Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 5910

 1                           Friday, 7 December 2012

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.34 a.m.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning to everyone in and around this

 6     courtroom.

 7             Madam Registrar, could you please call the case.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.  This is case

 9     IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

11             Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.

12                           [The witness takes the stand]

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning, Mr. Fraser.

14             THE WITNESS:  Good morning.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  I'd like to remind you that you're still bound by

16     the solemn declaration you have given at the beginning of your testimony

17     the day before yesterday.

18                                WITNESS:  DAVID FRASER [Resumed]

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, if you're ready to continue your

20     cross-examination, you're invited to do so.

21             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

22                           Cross-examination by Mr. Ivetic:  [Continued]

23        Q.   Good morning, General.

24        A.   Good morning.

25        Q.   I'd take to take up where we left off yesterday, and I'd like to

Page 5911

 1     ask you would you agree that it is legitimate always to attack enemy

 2     fighters regardless of where they happen to be even when they are

 3     organising a football match near the front lines?

 4        A.   I would agree that it is legitimate to attack enemy fighters.

 5     Regardless where they happen to be is something that I would question,

 6     but if they were having a football match and they were legitimate

 7     fighters, that would be -- that would be okay.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  The question was when they were organising a

 9     football match, not whether they were having a football match.

10             THE WITNESS:  If they were -- yes.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  So organising a football match perhaps played by the

12     youth or --

13             THE WITNESS:  Your Honour, that's why I was saying I would

14     question where -- regardless where they are, it's where they are -- if

15     they were just fighters that were having a football match together,

16     fighters with warriors with warriors, that would be fine, but if they

17     were working with civilians or something that would not be legitimate.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  It would depend on the circumstances.

19             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.

21             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you.

22        Q.   Can you tell me, sir, have you ever heard are you familiar with a

23     US military doctrine called the overwhelming force doctrine?

24        A.   I am not.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Bolton.

Page 5912

 1             MS. BOLTON:  It's irrelevant now that the witness has answered as

 2     he has.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Your objection is moot.

 4             Please proceed.

 5             MR. IVETIC:

 6        Q.   Are you familiar, sir, with the United States Army War College in

 7     Carlisle, Pennsylvania?

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Bolton.

 9             MS. BOLTON:  I object to the relevance of that question,

10     Your Honour.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic.

12             MR. IVETIC:  It's leading into a document that I'm going to be

13     using that was authored by that institution, Your Honours.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay, well, let's see whether the document is

15     relevant.  Does it make that much of a difference whether he's familiar

16     with it?

17             MR. IVETIC:  I think it helps us put into context his views on

18     proportionality and that he's testified to in this trial.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Come to your point as quickly as possible and let's

20     see what happens.

21             MR. IVETIC:  Fair enough.  If we can call up 1D460.

22        Q.   Sir, the document that we are waiting for on the screen is an

23     article from the spring 2009 publication of "Parameters" which is the

24     United States Army senior professional journal published by the

25     United States Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, and as we can

Page 5913

 1     see it's entitled "The End of Proportionality" by Jonathan F. Keiler.

 2     And if we can turn to page 2 on the screen, I'd like to focus on the

 3     second -- the first full paragraph on that on that screen that's on the

 4     top half of the page and it begins --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask you, Witness, are you familiar with this

 6     publication?

 7             THE WITNESS:  I am familiar with the publication, yes I am.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.

 9             MR. IVETIC:

10        Q.   And I will now read for you, sir, it says:

11             "American doctrine does acknowledge the concept of

12     proportionality.  Field manual (FM) 27-10 the law of land warfare

13     specifies:  'Those who plan or decide upon an attack, therefore, must

14     take all reasonable steps to ensure that the objectives are identified as

15     military objectives or defended places within the meaning of the

16     preceding paragraph but also that these objectives may be attacked

17     without probable losses in lives and damage to property disproportionate

18     to the military advantage gained.'  The reference to the manual's

19     preceding paragraph (chapter 2, paragraph 40) is noteworthy.  There the

20     list of acceptable targets is rather broad, including defended cities and

21     towns, factories, warehouses, ports, railroads, and other places that

22     offer an enemy a military advantage or accommodation, all venues that by

23     their very nature could have large civilian populations.  The

24     proportionality rule does not negate attacks on such facilities so long

25     as a reasonable military necessity exists and that necessity can be

Page 5914

 1     reasonably balanced against anticipated civilian casualties."

 2             Sir, I want to ask you were you aware of these concepts and this

 3     field manual from the United States Army and the concept of a defended

 4     city when preparing your statement for this trial?

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Bolton.

 6             MS. BOLTON:  I object on the basis of relevance, Your Honour.

 7     Two reasons:  First of all, we're not dealing here with American doctrine

 8     and what the American field manual has to say.  And secondly, this

 9     article is from 2009 so the quoted portions are the manual as it existed

10     at that time.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

12             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours, the manual's dated 1945.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  The objection is overruled.  This witness has

14     expressed himself on many occasions on -- on what was legitimate, what

15     was not, what was proportionate, whatnot, and that may be explored by

16     Mr. Ivetic.  Please proceed.

17             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

18        Q.   Sir, again I ask you were you aware of these principles and the

19     principle of a defended city and this field manual of the US Army when

20     making your statement in these proceedings?

21        A.   Just to be clear, this manual as written in 1945?

22        Q.   The original FM is dated 1945 -- 1955.  I apologise.

23        A.   I was not aware of the manual.  I'm aware of the periodical that

24     this author is writing in, and therefore I'm not -- I was not -- I've not

25     read the American law of land warfare.  I am educate and trained in the

Page 5915

 1     Canadian and NATO law.

 2        Q.   Does the Canadian and/or NATO law include a concept of a defended

 3     city being an appropriate target for a fire mission?

 4        A.   No.

 5        Q.   Under your -- strike that.  I would like to ask you if you're

 6     familiar with General Vahid Karavelic?

 7        A.   No.

 8        Q.   If I --

 9        A.   Okay.  Sorry.  Is -- are you referring to the commander of the

10     1st Bosnian corps in Sarajevo?

11        Q.   Yes, I am, sir.

12        A.   I am familiar with him.

13        Q.   If we can call up document 1D00468 in e-court.  And while we wait

14     for that, sir, this is the witness statement of General Karavelic given

15     in 2001 to the Office of the Prosecutor of the Tribunal, and I would be

16     interested in page 12 of the same in e-court of the section entitled,

17     "Artillery tactics of the SRK."  It's at the second half the screen and,

18     sir, you can perhaps follow along with me where it is recorded there that

19     General Karavelic said:

20             "The SRK seemed to use the standard types of barrage, rolling,

21     protective fire, selective fire and concentrations.  I did not notice a

22     reduction in the intensity of artillery fire during the period.  They

23     probably used the standard JNA doctrine of retaining a 'unit of fire' for

24     each weapon as a reserve and requested resupply before this 'unit of

25     fire' was touched."

Page 5916

 1             Sir, at any time you were in Sarajevo did General Karavelic ever

 2     make such statements known to you about the artillery tactics of the SRK?

 3        A.   I don't recall him ever mentioning that to me, no.

 4        Q.   Would you agree with me that you would have to defer to

 5     General Karavelic as to the types of artillery doctrine that were

 6     standard in the JNA?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   Just a few more questions, sir.  Do you consider that a member of

 9     an armed force, that is to say a combatant, ceases to be one once he

10     removes his uniform?

11        A.   In what context?

12        Q.   In the context of being a potential target of a fire mission to

13     liquidate or to neutralise or to defend from?

14        A.   That would be a difficult question to answer, because again the

15     context is important to determine if positive identification of that

16     individual can be made.  Positive identification.

17        Q.   Let me ask it this way:  In situations where a combatant cannot

18     distinguish himself from the civilian population but carries his arms

19     openly during deployments and engagements, would they still be considered

20     a legitimate target?

21        A.   First of all, if there is any doubt into the determination if

22     this person is combatant or not then it behooves the person that has the

23     ability to fire not to fire if there is doubt.  Positive identification

24     is required.

25        Q.   [Overlapping speakers] would openly carrying arms be positive

Page 5917

 1     identification?

 2        A.   The fact that somebody is carrying a weapon in by itself may not

 3     constitute a requirement to engage unless that person is posing an

 4     imminent threat or danger to whoever is pulling the trigger.  The fact

 5     that someone is carrying a weapon in the context of Sarajevo, a lot of

 6     people did, but what is the requirement, what is the military necessity

 7     to engage that person?  It becomes very -- this is a complicated question

 8     he's asking.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Let's move on, Mr. Ivetic.  We are not here to

10     have a conversation about all kind of relevant facts on the theoretical

11     level, but we're here to focus on what the witness observed and sometimes

12     how he experienced that, but then on the ground when he was in Sarajevo.

13     Let's proceed.

14             MR. IVETIC:  Okay.

15        Q.   Am I to understand your testimony to mean that no fire mission

16     should be undertaken unless there can be guaranteed a zero per cent

17     possibility of collateral damage?

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, did you not hear my guidance on the last

19     question?  You're just continuing.

20             MR. IVETIC:  [Overlapping speakers]

21             JUDGE ORIE:  [Overlapping speakers] Okay, but at the same

22     abstract and theoretical level and that's what I tried to avoid at this

23     moment.

24             MR. IVETIC:  I apologise, Your Honours, but this witness

25     statement is on this topic, and so I believe I'm entitled to --

Page 5918

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, always in the context of what he experienced in

 2     Sarajevo, isn't it?

 3             MR. IVETIC:  Actually, no.  I believe on proportionality he's

 4     talking generals.  He's not -- he's talking of principles and the formula

 5     that he believes needs to be used before a fire mission is undertaken.

 6     So I believe it is theoretical in this sense.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  I think he discusses that in the context of his

 8     testimony, but if you understood your own testimony to give theoretical

 9     positions in general not linked to your experience, Mr. Fraser, please

10     tell us.

11             THE WITNESS:  Your Honour, my answers in the context of Sarajevo,

12     in the context of the educational training foundation that I had at the

13     time, the rules and regulations in the context of that time for that

14     theatre.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Would you please focus your questions on that,

16     Mr. Ivetic.

17             MR. IVETIC:  I will.

18        Q.   In the context of Sarajevo, sir, is it your position that no fire

19     mission could be undertaken unless there was a zero per cent possibility

20     of collateral damage?

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, it don't help by just adding a kind of a

22     formula.  You understand that.

23             MR. IVETIC:  But he has a formula.  The Prosecution has presented

24     a formula, Your Honours.  Are we going to disregard his testimony from

25     the Prosecution?  If that is the case then I have no questions.

Page 5919

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  In some respects where he gives general sweeping

 2     statements, the Chamber might be hesitant to give weight to that, yes, if

 3     that's what you're asking for.

 4             MR. IVETIC:  Okay.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Carefully consider to what extent general

 6     theoretical statements and to what extent it is linked to his experience

 7     in Sarajevo.  By the way, zero per cent, the question, I'd say guarantee

 8     zero per cent in life, Mr. Ivetic, I'd like to know exactly where we -- I

 9     get the zero per cent guarantees on whatever subject, not only in

10     military matters.  Please proceed.

11             MR. IVETIC:  Okay.

12        Q.   Sir, at page 9 of today's transcript, temporary transcript,

13     line 2, you are quoted as saying that your answer are in the context of

14     Sarajevo in the context of the educational training foundation that you

15     had at the time, the rules and regulations and the context of that time

16     for that theatre.  Could you tell me what rules and regulations that

17     existed at that time for that theatre identified the acceptable

18     percentage or level of collateral damage upon which you were relying in

19     testifying here today?

20        A.   The question was not about percentage.  It was a factor in

21     consideration in engagement.  First of all, military necessity; secondly

22     is proportionality; third, collateral damage.  And this is not a black

23     and white.  It was a very complex issue that all people on the ground,

24     Muslim, Serbian and UN had to consider.  And I have been consistent in my

25     testimony as to saying one warring faction engaging another warring

Page 5920

 1     faction within those context, that was something that the UN would watch

 2     and only comment as required and we have shown here in evidence of some

 3     balanced reporting.

 4             I understand the difficulty of warring factions trying to fight

 5     each other when they're in the middle of a city of noncombatants which

 6     makes the task of both sides exceptionally difficult, which makes even

 7     the analysis of those three criteria that I talk about even more

 8     important for them to make sure that the effects that they are trying to

 9     instill on each other is limited to each other and not to the

10     noncombatants in surrounding the warring factions difficult.

11             MR. IVETIC:  General, I thank you for your time.

12             Your Honours, I have no further questions for this witness at

13     this time.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Ivetic.

