1 Monday, 10 December 2012
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.32 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone. Madam Registrar, would
6 you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case
8 IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
10 Before we continue with the cross-examination of the witness, I'd
11 first like to deal with a few procedural matters. The first one being
12 that the Defence has requested an extension of time to file Rule 94 bis
13 notice, notices for proposed experts. The Prosecution did not oppose but
14 requested the Defence to ensure that this extension does not cause delays
15 in the hearing of scheduled witnesses.
16 The extension request is granted, but the Defence is urged to
17 file its notices as soon as possible so as to avoid any delays in the
18 hearing of upcoming witnesses.
19 We should have delivered this decision last Friday, because
20 that's when the time limit elapsed, but that is done here by -- although
21 half an hour late.
22 Then, Mr. Groome, I think Ms. Bolton wished to make submissions
23 for ten minutes on certain matters.
24 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. We were waiting to hear from the
25 Chamber when you would hear her. If you advise me, I will make sure
1 she's here in court for that.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And how much time would that approximately
3 take, because I have a few matters, and there are a few other matters, I
4 think, also in relation to Witness Fraser. Three documents still to be
6 MR. GROOME: I think it would be difficult to bring her down
7 right now, Your Honour, but maybe the beginning of next session or ...
8 JUDGE ORIE: Let's first see how we deal with the next witness --
9 with the present witness and let's see when, but if she could be
10 available later this morning then that would be appreciated.
11 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Then MFI P6, Security Council Resolution. I think
13 the Defence wanted to indicate its position. That's at least what we
14 were told a few days ago, on the revised version of this document. Are
15 there any objections against the revised version of this
16 Security Council Resolution? I think it's for the Defence.
17 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] We have had a look at it and
18 considered the matter, Your Honours, and we don't have any objections to
19 this amended -- or, rather, revised version.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then the new version may replace the old one.
21 It has been uploaded into e-court.
22 Madam Registrar, are you aware of the new upload in relation to
23 MFI P6?
24 THE REGISTRAR: No, Your Honours. I'm not aware of the number,
25 but I will receive it from the Prosecution.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Is it possible to give it right away? Then we can
2 finalise the matter. But the one which has been uploaded, the number
3 still to be verified, may replace the old version, and the Registry is
4 instructed to do so. The new version then is admitted into evidence.
5 Madam Registrar, MFIs D65, D67, and D81, these were outstanding
6 translations. Have the translations meanwhile been received?
7 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour, for D65, D67, and D81 we have
8 received the translation uploaded in e-court.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. They may be attached to the originals so that
10 we have now originals and translations. D65, D67, and D81 are admitted
11 into evidence.
12 Yes. These were the matters I wished to raise before we continue
13 with the present witness.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE ORIE: Then we have for the witness who has the protective
16 measures of face distortion, we have to briefly go into closed session to
17 allow the witness to enter the courtroom.
18 [Closed session]
23 [Open session]
24 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
1 Good morning, Mr. Miokovic. Before we continue, I have to admit
2 that I'd forgotten to instruct you last Friday that you should not speak
3 with anyone or communicate in any other way with whomever about your
4 testimony. I was informed that at our request, the
5 Victims and Witnesses Section passed on this instruction to you. Could
6 you confirm that?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can confirm that, Your Honours.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Miokovic, we'll now continue, and I'd like to
9 remind you that you're still bound by the solemn declaration you've given
10 at the beginning of your testimony. Mr. Stojanovic will now continue his
12 WITNESS: DRAGAN MIOKOVIC [Resumed]
13 [Witness answered through interpreter]
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, you may proceed.
15 Cross-examination by Mr. Stojanovic:
16 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, sir. Can you hear me?
17 A. Good morning. Yes.
18 Q. I'd just like to go into some of the details that concern your
19 professional background. If I have understood this correctly, you
20 started working in the police force having completed secondary school; is
21 that correct?
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. In the course of your work in the police force, did you receive
24 training of any kind in relation to ballistics, artillery, sniper rifles,
25 and other weapons that you may have came across subsequently?
1 A. No.
2 Q. Did you perform your military service? If so, where and what
3 sort of military education did you receive or military training did you
5 A. I performed my military service in 1981 in Pula. I was in the
6 Anti-Aircraft Artillery Unit.
7 Q. Did you learn anything about the technical characteristics and
8 the possibilities of mortar weapons during that period of time?
9 A. As for mortar weapons, no. While I was doing my military
10 service, I had no training or no contact with the use of mortar weapons.
11 Q. When the war broke out in Sarajevo, did you have problems -- any
12 problems in the sense that people were wounded by artillery?
13 A. I was wounded on the 2nd of June, 1992, but I was not wounded as
14 a result of artillery fire.
15 Q. Would you tell the Chamber where you were wounded and how? What
16 were you wounded by?
17 A. I was wounded in an armed clash with a criminal group in Sarajevo
18 while I was performing my duties as policeman.
19 Q. Were you then sent out of Sarajevo and Bosnia and Herzegovina for
21 A. As of the 7th of April -- or from the 7th of April until the
22 26th of June, 1993, I was receiving treatment in Germany. I returned to
23 Sarajevo on the 26th of June.
24 Q. In the course of the examination-in-chief, at one point in time
25 you mentioned certain information. You mentioned the percentage of
1 Croats, Serbs, and the percentage of other groups who according to you in
2 the wartime period worked in the police force of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
3 Where did you obtain this information from? Where did you obtain these
4 percentages from that you made use of?
