 separation line was. How come you don't know whether people lived all
14 around you? I am putting it to you that all these buildings were
15 inhabited throughout the war.
16 A. I meant the buildings on the separation line, itself. As for
17 Dobrinja and the place where I did this on-site investigation, this whole
18 central area was inhabited by civilians. Of course, people had nowhere
19 to go. They were forced to live there, sometimes several families per
20 apartment, because they were looking for safety, like everyone else. And
21 all those places that were exposed to fire were poorly frequented, and
22 people were wary of going in, tried to keep under cover. That's how we
23 behaved everywhere around the city. Areas that were exposed to all sorts
24 of fire were dangerous, and people tried to cross as fast as possible or
25 under cover. People were trying to make due, under the circumstances,
1 and had to live there.
2 Q. You said the apartment was dark and the blinds were down.
3 Doesn't that mean that the shooter could not see the victim and was not
4 shooting at the victim?
5 MR. GAYNOR: Objection on two counts.
6 Number 1, this has been asked and answered. Number 2, this
7 witness cannot tell whether the shooter could see something, or had night
8 vision, et cetera.
9 JUDGE KWON: Agreed, yes, it calls for the witness's speculation.
10 Move on to your next question, Mr. Karadzic.
11 We are sitting for normal hours today, so the first break will be
12 at 20 past 10.00, in five minutes' time.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. Then we'll move to
14 another incident.
15 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. You were involved in the investigation of an incident that
17 happened on the 22nd January 1994 in Alipasino Polje; correct?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. Can you tell us, briefly, what happened there?
20 A. On that 22nd January 1994, mortar shells fell on Klara Cetkin and
21 Cetinjska Streets. On that occasion, six children were killed. That is
22 written in my report.
23 Q. Can you tell us in what sequence those shells fell, and can you
24 mark it?
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 1D02152 in e-court.
1 Perhaps we can zoom in on Alipasino Polje. That's the central
2 area of the map, these two "8"s formed by the buildings. The central
3 area, please, only.
4 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Would you now be in a position to mark the place of the incident
6 and the sequence of the shells?
7 A. That happened in stage C of Alipasino Polje. This map is
8 significantly worse than the one I had before, when I was giving my
9 statement. I can put a circle around the intersection of Klara Cetkin
10 and Cetinjska Street, where this happened. Now, the sequence of the
11 shells, I can't tell you, because I didn't watch them fall. [Marks]
12 Q. This is very broad. Can you mark the place -- the places -- the
13 exact places where the shells landed?
14 A. I'm telling you, again, it's difficult on this map. I'll just
15 put two dots -- no, it's not good again. It fell on the street, itself,
16 to the left of this dot [marks], and another shell fell again on the
17 street to the left of this dot. It's difficult to mark on this map. We
18 would need to zoom in a lot to see the exact place which would be then
19 consistent with the photo file.
20 Q. What about a third shell?
21 A. I didn't work on the third shell, and that's written in my
22 report, because there were no casualties from the third shell. These
23 first two shells took away six young lives.
24 Q. What was the calibre?
25 A. I'm looking now in my diary. I cannot tell you off the cuff. It
1 says: "Mortar shell, 120 millimetres," and I would like to see my report
2 to see what it says.
5 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Do you have a copy?
7 MR. GAYNOR: I think it would be best if this is not broadcast,
8 because it contains --
9 JUDGE KWON: Do we not have a public version, Mr. Gaynor?
10 MR. GAYNOR: Well, this was admitted not through this witness,
11 but through a prior witness, as a public exhibit.
12 JUDGE KWON: Do you like to save this marking or you'd like to do
13 it later on again?
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, before we save this, I should
15 like the witness to mark the azimuth, the direction of fire, as he
16 established it.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Without my report, I cannot tell
18 you who established the direction of fire. I believe there were
19 ballistic experts present. In this investigation, they established the
20 direction of fire, but I know it came from the west. And I can put an
21 arrow to mark the approximate direction [marks]. The exact direction was
22 established by the ballistic experts. Shall I mark that direction?
23 Q. Do that. We'll come back to it. Put the date and "KDZ477."
24 A. [Marks]
25 Q. Do you know what was the interval between the first and the
1 second and the third shell?
2 A. It says around 1315, two mortar shells fell. It doesn't say
3 anything else. I believe the interval was very small.
4 Q. What about a third?
5 A. I don't remember the third shell. I told you I didn't work on
6 it. As far as this incident is concerned, my job was to photo document
7 what happened. I had ballistics experts on the team who worked also on
8 the third shell. In fact, they used traces from the third shell to be
9 able to write in their report what kind of projectile it was.
10 Q. Could you now put a circle around these two buildings of student
11 hostels, and the "Oslobodjenje" building, but make it separate circles
12 marked with "1" and "2."
13 A. [Marks]
14 Q. Do you see these two buildings of the student hostel?
15 A. Yes, these are the buildings of the student hostel [indicates],
16 and to the left, to the west, this building, the large red one, should be
17 the "Oslobodjenje" building [Marks]
18 Q. Mark it "2."
19 A. [Marks]
20 Q. Put "1" for the student hostel. Put "2" for "Oslobodjenje."
21 A. [Marks]
22 Q. Thank you. Now, who controlled these three buildings throughout
23 the war?
24 A. The student hostel buildings were accessible, the "Oslobodjenje"
25 building, too, although it was more risky, because this area was exposed
1 to fire all the time, this area outside the building.
2 Q. Can you draw the separation line here?
3 A. That's difficult to do now. I can only guess. I never went
4 there during the war. I can put a circle, and I can confirm that
5 buildings 1 and 2 were under the control of the Army of
6 Bosnia-Herzegovina, and I believe that even in certain parts of the
7 student hostel there were students who happened to be there when it all
8 began and who had nowhere to go, couldn't go anywhere, so they were
9 forced to live in those buildings.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
11 We can remove -- is this admitted? Did it receive a number?
12 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we'll keep it -- yes, now my microphone is
14 We'll keep it as it is, Exhibit D977.
15 We'll take a break now for 20 minutes and resume at quarter to
16 11.00, when you will have about three-quarters of an hour to conclude
17 your cross-examination, Mr. Karadzic.
18 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
19 JUDGE KWON: I was mistaken, Mr. Karadzic. You have an hour and
20 three-quarters of an hour.
21 --- Recess taken at 10.25 a.m.
22 --- On resuming at 10.48 a.m.
23 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
25 Can we now have in e-court 65 ter 09390C, sections 9 and 10.
1 This will hopefully be of help to you to find your bearings with regard
2 to the separation line.
3 Can we please just separate sections 9 and 10, if possible.
4 JUDGE KWON: This is sheet 7. Shall we go to sheets 9 and 10,
5 two pages further.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I believe this is number 9, but we
7 need both number 9 and number 10 at the same time.
8 Can we please go back to the previous image, where all sections
9 are represented, and just zoom in on 9 and 10. However, can we also have
10 number 1, and that will enable us to enlarge number 9 and number 10.
11 Excellent, thank you.
12 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Now, is this of any help, Mr. Witness, for you to find your
15 A. Yes. I can see all the three sections of Alipasino Polje, A, B,
16 C, and also the incident site of 24th January.
17 Q. Do you know that in one of the reports from your side, it is said
18 that the shells came from the west, slightly towards north?
19 A. As far as I recall, members of the team were ballistics experts
20 as well who prepared their report, and I believe it is said in the report
21 that it came from the west or slightly towards the north. However, this
22 can be found in this report.
23 Q. Can you now please mark the incident site and 261 bearing,
24 because that is what has been established, that the bearing is 261?
25 A. If that's what the report says, then it's 261. So now I am
1 marking Cetinjska Street. It's a bit awkward to do that on the screen.
2 [Marks]. What I have marked is a place that should be in front of the
3 building. Now, that's the place. And the second site is on
4 Klara Cetkin Street, which is to the right, a little bit more left on the
6 Q. Can you make a green circle encompassing both these points?
7 A. [Marks]
8 Q. Excellent. So these are the incident sites. Can you now draw a
9 line towards the west?
10 A. [Marks]
11 Q. Thank you. Do you know that UNPROFOR reached a slightly
12 different conclusion with regard to the bearing?
13 A. No, I'm not aware of that.
14 Q. Since we have to call another document, can you please mark, with
15 the number 1, the place where the shell landed, and number 2, west?
16 A. This is a much -- small map. It would be much easier for me if
17 you could enlarge section C, i.e., to enlarge the intersection of
18 Cetinjska and Klara Cetkin Streets, and that would make things easier for
20 Q. At the moment, this should suffice, so could you please just make
21 the marking and put the date and the number?
22 A. [Marks]
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this please be admitted into
25 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
1 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D978, Your Honours.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So this is the first page of my
14 report, where it reads that two mortar shells of 120 calibre fell on
15 Klara Cetkin and number 3 on Cetinjska Street, respectively. My findings
16 can be found in the next page of my report. This page contains only the
17 basic details.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we please have the next page in
19 the Serbian language.
20 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Can you please explain what is stated here?
22 A. This is a poor copy. It identifies the place where the shells
23 landed, blood traces. I don't see what is written underneath. I believe
24 it says "parts of clothing and the sledge, and a fragment of a
25 120-millimetre shell," and I suppose that it says that it has been put in
1 custody with the Crime Investigation Department.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
3 Have we already admitted this report into evidence?
4 JUDGE KWON: Shall we go into private session briefly.
5 [Private session]
20 [Open session]
21 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
22 Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
24 Can we now please have 09951, 65 ter, page 8. I believe this
25 document has not been admitted yet. If we go to page 8, one cannot
1 identify anything on it.