15             Ms. Bolton, do you have any further questions for the witness in

16     re-examination?

17             MS. BOLTON:  I do.  Thank you.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Proceed.

19                           Re-examination by Ms. Bolton:

20        Q.   With respect, General, to the document that's still on the screen

21     before you, the third paragraph underneath "Artillery tactics of the

22     SRK," begins with the statement:

23             "It was very difficult to engage in counter battery fire against

24     the SRK gun batteries.  Our mortars were generally out of range and could

25     not reach their positions."

Page 5921

 1             And this is the General Karavelic speaking about the ABiH mortars

 2     in the city, I take it.  Is that consistent with your observations of the

 3     Sarajevo theatre?

 4        A.   It was.

 5        Q.   I'm going to move on to an issue that was raised with you on your

 6     very first day of testimony cross-examination, which had to do with

 7     munitions depots, storage facilities, and production factories for the

 8     military, and in answering questions about whether those would constitute

 9     legitimate military targets, you responded hypothetically that they

10     would.  And why -- can I ask you, did you have any knowledge of the

11     existence of any military production or storage facilities for ammunition

12     and weapons within the city?

13        A.   I'd heard about them, but I did not have any personal knowledge

14     of where they were.

15        Q.   And when investigating shelling incidents in the city - and when

16     I say "when" I mean by UNPROFOR - did you ever see any evidence or were

17     there any reports where there seemed to be evidence that perhaps a

18     munitions factory had been hit?

19        A.   There were no reports that I either read or heard about of a

20     possible munition factory being part of that engagement, no.

21        Q.   And if you were successful in hitting a factory, a munitions

22     factory with one or two mortar shells, would that be effective in

23     destroying a building?

24        A.   The use of a mortar to engage a building is -- has marginal

25     effect just because of the size of the round.  So the chances of

Page 5922

 1     destroying or seriously damaging a building are questionable, but if it

 2     was a munitions building, the possibility of a secondary explosion if a

 3     round was able to succeed, it would have been significant, and again I

 4     don't recall of any incidents of any secondary explosions that would

 5     indicate something more than what was on the ground.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Bolton, I gave some guidance to Mr. Ivetic.

 7     That guidance is relevant for you as well.

 8             MS. BOLTON:  Yes.  Thank you, sir.  I'm going to move to the

 9     questioning of excerpts from General Rose's information report, which was

10     1D or ID004213.  I'm content to -- if -- simply put the propositions to

11     the witness unless you want the documents displayed, Your Honour.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

13             MR. IVETIC:  For the record, it's 1D423.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  We always prefer to have the text before us,

15     but this being clarified --

16             MS. BOLTON:  Thank you.  Could we please go to page 5 in both

17     documents.  Could you try page 6 in the B/C/S.  My apologies.  Sorry,

18     page 4.  I apologise, Your Honour.  I couldn't get this document to open

19     this morning for me.  Perhaps I'll just read the passage into the record

20     if that's acceptable, Your Honour.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  I'd like to follow the context as well.  Could you

22     find the page.

23             MS. BOLTON:  It is page 5 in the English, Your Honour.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

25             MS. BOLTON:  And the passage I wish to ask about simply is that

Page 5923

 1     passage at the beginning of paragraph 2.  General Rose -- we had

 2     discussed yesterday in your evidence your feelings and some quotes from

 3     General Rose about the UNMOs, and paragraph 2 of page 5 of his

 4     information report he has stated that:

 5             "Thomas was an excellent UNMO, outstanding, very hard working and

 6     committed."

 7             And I'm wondering you had said that you knew Mr. Thomas.  Do you

 8     agree or disagree with that assessment.

 9        A.   I agree with that assessment.  Roy Thomas did an awful lot of

10     work to bridge the gap between the UNMO organisation and Sector Sarajevo.

11     He worked very hard, very professional.

12        Q.   And was he successful --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  This is found on page 7 at the bottom in B/C/S.

14             MS. BOLTON:  Thank you, Your Honour.

15        Q.   And was he able in his -- during his tenure to improve the

16     quality of the UNMO reporting at all?

17        A.   I think there was a marginal improvement in the quality of

18     reporting with his insistence on proper formatting, proper details to the

19     reports.

20        Q.   Okay.  You were also asked about a passage in General Rose's

21     statement about General Ganic having a secret police to snipe at trams.

22     And I would like to show you an excerpt from his subsequent evidence

23     under oath in the Karadzic proceedings.

24             MS. BOLTON:  And that document is identified as ID -- sorry,

25     1D0045 -- it's actually, I think, a portion of his transcript,

Page 5924

 1     Your Honour, that has not been uploaded by the Defence.  I could give the

 2     page references, which are 7334 to 7335 of that transcript.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  But the Chamber would like to have it before it.

 4             MS. BOLTON:  Yes.  I just wondering if there's another way to

 5     access it.  Ms. Stewart, I think, is going to assist.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Bolton, what was again the day of that

 7     testimony?

 8             MS. BOLTON:  May I have a brief indulgence, Your Honour.  I'm

 9     sorry.

10                           [Prosecution counsel and Case Manager confer]

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Bolton, if you --

12             MS. BOLTON:  I'll have to come back to that area, Your Honour

13     [overlapping speakers].

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, if you please proceed.  Could you meanwhile --

15             MS. BOLTON:  [Overlapping speakers] I'm having trouble locating

16     that.  My apologies.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you meanwhile -- do you know the date of that

18     testimony?

19             MS. BOLTON:  I've just written down the transcript numbers,

20     Your Honour, and I've obviously written down the wrong numbers.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but is that the same transcript or the same

22     testimony, the same day as the portions Mr. Ivetic referred to?

23             MS. BOLTON:  It -- the transcript numbers I've written down are

24     transcript numbers in the 7.000 range, which clearly must be wrong.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  But is it the same day?  That's -- because you said

Page 5925

 1     it's not in the selection by Mr. Ivetic, so I wondered whether it's the

 2     same day or a different day.

 3             MS. BOLTON:  Without -- I didn't write down the date, just the

 4     transcript page numbers, so I don't know which of the two days it is.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  That's clear.  If you please would try to find out.

 6             MS. BOLTON:  Yes, my apologies, Your Honour.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  And it was in the Karadzic case?

 8             MS. BOLTON:  I have written down that it was Dr. Karadzic who

 9     posed the question.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  We'll have a look.  And it was -- the witness

11     was General Rose.

12             MR. IVETIC:  If I can clarify, the -- the 1D numbers that are in

13     evidence I believe are only General Fraser's testimony.  So if it's

14     General Rose who is testifying to which I'm aware of, it's not going to

15     be the 1D numbers.  They are not going to be the same transcript.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.

17             MS. BOLTON:  Thank you.  No, that was very helpful.  Thank you,

18     Mr. Ivetic.  It is actually -- I was trying to refer to a portion of

19     General Rose's testimony and so I have been looking in the wrong spot.

20     The page numbers are correct and we will get General Rose's testimony

21     then.  Thank you very much.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed meanwhile.

23             MS. BOLTON:  I'm told by Ms. Stewart that we're going to show it

24     in Sanction.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  As long as we can see it, it certainly helps.

Page 5926

 1             MS. BOLTON:  Could you scroll up, please.  Yes.  It starts at the

 2     bottom on line 24, Your Honours.

 3        Q.   Dr. Karadzic says:

 4             "Since we are talking about this, General, do you remember that

 5     Ejub Ganic had organised secret police that sniped the trams in Sarajevo

 6     and all those incidents were supposed to be assigned to the Serbian side,

 7     the Serbs were to be blamed for all that [sic]?

 8             "A.  Well, as I explained before, we had no

 9     intelligence-gathering capability, so I wouldn't be -- have been at the

10     time able to confirm or deny such an allegation and I certainly can't do

11     so today."

12             Was it correct, sir, that UNPROFOR had no intelligence-gathering

13     capability?

14        A.   That is correct.  Because we were the UN we did not do that.

15        Q.   And are you aware that there was never -- I think you testified

16     you weren't aware that there were even allegations of this secret police;

17     is that correct?

18        A.   I've never heard anything about that, no.

19        Q.   Thank you.  At page 5839 of the transcript of these proceedings,

20     your evidence yesterday, you were asked the question:

21             "Would you agree with me that the inspection of these convoys,"

22     and this was in the context of humanitarian convoys, "by the Serbs, by

23     the VRS, was a legitimate and appropriate function to determine if

24     weapons or munitions or other contraband was present in the same?"

25             And you answered:

Page 5927

 1             "Theoretically, but it never materialised that way.  Our

 2     experience was - and I stand by my statement - the freedom of movement

 3     and those convoys, Serbs overplayed that comment that you just gave me,

 4     that question."

 5             What did you mean when you said the Serbs overplayed that

 6     comment?

 7        A.   We experienced a severe restriction of movement for the UN and

 8     humanitarian convoys into the enclaves and Sarajevo.  Many excuses were

 9     used why there was a restriction of movement, but the -- ultimately the

10     humanity aid ear-marked for noncombatants was being restricted and that

11     was as a result of Serbian action.

12        Q.   And were you ever aware of actually there being a founded

13     allegation of weapons in a humanitarian aid convoy?

14        A.   I don't recall ever hearing about any weapons being found on a

15     convoy, and I've only testified against the one incident where the French

16     were moving ammunition around.

17        Q.   And that was an allegation?

18        A.   That was an allegation.  It was for somebody else, but it was for

19     French use, and we talked about that yesterday.

20        Q.   While we're on the topic of humanitarian aid delivery, could you

21     tell me whether the International Committee of the Red Cross was involved

22     in delivering humanitarian aid in Bosnia?

23        A.   I think they were, but because it was the Red Cross, they were

24     very particular to keep their distance away from us because they had to

25     show and be impartial to all parties.  Therefore, they were not

Page 5928

 1     associated with one -- with the UN or us.  They kept their distance in

 2     order for them to execute their mandate for all people of Bosnia.

 3             MS. BOLTON:  May I please have Exhibit P587.

 4        Q.   You will recall this document was discussed with you yesterday,

 5     sir.  It's the order of General Mladic from the 10th of April, 1994, and

 6     if on the English version we could please go to page 2.

 7             Do you recall yesterday you were cross-examined about

 8     paragraph 4, which refers to the portion of the order where the VRS was

 9     ordered to immediately block all UNPROFOR and humanitarian organisations

10     convoys and their teams which happened to be in the Republika Srpska

11     territory.  Remove and secure the convoys and bring in the personnel and

12     secure them at a safe place.  Do not treat them roughly in the process.

13             Would the personnel of humanitarian organisations, were they

14     combatants?

15        A.   Nobody in the UN were combatants, no.

16        Q.   And would there -- they played any role whatsoever in the

17     decision to call in or request NATO air-strikes?

18        A.   None whatsoever.

19             MS. BOLTON:  May I have 65 ter 08594, please.

20        Q.   This is an order issued by deputy commander

21     Colonel Milutin Skocajic on the 10th of April, 1994, which is the same

22     day as the order we had just been looking at.  It's issued to all units,

23     and you will note that item number 3 is a reference to blocking all

24     UNPROFOR convoys on the spot, disarming them, take them to a collection

25     centre at a designated location and place them under control of our

Page 5929

 1     units.  If they resist, use force as you would against any other enemy.

 2             You were asked yesterday -- you commented on the previous order

 3     that had said not to treat them roughly.  Can I ask when you refer to

 4     using force against any other enemy, was first of all the UNPROFOR

 5     personnel an enemy of the Republika Srpska?

 6             MR. IVETIC:  Objection.  Calls for speculation as to how the

 7     Army of Republika Srpska regarded other entities.

 8             MS. BOLTON:

 9        Q.   Were you --

10             JUDGE ORIE:  You're rephrasing your question, I take it,

11     Ms. Bolton.

12             MS. BOLTON:  I am.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, please do so.

14             MS. BOLTON:

15        Q.   Were you -- as far as you were concerned were you combatants in

16     this conflict?

17        A.   UNPROFOR was not a combatant.  We had no dispute with either

18     warring faction.  And I find that this statement is repulsive.

19        Q.   And what is the fact that this order is issued on the same date

20     as the previous order we had been looking at tell you about the chain of

21     command in the VRS?

22             MR. IVETIC:  Objection.  Calls for speculation, and there has to

23     be a foundation to link the two documents together as I don't believe

24     there has been yet.  The language -- the orders given are not identical.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Bolton, would you please rephrase here as well.

Page 5930

 1             MS. BOLTON:

 2        Q.   Okay.  With respect to the previous order, do you recall any

 3     mention in the previous order to placing units on combat readiness?