5 A. I wasn't referring to the police forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina. I
6 wasn't referring to the wartime period. I was referring exclusively to
7 the security services centre in Sarajevo which is where I worked. I was
8 talking about the period from December 1993, when I first arrived in the
9 CSB, the security services centre.
10 Q. Let's make this clear. The percentage of 20 to 25 per cent, does
11 that include the number of those working in the CSB in Sarajevo, and if
12 so, during which period of time? Is that what this percentage refers to?
13 A. The CSB in Sarajevo from December 1993, which is when I left the
14 police station in Sarajevo and was transferred to the CSB, up until the
15 time that the Dayton agreement was signed. So in fact, that is the
16 period concerned.
17 Q. I'd like you to tell us how you obtained that information. Is
18 that official information, information to which we might have access?
19 Could we verify this anywhere?
20 A. This information is information I obtained on the basis of my own
21 experience, because we all worked in the same building. As to whether
22 this information can be verified, I believe that that is the case,
23 because records were kept at the time.
24 Q. Are you telling us that this is information you obtained by
25 making your personal assessments? It's not as if you came across this
1 official information in any documents.
2 A. Of course, this is my own personal assessment.
3 Q. Did you also declare yourself to be a Serb at that time?
4 A. Up until the beginning of the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, I always
5 declared myself to be a Yugoslav.
6 Q. My question concerned the wartime period when you made these
7 assessments and you assessed the number of non-Bosniak employees, when
8 you assessed what the percentages were, that's what I was referring to.
9 A. Believe me, I wasn't calculating percentages of any kind. If
10 you're asking me if I declared myself to be a Serb, then my answer is
11 yes, but my assessment regarding 20, 25 per cent is only an assessment
12 that I made on the basis of my own personal observations and experience.
13 It wasn't arrived at through an analysis of any kind. It wasn't arrived
14 through a detailed analysis of the ethnic composition of the
15 Sarajevo CSB, security services centre.
16 Q. That is what I'm persuaded of, and that's what I wanted you to
17 say because the transcript says that that is the percentage you were
18 referring to. But I would now like to have a look at the following
19 document: P609. And while we're waiting for this document to appear on
20 the screen, sir, I would just like to tell you that this in fact is an
21 interview that you gave to investigators from the ICTY on the
22 14th of November, 1995, and it is -- it has been admitted into evidence
23 in this case, and in response to a question put to you by the
24 investigator concerning your ethnicity, on the 14th of November, 1995,
25 you said something contrary to what you just said. You said that you
1 were a Bosniak.
2 Could you please tell the Chamber how it is that there is such a
3 discrepancy? You can see this on the first page. It's line 5.
4 A. I can see it, but I don't know what is problematic here.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, could you explain to the witness
6 where you find a contradiction? If it is that he says I always declared
7 myself Yugoslavia and that you find here that his ethnic origin is
8 Bosnian, I don't know whether that's the same. It may be two different
9 instances, and for official purposes in the former Yugoslavia he may have
10 reported himself as a Yugoslav which does not necessarily contradict that
11 he's here described as of Bosnian ethnic origin.
12 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, a few minutes ago,
13 you can see this in the transcript, the witness said that in the course
14 of the war, it's line 7, if I can see this clearly -- it's page 7, in
15 fact. The witness said that up until the war, he declared himself to be
16 a Yugoslav, and in the course of the war he declared himself to be of
17 Serbian ethnicity.
18 All I am doing now is trying to clear this up, because on the
19 14th of November, 1995, in the course of the war according to the
20 information he provided to the ICTY, he declared himself to be a Bosnian,
21 to be of Bosnian ethnicity.
22 JUDGE ORIE: If you can explain, please do so, Witness.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My parents were Serbs. Before the
24 war, I always declared myself to be a Yugoslav. In doing that, I was not
25 disregarding my Serbian origins. I don't see what would be problematic
1 about the fact that I said I am a Bosnian here. I said I was a Bosnia,
2 not a Bosniak. I'm pointing this out for the purpose of the translation,
3 the interpretation. But I don't think that this in any way doesn't leave
4 me with the right to declare myself a Serb or to feel that I am a Serb.
5 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Thank you. I won't delve into that matter. I'd now like to deal
7 with the events that concern Livanjska Street, and this relates to the
8 document. Could we please have a look at paragraph 10 in this document.
9 And while waiting for it to appear, there are just a few matters I would
10 like to go through with you.
11 You were at the on-site investigation on the 8th when the first
12 shell fell; am I correct?
13 A. Yes. In Livanjska Street I was present at that on-site
15 Q. And you left the site before the second shell fell; is that
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. On the following day you went to the site again to carry out an
19 on-site investigation because of the second shell that had fallen; is
20 that correct?
21 A. On the following day we went to the site to repeat the on-site
22 investigation relating to the first shell, because that's what UNPROFOR
23 had requested. We also wanted to carry out an on-site investigation into
24 the second shell.
25 Q. To the best of your recollection, when did that second shell
2 A. I believe it was about half an hour or 45 minutes after we had
3 left. It was perhaps half an hour after we had left the site.
4 Q. And tell us when did you leave the site?
5 A. According to paragraph 12, it was at 1730 hours.
6 Q. I'm asking you about this because I would like to draw your
7 attention to paragraph 14. Could you tell us when you went to the
8 on-site -- to carry out the on-site investigation on the following day,
9 how many shells fell after you had left the site?