2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. So you say here that you retrieved one tail-fin, and that the
4 other is missing; that you investigated both shells that fell within a
5 short period between them and 100 metres apart. Is that correct?
6 A. They fell within the radius of 50 to 100 metres, because that's
7 an intersection of these two streets which join together at this point.
8 One shell fell in front of the building -- residential building number 4
9 on Klara Cetkin Street and the other one in front of number 3 on
10 Cetinjska Street, so the area where they fell is about 100 metres. I
11 said that I managed to recover one tail-fin, and I think it has been
12 recorded in my photo file, whereas the other one we could not find during
13 the investigation.
14 Q. How did it happen that in the CSB report it is stated that one
15 shell was 120 millimetres, whereas the remaining two were 82 millimetres?
16 A. Part of the team that investigated this incident were ballistic
17 experts who, on the basis of the evidence and clues collected on the
18 ground, were able to produce a report, and this is probably what they
19 wrote in it. I said that two mortar shells exploded, which resulted in
20 the death of six children, and that those shells were of 120-millimetre
21 calibre. Since I only managed to find one tail-fin of a 120-millimetre
22 shell, in the brief description is written what is not the official
23 finding of the expert analysis. The official report is prepared by the
24 ballistic experts after they had analysed the traces. So the fact is
25 that I found only one 120-millimetre tail-fin, and probably as a result
1 of the subsequent analysis carried out by the ballistic expert, it was
2 established that there were two 82-millimetre mines and one
3 120-millimetre shell.
4 Q. Can you confirm what is written here:
5 "At the same time, there were one or two personnel from UNPROFOR
6 who carried out the same kind of investigation as we did"?
7 A. Now, after such a long time, I really cannot remember. If that's
8 what the report says about their presence, then they were there, but at
9 the moment I cannot remember who attended the incident.
10 Q. Thank you. Do you have any explanation whatsoever, because you
11 said in your report that the second tail-fin had disappeared? How can
12 you explain that? How can a tail-fin disappear?
13 A. The incident took place at 1315, and according to the official
14 documents, it says at what time we arrived at the scene. So during that
15 period, intervening period, it was not possible to secure the scene,
16 itself. That was true, because when we arrived, we did not find any
17 bodies. We only had body parts, the sled, and the remaining fragments of
18 the shell that were collected in the close proximity of the point of
19 impact. How it happened that this tail-fin disappeared, whether somebody
20 took it after the explosion, I really don't know.
21 Q. I am waiting for the interpretation to be finished.
22 Do you know what conclusions were reached by the UN UNPROFOR
23 team, whose presence you have confirmed here? What did they conclude
24 after their investigation?
25 A. I had never had an opportunity to look either at the ballistic
1 expert report, or the UNPROFOR report, or the records made by the
2 investigating judge, or the police station Novi Grad. My job was to
3 compile my own report, to prepare my set of documents, and forward it,
4 through my boss, to other organs in charge.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now briefly have document
6 D964, which was admitted through KDZ450. And I'm in the hands of the
7 Chamber as regards the decision whether to broadcast it or not. It's
9 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Can you please focus on the last paragraph. ZK objected to the
11 UNPROFOR statement relating to the massacre on the Alipasino Polje, to
12 which General Soubirou responded that they were not able, on the basis of
13 the traces of the shell, to determine the exact position from where they
14 were fired?
15 A. Yes, I can see that.
16 Q. This is a Muslim document, and it is addressed to the
17 Security Administration?
18 A. I don't think that was a Muslim one. That was the Bosnian side.
19 Q. Mr. Witness, the Bosnian side included Serbs as well. This was
20 the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
21 A. But there is no mention specifically of Muslims. There were
22 other ethnicities there as well.
23 Q. There were more Muslims than Serbs and Croats put together. It's
24 already in evidence.
25 Did you pay any attention to the third shell that fell on the
1 building on Rade Koncara Street?
2 A. A minute ago, I already said that it was technically impossible
3 for me to make photographs because I didn't have any films. There was a
4 prior agreement for photo files to be made only when some major incidents
5 were involved, which, according to the decision of either the
6 investigating judge or the inspectors in charge, implied that only those
7 shells that caused serious injuries or deaths would be photographed.
8 Since this particular shell did not cause this kind of damage, I did not
9 process this shell. This does not mean, though, that the rest of the
10 team did not carry out their expert work, regardless of the lack of
12 Q. Your job was also to collect evidence. Now, concerning the third
13 shell that fell on the soft surface, did you find its tail-fin?
14 A. I said that I did not process the explosion site of the third
15 shell. That was done by the ballistic experts who were part of the team.
16 And I think that in that particular instance, the ballistic experts were
17 the ones who processed the third explosion.
18 Q. Just for the sake of exchanging information, Witness, none of the
19 members of the team dealt with the third shell. Is it correct that it
20 fell on a soft surface?
21 A. In my report, I say that once again, I have not processed that
22 third shell. If you can show the report of the ballistics experts, in
23 their report, their comprehensive report, they had to deal with all three
24 explosions or only the two that we worked on together. If the third one
25 is not there, then nobody had dealt with it.
1 I repeat, once again, that ballistics experts belonged to the
2 same department as I did. However, I was a crime technician and they
3 were ballistics experts. One of these two experts for a while was my
4 superior as well.
5 Q. Thank you. We are now going to move on to the incident in
6 Safeta Hadzica Street. There are two of them. One is at number 102 and
7 the other one is at number 52; right?
8 A. I would need the date to jog my memory, and then I could look it
9 up in my diary too.
10 Q. The 26th of May, 1995; is that right?
11 A. Yes, I found it. The 26th of May, 1995, that is a case that I
12 dealt with. It was called the shelling of the neighbourhood of
13 Pavle Goranin in the Street of Safeta Hadzica.
14 Q. Yesterday, the distinguished Mr. Gaynor showed a photograph of a
15 shell that fell in that garden by number 102. I don't need to call it
16 up. You do remember the photograph, don't you, with the onions that were
17 planted there where the shell allegedly fell?
18 A. Yes, I remember the photograph. I took it. It is one of the
19 10 projectiles, cannon projectiles, that had fallen on the ground there.
20 It was in the immediate vicinity of the police station where I was.
21 Behind the place where the explosion took place, there is a wall of the
22 open garages belonging to that police station. The red roof, as far as
23 I can remember, covering these garages is the roof of the police station.
24 In this photograph, we see an arrow that marks the place where
25 the explosion happened. Yesterday, I was asked whether that marks the
1 direction from which the projectile had come. My answer was that that
2 was not the direction from where the projectile had come. It was only
3 subsequently, when the photo file was being compiled, an arrow was put
4 there to show the place where the explosion happened. So it could have
5 been made in any way.
6 Q. Thank you for this exhaustive answer, but I would just like to
7 underline another thing.
8 Yesterday, we heard from you, for the first time, and we are
9 grateful to you for that, that that was a police station and that there
10 were garages of that police station there. Did you take part in the
11 investigation at Safeta Hadzica 52, in relation to the incident that took
12 place there?
13 A. The building in Safeta Hadzica number 52 is part of the
14 investigation of the overall incident that we are discussing now, so
15 there was no separate investigation. Investigating Judge Eterovic was in
16 charge of it. There were inspectors from the State Security Service --
17 from the Public Security Service were there.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please don't mention any names.
19 This document was admitted as a public one, I think.
20 65 ter 09784, 09784. I don't know what the status of that
21 document is.
22 JUDGE KWON: My understanding is that it was admitted under seal.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Then it shouldn't be broadcast or
24 we should move into private session?
25 JUDGE KWON: If you would like to name the protected witness, we
1 need to go into private session. But if you do not, we can stay in
2 public session without broadcasting this document.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Then the second option, not to have
4 it broadcast.
5 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Could you please cast a glance at this official report. It has
7 to do with this incident; right?
8 A. That's right. This is an official report that was compiled on
9 the 1st of June, 1995, and it has to do with the incident that occurred
10 on the 26th of May, 1995, between 10.45 and 10 past 11.00. The members
11 of the team are referred to here, the ones who carried out the expertise.
12 Q. Thank you. The report says that there were different shells
13 there and that one of them was of great destructive power. You're
14 actually referring to a modified air-bomb; right?
15 A. That's right, so it is Safeta Hadzica number 52.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
17 Can we now have 1D2198. Could we have that in e-court. Thank
19 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. This is a Google image. Can I now ask you to mark the location
21 of the incident and a few other locations? Can you mark the location of
22 the incident, the building that was hit in this incident?
23 A. There were 10 cannonballs and one air-bomb in this incident. You
24 asked me about that photograph a moment ago, where it fell on the earth.
25 The air-bomb fell on the right-hand side, on the extreme right, say 150,
1 200 metres. That was the entire area that had been shelled and
2 ultimately hit by an air-bomb. I can put a circle around the buildings
3 that were hit during that incident and the area around the buildings. It
4 wasn't only the buildings that were hit, but the area around them as
6 Q. Let's focus on the air-bomb, the building that was hit by the
8 A. I'm putting a circle around the building that was hit by an
9 air-bomb. [Marks]
10 Q. Is it on the left side or the right side in relation to
11 Majdanska Street?
12 A. From my point of view, it's on the left side. On the right-hand
13 side of that building is Majdanska Street that goes further down to the
14 Bulevar of Mese Selimovica, or, rather, the municipality of Novi Grad.
15 Q. Thank you. Can you now put number 1 there by that building that
16 had been hit?