 4        A.   I remember that.

 5        Q.   And with respect to the previous order, do you recall any mention

 6     of being prepared to fire at air-borne targets firing on receiving an

 7     order to do so from the command post or independently in the case of an

 8     attack from airspace?

 9        A.   I recall that too.

10        Q.   Do you recall, and with respect to paragraph 4, there being a

11     reference in the previous order to recalling personnel who maybe on

12     leave?

13        A.   I recall that.

14        Q.   In terms, then, of the similarity of the documents, can you

15     comment on that?

16             MR. IVETIC:  Objection, calls for speculation.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, similarity -- shouldn't we first ask the

18     witness whether there's any similarity in his view between the two

19     documents, having read them?

20             Do you see the documents to be of a similar nature, Mr. Fraser?

21             THE WITNESS:  Your Honour --

22             JUDGE ORIE:  And if so, why?

23             THE WITNESS:  I see similarities in the two documents.  They

24     refer to similar references to combat readiness, similar.  Rules of

25     engagement of aircraft, similar.  Recalling of leave, these are all

Page 5931

 1     consistent between the two documents.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  You say similar subjects are dealt with in the two

 3     documents.

 4             THE WITNESS:  The subjects are dealt with in -- in the similar

 5     fashions.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Ms. Bolton.

 7             MS. BOLTON:

 8        Q.   And do you recall whether the -- in the previous document we had

 9     been discussing the Drina Corps was one of the corps to which

10     General Mladic's order was to be distributed?

11        A.   I recall that.

12        Q.   In terms of -- does -- sorry.  In terms of this order, does there

13     seem to be a relationship between the order of April 10th issued by

14     General Mladic and this order?

15             MR. IVETIC:  Again, Your Honour --

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic.

17             MR. IVETIC:  -- calls for speculation.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, relationship.  Do you mean in terms of time or

19     do you mean in terms of -- what is your question exactly, Ms. Bolton?  If

20     you want the witness to draw conclusions, perhaps it's more for the

21     Chamber to do that, whether there is a link between the two, unless the

22     witness can add something which assists the Chamber in determining

23     whether or not there is a relationship.  If you want to ask the witness

24     about that, please do so.

25             MS. BOLTON:  Thank you, sir.

Page 5932

 1        Q.   Well, based on your experience as a military officer in issuing

 2     orders and responding to orders and passing on orders to the

 3     subordinates, could you tell me what relationship you understand or

 4     believe there to be between the original document, the original order,

 5     and this document?

 6        A.   The original order from Mladic had a distribution list which

 7     included this -- this Drina Corps command.  The subjects in the Mladic

 8     document are similar in the subjects in this document which as a military

 9     officer and the way that militaries work and it doesn't matter what

10     country they're in, this document appears to me -- clearly is an excerpt

11     and a reaffirmation of the information coming out of the document issued

12     by General Mladic.

13        Q.   And the fact that it is issued the same date, what does that tell

14     you about the efficiency of communications and command and control within

15     the VRS?  What does that suggest to you based on your military

16     experience?

17             MR. IVETIC:  Objection.  Calls for speculation on facts not in

18     evidence, as perhaps they are in the same room.  I mean, there's all

19     these other factors that could be determinative and by asking such an

20     open-ended question we are just getting speculation that won't assist the

21     Chamber.

22                           [Trial Chamber confers]

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Although the objection is denied, Ms. Bolton, I

24     think that your line of questioning intended to draw the attention of the

25     Chamber on certain matters, and you have achieved in drawing our

Page 5933

 1     attention to the matters you had in mind, and we'll finally determine

 2     whether and what kind of relationship there is between the two documents

 3     if we need to do that.  Please proceed.

 4             MS. BOLTON:  Yes.  Could I ask that be marked as the next

 5     exhibit, please, Your Honour.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 08594 receives number P608,

 8     Your Honours.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

10             MS. BOLTON:  Could I ask, please, for 1D00457, please.  This

11     should be the witness's statement from 1997, and I'll be looking at

12     page 15.

13        Q.   While that's being brought up, sir, you recall you were asked

14     some questions yesterday about allegations of UN smuggling and this

15     appeared at page 5845 of the transcript, and you were asked:

16             "To your knowledge were any UN officers or employees ever

17     disciplined for their role in any such black market activities?"

18             And you answered:

19             "During the time that I was there, no, because the investigations

20     were ongoing when I left."

21             MS. BOLTON:  Could I please have page 15.  And could we focus in

22     the English on the very last paragraph.

23        Q.   I'll read you a quote from that paragraph, sir:

24             "There were always allegations from the Bosnians against the

25     Russians regarding arming the Serbs and black marketeering.  We had

Page 5934

 1     reports of black marketeering from Grbavica which was the central area of

 2     Serb-held Sarajevo where the Russian troops were deployed.  There was

 3     some truth to the allegation.  On one occasion after Gobillard had

 4     assumed his duties as sector commander, a French check-point stopped a

 5     Russian water truck bound for Sarajevo and he found it full of rancid

 6     meat destined for the city.  The sector commander ordered an

 7     investigation by the Russian battalion commander.  After several

 8     incomplete reports from the Russian unit, Gobillard demanded a full

 9     report that said some officers and NCOs were guilty."

10             Does that refresh your memory as to this incident?

11        A.   I recall the incident and --

12        Q.   And -- I'm sorry?

13        A.   I recall that General Gobillard was frustrated with the lack of

14     due diligence in the investigation by the unit to determine the guilty

15     parties.  And I don't recall if anyone was actually found guilty in the

16     end, but the point was made by General Gobillard that this was completely

17     unacceptable and that activities like this had to stop.

18        Q.   And this was an incident that involved smuggling into a Serb-held

19     area of Sarajevo?

20        A.   This was an incident involving a Russian battalion moving meat

21     into the city, into the Muslim-held territory.

22        Q.   And what is the Grbavica component of it then?

23        A.   It's where the -- the Russians were located on that side of the

24     confrontation line.

25        Q.   You were asked some questions yesterday about Sniper's Alley, and

Page 5935

 1     you were read some portions of the Karadzic transcript from your

 2     testimony which is 1D00454, and I'll tell you the transcript page that

 3     I'm looking at would be starting on page 8122.

 4             Could we go to 8121, please.  And if we could concentrate on the

 5     bottom half of the page starting around line 15.  Thank you.

 6             There was some issue yesterday that Justice Moloto raised as to

 7     whether the questions that were posed to you were specific to

 8     Sniper's Alley or not, so I wish to read to you the full portions of the

 9     transcript leading up to the excerpts that my friend put to you

10     yesterday:

11             "Q.  I would like you now to focus on sniper activity in

12     Sarajevo.  Do you recall that there were screens between positions of the

13     Army of Republika Srpska and the Muslim territory?

14             "A.  Yes, I remember those screens for sea cans, yes.

15             "Q.  Thank you.  And do you agree that these screens could

16     protect civilians and others in Muslim territory from Serb fire but not

17     from fire from Muslim forces?

18             "A.  That's correct, because they were designed to protect from

19     the Serb side.

20             "Q.  Thank you.  Did you have the intention and did you put in

21     any efforts to erect any more of such barricades and to increase the

22     safety," next page, please, "measure against infantry fire?

23             "A.  We had a concerted effort to erect barricades to increase

24     safety throughout the city where they were needed, not just simply on

25     Sniper Alley.

Page 5936

 1             "Q.  Thank you.  Is it correct that the authorities in the Muslim

 2     part of Sarajevo did not agree, and that this effort to erect barricades

 3     was halted?"

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Bolton, you are reading.

 5             MS. BOLTON:  Too fast?

 6        Q.   "You can look at page 24 of your statement if you like," and he's

 7     quoting from page 24 of your statement, says:

 8             "The sector tried to improve the situation as regards barriers by

 9     putting more.  Sometimes the city wanted it, sometimes they didn't."

10             When you were asked that series of questions, did you understand

11     Dr. Karadzic to be referring solely to the Sniper Alley area of Sarajevo

12     or the entire city of Sarajevo?

13        A.   Probably the entire city of Sarajevo.

14        Q.   I want to ask you, sir, about -- I'm sorry, Your Honours.  Is it

15     time for the break?

16             JUDGE ORIE:  It is time for the break.  If this would be a

17     suitable moment --

18             MS. BOLTON:  It would be, Your Honour.

19             JUDGE ORIE: -- we'll take the break now.  Could you tell us how

20     much more time you'd need after the break.

21             MS. BOLTON:  I have about 20 minutes, Your Honour.

22                           [Trial Chamber confers]

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Twenty minutes are granted after the break.

24             Could the witness escort -- be escorted out of the courtroom.

25                           [The witness stands down]

Page 5937

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  We will take a break and we will resume at 5 minutes

 2     to 11.00.

 3                           --- Recess taken at 10.33 a.m.

 4                           --- On resuming at 10.58 a.m.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.

 6             Meanwhile, Mr. Groome, I do not know exactly whom to address, but

 7     I think everything is clear as far as protective measures for the next

 8     witness are concerned, and you are still -- you have not received any

 9     decision on your request for leave to reply on the 92 ter motion that

10     leave is granted.

11             MR. GROOME:  Thank you, Your Honour.

12                           [The witness takes the stand]

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Bolton, you may proceed.

14             MS. BOLTON:  Thank you, Your Honour.

15        Q.   Yesterday near the end of your evidence, sir, and this appears at

16     page 5907 of the transcript, you were asked the following question:

17             "Would you agree with me that there were Bosnian Muslim military

18     units scattered throughout Sarajevo and that the Muslims sometimes

19     purposely intermixed them with civilian areas, mixed them into civilian

20     areas?

21             "A.  Yes, they did."

22             That was a compound question, so I just want to break it down.

23     First of all, did the confrontation line in Sarajevo run through any

24     civilian areas around the perimeter of the city?

25        A.   It did.

Page 5938

 1        Q.   And were there civilians still living in buildings close to that

 2     line?

 3        A.   There were.

 4        Q.   And in those areas were troops interspersed with the civilian

 5     population?

 6        A.   They were.

 7        Q.   Could I also remind you of your testimony on this issue from the

 8     Galic proceeding, which Ms. Stewart will be displaying.  It's page 11199

 9     of that proceeding, and the ID number is 1D00449.

10             MS. BOLTON:  Madam Registrar, can you bring it up under 1D00449.

11     And it should be page 11199.

12        Q.   Yes.  So at line 10 you were asked the following question:

13             "Q.  You just gave the answer, Colonel Fraser, that and I quote

14     you:

15             "'Shelling was directed either towards the Presidency, various

16     parts of the city, not principally any military position.'

17             "What do you mean by not principally any military position?

18             "A.  In the middle of the city there were no positions.  The

19     confrontation lines were a little bit more to the outside.  So when

20     shelling happened inside the city, when we would go out [sic] and

21     investigate or the UNMOs would go in and investigate, for the most part

22     there were only civilian communities or people in those areas, no

23     military target that we could identify."

24             Do you recall that testimony, sir?

25        A.   I do.

Page 5939

 1        Q.   And is it correct?

 2        A.   It is.

 3        Q.   Yesterday you were asked some questions about two allegations of

 4     sniping incidents pertaining to Bosnian military troops.  One was an

 5     incident that you described as staged where some French soldiers had come

 6     along and that this was something that was apparently being done on

 7     video-tape.  Have you ever seen any video-tape of this alleged incident?

 8        A.   I have not.  I don't recall ever seeing it.

 9        Q.   And similarly, there was an allegation of a video perhaps

10     existing of some ABiH soldiers shooting at Muslim civilians.  Have you

11     ever seen such a tape?

12        A.   I have not.  I've only heard about it.

13        Q.   And in all your time in Sarajevo, are those the only incidents

14     that you've ever heard of this nature where there seemed to be some

15     confirmation from UN troops?

16        A.   That's all I recall.

17        Q.   And during that time period, how many UNPROFOR men would have

18     been in the area or women?

19        A.   We had several thousand UNPROFOR men and women in

20     Sector Sarajevo.

21        Q.   And was this an issue that they would have been required to

22     report on if they had seen evidence of this nature?

23        A.   Yes, they would have been.

24             MS. BOLTON:  May I have 1D00474, please.

25        Q.   And just while that's being brought up, you may remember some

Page 5940

 1     questioning yesterday about an incident that you personally eye witnessed

 2     where there was some fire involving vehicles.  You were in the second

 3     vehicle, you said, and some bullets hit the vehicle carrying the sector

 4     commander.  Did you believe that the firing at -- that -- at the sector

 5     commander's vehicle was intentional or unintentional?