10 A. Two shells fell. I apologise. Well, that's fine now. I just
11 wanted to see paragraph 14. It's fine now.
12 Q. Yes. I would like us both to have a look at that paragraph,
13 paragraph 14. And here you say at 1900 hours, at 7.00 p.m. that same
14 evening a second shell fell only 20 metres from the site at which the
15 first shell fell. In this statement, is it true that the conclusion you
16 drew is that one shell fell, not two?
17 A. What you are saying is correct. All I can do is assume that I
18 was referring to the second shell, because it had certain consequences.
19 As for the shell that hit the ground, that was imbedded in the ground,
20 there were no consequences. That shell didn't have any particular
21 effect, which was not the case with the other one.
22 Q. Here you say the following and this statement was given a year
23 after the event, you say that the shell fell at 7.00 p.m. that evening.
24 Today in the course of the examination-in-chief you said it was about
25 half an hour after you left at 5.30. What in fact is correct? This is
1 what you said here today and in the course of the examination-in-chief.
2 A. What it says here is probably correct given all the time that has
4 Q. But this is confusing us, which is why I would like to see
5 Exhibit P611, which has been admitted into evidence. Please have a look
6 at Exhibit P611 now.
7 On the 27th of October, 2010, you provide additional supplemental
8 information to the OTP concerning this event. Could we now look at the
9 following page in the B/C/S version. We have the right page in the
10 English, and in describing the chronology of this event in the
11 Livanjska Street, you say that the second shell fell on Livanjska Street
12 at 17.25, and then the third one fell at 17.30 at number 36. Would you
13 please explain what is closest to the truth? In 1995 you said that it
14 was 7.00 p.m., and then as is in P611, you say that the time reference
15 was between 17.25 and 17.30, and then this morning you said that the time
16 reference was 1800 hours, some 30 minutes after you departed.
17 A. I really don't have a problem in explaining this. I'm not trying
18 to wiggle myself out of this but to explain this time difference of one
19 hour, of one hour and a half, I really can't do it now. I can't explain
20 it now given all the time that has passed. It could be due to some
21 technical elements, and if we are interested in the accurate precise time
22 when the second and third shell fell, we could probably refer to the
23 accompanying documents, dispatches, that were sent at the time which
24 would probably point us in the right direction. After all, these were
25 just my statements, my recollections.
1 Q. But we will agree, won't you, that your statement suffers, if I
2 may say so, from the consequences of the passage of time and that it is
3 not fully precise.
4 A. Given this time interval and given the time references that
5 you --
6 JUDGE ORIE: There's no need to ask that. It's clear that the
7 time references are not completely consistent. It's all in the late
8 afternoon, early evening, but it's not consistent. That's clear,
9 Mr. Stojanovic from the statements, from the answers given by the
10 witness, so there's no need to further explore that at this moment.
11 Please proceed.
12 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. We
13 were trying to understand this situation better due to the artillery
14 diaries and so that we could make further comparisons, but all right.
15 Let us go back to P609, please, paragraph 10 of that exhibit.
16 Q. I would like for you to provide a detailed explanation for the
17 Court, please. On the 8th of November, having received information that
18 there was shelling and that the first shell fell at Livanjska Street, you
19 went on site, and would you please explain to the Court how it came about
20 that the representatives of UNPROFOR left the on-site investigation, as
21 far as you can recollect?
22 A. At that time, it was a routine procedure for the UNPROFOR
23 observers to come to the site and to monitor what we were doing during
24 the on-site investigation. Given that the UNPROFOR teams had better
25 mobility, frequently they would reach the site before us. There were
1 situations where they would do things to change the site and how it
2 looked, which of course created problems for us and for our on-site
4 Now that you're asking me about this particular instance when
5 UNPROFOR left the site, let me tell you this: Two observers of UNPROFOR
6 came to this site. Some 15 to 20 minutes after them, French UNPROFOR
7 battalion came to the site as well. They were not observers. They were
8 active-duty military personnel. They were not observers. And their
9 commander, via an interpreter, told me that they wanted to conduct the
10 on-site investigation and that their experts would come to carry out the
11 on-site investigation together with us. He left the site, and up until
12 the time we departed, we waited for them to come back. However, they did
14 Q. Where were you when you talked to this French soldier or
15 French officer?
16 A. I was in the immediate vicinity of the zero point, which is the
17 point where the shell fell. When I say immediate vicinity, I mean
18 distance up to 10 metres from the place where the shell landed.
19 Q. Now, these two UNPROFOR representatives who had been there before
20 you, did they tamper at all with this site and with the traces of the
21 mortar explosion? Did they touch anything?
22 A. As far as I can remember, before the French battalion arrived,
23 one of the two observers who had been there, I saw him at one point
24 kneeling close to the zero point, crouching there, and I saw him
25 touching, almost touching, the stabiliser of the shell, and I warned him
1 not to touch it until all the necessary steps had been taken.
2 Q. Was that before you started the on-site investigation or after
4 A. Definitely before.
5 Q. Please look at paragraph 10 of your statement. It says there
6 that upon returning to the site having talked to this French soldier
7 whose name you don't know, and you were told that one of the UNPROFOR
8 representatives had tried to pull out the remains of the shell from the
9 ground and that it was one of your people who warned him not to do it,
10 and you are telling us that you told him that.