17 A. [Marks]
18 Q. Now I would like to ask you kindly to put a circle around the
19 police station. Mark that with number 2.
20 A. [Marks]
21 Q. Number 3, that is the school. Could you mark the school with
22 number 3?
23 A. [Marks]
24 Q. Thank you. The transformer station, please, number 4.
25 A. [Marks]
1 Q. The municipality of Novi Grad, could you mark that, please,
2 number 5?
3 A. [Marks]
4 Q. Can you please put a circle around the Geodesy Institute,
5 number 6?
6 A. [Marks]
7 Q. Thank you. Then the TV building, 7?
8 A. [Marks]
9 Q. Thank you. To the right of this, number 7, what is that on the
10 other side of the river? Is it Astra or Unioninvest, or what is that
12 A. That's Gras. It's the garage of Gras.
13 Q. Could you mark that, too, the garage of Gras?
14 A. [Marks]
15 Q. Number 8; right? Now, you think that between this police station
16 and the building that was hit, there's about 150 metres; right?
17 A. Well, I cannot say with any precision. The area can be
18 calculated, but it's the length of Safeta Hadzica Street.
19 Q. Thank you. Can you place "KDZ477" and the date? Perhaps we'll
20 have to call up other documents if you don't have them in hard copy; your
21 statements, I mean.
22 A. [Marks]
23 JUDGE KWON: Yes, that's admitted.
24 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D979, Your Honours.
25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
1 Q. Witness, on the 11th of March, 1997, and on the 24th of April,
2 2006, you said that on the 26th of May, you were in the police station
3 when an air-bomb flew over -- or, rather, this projectile, when it flew
4 over the police station. During your proofing when you testified in the
5 Milosevic case, General Milosevic case, in January 2007, you changed
6 that. You said it wasn't the 26th of May. You said it was, rather, on
7 the 28th of August, 1995, or, rather, on the 28th of July, I think -- no,
8 or the 28th of June, actually. Can you explain this to us?
9 While preparing for this testimony, how did you manage to
10 remember, 12 years later, that that was wrong and that you wrongly
11 believed, over the course of 12 years, that it was a particular date, and
12 then all of a sudden, during proofing, you remembered that it was a
13 different date?
14 A. During both incidents that occurred in Safeta Hadzica 52, and I
15 don't know the exact date when the Kuwaiti Infirmary was hit also by an
16 air-bomb, I was at the police station on duty as the duty crime
17 technician. I was gave that explanation yesterday when I was questioned
18 by the Prosecutor.
19 To this day, dates don't mean anything to me. However, there is
20 one thing that remained imprinted in my memory, and that is the flight of
21 this projectile. I was in the police station. The window was facing
22 westward; that is to say, in this part which faces the municipality of
23 Novi Grad. I was in an office that faces the west.
24 Now, during which one of these two incidents I saw, well, I
25 cannot say that after all this time now, I cannot say exactly what was in
1 which statement. I'm telling you the dates didn't really matter to me,
2 but what I remember full well is that one of these two incidents,
3 Safeta Hadzica 52 or when the explosion over there happened to the south
4 of this building of Safeta Hadzica 52, on one of these two occasions I
5 did see the projectile fly over. It wasn't in both cases, just one of
6 them. Now, which one it was, I cannot remember exactly.
7 Q. Thank you. In 1997 and in 2006, you said that it was on the
8 26th of May. So in two statements that were closer to the actual
9 incident, that's what you said. And then while you were preparing for
10 the third time to testify in General Milosevic's case, you changed that.
11 Do I need to call this statement of yours up or do you still remember
12 what you said?
13 A. I have to underline the time distance, once again, and the
14 statements that I gave in the period that you're referring to now. Then
15 I think that perhaps the first variant would be more plausible quite
16 simply because there is this time distance. That was the first statement
17 that I gave. That was closer to the 26th of May. And I don't know when
18 the other explosion took place, I don't know the exact date, but I'm
19 trying to say now that we shouldn't really waste any time over this. I
20 don't know the exact time, but I will accept that as I stated it in the
21 first statement, let that be it, because I think that less time had
22 elapsed from the incident until the time when I made my statement on that
24 Q. Thank you. In that statement, you say that you were very close
25 to the location of the incident when it took place, and then you
1 indicated on the photograph the roof of the police station where you were
2 when the bomb exploded. The bomb came over the police station from the
3 west; is that right?
4 A. It came from that direction. The windows were facing west. I
5 cannot say that it came over the police station exactly, because I was
6 looking at it and it was a bit further to the south in relation to the
7 room that I was in. So it's not that it flew over, it's not that I had
8 to raise my head. I saw it. I saw it on my left as I was standing on
9 the -- at the window.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We have this in e-court, this
11 Google one.
12 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Please, could you now mark what it was that you saw, the
14 direction that this shell came from? You have what we used a moment ago.
15 A. I'm going to use a dot to mark the wing of the station where I
16 was [marks]. The projectile flew this way [marks], so that would be it,
18 Q. Can you go to the building that it hit?
19 A. Yes, that's the building [marks].
20 Q. The usual thing, "KDZ477" and the date, please.
21 A. [Marks]
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this be admitted, this
24 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
25 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, as Exhibit D980.
1 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. You said you had seen the shell fly?
3 A. Yes, for a second or two. I don't know how long it was, but I
4 saw it fly.
5 Q. You said it made a lot of noise, a racket, like somebody revving
6 up an engine?
7 A. I was just trying to describe what I heard, and that was
8 approximately that sound.
9 Q. Was it the sound of rocket engines?
10 A. Probably.
11 Q. Was there any smoke?
12 A. I don't remember.
13 Q. In your statement of 24 April 2006, you say precisely:
14 "I conducted investigations on places of impact of modified
15 air-bombs. I saw such one bomb fly before it hit. It was the
16 26th of May, 1995. The bomb flew over the police station before it hit
17 the Street of Safet Hadzic. It had small, stubby wings --"
18 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speaker slow down, please.
19 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Is this the correct description?
21 A. That's what it looked like to me at that moment, those couple of
22 seconds that I had to watch it.
23 Q. In your opinion, rocket engines were on at the time, they were
24 propelling the rocket?
25 A. Well, it was flying, so they must have been working.
1 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, I was advised that we have lost the
2 markings done by the witness just now, which is D980. Do you like the
3 witness to do the markings again which shows the direction of projectile?
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] He remembers.
5 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Please look at e-court and do the same thing you did before to
7 mark the direction. You can mark the station, the direction.
8 A. I'm now marking the building that was hit by that air-bomb
9 [marks]. Now I'm marking the station [marks], and now I'm marking the
10 direction of the projectile [marks].
11 JUDGE KWON: And your pseudonym and the date, please.
12 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
13 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. What was the height -- the altitude at which the shell was
16 A. I don't remember exactly. Whether it was at the altitude of the
17 high-rise or above the high-rise, I can't remember.
18 Q. Did it fly in a straight line or was it a parabolic line?
19 A. I believe it was a straight line. Whether it was falling down or
20 not, I can't remember.
21 Q. So it flew by the police station, not over the police station?
22 A. As I said, I was in the window, and I was watching it fly on my
23 left side. It was not directly above me; it was to my left. And looking
24 from that window, it would be the west side.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this photograph be admitted or
1 does it already have a number?
2 JUDGE KWON: Yes, it was admitted as Exhibit D980.
3 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
4 Q. You worked on many more incidents, as we can see from your
5 statement. I would, therefore, like to look at incident involving the
6 Elektroprenos bus. Was it on the 18th of August, 1995?
7 A. Yes, 18 August 1995, the intersection of the ninth transversal
8 and Safeta Hadzica Street. Object, the public utility company
9 Elektroprenos bus.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now see photographs showing
11 that type of bus to see what kind of bus it was that was hit. Can we see
13 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. You've seen those pictures of buses?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. These are our photographs. This is the kind of bus. Was that
17 bus one of these three types?
18 A. I cannot really talk about the type of bus. I don't think we
19 need this, because there are photographs of that bus, original
21 Q. We'll be very grateful if you can provide them, please.
22 A. I made a whole photo documentation. Do we have that photo in
23 electronic form?
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I hope the Prosecution can assist.
25 Otherwise, we can put it on the ELMO.
1 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Gaynor.
2 MR. GAYNOR: We have photographs in hard copy, and I'll just get
3 them right now.
4 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
5 MR. GAYNOR: These are -- these are hard-copy print-outs which
6 were provided to us by the witness at the weekend, and they are -- he can
7 explain their relationship to the photo file, but they were used -- they
8 were the same ones as were used to create the photo file.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The Defence would like to receive
10 those photographs, and we also kindly ask that a copy be made for the
11 witness to mark some things we need. But there is no photo of the bus in
12 this documentation.
13 MR. GAYNOR: I'd like to point out that these photographs were,
14 in fact, notified to the Defence on Sunday, and the Defence has, in fact,
15 inspected these photographs. I'm going to see if there are any
16 photographs of the bus. One moment, please.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] With all due respect, we would like
18 to have these photographs.
19 MR. GAYNOR: My apologies. I handed over the wrong batch of
20 photographs. This is the batch here. Thank you.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
22 These four photographs could be of assistance, but we really need
23 to ask the witness to make some drawings on them. Can we make
24 photocopies of these photographs so the witness can mark them?