 6        A.   We thought incident was a -- was a one-off.  It was somewhat

 7     suspicious, but at the same time, we just happened to be at the wrong

 8     place at the wrong time with a bunch of soldiers in the middle of the

 9     night, and we just got caught in the crossfire.

10        Q.   You have before you 1D00474, which you were asked about

11     yesterday.  May I have in English page 2, please, near the bottom.

12             You were asked about a different portion of this statement or

13     this document yesterday, sir.  I want to read you from the last

14     paragraph:

15             "At 1000 hours during the day a meeting was held between

16     General Galic and General Soubirou at the request of General Soubirou,

17     who plans to analyse the issue of freedom of movement of the UN,

18     downsizing the weapons grouping points and opening the direct road

19     Sarajevo-Pale.  General Galic emphasised that these were," if I could

20     turn the page, please, "not in his competence and proposed the issue be

21     resolved at the highest level as part of the overall problem of

22     Sarajevo."

23             Is this an example of the kind of issues you described in your

24     testimony where it appeared General -- sorry, the Sarajevo corps

25     commander had to defer to the higher commander?

Page 5941

 1        A.   This is an example of that, yes.

 2             MS. BOLTON:  And may I have 1D00466, please.

 3        Q.   This is a document you authored, you told us yesterday, that's

 4     your signature on the document.  Under paragraph 2, it's written:

 5              "General Gobillard explained his letter to General Mladic and

 6     the proposal to renegotiate the TEZ/DMZ agreements.  He asked

 7     General Milosevic for his opinion about this proposal," and then it says,

 8     "vague reply, not his level."

 9             What does the "not his level" mean?

10        A.   It refers to --

11             MR. IVETIC:  Calls for speculation as to what the individual who

12     made the statements meant by the statement.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me see.  This is the witness's document.  He is

14     asked to explain what he meant by that.  Where's the speculation,

15     Mr. Ivetic?

16             MR. IVETIC:  It's the reply by General Milosevic he's being asked

17     to speculate about.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  No.  He's asked to explain why he used this language

19     in reporting on his meeting with Mr. Milosevic.  So that there's no call

20     for speculation.

21             Please proceed.  You may answer the question.  What did you mean

22     by not his level?

23             THE WITNESS:  General Milosevic did not have the authority to

24     discuss any of those details pertaining to the TEZ/DMZ agreements.  He

25     referred to his commander, General Mladic.

Page 5942

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  That's what he told you.

 2             THE WITNESS:  That -- from the discussion, that is exactly what

 3     we took away from it.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And this is how you have written it down

 5     short.

 6             THE WITNESS:  This is how I shortened it up.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Thank you.  Please proceed, Ms. Bolton.

 8             MS. BOLTON:

 9        Q.   Finally, the last document I want to ask you about, sir, is P580.

10     Now, this is -- as it's being brought up I'll remind you the document you

11     examined with respect to plans to bomb the tunnel entrance in the airport

12     area.  Do you recall that document, sir?

13        A.   I do.

14        Q.   And you'll recall that there was a mention of front line

15     positions or forward positions of the VRS in that area being

16     approximately 500 metres from the target, and were you familiar with what

17     those positions looked like in that area?

18        A.   I recall the UN position was just a small hut that had a couple

19     of soldiers in it with a gate, and the Serbs had some trench lines

20     nearby, and there were some -- again similar positions where a couple of

21     soldiers would be positioned to observe what was going on in that area.

22        Q.   Now, if a soldier is in a trench, would they be considered in

23     terms of an explosion protected somewhat by that?

24        A.   To a -- to a degree, yes.

25        Q.   Now, in questioning you yesterday, Mr. Ivetic suggested to you

Page 5943

 1     that we'd heard evidence from a witness, a John Hamill, about the

 2     explosive capabilities of a 120-millimetre mortar, and I just wish to put

 3     another portion of what he said to you.  And I think it's -- is it

 4     available in Sanction?  Yes.

 5             MS. BOLTON:  And this appears for Your Honours' assistance at

 6     pages 5519 to 5520, and I believe it's actually on page 5520, the brief

 7     part I'll be referring the witness to.  Sorry, the Court Officer needs to

 8     switch into Sanction I'm advised.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  We will wait and see what we see on our screens.

10             MS. BOLTON:  Could we scroll down, please, on the page.  Thank

11     you.  Sorry, could you scroll up just a little bit.  Thank you.

12        Q.   All right.  So I show you this portion just so you can satisfy

13     yourself, sir, looking at line 15, that we're talking about mortar bombs.

14     And if we could then move to the next page starting at line --

15             MS. BOLTON:  Sorry, just scroll up to the very, very last -- the

16     bottom of the page of 519.  Thank you.

17        Q.   Bear in mind it starts on the last line of 25 that:

18             "For a 120-millimetre bomb, the lethal radius" --

19             JUDGE ORIE:  You're reading, Ms. Bolton.

20             MS. BOLTON:  Thank you:

21        Q.   "... is 54 metres and the danger zone for unprotected troops is

22     500 metres radius.  For protected troops, in other words, troops who are

23     in trenches, for example, it's still 250-metres radius which means that

24     within 250 metres radius of the detonation of a 120-millimetre mortar

25     bomb it is possible to be injured.  It's not necessarily the case that

Page 5944

 1     one would be injured, but it is certainly within the bounds of

 2     possibility."

 3             Would you agree that given that there were trenches in the

 4     positions near the tunnel entrance approximately 500 metres away, that

 5     the explosive effect of this bomb would have to be 500-metre danger zone

 6     for protected troops?

 7        A.   It's -- it's suggests so from this document.

 8        Q.   And do you recall what the surface was around the tunnel?  Was

 9     there a building?  Was it just round?

10        A.   The tunnel entrance was in amongst a number of buildings, small

11     houses, with a road in front of it.  So much like a small village type of

12     complex.

13        Q.   So if the artillery commander's reason for not wanting to fire

14     because he did express concern about his troops, is that he might

15     endanger his troops who are 500 metres away in trenches.  Is that, based

16     on your experience, an appropriate weapon to be using in an urban

17     environment?

18        A.   Based on this document and what I've read about this weapon

19     system, my answer is no.

20        Q.   Now, in your responses yesterday to questions from Mr. Ivetic,

21     you seemed to suggest that while the danger zone or the lethal radius

22     might have been -- it's a possibility that that's why the artillery

23     leader was concerned about using the modified air bomb on the tunnel, you

24     seem to suggest that you thought it was more likely the other scenario,

25     which is that there were concerns about the beaten zone with this weapon.

Page 5945

 1     Am I fairly stating your evidence?

 2        A.   The head of artillery had concern that -- that he could not

 3     accurately put that weapon on the ground in -- where this tunnel entrance

 4     was given -- given the proximity of the other troops on the ground.

 5        Q.   Could -- brief indulgence, Your Honour.  Could we just have the

 6     document displayed to assist the witness, please.  It's P580, I believe.

 7             And could you just explain to us what it is that makes you think

 8     that that was the concern as opposed to the scenario that the Defence has

 9     put to you?

10        A.   In the document, it states, fifth line down:

11             "A detailed estimate of all structures in the immediate vicinity

12     of the tunnel entrance has been performed."

13             If further goes on to say not about the UNPROFOR check-points of

14     200 metres but:

15             "Our forward end is located some 500 metres away from the tunnel

16     entrance ..."

17             "... I gave up as firing would have endangered our forces and UN

18     forces."

19             So 500 metres, he did not have assurance that he -- from this

20     document that that bomb could land at the tunnel entrance because he

21     thought that within 500 metres his troops would have been endangered,

22     which indicates that this was not the right weapon system to use for that

23     target.

24        Q.   Can I just ask why he would have included or what the relevance

25     is from a military perspective of including the direction of fire?

Page 5946

 1        A.   The direction of fire is a function of what he would have been

 2     considering in his determination of the beaten zone of the distance --

 3     the probability of the distance of where that weapon system would have

 4     landed.  It would have landed in a -- not at a point, but there's a -- in

 5     the military term there's an envelope of it will land in a certain area,

 6     and this -- our colonel seemed to be somewhat concerned about that area

 7     and the effects of that weapon system with his own troops and the UN.

 8             MS. BOLTON:  Thank you very much, General.  I have no further

 9     questions of the witness.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Can I just ask one question to better understand

11     this.  Can you say anything about whether the projectile falls short or

12     long, that is over the target, and is that risk greater than the

13     diversion to the left and to the right?  Has it got anything to do with

14     that?

15             THE WITNESS:  Your Honour, the beaten zone is -- looks like an

16     ellipse, so from the point of origin, it's longer than it is wider, the

17     beaten zone.  So the point of origin of the firing where his troops

18     are -- for this example, if it was 500 metres from the target, you could

19     also assume that there is a distance past the target that this weapon

20     system could potentially go to.  But from the document it don't appear to

21     have been any other, you know, UN troops or Serbian troops on that side.

22     His concern was on this side.  But the beaten zone as you have described

23     is longer than it is wide.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

25             THE WITNESS:  It's -- it's the trajectory of how this thing

Page 5947

 1     flies.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  The percentage of going further or shorter is

 3     more than the percentage of the radiation left and right, and that makes

 4     the beaten zone the ellipse.

 5             THE WITNESS:  Correct, sir.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Thank you.  That's clear to me.

 7             Mr. Ivetic, any further questions?

 8             MR. IVETIC:  Yes, four questions arising out of the redirect

 9     examination, with your leave.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, please.

11                           Further cross-examination by Mr. Ivetic:

12        Q.   Sir, during my cross-examination of you we talked about

13     investigations into smuggling.  In particular we talked about a task

14     force, I believe, by the UNCIVPOL, the civilian police, and the comments

15     that you have made that the Serbs should have worked with that entity

16     instead of doing the inspections of the -- of the convoys.  The

17     Prosecution has now presented you with a portion of your 1997 statement

18     talking about Russian troops smuggling meat.  Was that the same smuggling

19     that you and I were talking about or is it a different incident?

20        A.   The task force that I talked to you about yesterday was a

21     different task force.  It was a more omnibus investigation on black

22     marketeering.  The reference to my statement was an incident that the

23     French troops discovered themselves and that was an in-house

24     investigation conducted by the Russian battalion commander under the

25     direction of the sector commander.

Page 5948

 1        Q.   Thank you for that clarification.  Now I'd like to ask you about

 2     a document that was shown during the redirect.

 3             MR. IVETIC:  And if we can have on the left-hand side P608 in

 4     English, and on the right-hand side P587 in English to assist the witness

 5     with the questions that I have for him.  If we could have the English

 6     version of the document on the right which I believe is Exhibit P587.

 7     And if we can have the second page of the English on the right-hand side

 8     of P587.  I apologise again.  The second page of the P587, which is the

 9     document on the right.

10        Q.   General, if we can focus on the item number 3 in the order by

11     Colonel Skocajic on the left, and if we can compare it with item number 4

12     of General Mladic's order on the right.  Would you agree with me that the

13     treatment of UNPROFOR persons to be detained is not identical in the two

14     orders?

15        A.   That is correct.

16        Q.   As a military officer, would you agree that a subordinate officer

17     who relays different orders from those that his superior has given to him

18     is acting contrary to the functioning of a good chain of command and

19     control and is in dereliction of his duties?

20        A.   True.

21        Q.   And would you agree with me as a subordinate unit its orders

22     would be sent downwards toward units subordinated to it rather than

23     upwards to its superior?

24        A.   Traditionally, yes.

25        Q.   Thank you again, General, for the clarifications.

Page 5949

 1             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, your questions relates to different

 3     orders.  You consider the one order to be contradicting the other one or

 4     using different language or -- because you are talking about dereliction

 5     of the duties.  There is a kind of an implied suggestion that in the one

 6     document orders are given which are contradicting what the person giving

 7     that orders was ordered by his superiors.  Is that the basis of your

 8     question?

 9             MR. IVETIC:  Yes, it is, Your Honour, and I believe it's based on

10     the plain meaning of the language of paragraph 4 which says do not treat

11     them roughly in the process, and paragraph 3 in the other one which says

12     if they resist, use force as you would against any other enemy, which is

13     an order which is not contained.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  You would say not to treat someone roughly is

15     something totally different from using force?

16             MR. IVETIC:  Correct.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  I mean, you can use force by detaining someone, and

18     then nevertheless treat someone not roughly, that is, not to beat him or

19     to -- I mean, I'm just trying, because in your question it was all rather

20     hidden, if I could say so, and I'm trying to understand what the

21     suggestion was.  You have explained that now to us.