11 A. I am fully certain that I said this to this UNPROFOR
12 representative who was from Africa. He was a black man. And I'm sure
13 that I told him. And as I said to you, it frequently happened that the
14 UNPROFOR observers would make our work much more difficult by tampering
15 with the evidence at the scene.
16 Q. Now, please look at item 13, paragraph 13. That evening at
17 around 8.00 p.m., you say in your statement that UNPROFOR held a press
18 conference and that their spokesperson said that the Bosnian police did
19 not let them carry out the on-site investigation and that that evening
20 the minister of the interior issued an order that a report be prepared
21 because this is what the Presidency of the country had asked for, and you
22 personally did that.
23 Now, please tell me, from this time distance can you now explain
24 to us and to the Court where did this statement on UNPROFOR come from?
25 How come the UNPROFOR complained that you did not let them carry out the
1 on-site investigation if the things unfolded in the way that you had just
2 described to us?
3 A. Well, first of all, I confirm that all of this is correct.
4 That's exactly how it was. So then and now, under oath I state that the
5 assertion that the UNPROFOR members were not permitted to carry out an
6 investigation into this event is absolutely untrue, and it's total
8 Q. And are you aware that after that UNPROFOR issued another
9 statement in which they said that the shell came from the positions of
10 the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina?
11 A. Yes, I am aware of that, and this is why the following day there
12 was a joint investigation, if I can name it that, and the dilemma around
13 this position of theirs was cleared up in the technical sense.
14 Q. And after you paired up the firing charts of the shells, do you
15 agree that this shell was fired from positions of the
16 Bosnia and Herzegovina Army?
17 A. Well, I really don't know what their official -- and when I say
18 "their" I mean UNPROFOR, what their understanding of the whole thing was,
19 but what I did point out was that when we did pair up the results at the
20 site and when it was noted that the finished charts could not be
21 relevant, they immediately accepted that and even they took the firing
22 tables for the 82-millimetre mortars from our technicians, which was used
23 during the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
24 Q. And since you carried out the inquiry on the 8th and the 9th
25 of -- into the first shelling incident and the second, according to your
1 recollection did they come from the same positions which were under the
2 control of the Army of Republika Srpska?
3 A. Well, I cannot be sure until I look at the documents, but I think
4 that they did not. I think that they came from a diametrically opposite
5 direction when you look at the directions.
6 Q. Well, let me just complete this part of my topic. After you
7 documented your information and operative data and all the investigations
8 that had to do with a certain criminal act, then criminal charges would
9 be submitted to the relevant prosecutor's office once all of that was
10 done. According to what you know, were charges submitted for processing
11 to the relevant prosecutor's office regarding this incident as well?
12 A. Are you talking about both shelling incidents? I just want to be
14 Q. Yes. We're talking about the same event, but it happened on two
15 different occasions.
16 A. Well, the complete documentation along with the criminal charges
17 would be -- and were filed to the relevant prosecutor's office, and if
18 this wasn't done, it would be something unacceptable.
19 Q. But what I'm a little bit puzzled about is I have information
20 that your public security centre did not provide the criminal charges to
21 the prosecutor's office for the first shelling incident; is this correct?
22 A. This is something that simply cannot happen. It cannot happen.
23 Had something like this happened, someone, and in this case it would be
24 me, would be responsible for that.
25 Another reason why this simply could not happen was this:
1 Because of all of this information, all these events regarding the
2 reporting back to UNPROFOR and regarding the assertion that we did not
3 permit them to carry out their investigation, well, the investigation
4 that was carried out on the second day was conducted by the investigating
5 judge of the court in Sarajevo. So in view of this fact in particular,
6 it's practically impossible for this document -- for these documents not
7 to have been provided to the prosecutor's office.
8 Q. [Microphone not activated]
9 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, could you activate your microphone.
11 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. And this first shelling incident that you talked about when you
13 were at the scene, the investigating judge was not present for that.
14 A. Are you asking me about the first day?
15 Q. Yes, the first day.
16 A. According to the law that was in force then about the criminal
17 procedure, it was the duty of the section where I worked to inform
18 immediately the investigating judge on duty as soon as an incident
19 occurred, and then that judge could come to the scene, conduct an
20 investigation or authorise the CSB to carry out the investigation. So on
21 the first day it was this second case. He did not come to the scene, but
22 he authorised us to carry out the investigation.
23 Q. Thank you. I'm going to come back now to this question which was
24 the reason why I put all these other questions.
25 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please look at
1 65 ter 12942 in e-court, please. B/C/S page 127, and the English page is
2 page 14 and page 15.
3 Q. Sir, we will be looking at the criminal report that was the
4 result of the work of the CSB in Sarajevo, its investigation. The
5 criminal report was submitted on the 21st of December, 1994. Among other
6 things, it is said in the criminal report that:
7 "Based on Article 151 of paragraph 6 of the Law on Criminal
8 Procedure, a criminal report was submitted against unidentified
9 perpetrators due to well founded suspicion that on the
10 8th of November, 1994, at around 1725 hundred hours," please take note
11 time, "in violation of international law and with intent to kill and
12 inflict physical injuries to as many civilians in the city of Sarajevo as
13 possible, the perpetrators fired two 82-millimetre mortar shells from the
14 north-east direction, from enemy positions at
15 Spicasta Stijena-Hladivode."
16 I'm asking you whether this criminal report is also documentation
17 submitted for the first incident, against the unidentified perpetrators
18 in the first incident.