25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Witness, could you please look, in e-court, at the third bus at
2 the bottom. It's just the same as the one on your photograph; do you
4 A. The bus that I see could be. But without the photograph, I can't
5 claim it's exactly the same type. I need a photograph. I made a photo
6 file, and I believe, just with the other incidents, it should be in
7 electronic form with a caption underneath.
8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] We need photographs for this
9 testimony, but we also need it for our own expertise, for our own expert
10 report, so we have to have them.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This red bus is the original bus,
12 and the photograph was made recently from the original negative that is
13 kept with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. And if you look at this other
14 photograph, the bus that is blue or turquoise in colour, you could see
15 it's from the same manufacturer, but the difference between them is that
16 the blue bus has a door in the middle and the red one, the original one,
18 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Can you show, here on the bus, where the shell impacted?
20 A. We see damage on the bus here, where the body was twisted, and
21 then we can see the same on another photograph - it's marked with
22 number 1 - and this deviated part of the bodywork is also clearly
23 visible. And that's what it says in my report, the bus was hit just
24 above the window.
25 Q. From which direction did the shell come from in relation to the
2 A. The bus was hit on the right side while crossing the intersection
3 between Deveta Transverzala and Safeta Hadzica Street.
4 Q. This is a photograph from inside?
5 A. Yes, this was taken from the inside of the bus.
6 Q. Do you see that this exit hole is just next to the frame of the
8 A. This damage was created when the projectile exploded. I don't
9 know which kind of projectile it was. I'm not a ballistics man; I just
10 photographed the damage. And it's true that it hit the upper part of the
11 window. I don't know which window in sequence it is. We could see it on
12 one of the other photographs.
13 Q. We'll need to get photocopies to mark them. But do you agree
14 that this inside damage is just next to the frame of the window?
15 A. Yes. The whole frame of the window was twisted, as well as the
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we see again the previous
18 photograph to see the outside damage.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Here, you can see clearly that the
20 frame was hit in full, and we saw the damage it created on the inside.
21 We can put both photographs on the ELMO at the same time. Now you can
22 see the inside and the outside.
23 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Now, regarding the horizontal plane, do you agree that the entry
25 impact is a bit more forward than the exit hole? Look at it carefully.
1 A. Number 1 is marking the whole damage created. It just marks the
2 point of impact. Under what angle and how it entered, it's difficult to
3 see on these photographs. They just show specific damage created by the
4 impact of the projectile. Now, what angle, that's difficult to say, all
5 the more so because the photograph was taken at a certain angle in both
7 Q. Based on the traces, based on this distance from the frame of
8 both the entry and exit holes, can you make any conclusions about the
9 direction of the projectile vertically and horizontally?
10 A. No, I can't. I can only say the bus was hit on the right side,
11 above the window on the bodywork, but I cannot be more specific than
12 that, based on this damage.
13 Q. Do you agree that determining the direction is decisive in
14 determining the origin of fire?
15 A. Yes, but we can get that direction if we know the bus was hit on
16 its right side.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We'll now look at that
19 I would like these photographs to be admitted. But we would
20 really need photocopies of these photographs after the break so that the
21 witness can mark these things, although they are pretty clearly visible.
22 Maybe both these photographs can be admitted under one number.
23 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
24 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D981, Your Honours.
25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Somebody did make a determination. Was it you or somebody else
2 from the team that determined the calibre and type of weapon involved?
3 A. It couldn't have been me. It must have been one of the
4 ballistics experts. But if you want me to say anything at all about it,
5 I need the documents of this investigation, my whole report, the whole
6 photo file, the statements of ballistics experts, the findings of other
7 members of the team, if you want any comment from me.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I ask that the witness be given
9 all that?
10 MR. GAYNOR: According to the witness's amalgamated statement,
11 his report should be 65 ter 09884. If that's to be called up, it should
12 not be broadcast. And there is another report which is compiled by an
13 inspector from the CSB, and that is 65 ter 09885. Neither of those have
14 yet been admitted.
15 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Gaynor.
16 Just a second. I noted that this document was briefly broadcast.
17 We may need to redact it.
18 MR. GAYNOR: Very well, Mr. President.
19 JUDGE KWON: I'm not sure whether I was mistaken or not. I'll
20 leave it in the hands of the Court Deputy.
21 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
22 JUDGE KWON: No. Thank you.
23 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Witness, will this be of assistance?
25 A. Yes. That is my report, where it says what case it is, and it
1 says that it's shelling, and the intersection where it happened, and what
2 actually happened. The bus of Elektroprenos, a public company, was hit,
3 and then there is a description that follows. And on the second page is
4 this same report continued and my signature.
5 Q. The former Street of Ive Andrica in this case is called the
6 9th Transversal; right?
7 A. Yes, and it continues from the Street of Ive Andrica from the
8 north and then moves down south to the intersection with Safeta Hadzica.
9 Q. Could you please have a look at this. The projectile hit the
10 metal plate, et cetera, while the bus was moving towards the
11 Olympic Village. Is the type of weapon identified anywhere and the
12 calibre? It seems to me that somewhere in these reports it says that it
13 was a PAT, an anti-aircraft gun. Right?
14 A. In my report, it says "projectile," exactly. I did not say what
15 type at all. Quite simply, it is because I could not establish, on the
16 basis of the damage on the bus, what weapon was involved. I left that to
17 the ballistics experts. The vehicle was moving when it was hit. It was
18 moving towards the Olympic Village, and I can read it:
19 "While the vehicle was moving from Alipasino Polje towards the
20 Olympic Village, the projectile hit the metal plate above the first large
21 window next to the front door."
22 So this is an exact reference where the bus was hit, the first
23 large window next to the front door.
24 Q. Thank you. Can we go through this further and see whether the
25 report contains anything more specific? Does anyone know what type of
1 weapon was used? Paragraph 112, you say the bus was hit on the
2 right-hand side with an anti-aircraft bullet, you say. So what would the
3 weapon be, a machine-gun, because it's not an explosive charge?
4 A. The report that I wrote up is more important, the one I wrote
5 after visiting the scene. I'm reading the names of the people who were
6 on the team. I'm reading it from my diary. I don't know if it would be
7 right for me to read the names. I can say it was a member of the KDZ.
8 I'm not going to give the name of that person. So at the time, he was in
9 charge of dealing with the traces and sending everything for further
10 expert evaluation to see what projectile was involved. Now, whether they
11 gave an official report as to what projectile was involved in this
12 incident, I don't know, but I didn't want to say anything specific.
13 That's why I wrote "projectile." What kind of projectile it was, perhaps
14 I said it later in my statement, but perhaps it is not the result of my
15 having read an official objective report, but perhaps I just heard
16 somebody say it. If we are specifically interested in that, we'd have to
17 read the official report.
18 Q. Could you please ask for them to leaf through this report
19 further? But in 112, you say that it was an anti-aircraft bullet, so
20 that would be a machine-gun, wouldn't it? And the last sentence says.
21 And that's what you said when you gave your statement of the
22 15th of November, 1995, and you repeated that when you testified in
23 General Milosevic's case on the 31st of January, 2006, transcript
24 reference 328, that's the ERN number:
25 [In English] "The shot could only come from the VRS-held
2 [Interpretation] So you are drawing an unequivocal conclusion
3 here that the shot could only come from VRS-held territory. That is why
4 it is so important for us to see whether it is direct or indirect fire,
5 and we need to test this conclusion of yours that purports not to leave
6 any doubt.
7 Please ask for a paper copy of the report, or let's leaf through
8 this further.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have the next page.
10 MR. GAYNOR: Mr. President, I can provide the witness with paper
11 copies of his report and of the report compiled by the CSB, if it would
12 assist the witness.
13 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Gaynor.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we please have in e-court
15 65 ter 10179, 10179; P147 in General Milosevic's case. It's a map.
16 Can we have a hard copy too, just one.
17 MR. GAYNOR: The two reports that the witness has just been
18 provided with are, as I said earlier, 65 ter 09884 - that's his
19 report - and the CSB report is 09885. And if either of those are to be
20 broadcast, they should -- or to be brought up, they should not be
21 broadcast, please.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No need to have it broadcast.
23 We have a map here now that pertains to Grbavica, and that's not
24 what we are asking for. 65 ter -- I mean, it's paragraph 113. It should
25 mark the place where the bus was hit. It's not this map that we see here
2 Can we then have 09390C, and then section 10. Maybe that's it,
3 yes. Actually, give us section 10. 65 ter 09390C, and then section 10.
4 Can the left-hand side be zoomed in. Further. Actually, the
5 lower part of the left-hand side. Thank you.
6 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Can you now mark the location of the incident for us,
8 Safeta Hadzica and the 9th Transversal, the location of the incident?
9 A. I'm going to mark the intersection of Ive Andrica and
10 Safeta Hadzica, where the bus passed before it was hit [marks], and in
11 this circle we should see the place where the bus was actually hit.
12 Q. Thank you. Was the bus already there? Had it already reached
13 the intersection, or did this happen before or after the intersection?
14 A. I was not an eye-witness. So this intersection is a dangerous
15 one. That's what we called it. It was visible from the neighbourhood of
16 Nedzarici, and from time to time, different types of fire were reaching
17 it coming from different kinds of weaponry. There was no protection
18 there at the time, and I'm sure that the bus was moving faster than it
19 would when it was moving through areas where there were many buildings.