22             MR. IVETIC:  I can perhaps ask one additional question that might

23     clarify.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, there's no need to do that.  I think when you

25     agreed with what was put to you, Mr. Fraser, by Mr. Ivetic, did you

Page 5950

 1     consider at that moment whether these two documents, whether the second

 2     was contradicting in the order given compared to the order received?

 3             THE WITNESS:  Your Honour, I did not -- I answered the counsel's

 4     question --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Which on the general basis of if you give a

 6     different order than you receive, then you're violating your duties.

 7             THE WITNESS:  Correct, Your Honour.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  That's clear to me, perfectly clear.  The

 9     matter has been clarified, as far as I'm concerned.

10             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Then, Mr. Fraser, this concludes your testimony in

12     this court, but before I ask you to be escorted out of the courtroom,

13     Ms. Bolton, you said you would deal with three documents at the end of

14     the testimony of the witness.  Now, I do not know whether you need the

15     witness for that.  It is about 65 ter 8735, 9741, and 189.  We haven't

16     heard you about it.

17             MS. BOLTON:  No.  Your Honour, I do wish to still address you on

18     those exhibits.  We don't need the witness, and I'm -- I notice that

19     there is another witness that we're hoping to get through today.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

21             MS. BOLTON:  I'm content to deal with that first thing Monday

22     morning if you like or come back later today.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  You'll deal with it at a later stage.  Then

24     there was another issue, the MFI for P582 which you tendered and there

25     was a problem with the late -- not the late disclosure but the late

Page 5951

 1     announcing that you would use it with this witness.

 2             The Chamber wondered why you wished that document to be admitted

 3     into evidence where two other documents already state that a -- I think

 4     it was a 500-kilogramme aerial bomb was fired and at Hrasnica.  We do not

 5     know why you wanted 582, to establish that fact which is already clear

 6     from the other two documents.

 7             MS. BOLTON:  That was the relevance of the document.  I can

 8     indicate that we have recently filed a 92 ter statement for one of the

 9     authors of the document, so I anticipate it will be seeking to introduce

10     it either through that witness or this witness.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And the late announcement doesn't -- is not

12     valid for the next witness to come.

13             MS. HARBOUR:  Correct, Your Honour.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Then perhaps it would be the wisest to leave it

15     MFI'd until the next witness who apparently authored the

16     document appears.

17             MS. HARBOUR:  That's agreeable.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Then that's how we will proceed.

19             Which means, Mr. Fraser, that -- don't feel superfluous we don't

20     need you anymore.  I would like to thank you very much for coming in, for

21     having answered all the questions that were put to you, and you are

22     excused and you may follow the usher.

23             THE WITNESS:  Your Honours, thank you.

24                           [The witness withdrew]

25             JUDGE ORIE:  The next witness to be called will testify if -- we

Page 5952

 1     are well informed, with face distortion only; is that correct?

 2             MS. HARBOUR:  That's correct, Your Honour.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then -- well, the usher left the courtroom,

 4     but could the next witness then -- we need the curtains down for the

 5     witness to enter the courtroom.  Could we already pull the curtains down,

 6     and could the next witness be -- could the next witness be escorted into

 7     the courtroom once the curtains are down.

 8             MS. BOLTON:  May I be excused, Your Honour?

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, please, Ms. Bolton.  We move into closed

10     session when the witness enters the courtroom.  I think screens should be

11     put in place.

12                           [Closed session]

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20                           [Open session]

21             THE REGISTRAR:  We're in open session, Your Honours.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

23             Witness, we'll wait for a second until the curtains are up.

24     Witness, I'd like to inform you first of all that you'll give your

25     testimony with the protective measure of face distortion, which means


Page 5953

 1     that the outside world will not see your face but will still hear your

 2     voice and will know your name.

 3             Before you give evidence, the Rules require that you make a

 4     solemn declaration of which the text is now handed out to you.  May I

 5     invite you to stand and make that solemn declaration.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will

 7     speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

 8                           WITNESS:  DRAGAN MIOKOVIC

 9                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Thank you, Witness.  Just a second,

11     please.  If the Prosecution is ready to examine the witness, you may

12     proceed.

13             MS. HARBOUR:  Thank you, Your Honour.

14                           Examination by Ms. Harbour:

15        Q.   What is your full name?

16        A.   My name is Dragan Miokovic.

17        Q.   Mr. Miokovic, have you given statements to the

18     Office of the Prosecutor on the 14th of November, 1995, on the

19     25th of February, 1996, and on the 27th of October, 2010?

20        A.   Yes, I have.  I gave those statements.

21             MS. HARBOUR:  Could we please have 65 ter 28592 on the screen.

22        Q.   Mr. Miokovic, is this your statement from the

23     14th of November, 1995?

24        A.   Yes, that is my statement.

25             MS. HARBOUR:  Could we please turn to page 2 of the statement.

Page 5954

 1        Q.   In paragraph 2, are there any changes that you wish to make to

 2     this statement?

 3        A.   I joined the police in 1987, not 1986, as it reads here.

 4             MS. HARBOUR:  Could we please now have 65 ter 28594 on the

 5     screen.

 6        Q.   Is this your statement from the 25th of February, 1996?

 7        A.   Yes, it is.

 8             MS. HARBOUR:  Could we please turn to page 2.  We appear to have

 9     two versions of the English document on the screen.

10        Q.   In paragraph 1, Mr. Witness, did you wish to make any changes to

11     this statement?

12        A.   Where it says 23rd November, we need the year and the year is

13     1994.

14             MS. HARBOUR:  Could we please have 65 ter 28593 on the screen.

15        Q.   Is this your statement from the 27th of October, 2010?

16        A.   Yes, it is.

17        Q.   If the Chamber were to consider these three statements in

18     conjunction with the corrections that you've made today, would they have

19     an accurate record of your evidence?

20        A.   Yes.  With these corrections that would be an accurate and

21     precise record of my statement.

22        Q.   If I were to ask you questions similar to those asked when taking

23     those statements, would you give the same answers in substance?

24        A.   I would give the same answers.  Only in view of the lapse of time

25     I would prefer to have in front of me a document or the documents that

Page 5955

 1     could probably be helpful in refreshing my memory.

 2        Q.   Now that you have taken the solemn declaration, do you affirm the

 3     truthfulness and the accuracy of these three statements?

 4        A.   I'm fully aware of the solemn declaration, and I stand by

 5     everything that is recorded in these statements.

 6             MS. HARBOUR:  I would like to tender these into evidence,

 7     Your Honour.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar, the numbers would be?

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 28592 receives number P609,

10     Your Honours.  Document 28594 receives number P610, Your Honours.  And

11     document 28593 receives number -- Exhibit P611, Your Honours.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  I do not hear any objections from the -- I don't

13     know who to address.  Mr. Stojanovic, no objections.  So P609, P610, and

14     P611 are admitted into evidence.

15             MS. HARBOUR:  I would like to read a summary of the witness's

16     evidence at this stage.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Please do so.

18             MS. HARBOUR:  From December 1993, the witness was an investigator

19     for the CSB Sarajevo.  He led teams in investigating sniping and shelling

20     incidents in Sarajevo until the end of 1995.

21             He led a team in investigating three mortar shells that impacted

22     Livanjska Street on 8 November 1994.  The first impact killed a teenage

23     girl instantly, leaving her brain on the street.  Two hours later, two

24     shells struck 20 metres away killing another woman.  Mr. Miokovic's team

25     investigated these sites and concluded that all three shells had been

Page 5956

 1     fired from Bosnian Serb-held position.

 2             Mr. Miokovic also investigated two incidents of trams struck by

 3     sniper fire on Zmaja od Bosne Street on 23 November 1994.  The incidents

 4     were 15 minutes apart.  In the first incident two passengers were

 5     wounded, and in the second one was killed and three were wounded.  The

 6     investigative team concluded that both trams had been struck by sniper

 7     fire from the direction of Grbavica, which was under Bosnian Serb

 8     control.

 9             Mr. Miokovic also investigated a sniping incident on

10     3 March 1995, in which a tram was hit by sniper fire at the intersection

11     of Zmaja od Bosne Street and Franje Rackog Street injuring several

12     passengers.  The investigative team determined that firing had come from

13     the direction of Grbavica.

14             After the conflict ended, Mr. Miokovic was involved with other

15     members of the CSB Sarajevo in reintegrating the areas of Sarajevo

16     previously occupied by the VRS.  In the course of searching and securing

17     the formerly VRS-occupied areas, Mr. Miokovic and his colleagues found

18     fortified facilities bearing the typical characteristics of snipers'

19     nests.  Mr. Miokovic was involved in searching one of the Grbavica

20     skyscrapers.  There he found at least ten sniper nests facing Sarajevo

21     town.

22        Q.   Mr. Miokovic, I'll now ask you some questions --

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. -- Ms. --

24             MS. HARBOUR:

25        Q.   In your November 1995 witness statement, which is now admitted as

Page 5957

 1     P609, in paragraph 2, you state that you worked in the Stari Grad police

 2     station until 1993 and then transferred to the CSB Sarajevo.  When did

 3     you transfer to the CSB Sarajevo?

 4        A.   I was transferred to the CSB Sarajevo on the

 5     3rd of November, 1993.

 6        Q.   What was the name of the department in the CSB Sarajevo where you

 7     worked?

 8        A.   The department for violent, sexual crimes, and crimes against

 9     international law.

10        Q.   What is your ethnicity?

11        A.   I'm a Serb.

12        Q.   Were you the only Serb in the CSB Sarajevo?

13        A.   No, I wasn't.

14        Q.   Were there other people from other ethnicities employed within

15     CSB Sarajevo?

16        A.   At the time at the CSB Sarajevo, as far as I can judge 20 to

17     25 per cent of the employees, i.e., police officers, were non-Muslims.

18        Q.   And when you say "non-Muslims," could you be more specific?

19        A.   I was referring to Serbs and Croats.

20        Q.   During your time at CSB Sarajevo, how many war-related shelling

21     incidents did you investigate?

22        A.   I cannot give you an accurate figure, but definitely more than

23     100.

24        Q.   How many sniping incidents did you investigate during that time?

25        A.   Given that during the sniping and firing lethal consequences were

Page 5958

 1     not so frequent, I conducted fewer investigations than the one involving

 2     the shelling, but I think I was involved in about 100 or thereabouts.

 3        Q.   Were you ever under fire as you conducted your investigations?

 4        A.   The entire area of Sarajevo at the time was a risky area.  On

 5     four separate occasions during investigation the area where I and my team

 6     were came under artillery fire, on all four occasions.

 7        Q.   From 1992 to 1995, how frequently did the trams run in Sarajevo?

 8        A.   During that period, the tram service was not regular in Sarajevo.

 9     Only during the periods when the so-called truces were negotiated or

10     signed, but generally speaking, the tram service in Sarajevo was very

11     scarce.

12        Q.   And who was riding on the trams, generally speaking?

13        A.   Basically the passengers on these trams were civilians, most

14     often elderly people, women, who tried to get from A to B within the city

15     to do some chores that I suppose in most cases had to do with survival.

16     When I say "survival," I mean the purchase of foodstuffs.

17        Q.   When you said that the tram service was not regular and the tram

18     only ran during periods of so-called truces, could you elaborate a bit

19     more?  How did -- how did that play out in reality?

20        A.   During the siege of Sarajevo there were really many situations

21     when at various levels political, military, or whatever, the so-called

22     truces were being agreed.  These truces were supposed to include mutual

23     cease of fire.  There were situations when after a truce had been agreed

24     two or three days would follow that were relatively peaceful.  During

25     these periods of tranquility or relative peace for a day or two, the

Page 5959

 1     trams would start running.  The fact that the trams were running had

 2     it -- practical value which means people could use transportation instead

 3     of walking.  Similarly, once the tram service was restored, that had a

 4     significantly positive psychological effect on the inhabitants of

 5     Sarajevo, because by that very fact the situation in the town appeared to

 6     be normal.

 7        Q.   Did both sides during these periods respect the cease-fires with

 8     respect to the tram lines?

 9        A.   The respect of cease-fire, speaking of Sarajevo, was a relative

10     issue.  I am not going to analyse who was in breach of cease-fire, but

11     according to my experience, it was very hazardous to try and rely on the

12     fact that there was cease-fire in place and that everyone was safe

13     result.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Harbour, I'm looking at the clock.  I think

15     we're close to the time where we should take a break.  If you find a

16     suitable moment within the next one or two minutes.