19 A. No. The criminal report does not refer to that.
20 Q. And then how is that possible? [Microphone not activated]
21 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
22 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. How is that possible after you stated here today that you believe
24 there is no doubt that this is something that should have processed?
25 A. These are two separate events. This is the second incident. So
1 both in terms of the investigation and in terms of submitting criminal
2 reports, these incidents were treated as separate incidents. So there
3 must be a criminal report that relates to the first shell that killed two
4 children, one directly on the scene and one child died after being taken
5 to the hospital.
6 This criminal report refers exclusively to the incident that
7 occurred after I left the investigation following the impact of the first
9 Q. Well, let's try to deal with one more question on this topic.
10 The following day, the 9th of November, was there a joint investigation
11 by UNPROFOR and representatives of the CSB Sarajevo that covered both the
12 first shelling incident when one shell dropped there and for the second
13 shelling when two shells fell?
14 A. I am quite sure that a joint investigation was carried out
15 regarding the first incident. It's been a long time since then, so I
16 cannot remember whether an investigation was carried out regarding the
17 second two shells from the second incident.
18 Q. Could we please look at P609 again, and can we look at
19 paragraphs 15 and 16. And in paragraph 16, you say that you went with
20 your team to carry out the first investigation for a second time. This
21 was the following day. And when you got there, the UNPROFOR had already
22 completed its investigation.
23 So I'm asking you now, did you conduct this investigation jointly
24 or was it the way that it is stated here, that each of you carried out a
25 separate investigation?
1 A. Well, the principle was that they carried out their investigation
2 without presenting the results of this investigation to us. After they
3 finished, we would do our investigation, we would get our results, and
4 then these results would be compared. This is what I meant when I said
5 that we worked together, that we did a joint investigation. It wasn't a
6 mixed team. Each team worked independently and then the results were
8 Q. Can you please now look at paragraph 15, which -- in which you
9 say, among other things, that you established that the same, we're
10 talking about the same, the first mortar shell, was fired from a location
11 that was east of Serb-held positions at Borje. Is this a translation
12 problem, or you stand by what is said here, that somebody said something
13 to you to this effect?
14 A. Are we talking about paragraph 15 here?
15 Q. Yes, lines two and three.
16 A. Well, regarding the second shelling, we established that the
17 shell came from the east, from Borje.
18 Q. When you say someone told you, who were you thinking of? Who
19 could have said something like this to you since you do not possess
20 significant expert knowledge as a ballistics expert to be able to tell
21 where the shell came from?
22 A. Well, this could only have been something that a ballistics
23 expert told us, because it was not my job to conduct any ballistics
24 examinations because I am not an expert in that it wasn't part of my
25 duties to do that.
1 Q. When you say east of Borje, would that be the area of
2 Spicasta Stijena?
3 A. I really -- I really cannot answer this question right now. All
4 I know is that in relation to the place of impact of this shell that
5 we're talking about, Borje and Spicasta Stijena are, conditionally
6 speaking, in the same direction, and what is east of what or west of
7 what, that's something that I'm really not able to say.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, the English language, as far as I'm
9 able to understand it, it's not entirely without ambiguity. It says:
10 "We are certain it was fired from the east, from the locality of
11 Serb-held position at Borje."
12 Now, if you would read from the east, that is from the locality
13 of a Serb-held position at Borje, then you are at Borje. If you read
14 from the east, from the locality, that would mean east of the locality of
15 a Serb-held position of Borje, it is not Borje anymore but it's east of
17 Now, for me it is a bit unclear in the English and I would like
18 to ask the witness. Did you say that it came from the east, that is from
19 the locality of Serb-held position at Borje, or did you intend to say
20 that it came from a position east in relation to the location of
21 Serb-held position of Borje. That is not Borje, but east of Borje?
22 Which one of the two did you mean, Witness, if you still remember? If
23 you don't remember, tell us as well.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that mortar shell came
25 from the east in relation to the point of impact, but it is also correct
1 that when we read in the B/C/S, it states here east from -- or east of
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Borje being more to the west of from where the
4 projectile was fired, the firing position being east of Borje. Is that
5 what you intended to say?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is exactly the thing that I'm
7 not able to answer. What I want to say is that the mortar shell came
8 from the east in relation to the point of impact.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please proceed. Judge Fluegge may have
10 one more question.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, but to a different topic. On page 20,
12 line 3 and 4, you said:
13 "Each team worked independently and then the results were
15 This is in relation to your team and UNPROFOR investigators; is
16 that correct?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is correct, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: In your statement, which is still on the screen,
19 in paragraph 15 I read there and I quote:
20 "Since it was --" oh, sorry.
21 In another paragraph you said that UNPROFOR didn't disclose their
22 findings to you. Is that also correct? This is paragraph 16 of your
23 statement. The UNPROFOR -- and I quote again:
24 "The UNPROFOR had just completed their investigation but they did
25 not disclose their findings to us by mutual consent."