20 You can look at the statement of the driver, himself, where the bus
21 actually was, if he does make a reference to that in his own statement.
22 I was not an eye-witness. As for the bus, itself, and for taking its
23 photograph, I did that when it stopped in Dobrinja, together with the
24 investigation team.
25 Q. Thank you. Which route was the bus supposed to take? Was it
1 supposed to continue along Ive Andrica or Safeta Hadzica and then
2 Ante Babica? Can you mark the route it took to Dobrinja?
3 A. Yes, I'm going to explain how it moved by using short arrows
4 [marks]. So this is the route of the bus before it stopped. So it moved
5 down Ive Andrica Street, it crossed the intersection with Safeta Hadzica,
6 and then it went further on, not through Mojmilo, but around it, and then
7 it went down to this narrow area that was protected visually at the time.
8 There were containers that provided visual protection, and then the bus
9 could be sheltered that way.
10 Q. Can you mark where the containers were?
11 A. I haven't finished yet.
12 As for the intersection between Ive Andrica and Safeta Hadzica,
13 there were garbage containers there, and I think that that can be seen in
14 my photo file. However, they did not provide enough visual protection.
15 Now, I don't know how many of them were there and what visual protection
16 they could provide to the bus, in view of the Nedzarici neighbourhood.
17 As far as I can remember, when I went to on-site investigations, garbage
18 containers were there all along the road. However, there was no visual
19 protection by Dobrinja 5. Certainly, there was more than at the
20 intersection of Ive Andrica and Safeta Hadzica.
21 Q. First of all, you found glass there on the actual site, and you
22 believe that that is the point of impact, although you say that vehicles
23 were crossing along that -- over that shattered glass. Where was the
24 glass and where was the impact?
25 A. The very intersection of Safeta Hadzica and Ive Andrica,
1 somewhere around there.
2 Q. Could you please put number 1 and number 2 there, that is to say,
3 the location of the incident, and, to the west, the containers?
4 A. [Marks]. I put a circle around the intersection where it
5 happened. And this short line that marks number 2, that's where the
6 containers were lined, and that would be much clearer if we looked at the
7 photograph. You could understand immediately what kind of visual cover
8 it provides relative to the height of the bus.
9 Q. And you say these shards of glass were all over the intersection,
10 exactly on the intersection, and the front of the bus was on the
12 A. That should be it.
13 Q. Thank you. Can you tell the Trial Chamber: From the separation
14 line, how tall are these buildings across the separation line? What
15 neighbourhood is that to the north-west?
16 A. To the north-west is stage 2 of Alipasino Polje, the Square of
18 Q. Can you mark it?
19 A. I apologise.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Apologies to the interpreters.
21 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Now, number 3, how tall are these buildings?
23 A. I'm marking number 3 to denote stage B of Alipasino Polje
24 [marks]. Ten days before coming here, I made new photographs, and I
25 turned them over to the Prosecution, photographs showing this
1 neighbourhood. Those are several-storey buildings around the periphery
2 of the neighbourhood, whereas buildings on the square are five,
3 six storeys tall. To the south-west of number 2 is Mojmilo
4 neighbourhood. It's an Olympic project, also a residential/civilian
5 area. The buildings are several storeys high. I don't know exactly how
7 Q. Can you also put a circle around Mojmilo?
8 A. [Marks]
9 Q. Number 4 there, please.
10 A. [Marks]
11 Q. Now, these buildings towards the separation line, what are those
12 neighbourhoods? Is that stage A?
13 A. This is stage B [marks]. It says on the map "Mojmilo." I don't
14 need to mark it.
15 Q. To the west of stage B, what's there?
16 A. Saraj Polje, also a civilian neighbourhood adjacent to Nedzarici.
17 Q. Put a circle around that. Does it have a name?
18 A. Vojnicko Naselje, "Soldiers' Settlement."
19 Q. Is this the student hostel to the north of the Soldiers'
21 A. Yes, it is. Should I put a circle around there?
22 Q. Mark the Soldiers' Settlement with "5" and student hostel with
24 A. [Marks]
25 Q. What's this building that remains standing alone next to Mojmilo?
1 A. This should be the health centre.
2 Q. Put a circle.
3 A. [Marks]
4 Q. How tall are these buildings in number 5?
5 A. Several storeys high.
6 Q. Can you put "7" on the health centre?
7 A. [Marks]
8 Q. Do you agree that Nedzarici is a Serbian neighbourhood, with
9 detached houses, with no tall buildings in it, that the tallest is the
10 Home for Abandoned Children, two storeys high?
11 A. I agree that those were private houses. They still stand today.
12 They had two or, maximum, three floors, including the loft. And as for
13 the layout of the terrain, which you cannot see on the map, from the
14 place of the incident marked with "2," there's a downhill slope. On this
15 map, you see Mojmilo Hill, so naturally the whole street, Safeta Hadzica,
16 goes downhill towards this transversal line, Ante Babica Street. You can
17 see that on the map, and Nedzarici is at the foot of this slope.
18 Q. Witness, do we again find here a very narrow area on the Serbian
19 side that could have potentially been the origin of fire, a very small,
20 narrow space between buildings, so it would practically take a miracle
21 for a bullet to find its way through? Can you now draw a line to the
22 possible origin of fire on the Serbian side?
23 A. I will not agree with what you just said, because this is not an
24 extremely narrow space. This is a very large field in Safeta Hadzica
25 Street, a very large space from which you could fire.
1 Q. Now change the pen, use red, and draw a line between the
2 health centre and the northern building.
3 A. [Marks]
4 Q. Thank you. You can shade it, please.
5 A. [Marks]
6 Q. Witness, what's the direction vertically? Did it go -- how did
7 the projectile go, horizontally or from -- or downwards or upwards?
8 A. Upwards.
9 Q. But if we look at the photographs, we see that the exit hole on
10 the inside shows a downward line?
11 A. I wouldn't agree.
12 Q. Okay. We'll come back to that.
13 Now, tell us all, please: We have here a possibility of
14 360 degrees, so if the bus was just before a turn, 180 degrees, you opted
15 for these 5, 6 degrees, how did you rule out the remaining 180 degrees?
16 Which method did you use to exclude the possibility that the origin of
17 fire was elsewhere?
18 A. Well, first of all, the bus was hit on its right side, and I said
19 that in my report. I don't want to repeat it. I photographed the bus in
20 Dobrinja, and it indicates that the bus was coming from down-town towards
21 Dobrinja. If it had been on its way down-town, it would have been hit on
22 its left side.
23 In addition to my report, which is typed up and photographs
24 attached to it, there are reports of other members of the team, and there
25 are statements of several witnesses who were on the bus, itself, and who
1 can confirm that the bus was moving and where it was moving, so it's
2 indisputable that the bus was moving from down-town towards Dobrinja in
3 the direction I indicated on the map.
4 Q. Witness, we now need perfectly reliable information about the
5 type of weapon. Is it a weapon that produces direct or indirect fire?
6 And we need angles on a horizontal and the vertical plane to be able to
7 make determinations. Do you have these angles?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Does anybody have them?
10 A. It says in my report that the bomb squad from the CSB Sarajevo
11 extracted pieces of the projectile. They were analysed, and that
12 analysis helps determine the type of weapon used in this incident. There
13 are other documents that speak about the type of weapon that fired on
14 this intersection not only in this incident, but also in the past, and
15 there is also documentation of all the shelters that were put up to
16 reduce the risk. And I knew that this intersection was risky, because I
17 lived close by, and that it was open to fire from Nedzarici. That's why
18 the shelters were placed as they were placed. They provided cover from
19 Nedzarici, not from Mojmilo and not from other areas, because it was
20 common knowledge that there was constant fire from Nedzarici.
21 Q. Why weren't there any shelters put up facing Mojmilo and other
23 A. Because no incident was recorded where fire came from those
25 Q. Let's see if it was ever established, and how, that this fire
1 came from the Serbian side. Is there anything -- any document in the
2 report about the angle of descent of this projectile, and where can we
3 find it?
4 A. I can't help you there. There was a whole team working on that
5 investigation. It was led by the man under number 1. I was part of that
6 team. And in addition to the two of us, there was also an employee of
7 the Counter-Sabotage Unit from the Security Services Centre, the
8 Novi Grad station. You have to ask that man, because we sent him all the
9 documents in this file, and he was supposed to send them on to the
10 investigating judge.
11 Q. Please put "KDZ477" and the date.
12 A. [Marks]
13 MR. GAYNOR: Just while the witness is doing that, I just want to
14 inform Mr. Karadzic that a black-and-white version of the original photo
15 file, which is what we have, has now been up-loaded under 09884, and it
16 has been previously disclosed to the Defence.
17 JUDGE KWON: We'll give this an exhibit number.
18 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit D982.
19 JUDGE KWON: And are you minded to tender the report of the
20 witness and of the CSB?
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
22 JUDGE KWON: They will be admitted under seal.
23 I'm not sure whether we have an English translation. Did we have
24 one? Yes, we have it, we have it.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In the amalgamated statement, from
1 paragraph 107, ending with 116, inclusive, is the description of this
2 incident, and it's very important for us to establish how these
3 investigations were conducted and how the facts were established.
4 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Now, with these photographs, I'd like to ask you for a little
6 patience to go through them.
7 JUDGE KWON: You objected to the admission of this document and
8 use of it, and you are tendering it.
9 Why don't we give the numbers for those two reports.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour.
11 65 ter 09884 will be Exhibit D983, under seal, and 65 ter 09885
12 will be Exhibit D984, also under seal.