17             MS. HARBOUR:  This is a good moment, Your Honour.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  All right.  Then we turn into closed session and

19     we'll remain in closed session until the beginning of the next morning

20     session, so as to not lose unnecessary time.

21                           [Closed session]

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 5960

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13                           [Open session]

14             THE REGISTRAR:  We're in open session, Your Honour.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

16             Ms. Harbour, once the curtains are up you can resume your

17     examination of the witness.

18             MS. HARBOUR:

19        Q.   Mr. Miokovic, you've told us about the positive psychological

20     impact of the tram service when it was running because the town appeared

21     to be normal.  Typically, how many days would this kind of normalcy last?

22        A.   Unfortunately, as a rule it never lasted for very long, and the

23     worst thing is that after such periods, what followed was quite tragic,

24     or the consequences that followed after such periods were tragic.

25        Q.   What were those tragic consequences?

Page 5961

 1        A.   People would be killed or seriously wounded.  The citizens of

 2     Sarajevo would be killed or seriously wounded.

 3        Q.   Now, specifically with regard to the trams, were there killings

 4     and serious woundings that occurred that impacted the trams?

 5        A.   Absolutely.  Given the fact that there were always quite a lot of

 6     people on the trams when fire was opened on trams, the results were

 7     frequently tragic and the people in the trams would be killed or wounded.

 8        Q.   In your experience from living in Sarajevo during the siege, what

 9     was the effect that snipings on trams had on the population of Sarajevo?

10        A.   Apart from these tragic consequences that as a rule followed,

11     such action was a kind of terrorist action, the purpose of which was to

12     terrorise the population, if you define terrorism as acts committed in

13     order to spread fear and panic for the purposes of obtaining a military

14     or political objective.

15        Q.   Did you investigate the tram sniping on the 3rd of March, 1995?

16        A.   Yes, I did, together with a team that carried out the on-site

17     investigation.

18             MS. HARBOUR:  Could we please have 65 ter 10456, page 7 in the

19     English and page 6 in the B/C/S.

20        Q.   Once you have had a chance to look over this, we can turn the

21     page for you to see the full document.  Do you recognise this document,

22     Mr. Miokovic?

23        A.   Yes.  This is an official report that I drafted having carried

24     out an on-site investigation.

25        Q.   What was your role in this investigation?

Page 5962

 1        A.   As can be seen in the second paragraph on page 1, given the fact

 2     that the investigating judge from the high court in Sarajevo was in

 3     charge of this on-site investigation, according to the law on the penal

 4     procedure in force at the time, the investigating judge was in charge of

 5     that on-site investigation, and given the department I worked in, my task

 6     was to co-ordinate all the activities carried out by the other team

 7     members, all the members of the Sarajevo CSB, but they were from various

 8     departments, and I had to co-ordinate all these activities.

 9        Q.   Based on your investigation, what conclusions did you reach

10     regarding the perpetrators of the sniping?

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Stojanovic.

12             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Microphone not activated]

13             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you switch on your microphone, Mr. -- or lift

15     it up, yes.

16             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] This question put in this way

17     means that the witness is being asked to draw certain conclusions.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  If you phrase it differently, then what the

19     outcome of the investigation was as reported, Ms. Harbour, that might

20     resolve the matter.

21             MS. HARBOUR:

22        Q.   Mr. Miokovic, what was the outcome of the investigation as you

23     reported in your official report?

24        A.   The outcome was that when the tram was hit, it was going from the

25     west to the east, from the new part of town to the old part of town.  It

Page 5963

 1     was hit on the right side.  Fire had been opened from the Grbavica area,

 2     which was under the control of the Army of Republika Srpska at the time,

 3     and I would be grateful if I could have a look at the next page of this

 4     report.

 5             And on this occasion, two passengers in the tram were wounded.

 6        Q.   If we could go back to the first page.  The very first line in

 7     the report refers to, "The shooting from the aggressor positions."  What

 8     does the term "aggressor" refer to here?

 9        A.   For four years Sarajevo was under siege, under attack.  May I

10     continue?

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, you may continue.

12             No loud voice.  No consultations.

13             Please proceed.

14             THE WITNESS:  So Sarajevo was under siege, under attack, and

15     there is no doubt about the fact that the VRS was responsible for this.

16     The force that launched this attack is the attacker, and within the

17     context of a war the term "aggressor" is more appropriate than the term

18     "attacker."  In all the reports that I drafted, this is the term that I

19     would use.  When I drafted this official report and all the other

20     official reports, I was convinced that my official reports would be used

21     in trials that would be held in Sarajevo.  I'm totally convinced that --

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Whatever your convictions are, the question was what

23     you meant by "aggressor."  I take it that you meant by "aggressor" the

24     Bosnian Serb side of the conflict; is that correct?  Whether you found

25     them to be aggressors or not is a totally different matter and is not for

Page 5964

 1     a witness of fact to explain to the Chamber.

 2             Ms. Harbour, you may proceed.

 3             Mr. Stojanovic.

 4             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.  That

 5     would be our request too.  The witness has already used the term

 6     "occupation," "an act of terrorism," and he explained what he meant by

 7     the term "an act of terrorism" and the term "aggressor."  As you have

 8     instructed, could the witness please refrain from making such comments.

 9     It is for us to deal with such legal issues here.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Stojanovic, your previous objection was not very

11     constructive, although perhaps from a formal point of view right.  Your

12     present intervention was totally unnecessary in view of my intervention.

13             You may proceed, Ms. Harbour.

14             MS. HARBOUR:

15        Q.   Mr. Miokovic, without making any -- without dealing with any

16     legal issues or the legal -- the legal meaning of "aggressor," could you

17     just tell us why you used that term in your report?

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Harbour, I think I indicated that it was not of

19     relevance for us.  What we'd like to know is if a reference is made to a

20     certain party, which party that is, why it was, and what the personal

21     feelings and that is not --

22             MS. HARBOUR:  Your Honours, I understand that fully.  I'm not

23     actually asking what his personal feelings are.  I would like to know

24     his -- I would like to know procedurally whether there was a reason to

25     use that report in the procedural context in which he was working.

Page 5965

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Then put a focused question --

 2             MS. HARBOUR:  Yes, Your Honour.

 3             JUDGE ORIE: --  on that specific issue whether he was instructed

 4     to do so or whether that was whatever.  Focus then on the matter you want

 5     to raise and let's avoid that happens again what happened before.

 6             MS. HARBOUR:  Yes.

 7        Q.   Mr. Miokovic, you've heard the Court's concerns, and I would ask

 8     you what -- was there a procedural reason in the context of the procedure

 9     of your investigation and in the context of prosecutions in Bosnia for

10     using the term "aggressor"?

11        A.   There were no instructions issued with regard to this matter.  I

12     used this term and the term was used to refer to the positions held by

13     the Army of Republika Srpska.

14             MS. HARBOUR:  If we could go to the last page of the report,

15     please.  Sorry, page 2 of -- just the following page after this, please.

16        Q.   Here the penultimate paragraph of the report states:

17             "After tram number 268 was hit, trams driving behind it also came

18     under fire from the same aggressor positions, but there were no

19     casualties."

20             In your experience, how common was it for multiple sniping

21     attacks to be carried out on trams on the same day in the same area?

22        A.   It wasn't unusual.  Such things happened just as such a thing

23     happened on at that day.

24             MS. HARBOUR:  Could we turn to page 11 in the B/C/S and page 12

25     in the English, please.

Page 5966

 1        Q.   Where was this photograph taken?

 2        A.   This photograph was taken in Sarajevo.  Of course, at the

 3     so-called Marin Dvor tram stop if you'll -- the photograph was taken from

 4     the east, in fact, looking from the east to the west.

 5        Q.   Is this where you conducted your investigation?

 6        A.   Yes.  That is the site at which we conducted our on-site

 7     investigation.

 8        Q.   What is the building that is in the background on the left-hand

 9     side of the photograph?

10        A.   At the time that was the building of the Executive Council of

11     Bosnia and Herzegovina.  Today it is the building of Federation of Bosnia

12     and Herzegovina.

13             MS. HARBOUR:  For the Chamber's frame of reference, in the

14     Sarajevo map book, Exhibit P3, and map number 20, that building is

15     number 4.

16        Q.   And what street is this taken on?

17        A.   This is Zmaja od Bosne Street.  That is what it is called now.

18        Q.   How far removed was the investigation from the place where the

19     tram was hit?

20        A.   I think the distance was between 100 and 150 metres.  The tram

21     was hit about 150 metres to the west of the location from which this

22     photograph was taken.

23        Q.   And why didn't you conduct the investigation on site where the

24     tram was hit?

25        A.   In many cases when trams were fired on and hit, after the tram

Page 5967

 1     had been hit the driver would continue to drive the tram and so that he

 2     could stop at a place which was safe or at least fairly safe, and this is

 3     what happened in this case too.

 4             MS. HARBOUR:  Could we please turn to page 24 in the English and

 5     page 29 in the B/C/S.

 6        Q.   This document is entitled "Criminal report."  Could you please

 7     explain the purpose of this document.

 8        A.   In accordance with the provisions of the Law on Criminal

 9     Procedure that were valid at the time, after an on-site investigation had

10     been carried out, all the documents that had been drafted in relation to

11     the crime in question would be put together and sent as a criminal report

12     to the Prosecution in Sarajevo so that the Prosecutor in charge could

13     take appropriate action.  This document shows how this criminal report

14     was compiled, what it looked like.

15        Q.   Under the statement of reasons, we see that 3 March 1995, the

16     date of this incident, was the Muslim holiday of Bajram.  Why was this

17     information included in the criminal report?

18        A.   Because Bajram is the most important Muslim holiday, and this

19     could be an important factor for the prosecutor's office in relation to

20     assessing the seriousness of the crime.

21             MS. HARBOUR:  Could we please turn to page 3 in both languages.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Before we do so, Ms. Harbour, could I ask you one

23     question.  In the English translation we find ERN references to all the

24     photographs.  However, the ERN references on the photographs themselves

25     in the B/C/S version are different.  Is there any explanation?  I take

Page 5968

 1     it, as a matter of fact, that you wanted them to be corresponding.  For

 2     example, the first photograph you -- let me just see, which is on page 11

 3     in the B/C/S, and you have shown that to us, bears an ERN number ending

 4     with 3579.  Now, if I look at the English translation of the document and

 5     look at page 12 -- 12 of the English, if that is the corresponding part,

 6     and I think you said it was, then I notice that the first one is ending

 7     6371 ERN, "Front of tram, garage number 268, which was hit around ...,"

 8     isn't it?  I'm trying to follow what you have shown us, and I see that

 9     the ERN numbers on the photographs are not the same as the ERN numbers

10     mentioned in the English translation.

11             MS. HARBOUR:  Your Honour, I will look into this.  If there is a

12     discrepancy, I can submit it for verification of the translation.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, if you would please do so, unless I have

14     misunderstood or unless I've made a wrong --

15             MS. HARBOUR:  I see the discrepancy certainly.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  If you would pay attention to it.  I don't

17     think that it affects the evidentiary value, but we'd like to have

18     everything accurate on the record.

19             MS. HARBOUR:  Yes.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

21             MS. HARBOUR:  Could we please have page 3 in both of the

22     languages.

23        Q.   Mr. Miokovic, can you tell us what this document is?

24        A.   This is a dispatch from the security services centre to the

25     Ministry of the Interior of Bosnia and Herzegovina, to certain

Page 5969

 1     departments.  When dispatches were sent, this meant that it was a matter

 2     of internal communications within the police force.

 3        Q.   This is dated 3 March 1995, and if we look at about halfway down

 4     the paragraph, it refers to a tram sniping and a victim who was injured

 5     and the victim's name is obscured by what appears to be highlighting in

 6     the original document.  Do you recognise the victim of this incident?

 7        A.   I can recognise the surname, Sabanovic.

 8        Q.   Do you know who this person is?

 9        A.   I personally know this young man.

10        Q.   Is this dispatch related to the tram sniping that you

11     investigated on the 3rd of March, 1995?

12        A.   This incident isn't directly related to the on-site investigation

13     I carried out in relation to the tram incident.  It's a separate

14     incident.

15        Q.   Now, in your official report, you referred to other sniping

16     incidents that occurred on the same day.  Would you have considered a

17     dispatch such as this or other documents in your -- making your official

18     report?

19        A.   Dispatches are used for internal communication within the police

20     force, and in a dispatch you have a certain level informing higher or

21     lower levels about a given event or about given events.  This dispatch

22     was drafted after information had been obtained about the incident in

23     question.