1 Did they disclose it at a later time or were you able to compare
2 the results of your investigation and the UNPROFOR results?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, precisely, Your Honour. In
4 the other paragraph, paragraph 16 here, this is explained. Thus they
5 first did their measurements. They did not give us the results. After
6 they did that, we did the same, and then we compared these results, and
7 this is explained in this second paragraph.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That means that UNPROFOR disclosed their results
9 after you have carried out your investigation, but they did it. They
10 disclosed it to you to enable you to compare the results. Is that the
11 right understanding?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you the following in relation to the
15 same matter: On the day it happened, that is the 8th of November,
16 UNPROFOR was around as well and had tried to take any measurements, or
17 did they come for the first time on the 9th?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, they did come to the
19 scene on the 8th, but the soldiers came, and they said that their
20 investigation team would come. In spite of the fact that there was a lot
21 of shelling of the broader area where we were, we waited for them but
22 they simply didn't come.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, what finally made them disclose their
24 results to you? What happened that initially they did not want to share
25 their findings with you and afterwards they did?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I think that we did
2 not quite understand each other.
3 On the first day, the first day, on the 8th of November, UNPROFOR
4 did not carry out an investigation at all. That evening, however, at
5 2000 hours, it issued a statement that the Bosnian police did not permit
6 them to conduct an investigation. And since I was the leader of the
7 investigation team on the scene, I had to write a statement in relation
8 to that where I wrote down a detailed chronology. Based on the fact that
9 there were two opposing opinions, one that they were not permitted to
10 conduct an investigation and the other that they didn't even attempt to
11 carry it out, it was agreed the investigation be carried out the
12 following day, actually a reconstruction of the incident. The method
13 used to conduct the investigation was that we would conduct separate
14 investigations, and then when each team was finished we would compare our
16 JUDGE ORIE: So therefore the nondisclosure of their results was
17 only during the investigations but after you both had completed your
18 investigations you compared the results of your and their investigation.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is correct. And then when we
20 compared the results, they still stood by the position that it's possible
21 that the shot came from the positions of the Army of
22 Bosnia and Herzegovina, and when we asked them on the basis of which they
23 went -- reached this conclusion, they said they did it on the basis of
24 these firing tables.
25 JUDGE ORIE: That's explained in paragraph 17 of the statement,
1 the use of the different firing tables.
2 Mr. Stojanovic, I think we are at a point where we need to break,
3 but first we should move into closed session in order to allow the
4 witness to leave the courtroom. During the break the curtains can remain
6 [Closed session]
12 [Open session]
13 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
15 Mr. Stojanovic, if you would be able to come a bit quicker to the
16 point you want to address, that would certainly be appreciated.
17 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, I will.
18 Q. Sir, before we move on to another event, I would like to deal
19 with two matters. Would I be correct if I said that you can't remember
20 or UNPROFOR members did not carry out an on-site investigation into the
21 second shelling?
22 A. I can't remember them having carried out such an investigation.
23 Q. Was there an agreement between the Ministry of the Interior of
24 Bosnia-Herzegovina and UNPROFOR according to which activities relating to
25 the shelling was co-ordinated as well as the duty that UNPROFOR had to
1 investigate such fatal incidents?
2 A. I can't say anything about the officially reached agreements, but
3 on the basis of my experience what I can say is UNPROFOR observers, in
4 90 per cent of the cases, were always present when we carried out on-site
5 investigations, but UNPROFOR itself very seldom carried out such
7 Q. To the best of your recollection as far as this site in
8 Livanjska Street is concerned, how far is it from the front line? How
9 far was it from the front line at the time?
10 A. Quite far. It was quite far from the front lines around Sarajevo
11 at the time.
12 Q. Could you please try to tell the Chamber what the distance would
13 be in hundreds of metres, in kilometres.
14 A. Two or three kilometres at least.
15 Q. Which ABiH units were deployed at the Kosevo Hill, which is where
16 Livanjska Street is located, if I have understood this correctly.
17 A. Throughout the wartime period, I was in the police force, and I
18 really don't know anything about the Kosevo Hill or the positions of the
19 ABiH. I don't know which units were present at the various locations.
20 Q. But do you remember that during those days there was intensive
21 fighting in that part of the Sarajevo battle-field?
22 A. What I can remember is that the 8th of November was an extremely
23 difficult day -- or, rather, on that day the shelling of Sarajevo was
25 Q. Which police station did the Kosevo Hill area belong to?
1 A. The Kosevo Hill came under the Centar police station, but during
2 the wartime period the police stations had been divided along territorial
3 lines. They had been broken down into military police stations. As for
4 what the name or designation of the police station at Kosevo Hill was, I
5 cannot remember.
6 Q. How far was the headquarters of the military police station at
7 Kosevo Hill from the site where the shells fell in the street we've been
8 referring to?
9 A. Several hundred metres, but their headquarters were located far
10 from the sites where the shells hit. The two policemen who were securing
11 the site of the on-site investigation were wounded. They were members of
12 that military police station.
13 Q. Would you agree with me now that the police station of the
14 policeman who was wounded was several hundred metres away from the site
15 where he was wounded?
16 A. Yes, I could agree with that.
17 Q. Thank you. Could we now deal with an event that you spoke about
18 on the 3rd of March, 1993, and this relates to the tram that was hit.
19 I'd like to clarify something that was not clear.
20 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we have a look at P612,
21 page 6 in the B/C/S version and page 7 in English version.
22 Q. Sir, this is a report dated the 3rd of March, 1995, shown to you
23 by the Prosecution, and what I would like to clarify is something that we
24 can see in paragraph 2 of your statement, and there you say, amongst
25 other things, that as soon as information had been received from the high
1 court in Sarajevo Potparic, Milorad was at the head of the on-site
2 investigation, went to the site and carried an investigation there. Do
3 you stand by what you said, that the investigative judge on that occasion
4 went to the site?