13 JUDGE KWON: And, Mr. Karadzic, it's time to have a break.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Let me just say one thing, please.
15 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If that incident is covered by the
17 amalgamated statement and will not be extracted from the amalgamated
18 statement, then there is no further restriction to admitting anything
19 whatsoever. My intention was to tender, through this witness, only
20 what's in the indictment. If that's not the way it works with the
21 amalgamated statement and there are contradictions in certain issues,
22 then we have to admit everything. That's my position.
23 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
24 After the break, will you have about a quarter of an hour to
25 conclude your cross-examination, Mr. Karadzic.
1 We'll break for half an hour and resume at 10 to 1.00.
2 --- Recess taken at 12.20 p.m.
3 --- On resuming at 12.55 p.m.
4 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
5 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
6 Q. Witness, do you agree that vehicles, especially buses and tanks,
7 when on the move, are aimed directly, rather than indirectly, which would
8 require the non-existence of visual contact?
9 A. I am not privy to the ways and means of how to target buses and
11 Q. You did say that you became well versed in your investigations
12 and you all became experts. Did that enable you to conclude how vehicles
13 in motion are targeted?
14 A. I am not an expert in that area.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we please have 1D3039 in
16 e-court. Thank you.
17 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. The yellow dot, does it mark the spot where the bus was hit?
19 A. Yes, the crossroads of Derventa Transverzala and Safeta Hadzica
21 Q. Thank you. You said it is at an elevation, slightly, in
22 comparison with the neighbourhoods?
23 A. Yes. Alongside the Safeta Hadzica Street, there is a slope which
24 can be seen on the photographs, although we can't see it on this aerial
1 Q. Can you delineate Nedzarici, the family homes adjacent to the
2 apartment blocks? Just draw a line so that the Chamber could have a
3 picture of where Nedzarici is. You should use the pen, but turn it on
4 first, please.
5 A. These family homes with the red-tiled roofs, this is Nedzarici
7 Q. Thank you. It is my position, Witness, that this bus was hit
8 from the front and from above, as well as on the right side. The bus was
9 hit by a bullet moving towards the back of the bus and to the left. That
10 was the projectile trajectory. From above, so a descending bullet, the
11 entry point indicates that the projectile entered the bus. If it had
12 come from below, it would have gone through the floor and out through the
13 roof; is that correct?
14 A. No, it is not. According to the photographs we saw, we can see
15 what the technical characteristics of the impact were and the damage
16 caused by the projectile. Therefore, your assertion is incorrect. If we
17 go by the photographs, that would not allow you to draw such a
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We seem to have lost the markings
20 of the witness delineating Nedzarici.
21 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Please place an "N" there for "Nedzarici," as well as your
23 pseudonym and date.
24 A. [Marks]
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Therefore, we agree that the yellow
1 spot indicates the place of incident.
2 May I seek to tender this, please?
3 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
4 Yes, Mr. Gaynor.
5 MR. GAYNOR: I simply want to make the observation that the
6 two red arrows which are visible on this photograph have been put there
7 by the Defence, and that the witness has not made any comment about
9 JUDGE KWON: Yes, true. Thank you, Mr. Gaynor.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D985.
11 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. I would kindly ask the witness to mark the position of the bus
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We need to go back to the previous
15 document for that purpose, D985.
16 These arrows were entered according to what the witness said
17 about the direction of movement of the bus.
18 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Was this the position of the bus, Witness?
20 A. No, these arrows do not indicate the direction of movement of the
21 bus, because they go from the north-west towards the bottom of the map.
22 And the bottom one moves from the south-east towards the yellow spot.
23 They do not represent the line of movement of the bus as I indicated.
24 These arrows were not made by me.
25 Q. Thank you. Can you indicate, on the red dot, how the bus was
1 positioned length-wise?
2 A. I can only indicate the direction of movement, and then that can
3 be used to ascertain where the front or where the rear of the bus was.
4 This is the road it was moving along [marks]. It came down
5 Ive Andrica Street, and before the crossroads is where the incident was.
6 Of course, it faced the crossroads with its front.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, this suffices.
8 May this be admitted as well under the same number?
9 JUDGE KWON: That will be done. That will be kept as it is now.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
11 Could we please have 65 ter 21214. 65 ter 21214.
12 Could we please zoom in and focus. It is rather unclear.
13 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Witness, on one of the photographs presented by the OTP, you
15 marked the police station building. Could you indicate Cetinjska Street
16 on this photograph, just behind the apartment blocks?
17 A. Cetinjska Street is part of the street in Alipasino Polje where
18 the C stage of the buildings is. We can see only one part of it.
19 Q. Could you please mark that with a pen?
20 A. This is where Cetinjska Street begins [marks], and it circumvents
21 the C stage of the Alipasino Polje neighbourhood. We can't see it here
22 in its entire length because of the buildings, but eventually it joins
23 the Klara Cetkin Street.
24 Q. You marked that. Thank you. Do you know what were the military
25 facilities shown here and military production facilities? We do have the
1 police station, don't we? Please mark that.
2 A. [Marks]. I marked it with a "1."
3 Q. Could you please mark the transformer station?
4 A. Yes. How should I mark it?
5 Q. With a "2."
6 A. [Marks]
7 Q. Then Novi Grad municipality?
8 A. It is just behind the transformer station. I'll mark it with a
9 "3." [Marks]
10 Q. The surveying institute?
11 A. It is adjacent to Novi Grad municipality. I'm marking it with a
12 "4." [Marks]
13 Q. The TV building, mark it with a "5," please.
14 A. [Marks]
15 Q. The wire factory?
16 A. It is behind the television building in its entire length, but
17 I'll circle only one part of it. [Marks]
18 Q. Mark it with a "6."
19 A. [Marks]
20 Q. Did you know where Unis and Igman were?
21 A. Well, it's an industrial area following the TV station area.
22 Q. Did you know that there was a headquarters in the television
24 A. This is the first I hear of it.
25 Q. Did you know that there were some military installations in the
1 surveying institute?
2 A. I hear that for the first time.
3 Q. Did you know that in the wire factory, mortar mines were
4 produced, mortar shells?
5 A. I wasn't present there. I'm not familiar with it.
6 Q. What is the gray building or brown building next to the
7 wire factory?
8 A. The entire block of buildings just behind the TV building is what
9 used to be the industrial area before the war. We all -- we referred to
10 the whole area as the wire factory, but I don't know which part you mean
11 precisely. I know that somewhere to the east, the Astra chemical factory
13 Q. Please place a date and your signature.
14 A. [Marks]
15 Q. We'll use a particular software application to show you another
16 view of this area. Do you know what brigade was deployed in this area,
17 the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina brigade.
18 A. I can't see it clearly, but I think it was the 101st Mountain or
19 Motorised Brigade.
20 Q. And across the railway tracks up-hill?
21 A. I don't know exactly.
22 Q. What if I told you it was the 111th?
23 A. I know there was a brigade there, but I don't know which one. I
24 only know of the 101st.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Has this been admitted?
1 JUDGE KWON: D986. And, Mr. Karadzic, you will have
2 five minutes.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we please have Sanction on.
4 Yes, we see the 101st. You can remove the signs. We have the
6 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Is this the area of responsibility of the 101st Brigade?
8 A. I can't tell you anything about the AORs. I know the 101st was
9 there. As for the neighbourhoods where I conducted my investigations,
10 I can tell you that these were civilian neighbourhoods, inhabited by
11 civilians, both Alipasino Polje and Pavle Goranin. You are now showing
12 me certain front-lines, where I was not, and I don't know where the areas
13 of responsibility of the respective brigades were.
14 Q. Let's have a look at the headquarters and various staffs of the
15 101st Brigade. Did you know that there were command posts in the area?
16 Did you know that there were command posts?
17 A. I was a police member. I was not a member of the 101st Mountain
18 Brigade so as to know where their command posts were, as designated here.
19 I can only tell you that I see the former Viktor Bubanj Barracks. I
20 don't know whether you meant that. I am really not familiar with this
22 Q. Do we have the artillery and howitzer positions? Yes, we do. Do
23 you see the tank?
24 A. Yes, I see there is a tank. Yes, I see it.
25 Q. Can you see that in the TV building, there was a company command?
1 A. As anyone else in the courtroom, I can only read to you what the
2 map says.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we zoom in on the company
4 command and the TV building.
5 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, I don't see any point of pursuing this
6 line of questions further, given the witness's answer that he doesn't
7 know about these positions, Mr. Karadzic.
8 But, by the way, has this been provided to the Prosecution, this
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, we provided that. However, it
11 can be joined with other material. We are still awaiting further
12 documents. There is nothing here that is not based on certain documents.
13 And here you can see, for example, what document is referred to when we
14 designated the company command post in this particular location.
15 MR. GAYNOR: I understand we do have the programme. We don't
16 have the underlying material upon which this is based or any indication
17 as to methodology.
18 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
19 Please conclude your cross-examination very soon, Mr. Karadzic.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, I'll be -- I'd be happy to.
21 Could we please have the 111th Brigade. We need to zoom out for
23 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Can you see that the 111th Brigade went all the way up to the
25 Muslim part of Vogosca? You can see their positions and headquarters
1 there. Were you aware of it?
2 A. I was not.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
4 We won't be tendering anything as yet. I just wanted to show you
5 what the things looked like.
6 Let's have a look at the military-purpose industry facilities,
7 and that will be my last topic.