24             MS. HARBOUR:  Could we please have page 1 of this document.

25        Q.   Mr. Miokovic, this is the first page of the investigative file

Page 5970

 1     that the Bosnian authorities provided to the Office of the Prosecutor,

 2     and each of the documents listed was in the file.  Now, instead of going

 3     through each one individually with you, would you just look at the list

 4     and explain how the documents on this list would relate to your

 5     investigation.

 6        A.   The first bullet point below the word "Evidence" is a dispatch

 7     sent by the police station in charge who was the first to receive a

 8     report on the incident.  Then they dispatched their uniform officers to

 9     the scene to investigate what had happened, and on the basis of that,

10     they sent a dispatch to higher levels describing the incident.

11             The two next documents are also dispatches, but in this case they

12     were sent by the Sarajevo CSB.  They refer to the same incident and

13     depict the actions taken in that regard by the Sarajevo CSB.  The next

14     two documents are official reports, the first one provided by the

15     Centar SJB and the second one provided by the Sarajevo CSB.  That

16     contains a written description of the activities undertaken by these two

17     police institutions with respect to the incident in question.

18             This is followed by forensic examination reports which contained

19     a detailed description of traces and evidence found on the spot, and also

20     provided is a photo file.  Then we have written statement of eyewitnesses

21     or the victims.  Then we have two official notes by the CSB, which also

22     refer to statements taken from two individuals.  Then we have a medical

23     record of the people who were injured and criminal report, as the one we

24     have seen earlier, to which all these documents listed above are attached

25     and forwarded to the prosecutor's office.

Page 5971

 1             MS. HARBOUR:  I'd like to tender this document into evidence.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

 3             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 10456 receives number P612,

 4     Your Honours.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

 6             MS. HARBOUR:  I'm now going to ask Ms. Stewart to play a short

 7     video-clip, which is 65 ter 22788A.

 8                           [Video-clip played]

 9             MS. HARBOUR:

10        Q.   Do you recognise where this took place, Mr. Miokovic?

11        A.   This took place on Zmaja od Bosne Street near the

12     Faculty of Philosophy in Sarajevo.

13        Q.   How far away was this from the tram sniping that you investigated

14     on the 3rd of March, 1995?

15        A.   This is a location that is between the spot where the tram,

16     according to eyewitnesses, was hit and the place where the on-site

17     investigation was carried out.  This video-clip was made at the location

18     which is much closer to the spot where the tram was hit than the place

19     where we did our investigation.

20        Q.   Do you know the individual who was shot in the clip?

21        A.   I don't know this boy, but looking back at that time, I know that

22     his aunt was a cook in one of the police stations, and in that way I

23     became familiar with that incident.

24             MS. HARBOUR:  I'd like to tender this into evidence.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

Page 5972

 1             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 22788A becomes Exhibit P613,

 2     Your Honours.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.  Can I seek

 4     clarification with you, Ms. Harbour, on the following matter:  We have

 5     looked at this inventory on the first page of the document.  You have

 6     shown B/C/S page 3 to the witness where the name was not legible and the

 7     witness explained to us that that was -- he knew the name of that boy,

 8     and it was not related to the incident he investigated.

 9             Now, he later explained for bullet point 2 that, and together

10     with bullet point 3, one of them is the document you've shown him, that

11     they were related to the incident he investigated.  So that seems

12     contradictory.

13             I don't know whether you noticed that, but at least it confuses

14     me slightly, because I understood that it was a report about what may

15     have happened at another moment, that they -- it starts with 5.00 in the

16     afternoon instead of briefly after midday.

17             Witness, could you clarify that you earlier said that this

18     report -- you remember of that name not well visible.  You knew the name

19     of the boy.  It was not related to the incident, and that at the same

20     time when going through this inventory, you said that bullet point 2,

21     which is that report we find on page 3 relates to the same incident.  I'm

22     slightly confused by that.

23             THE WITNESS:  This dispatch that you refer to where this young

24     man Sabanovic is mentioned has been shown to me during proofing preceding

25     this trial.  This young man was not injured in the tram that I

Page 5973

 1     investigated.  He was wounded in the same area where the tram was

 2     attacked.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  So if you said that bullet points 2 and 3 were

 4     related to the incident you investigated, that at least for bullet

 5     point 2, that is not accurate because it is something that happened in

 6     the same area but is not something you investigated.

 7             THE WITNESS:  Your Honours, let me be quite clear.  I did not

 8     investigate the wounding of this man Sabanovic.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Please proceed, Ms. Harbour.

10             MS. HARBOUR:

11        Q.   Did you also investigate a tram sniping incident on the

12     23rd of November, 1994?

13        A.   Yes, I did.

14             MS. HARBOUR:  Could we please have 65 ter 10070 on the screen.

15        Q.   Do you recognise this document?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   What is this document?

18        A.   This is an official report that I prepared after the on-site

19     investigation of the incident involving firing at the tram.

20        Q.   This report discusses two trams that were hit by bullets while

21     they were travelling on Zmaja od Bosne Street from east to west,

22     resulting in one dead and three wounded, and I would like to focus

23     first -- on the first tram that was hit.  So if I could draw your

24     attention to the paragraph beginning "At 1530 hours" a little more than

25     halfway down the page.

Page 5974

 1             Could you tell us from which direction perpetrators fired on the

 2     tram?

 3        A.   From the direction of Grbavica.

 4        Q.   Did any bullet pierce the tram?

 5        A.   In this particular instance we failed to find the damage caused

 6     by a bullet when it hits a hard surface, whether the tram itself or the

 7     windows.  So on that basis we concluded that the bullet came through a

 8     partially opened window on the left side of the tram and that it caused

 9     the consequences that occurred inside the tram.

10             MS. HARBOUR:  Could I please tender this into evidence,

11     Your Honours.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

13             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 10070 becomes Exhibit P614,

14     Your Honours.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

16             MS. HARBOUR:  Could we now have 65 ter 28565 on the screen.

17        Q.   Mr. Miokovic, what is this document?

18        A.   This is an official photo file compiled by the forensic and

19     crime-scene investigation team, i.e., the technician who was on the spot

20     during the on-site investigation.

21             MS. HARBOUR:  Could we please have page 3 in the English and the

22     B/C/S.

23        Q.   Now, I know this photograph is not very good quality, but from

24     the text underneath it, could you please tell us on what side of the tram

25     we see that the bullet entered?

Page 5975

 1        A.   This tram was hit on the left side.

 2             MS. HARBOUR:  And if we could please have page 5.  Sorry, I

 3     believe it's page 4.  Yes.

 4        Q.   What is this a photograph of?

 5        A.   This is the interior of the tram.  This photo was taken inside

 6     the tram, and it shows this partially opened window through which the

 7     bullet entered the tram.

 8        Q.   Now, I would like to tender this into evidence and show you a

 9     colour version of this photograph.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

11             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 28565 becomes Exhibit P615,

12     Your Honours.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

14             MS. HARBOUR:  Could we please now have 65 ter 28564.  And page 4

15     is what we'll be looking at, page 4 in the B/C/S.  If we could zoom in on

16     the area around the 1 and the arrow.  Yes.  Excellent.

17             Is it possible to turn the photo?  Thank you.

18        Q.   What is this white round circle on the window, Mr. Miokovic?

19        A.   Since this photograph was taken inside the tram, this white

20     circle is a small knob that one uses to open this sliding window on the

21     tram.

22        Q.   And can we see what the arrow is pointing to in this colour

23     version of the photograph?

24        A.   It is pointing to the area of the open window, that is to say the

25     space that is not covered by glass because the winnow was open.

Page 5976

 1             MS. HARBOUR:  Could I tender this into evidence, please.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

 3             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 28564 becomes Exhibit P616,

 4     Your Honours.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

 6             MS. HARBOUR:  Could we please have 65 ter 13020 on the screen.

 7        Q.   Do you know what this document is, Mr. Miokovic?

 8        A.   This is a record compiled by the crime scene technician, and it

 9     is always attached to a photo file.

10             MS. HARBOUR:  Could I tender this into evidence, please.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

12             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 13020 becomes Exhibit P617,

13     Your Honours.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

15             MS. HARBOUR:  Now could we please have 65 ter 12998 on the

16     screen.

17        Q.   Could you tell us what this document is, Mr. Miokovic?

18        A.   This is another report prepared by the crime scene investigation

19     department, or, rather, the crime scene technician who attended.

20        Q.   Under number 4 in the second sentence it states that a bullet

21     entered from the rear right-hand side window.  Can you explain why this

22     report says the bullet entered through the right-hand side window while

23     the other documents we've looked at refer to the left-hand side.

24        A.   This is definitely a mistake, a typo made by the person who typed

25     the report.  Since this report is attached to the photo file, it can

Page 5977

 1     quickly and easily be checked, and the documents will show that this was

 2     a clerical error.

 3             MS. HARBOUR:  I'd like to tender this into evidence,

 4     Your Honours.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 12998 becomes Exhibit P618,

 7     Your Honours.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

 9             MS. HARBOUR:  Could we please have 65 ter 10084 on the screen.

10        Q.   Mr. Miokovic, could you please review this document and let me

11     know if this is related to the incident that we've been speaking about.

12        A.   This is an official note compiled by a police official after he

13     interviewed the people injured in the incident that we are discussing.

14             MS. HARBOUR:  I'd like to tender this into evidence,

15     Your Honours.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

17             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 10084 becomes Exhibit P619,

18     Your Honours.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.  I am looking at the

20     clock, Ms. Harbour.  I think we have spent another hour, and is it time

21     for a break?

22             MS. HARBOUR:  This would be a perfect time for the break,

23     Your Honour.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  How much time would you need after the break?

25             MS. HARBOUR:  Half an hour.

Page 5978

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  That's more than you asked for, considerably more

 2     than you asked for.

 3             MS. HARBOUR:  Could I get an estimate of how much time I've used

 4     thus far?

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  I think approximately one hour and fifteen minutes,

 6     and you asked for one and a half hour, isn't it?

 7             MS. HARBOUR:  That is correct, Your Honour.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  And you spent a lot of time on details which, if not

 9     in dispute, would not have needed the attention you gave to it.  If a

10     photograph says that the arrow shows to the open part of a window then to

11     spend two or three minutes with a witness to find out whether that is an

12     open part of the window is of course not very helpful.  The Chamber is

13     able to read that and -- we first go into closed session.

14                           [Closed session]

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 5979

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17                           [Open session]

18             THE REGISTRAR:  We're in open session, Your Honours.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

20             Ms. Harbour, you may proceed.

21             MS. HARBOUR:

22        Q.   Mr. Miokovic, after the conflict ended, did your department at

23     CSB Sarajevo investigate the sniping nests in the previously occupied

24     territory of Sarajevo?

25        A.   After the reintegration of Sarajevo, all the police forces from

Page 5980

 1     the CSB, once they had entered the area searched the terrain with the

 2     primary objective of ensuring that the citizens could live safely in the

 3     area.  My department participated in that action, and in the course of

 4     these searches of the terrain, in the course of the searches conducted in

 5     the buildings that had been under the control of the VRS during the war,

 6     we found, amongst other things, a number of fortified features that had

 7     most probably been used by snipers for sniper activity.

 8        Q.   In the area of Grbavica did you find any such facilities?

 9        A.   Yes.  We found a number of such facilities there.

10        Q.   Which direction were the snipers' nests facing?

11        A.   Are if we're talking about the buildings in Grbavica, they were

12     all facing the town.  They were facing the Zmaja od Bosne Street or the

13     Holiday Inn Hotel.

14        Q.   How many snipers' nests were found in the Grbavica area?

15        A.   I can't answer your question with any precision.  I personally

16     participated in the search of four skyscrapers that were used for such

17     activity, and in one of the skyscrapers that I also searched we found ten

18     such nests.

19             MS. HARBOUR:  Could we please have 65 ter 19709.  And could we

20     please go to page 7 in the B/C/S and the English.

21        Q.   What can you tell the Chamber about this photograph,

22     Mr. Miokovic?

23             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Objection.  Your Honours, I

24     think it's first necessary to lay a foundation for this question.  We

25     need to know whether the photograph was taken at the time that this

Page 5981

 1     witness was involved in the on-site investigation.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Witness, is this a photograph taken during one of

 3     your investigations?

 4             THE WITNESS:  Your Honours, as far as searching the terrain is

 5     concerned, no on-site investigations were carried out.  The only thing

 6     that was done is that photographs of the positions were taken.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me stop you there.  This photograph, was that

 8     taken in an investigative activity in which you were involved?

 9             THE WITNESS:  I don't know.  I don't know.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Have you seen this photograph before?

11             THE WITNESS:  It was shown to me in the course of the proofing.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Did you ever see it before?