5 A. If that's what it says here, then of course I do.
6 Q. [Microphone not activated]
7 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
8 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Mihajlo Pavlovic, does that name ring a bell?
10 A. Yes, I know the person. He was a police officer in the Centar
11 police station at the time.
12 Q. Was he present at the on-site investigation as far as you can
13 remember when you and the other individuals mentioned in the report, as
14 well as the investigative judge, went to that site?
15 A. Not necessarily. It's not as if he had to be present since he
16 worked in the central police station, and in such cases their task was to
17 go to the site, secure it, and inform us. As to whether he was present
18 at the on-site investigation itself, I really can't remember, but he
19 wasn't officially a member of this on-site investigation team.
20 Q. Who compiles an official report that is part of the criminal
22 A. Do you mean the one I have in front of me?
23 Q. I'm referring to this one and also in general.
24 A. In such cases when members of the public that I worked in go to
25 the site then the report is compiled by the inspector from the department
1 concerned, and in this case I was that inspector.
2 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now have a look at
3 P612, pages 5 -- or page 5 in the English and B/C/S version.
4 Q. Sir, you will see the same date on the document. It's the same
5 incident that is concerned. An on-site investigation was carried out in
6 relation to the tram that was hit, tram designated as 268, and the
7 signature is that of Mihajlo Pavlovic's. Can you see that?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Can you tell the Chamber how it is that he compiled such an
10 official report? And in that report he describes the events that concern
11 the incident.
12 A. As I have said, the local police station goes to the site. They
13 are the first to go to the site. Policemen in uniform secure the site,
14 and crime inspector Mr. Pavlovic, for example, would then go to the site.
15 Mr. Pavlovic was part of the department at the time. And this criminal
16 official would then -- crime official, rather, would contact us to tell
17 us what was happening, to inform us about everything.
18 This official report is an internal one that was compiled for
19 that police station. It isn't sent to anyone else apart from the head of
20 the police station. The report of mine that we had a look at a minute
21 ago is important, and all other documents are based on it. All expert
22 reports and so on are based on that document that is compiled in relation
23 to the investigation.
24 Q. In his report, Mr. Pavlovic says that at 12.30, at the same time
25 as you, obtained information -- he obtained information that fire had
1 been opened on this tram and the duty investigative judge was informed of
2 the incident, and he then established an on-site investigation
3 commission, and he doesn't say that the investigating judge was present
4 at the site.
5 Does this refresh your memory? Was the investigating judge at
6 the site?
7 A. As I have already said, the official report that I drafted on
8 this occasion is authoritative, and since it says that the investigating
9 judge was at the site, he therefore carried out or was involved in this
10 on-site investigation.
11 Q. So it wouldn't -- so what the official report drafted by
12 Mr. Pavlovic says is not correct in this case.
13 A. What it says in Mr. Pavlovic's report is not something I can
14 interpret, saying that the investigating judge wasn't present at the
15 on-site investigation.
16 JUDGE ORIE: You're suggesting that there's a contradiction.
17 Even if the Pavlovic report doesn't say that he was present, it also does
18 not say that he was not present, does it? Or is -- or did I
19 misunderstand your questions?
20 Now, the final thing is if there's any suggestion that this
21 report is false or fake or is -- there are lies on it, then please come
22 to that point as quickly as possible and not purely on the basis that the
23 report says that the duty investigating judge was notified and he formed
24 an inquiry commission, and where it does not say that Mr. Pavlovic at no
25 point in time was present at the scene of this incident, that's not a
1 good basis for, and certainly not -- goes very much to the point of
2 saying that the report is false, fake, inaccurate. It's all rather
3 marginal as we understand it now and as presented by you. So if you want
4 to make that stronger point, please do it.
5 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I'll try to do that now,
6 Your Honours. I just want to lay a foundation for the questions I would
7 like to put to the witness. I think this is what is essential for these
8 questions. Could we see P3, page 24. It's a bundle of photographs from
9 Sarajevo -- of Sarajevo. And could the usher please give the witness a
10 pen so that he can mark certain locations.
11 Could we please zoom in to the central part. I'm interested in
12 the yellow building. Could we zoom in a little more. Thank you.
13 Q. Sir, do you recognise what we can see in the photograph?
14 A. Yes, I do.
15 Q. Is this a general view of the site where you carried out the
17 A. You can't see the site where I carried out the on --
18 investigation in this photograph. It's a little further to the east.
19 But according to eyewitness statements, the location at which the tram
20 was hit is visible in this photograph.
21 Q. Thank you for having clarified that. Could we now ask you to
22 mark with an arrow the direction in which the tram was moving.
23 A. [Marks]
24 Q. Thank you. And could you mark with a circle the location where
25 you noted the presence of the first tram that was hit? I'm referring to
1 the first tram, number 268. Would I be right if I said that this street
2 where the trams were present was called Zmaja od Bosne?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And would you agree that the Marsala Tita Street can't be seen in
5 the area depicted by the photograph?
6 A. No, it can't be seen there. It continues from
7 Zmaja od Bosne Street and an investigation was carried out in
8 Marsala Tita Street.
9 Q. Could you tell the Chamber what the name of this transversal
10 street was at the time, if you look to the right from the direction which
11 the trams drive?
12 A. Franje Rackog street.
13 Q. Would you agree with me that immediately behind the
14 Zmaja od Bosne and Franje Rackog, the crossroads of those two street, the
15 tram-lines turn to the right if you're looking in the direction which the
16 trams advance?