8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Can you see the facilities I mentioned? The entire industrial
10 area was geared towards production for the war. Were you familiar with
12 A. I was not.
13 Q. Did you know that a transformer station you marked provided
14 electricity to these ammunition and weapons factories behind the TV
16 A. I wasn't aware of that.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Witness.
18 This concludes my examination.
19 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Karadzic.
20 Mr. Gaynor, before you re-examine the witness, the Chamber has a
21 question for the witness.
22 Judge Baird.
23 Questioned by the Court:
24 JUDGE BAIRD: Witness, in testifying about your investigations in
25 respect of the incident in Nehru Street, you stated that you did not deal
1 with the horizontal plane in your report, you dealt with the vertical
2 plane. Do you recollect this?
3 A. It had to do with the incident when Jasmina Tabakovic was killed.
4 In that case, an investigating judge was with me on the team, and he was
5 in charge of the investigation. I was only determining the height, in
6 terms of the location where the damage was, and later on we brought these
7 points together and we determined the line. However, that line was not
8 measured in the room, itself. However, on the basis of these points, we
9 were able to tell from which position the bullet had come.
10 JUDGE BAIRD: I thank you. But Dr. Karadzic asked you, at
11 page 12, lines 16 to 18, words to this effect:
12 "All these things being done -- being what they are, the
13 horizontal plane and the horizontal inclination are decisive in
14 determining where the bullet came from?"
15 Now, we didn't quite follow the answer you gave. Are you in a
16 position to tell us, Witness, would the horizontal plane and the
17 horizontal inclination be decisive in determining where the bullet came
19 A. Horizontal measures were not included in the report. However, on
20 the basis of the vertical ones that we did do, we determined only the
21 direction from which the bullet had arrived. However, this was not
22 included in the report, not my report or the reports of my other
23 colleagues who were on the scene.
24 JUDGE BAIRD: So am I correct in assuming that you would not be
25 able to comment on that question by Dr. Karadzic, whether the horizontal
1 plane and the horizontal inclination -- whether they are decisive in
2 determining where the bullet came from?
3 A. At this moment from this position, I am not in a position to do
4 so on the basis of the horizontal one. But on the basis of the vertical
5 one and the photographs I have from that period, I was in a position to
6 confirm from which position the projectile had come.
7 JUDGE BAIRD: Thank you very much.
8 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Gaynor, do you have re-examination?
9 MR. GAYNOR: I do, Mr. President.
10 JUDGE KWON: Yes, please.
11 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you.
12 Re-examination by Mr. Gaynor:
13 Q. Witness, I'd like to stay on the same incident that His Honour
14 has just been asking you about. And prior to discussing that incident, I
15 want to ask you a few questions about the methodology of investigating
16 sniping incidents, specifically.
17 Now, when you use the string that you describe, could you explain
18 exactly where you put the two ends of the string?
19 A. The investigation team always consisted of a minimum of
20 two members. It was necessary to establish the way in which the bullet
21 had entered a particular facility. When assessing the damage that was
22 caused by the bullet, we were following the trajectory and looking for
23 traces in the said facility. Only when we would find the second point
24 that could be linked up to the first one, in terms of the damage caused
25 by the bullet, it was only then that we could stretch the string. We
1 called that "viziranje." So that string or that twiglet that was used to
2 show where the bullet went, that could only be done if we had two or more
3 points. If we had just one point, if we had just a single piece of
4 damage on a window, for instance, it would not be possible to do that,
5 and it would not be possible to establish the origin of the gun-shot.
6 Then we would have to talk about a wide range of possibilities, in terms
7 of where that bullet could have come from.
8 Q. Before we get to the specifics of this particular incident: Is
9 it the case, yes or no, that sometimes an optical device is used, as well
10 as a string, in the investigation of sniping incidents?
11 A. Nowadays, that is a perfectly normal thing. But at the time when
12 I investigated these incidents, our technical abilities were very
13 limited. We did not have the resources that are used today when carrying
14 out these investigations.
15 Q. Turning to the specific incident, the killing of
16 Jasmina Tabakovic, you say in your statement that the bullet entered
17 through a plastic sheet. And we can bring up the photographs, if you
18 want, but could you describe to Their Honours approximately how big the
19 penetration hole would have been?
20 A. Well, since these are plastic sheets that were used instead of
21 glass, because glass had been shattered during the shelling, damage on
22 that plastic sheet could have been 1 centimetre, at a maximum. It's been
23 a long time now, but I think that the photo file shows this,
24 1 centimetre, maximum, unless the plastic sheet was completely torn. But
25 I think that the circle was up to 1 centimetre in diametre.
1 Q. Turning now to the impact point of the bullet on the wall,
2 approximately how big was that impact point?
3 A. Since it's a hard surface, I think - it's not that I think; I'm
4 sure - the damage would have to be bigger, because when the wall is hit,
5 then mortar crumbles, and also the concrete that was behind the wardrobe
6 that the bullet had hit.
7 MR. GAYNOR: Could I bring up the exhibit, not to be broadcast,
8 D973. I'd like to go to one of the photographs that you took of this
9 incident which shows the size of one of the penetration points, and I'd
10 like to see photo number 7. That should be the 10th page of this.
11 If we could just hone in on the lower photograph, please.
12 Q. Could you describe which of the points this is?
13 A. The caption shows that the damage was caused by the bullet
14 hitting the wardrobe, and that is marked with the number 6. It's a
15 terrible photocopy, but I think that there is a dark area above the
16 number 6 that actually shows the damage done by the bullet.
17 Q. Now, could you explain for Their Honours the process of taking a
18 string and taking it from this point to the point of penetration in the
19 plastic sheeting? Is that what you did, or could you just explain
20 exactly what you did?
21 A. When we entered the room where the incident occurred, the room
22 was visually observed. What was observed was that on the plastic sheet,
23 there was damage caused by the bullet. As we further investigated in the
24 room, we realised that the wardrobe was damaged as well. Before the
25 wardrobe was moved, and that was done subsequently, this measurement was
1 taken. Only when the wardrobe was removed, and it was against the wall,
2 not exactly against the wall, there were a few centimetres in between, we
3 saw that there was damage on the other side of the wardrobe and in the
4 wall, itself. As far as I can remember, and that is contained in my
5 report, the bullet stopped in the wall, and that's where we actually
6 found it.
7 So all of these points, starting from the penetration point on
8 the plastic sheet, and then hitting the wardrobe, and the other side of
9 the wardrobe, and then the wall, all of that is along a single line; how
10 the bullet went through that room, that is.
11 Q. And just tell us how you came to the conclusion that the bullet
12 had come from Dobrinja on the basis of the observation of those points.
13 How exactly did you come to that conclusion? From Dobrinja 1, I should
15 A. On the basis of all of these points, we established that these
16 were fresh traces. It's only when we removed the wardrobe and when we
17 saw the damage on the wall, itself, that is, the final destination of the
18 bullet, and we also saw the penetration point on the plastic sheet, that
19 was the original point of damage. So when we brought those two together,
20 and when we looked at the string stretched between the two, we saw the
21 building that we had discussed. So after the visual protection was
22 removed - I'm referring to the blinds that were there - that building
23 showed up. A photograph was rapidly taken, of that location, that is.
24 Because of safety reasons, we could not establish the exact area,
25 although this was quite sufficient to determine the roof of the building,
1 or a window on the building, or some other location. However, in
2 agreement with the other members of the team, it was deemed sufficient to
3 take a photograph of the building from which the bullet had come into
4 this room.
5 Q. Thank you. And now I just want to deal with a second point
6 dealing with this incident.
7 Mr. Karadzic drew your attention to the fact that the trajectory
8 of the bullet was upwards. So the initial point of entry was at
9 116 centimetres, you measured, and the point of impact on the wall was
10 132 centimetres, which means it travelled a vertical distance of
11 16 centimetres while it was in the room. Do you recall that?
12 A. Yes, I do recall that. It is true that all these measurements
13 are not in my report. That is to say, from the moment when the bullet
14 went through the plastic sheet until it stopped in the wall, it was
15 moving upwards.
16 Q. Yes. Your report is actually quite specific on this.
17 Now, Witness, could you tell us how long, approximately, the room
18 was from the point of impact -- from the point of entry to the point of
19 impact, to the best of your recollection?
20 A. Up to five metres, maximum.
21 Q. Very well. Now, Witness, I won't take you or the Court through
22 this in great detail, but if I were to say to you, and I'll invite the
23 Defence to agree this, if the length of the room was five metres and the
24 bullet travelled a vertical distance of 16 centimetres, then the angle of
25 the bullet's trajectory was 1.83 degrees, that was the upward movement of
1 the bullet, Witness, I won't necessarily ask you to agree with that, but
2 do you have any reason to disagree with it?
3 A. I think that the angle was a very small one. Now, how big it
4 actually was, I cannot say exactly. However, in terms of the height at
5 where the bullet entered, and if we take into account how big the room
6 was, say five metres, the angle was quite small. It went upward, and the
7 angle was small.
8 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you, Mr. President. No further questions.
9 Thank you, Mr. Witness.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I? May I just put one question
11 to the witness?
12 JUDGE KWON: If you could tell us what the question is in
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, in view of the housing
15 situation in our part of the world, there were never bedrooms that were
16 five metres long in our part of the world. A living-room could be
17 five metres long, but not a bedroom. A bedroom would contain one or
18 two beds, and that would be it. And it's very important to see how big
19 this angle is, to see that it did go upwards. And if there were to be a
20 difference of only 2 degrees, the picture obtained is quite different.