13             THE WITNESS:  No.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Bolton, we have a document before us --

15     Ms. Harbour.  I apologise.  I still have to adapt.

16             Would you please keep this in mind when you put questions to the

17     witness.

18             MS. HARBOUR:

19        Q.   Yes.  Perhaps it would be best to start at page 1 of this

20     document.  This is a photo documentation booklet entitled "Discovery of

21     Many Sniping Nests."  It's dated the 13th of May, 1996, and the location

22     is at the Grbavica Street, an address on that street.  Were you involved

23     in searches on that street?

24        A.   Yes, in Grbavica Street, yes, I was.

25        Q.   And did you come across sniping nests in that -- during those

Page 5982

 1     searches?

 2        A.   Yes, we came across sniper nests.

 3        Q.   Now, perhaps you won't remember the exact snipers' nests that you

 4     saw, but if we show photos of similar nests, would you be able to shed

 5     any light on what is depicted based on your experience in that search?

 6        A.   Yes, I do, but I'd like to remind you of the fact that given all

 7     the time that has passed, even if you showed me a place that I had

 8     visited, I couldn't really confirm that, yes, that is the place in

 9     question.  A lot of time has passed since the events we're dealing with.

10        Q.   I understand.  Could we now go back to the photo we were looking

11     at which was at page 7.  Now, based on your experience with this search

12     of the snipers' nests, what can you tell the Chamber about this

13     photograph in addition to what they can read themselves at the bottom of

14     the photograph?

15        A.   These sacks were used to fortify the area, these sacks of earth

16     or of sand.  This was done in order to protect those who were inside.

17     And there is an opening that you can see in the photograph that could

18     describe as a gun-hole, a loop-hole.

19             MS. HARBOUR:  Could we please go to page 9.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask the following question:  Did you find

21     during your searches similar constructions of sandbags with a small

22     opening?

23             THE WITNESS:  Well, yes, Your Honours, and this is what it looks

24     like.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  You've answered my question.

Page 5983

 1             Please proceed, Ms. --

 2             MS. HARBOUR:  Could we please turn to page 9.

 3        Q.   Now, this is a photograph taken from a different advantage point

 4     but from the same room that the other photograph we just looked at was

 5     taken.  What can you tell the Chamber about this photograph?

 6        A.   Here one can see that the direction that the gun hole is facing

 7     is the Marsal Tito Barracks, or, rather, the Zmaja od Bosne Street.

 8        Q.   Was this the location of any of the sniping incidents that you

 9     investigated during the war, during the siege?

10        A.   There were many incidents in the Zmaja od Bosne Street.  This was

11     the result of sniper activity.  And the trams that I'm testifying about

12     were hit in that street.

13             MS. HARBOUR:  Your Honours, in the interests of time, instead of

14     going through more photographs, I'd like to tender this document.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

16             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 19709 becomes Exhibit P620,

17     Your Honours.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Stojanovic.  Mr. Stojanovic, you're on your

19     feet.

20             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] We object to having this photo

21     documentation admitted into evidence through this witness.  The first

22     page shows who took the photos and when, and the witness quite clearly

23     stated that he cannot say whether he was involved in these photographs.

24     We also have transcripts that relate to these photographs, and we can see

25     who participated in taking these photographs.  These transcripts do not

Page 5984

 1     contain the name of the witness that we have here today.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  The witness has testified that what he saw in one of

 3     these photographs was similar to what he saw when he did similar

 4     investigations.  Apart from that, the witness identified what could be

 5     seen through one of these holes which is a sufficient basis for admission

 6     of this document into evidence.

 7             Madam Registrar, you already assigned a number.  It was -- P620

 8     is hereby admitted into evidence.

 9             Please proceed.  Nevertheless, Ms. Harbour, if one of the authors

10     would at any point in time would testify, I don't know if any of them is

11     on the list, of course would give greater latitude in interpreting and

12     evaluating what was not discussed with the witness.

13             Please proceed.

14             MS. HARBOUR:  Yes, Your Honours.  We're very mindful of the

15     probative value of these photos and will seek to further explain them to

16     the Chamber as we can.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  That's understood.  Please proceed.

18             MS. HARBOUR:  Since Mr. Miokovic's statements cover his

19     investigations of the 8 November 1994 shellings on Livanjska Street and

20     these are also covered to some extent by adjudicated facts and in the

21     interests of time, I'm going to instead of discussing this incident with

22     the witness I'm going to simply ask him to authenticate reports from this

23     incident and also the investigative video.  Could I please have

24     65 ter 10050 on the screen.

25        Q.   Mr. Miokovic, do you recognise this document?

Page 5985

 1        A.   Yes.  This is an official report that I drafted having completed

 2     the on-site investigation in Livanjska Street.

 3             MS. HARBOUR:  I'd like to tender this into evidence.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 10050 becomes Exhibit P621,

 6     Your Honours.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

 8             MS. HARBOUR:  Could we please have 65 ter 12942A.

 9        Q.   Mr. Miokovic, do you recognise this document?

10        A.   This is also an official report of mine, a report that I drafted

11     after an on-site investigation into an incident that also occurred in the

12     Livanjska Street.  This incident occurred immediately after we had left

13     the site, once we had completed the first on-site investigation.

14             MS. HARBOUR:  And could we please have page 4 in the English and

15     page 3 in the B/C/S, which is a different document.

16        Q.   Mr. Miokovic, do you recognise this document?

17        A.   This is an official note drafted by colleagues from the

18     investigations department.  They were involved in the identification of

19     the people who had been wounded or killed in this particular incident.

20             MS. HARBOUR:  I'd like to tender this into evidence.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

22             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 12942A becomes Exhibit P622,

23     Your Honours.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

25             MS. HARBOUR:  Could we please have 65 ter 22665.  This is

Page 5986

 1     actually a video, and I'm just going to ask Ms. Stewart to play the first

 2     several seconds of the video.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Before you do so, the previous document

 4     contains redactions.  That is because these were other documents also the

 5     same?

 6             MS. HARBOUR:  Yes.  The way that these were translated, they just

 7     translated the entire investigative file without making page breaks.  So

 8     we've redacted the translations that don't correspond directly to the

 9     originals.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  That's clear.  Thank you for your explanation.

11     Let's have a look at the video.

12             MS. HARBOUR:  Now, we'll just play the first several seconds.

13        Q.   And, Mr. Miokovic, please tell us if you recognise this video.

14                           [Video-clip played]

15             MS. HARBOUR:  That's sufficient.  Thank you.

16             THE WITNESS:  This is a video record made at the on-site

17     investigation launched into the first incident in Livanjska Street.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  The portion played started at 3 seconds and lasted

19     until 9.8 seconds.

20             MS. HARBOUR:  Yes, Your Honour.  I would tender this entire

21     video.  It is four minutes long.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  And it depicts the investigation, I take it?

23             MS. HARBOUR:  That is what the witness has testified, I believe.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but the remainder, of course, as well.

25             MS. HARBOUR:  Yes, exactly.

Page 5987

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 22665 before Exhibit P623, Your Honours.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  P623 is admitted into evidence.

 4             MS. HARBOUR:  I have no further questions, Your Honour.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Ms. Harbour.

 6             Mr. Stojanovic, it might not be very useful to start for only six

 7     minutes the cross-examination.  Could you tell us on the basis of the

 8     examination-in-chief whether your estimate of the time you would need in

 9     cross-examination is still what it was?

10             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, our initial

11     assessment of four hours has been reduced to two and a half hours, and I

12     think that will be sufficient time for us to cross-examine the witness.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Then we can finish for the day.  There are no

14     other procedural matters to be raised.

15             I'm looking at the parties, but first of all could the witness be

16     escorted out of the courtroom once we're in closed session.

17                           [Closed session]

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23                           [Open session]

24             THE REGISTRAR:  We're in open session, Your Honours.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  In the expectation that the booth still

Page 5988

 1     have the text before them, I'd like to give an oral statement on behalf

 2     of the Chamber.

 3             The Chamber will deliver a statement regarding the Prosecution's

 4     Notices of Compliance with the Chamber's decision on Mladic motion for

 5     access to completed cases, which was rendered on the 7th of September of

 6     this year, on the 1st, the 19th and the 25th of October, 2012.  The

 7     Prosecution filed Notices of Compliance with the Chamber's decision on

 8     the Mladic motion for access to completed cases for which access to

 9     confidential inter partes materials was granted to a limited extent,

10     namely Prosecutor versus Ranko Cesic, Prosecutor versus Goran Jelisic,

11     Prosecutor versus Darko Mrdja, and Prosecutor versus Milan Martic.

12             In paragraph one of the Cesic and Jelisic notices, the

13     Prosecution states that none of the witnesses in those cases will be

14     called by the Prosecution to testify in the Mladic case and that

15     consequently, in line with the Chamber's decision, there are no

16     confidential inter partes materials in those cases to which the accused

17     Mladic should be granted access.

18             The Chamber is concerned that the relevant paragraph of the

19     access decision has been misinterpreted and is therefore now providing

20     some clarification.

21             Paragraph 15 of the access decision states the following:

22             "Any transcript of testimony from witnesses in common with the

23     completed cases and this case will fall under the Prosecution's

24     disclosure obligations under Rule 66(A)(iii)of the Rules.  Thus any

25     access granted by this decision will relate only to transcript of

Page 5989

 1     testimony from witnesses which are in common with the completed cases and

 2     this case but which the Prosecution has decided not to call in this case,

 3     filings and exhibits."

 4             Thus the fact that the Prosecution has decided not to call

 5     witnesses in common with the completed case and this case is not the

 6     decisive factor as to whether access to confidential inter partes

 7     material, i.e., transcript, filings, or exhibits, should occur.  Whilst

 8     the approach taken by the Prosecution is only evident from the Cesic and

 9     Jelisic Notices of Compliance, the Chamber is concerned that the same

10     approach may have been taken in relation to the other cases in this

11     category, Prosecutor versus Darko Mrdja and Prosecutor versus

12     Milan Martic.

13             The Chamber therefore suggests that in light of this

14     clarification, the Prosecution revaluates its disclosure approach to

15     ensure that it is in line with the clarification and paragraph 15 of the

16     access decision.

17             There is a second matter that the Chamber has noted in relation

18     to the notices filed for the Martic, Galic, and Dragomir Milosevic case

19     materials.  Annex B of these notices include lists of material still

20     subject to Rule 70 for which the Prosecution first needs to receive

21     clearance from the provider.  The material listed includes Tribunal

22     decisions, transcripts of Tribunal testimony, and witness statements of

23     witnesses in common with this case and the completed cases.  Such

24     transcripts and statements would normally fall under Rule 66(A)(ii)

25     disclosure.

Page 5990

 1             First, to the extent that the Prosecution has sought the relevant

 2     Rule 70 provider's consent to disclose and is yet to receive such

 3     consent, the Chamber urges the parties to immediately inform the Chamber

 4     should the parties experience any problems or if the consent is refused.

 5             Second, to the extent that the documents listed in the annex may

 6     contain Rule 70 material within them and the Prosecution is awaiting the

 7     consent of the relevant Rule 70 provider, the Chamber expects the

 8     Prosecution to redact such information from the relevant documents.  Such

 9     redacted copies should be provided to the Defence as soon as possible

10     until the Rule 70 provider's consent to disclose -- to disclosure in this

11     case is obtained.  At that point the Chamber expects the Prosecutor to

12     provide unredacted copies to the Defence.

13             Third, in relation to those materials listed in Annex B related

14     to witnesses not in common with this case in the completed cases and for

15     which Rule 66(A)(ii) disclosure does not apply, the Chamber encourages

16     the parties to immediately inform the Chamber of any problems being

17     experienced in gaining such consent.  The Chamber is also particularly

18     concerned when the Rule 70 provider refuses to provide its consent for

19     the disclosure of material which has been disclosed to other accused

20     before this Tribunal.

21             And this concludes the Chamber's statement.

22             Mr. Groome, you're on your feet.

23             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, we will comply with everything that

24     you've said.  We will re-evaluate our practice with respect to access to

25     other cases, and in light of the fact that we have filed notices, we will

Page 5991

 1     either file an additional notice confirming that we are in compliance or

 2     we'll be filing new notices.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Groome.

 4             With apologies to all those assisting us for being five minutes

 5     late, we adjourn for the day, and we'll resume Monday, the 10th of

 6     December, at 9.30 in Courtroom III.

 7             We stand adjourned.

 8                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.18 p.m.,

 9                           to be reconvened on Monday, the 10th day

10                           of December, 2012, at 9.30 a.m.