21 JUDGE KWON: It's not for you to give evidence, Mr. Karadzic.
22 Mr. Gaynor, what --
23 MR. GAYNOR: Yes, I quite agree, Mr. President. And, simply so
24 the Defence might be able to agree something on this, if the room was as
25 short as three metres, the angle would have been 3.05 degrees. If it had
1 been four metres long, the angle would have been 2.29 degrees. Thank
3 JUDGE KWON: Do you have any comment, Mr. Witness, as to the size
4 of the room?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've already said that the maximum
6 was up to five metres.
7 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Witness.
8 That concludes your evidence, and on behalf of the Tribunal and
9 the Bench, I thank you very much for your coming to The Hague to give it.
10 So now you are free to go, and please have a safe journey back home. But
11 before that, please wait until we draw the curtain.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
13 [The witness withdrew]
14 JUDGE KWON: Shall we open up the curtains.
15 Given the time, it would be impractical to call the next witness.
16 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: That's correct, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE KWON: There are three matters to deal with before we
18 adjourn for today.
19 Who will be leading evidence of Mr. Hogan?
20 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: This will be Mr. Hayden.
21 JUDGE KWON: I looked at his 92 ter statement briefly, which is a
22 document of only two pages to which are attached two schedules, which
23 seem to be a kind of result of his investigation as regards the F and
24 G incidents, and I take it he's going to produce several exhibits. So I
25 wonder whether he needs to be classified as a 92 ter witness. As a
1 matter of fact, there will be no difference between leading him viva voce
2 in its entirety and introducing him as a Rule 92 ter witness.
3 Yes, anybody could answer the question.
4 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: The only thing is that in the statement, he
5 may refer and give already details in relation to certain exhibits. But
6 you are correct, Your Honour, it will not make a big difference.
7 JUDGE KWON: So he can introduce that exhibit as a live witness.
8 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE KWON: So that witness will be lead live, viva voce.
10 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
12 And the next issue is related to the request of Mr. Karadzic to
13 have Dr. Subotic during his evidence.
14 We considered the matter, and, in conclusion, we do not consider
15 it necessary or appropriate for Mr. Karadzic to have the assistance of
16 someone with Dr. Subotic's expertise during that testimony of Mr. Hogan,
17 given the nature of his anticipated evidence.
18 We note that an intended assistant to Mr. Karadzic in relation to
19 this witness, Mr. Hogan, is not as an expert, and that Mr. Karadzic has
20 other options available, such as requesting OLAD to bring Mr. Sladojevic
21 back from his trip early so that he can provide the accused with the
22 support that he normally receives. Should Mr. Karadzic wish to replace
23 Mr. Sladojevic or one of his other Defence team members with Dr. Subotic,
24 that is a matter for Mr. Karadzic to discuss with OLAD.
25 Therefore, we will, on an exceptional basis, permit the presence
1 of Dr. Subotic in the courtroom for Mr. Hogan's evidence, but on the
2 understanding that this creates no additional financial implications for
3 the Tribunal's Registry.
4 For the next matter, we need to go into private session.
5 [Private session] [Confidentiality lifted by order of Chamber]
6 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Tieger, the next issue relates to Dr. Zecevic.
7 I take it you received the information which is contained in the
8 memorandum of service.
9 MR. TIEGER: Yes, Your Honour, we did.
10 I'd also note that Mr. Gaynor is present, who has also dealt
11 directly with that, so we have -- and Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff -- are in the
12 best position at this point to answer the Court's inquiries.
13 JUDGE KWON: At this moment, we find it helpful to hear from the
14 Prosecution, what you consider should happen next, in light of the
15 development; in particular, the information in the memorandum of service.
16 Yes, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff.
17 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, the two issues that are very
18 distinct is, first, the health issue that he raises. I think that can be
19 easily overcome by granting the video conference request that we have
20 made. Although the medical documentation is from April last year, people
21 know that back problems are long-lasting, and, therefore, I think that
22 can be overcome by the videolink -- granting a videolink.
23 In relation to the dissatisfaction that he was -- in relation to
24 the fact that he has to testify yet again before this Tribunal, we have
25 tried to explain to him why that is necessary, and that his earlier
1 testimonies cannot replace that entirely, but he did not seem to be open
2 to our remarks on this topic. Therefore, my -- I have a very practical
3 solution, I think, whether that's at all possible.
4 If the President of this Trial Chamber would write to him a
5 personal letter, explaining it to him again why it is necessary that the
6 Trial Chamber hears from him in person, it may be that Mr. Zecevic
7 changes his mind. Otherwise, I see no other option as to enforce the
9 JUDGE KWON: By writing a letter, do you mean that this Chamber
10 exploring of the possibility of him coming as a Chamber witness?
11 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: That would probably change his mind, that's
12 correct. But I was actually thinking about explaining to him, in a
13 letter, why it is necessary that the Trial Chamber has to hear from him,
14 and that he has to give testimony again, and why, at this point in time,
15 nobody can actually grant him the requests that -- the conditions that he
16 has imposed. You may remember that he has asked for 180 minutes'
17 testimony altogether, actually allowing him to do that now, already
18 granting it now, and we have tried to explain to him that this is not an
19 option that we have, as the Prosecution, but we would inform the
20 Trial Chamber of his request. But he still seems to maintain that the
21 Prosecution is unwilling to follow his requests, and I think that may be
22 one of the reasons why he is so dissatisfied. And it seems that we
23 cannot reach him with our arguments any longer. That was actually the
24 thinking that I had.
25 JUDGE KWON: Having heard his submission, that he was minded to
1 come to The Hague, but he would give his evidence only for three hours,
2 why not call him to come over to The Hague instead of hearing him via
3 videolink, given the opposition from the Defence?
4 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I only noticed that he again stressed the
5 fact that he can only sit for 20 minutes at a time, and travelling here
6 would definitely include a longer sitting time. That was only my concern
7 about his health issues.
8 JUDGE KWON: What did he say? He could sit for 20 minutes and he
9 needs 60 minutes walking or practice exercise?
10 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, that's what he says here in the letter
11 that was attached to the filing, 20 minutes sitting at a time and
12 afterwards a need for a 60 minutes' walk.
13 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Robinson, do you have any observation to make on
15 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. President.
16 With respect to the request for a letter, we don't have any
17 objection to that. We note that the Chamber has written letters on our
18 behalf on a few occasions to Mr. Tudjman and even before this Chamber
19 came on, Judge Bonomy wrote a very strong letter to Carl Bildt which
20 encouraged him to meet with us. So it has worked in the past, and if it
21 can work this time, short of other enforcement methods, we don't have any
22 problem with the Chamber doing that if it's minded to do that.
23 With respect to the videolink, we are very strongly opposed to
24 that and we'd prefer that their other options be explored, such as
25 bringing him to The Hague or postponing his testimony until his back is
1 better, because we still have another year of Prosecution witnesses to
2 hear. And this witness, given the importance of his testimony, we really
3 feel that this is a situation where videolink would disadvantage us on a
4 very practical level.
5 JUDGE KWON: I'm just putting this hypothetically.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The transcript doesn't say that we
7 are strongly opposed to videolink. Please.
8 JUDGE KWON: We understood that.
9 In case the witness refuses every option, it is still the opinion
10 of the Prosecution that it would be useful to arrest him and bring him to
11 The Hague or to the Liaison Office?
12 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour, but Mr. Gaynor spoke to
13 him, actually, recently. Perhaps he can add one issue in relation to the
14 videolink conference.
15 JUDGE KWON: By all means. But we have to go out of the
16 courtroom very soon.
17 Yes, Mr. Gaynor.
18 MR. GAYNOR: Yes. Simply to put the point that he is
19 simultaneously putting forth the position that he does have serious
20 health concerns and that he is willing to travel to The Hague if his
21 demands, as he describes them, are met. So he has not, himself,
22 expressed a great enthusiasm for the concept of a videolink, but that
23 is -- that, to me and to many of us, has seemed to be the logical answer.
24 But he has spoken, himself, about travelling to The Hague.
25 JUDGE KWON: Thank you for that information.
1 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
2 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
3 JUDGE BAIRD: In point of fact, Mr. Gaynor, not only has he
4 spoken about travelling to The Hague, but he tended to play down his
5 illness, didn't he? One formed the impression that it wasn't -- the
6 illness wasn't that important, but isn't that your impression?
7 MR. GAYNOR: Well, it's one of the reasons he puts forth now as
8 to exactly which is the determining reason for his lack of co-operation.
9 To be honest, we haven't been able to fully establish that ourselves.
10 JUDGE BAIRD: Which one.
11 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you.
12 JUDGE KWON: Very well. We go back to open session.
13 Yes, Mr. Robinson, in the private session or open session?
14 MR. ROBINSON: Open session.
15 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
16 [Open session]
17 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we are now in open session.
18 Mr. Robinson.
19 MR. ROBINSON: Mr. President, just for one second to advise you
20 yesterday we filed simultaneous documents with respect to Venezuela, and
21 we will withdraw our request for a hearing in light of the
22 Trial Chamber's third invitation. Thank you.
23 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. That's done.
24 So we'll hear tomorrow Mr. Rechner's evidence, tomorrow at 9.00.
25 So the hearing is now adjourned for today.
1 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.48 p.m.,
2 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 2nd day of
3 February, 2011, at 9.00 a.m.