17 A. I agree with you. That is the so-called S curve.
18 Q. And according to your recollection, could you tell me if the
19 tram, tram 268, was hit before the S curve, in the S curve, or once it
20 left the S curve?
21 A. The location where the tram was hit, this is something that we
22 learned from eyewitnesses. In view of the fact that the investigation
23 was carried out at the location where it was carried out I could give you
24 a hypothetical answer to this very precise question of yours. I cannot
25 give you a precise answer to your question.
1 Q. Thank you for that answer. So you don't know exactly where this
2 happened other than what the information of the eyewitnesses was; is that
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Thank you. Can we now look at the same -- yes, but before we
6 finish this technical part, all I would like to ask you is the following:
7 Could you mark the circle with a T so that we can mark the place that
8 eyewitnesses said that the tram was hit, and then in this form we could
9 tender this document for adoption into the file of this.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Document as marked by the witness becomes D109,
11 Your Honours.
12 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
13 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. Can we
14 now look at P612 [Realtime transcript read in error "P162"] again in
15 e-court, and can we look at page 4, both in the B/C/S and the English
17 Q. We can't really see it so well, but still I would like to ask you
18 to look at it together with me. This is a document dated the
19 3rd of March, 1995, signed by the chief of the centre. I assume that
20 it's the security services centre chief. His name is Enes Bezdorb. The
21 document states in paragraph 3 that:
22 "The on-site investigation established that about 1210 hours on
23 the 3rd of March, 1995, at the junction of Marsala Tita and
24 Franje Rackog Streets, a single bullet fired from aggressor positions at
25 Grbavica hit tram number 268 ..."
1 Is this correct?
2 A. The dispatch was of course signed by the chief of security at the
3 centre because he was the only one who could sign dispatches like this.
4 On the other hand, the operatives were the ones who actually drafted the
5 dispatches. As for the location where the Marsala Tita and
6 Franje Rackog Streets meet or join, this is an error formally speaking;
7 however, it's just an error involving a distance of some 10 to 15 metres.
8 So formally Franje Rackog Street does not border Marsala Tita Street.
9 However, Marsala Tita Street continues on to the Zmaja od Bosne Street
10 some 10 metres farther than these crossroads.
11 Q. I'm asking you this because I'm going to show you some more
12 documents, and then we will come back to the location from where the shot
13 could have been fired.
14 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at the same
15 exhibit but page 8 of the B/C/S and page 9 of the English version,
17 Q. Sir, I think that this document was shown to you during the
18 examination-in-chief. This is a report on the forensic on-site
19 investigation which is a part of the case file that is sent to the
20 Prosecutor's office related to this incident, which states that the
21 location of the incident was at the intersection of the Franje Rackog and
22 Marsala Tita Streets. So I'm asking you again do you still believe that
23 the incident occurred some ten metres before that as you look in the
24 direction of the movement of tram 268?
25 A. The only thing that I can say in relation to this is the
1 following: I'm not sure even today that many citizens of Sarajevo know
2 exactly where Zmaja od Bosne Street ends and Marsala Tita Street begins.
3 So what I am stating and what I put in my report is that according to
4 reports by eyewitnesses, the tram was hit at the location which I marked
5 with a circle on that photograph.
6 Q. But would we agree that authorised officials such as the CSB
7 chief and the crime investigation technician who drafts the documents
8 following the search or the investigation on site are supposed to know
9 where which street is when they provide these statements?
10 A. Yes, I can agree with you about that.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, this is all rather argumentative.
12 What you want to say is that what the document says may not be fully in
13 accordance with what he -- what the witness now says. That point is
14 clear to us, so let's move on. And apart from that I think page 34,
15 line 7, reference is made to P162, where apparently we are looking at
17 Please proceed.
18 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, perhaps I am
19 mistaken, but we are actually looking at P612. Thank you.
20 Can we now look at the same document, page 25 in the B/C/S and
21 page 20 of the English version?
22 Q. If I understood you correctly, sir, you said in your official
23 report you indicated the actual location on the basis of what
24 eyewitnesses of this incident said, and we have a statement by one of the
25 eyewitnesses. It was a person who was actually wounded on the occasion.
1 Four days after the incident, he described the incident and stated when
2 the tram was close to the containers between the Assembly of the
3 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Marin Dvor, he heard a shot and all
4 the passengers in the tram, including him and Asima, dropped down or laid
5 down on the floor - do you see that? - and according to this description
6 can we agree that according to this eyewitness and the person who was
7 wounded in the incident, the location where the tram was hit is at least
8 100 metres farther towards the east.
9 A. I can agree with you that the position is somewhat more to the
10 east than the one that I indicated, but not by 100 metres. Not by that
11 much, no.
12 Q. Why am I asking you all of these things? Would you agree with me
13 that it's not the same if we're talking about precise measurements of the
14 location where the bullet was fired -- actually, it's important to
15 measure down not to 50 metres or 100 metres but down to a half metre in
16 order to be able to measure precisely the angle of impact, and all of
17 this is important in order to establish precisely the place where the
18 projectile was fired from?
19 JUDGE ORIE: What is --
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, we can agree.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. This is a long statement about what people
22 should do rather than a question about facts, Mr. Stojanovic. Try --
23 let's try to focus on -- on facts rather than on whether the witness
24 agrees that half a metre or 75 centimetres or 25 centimetres or 10 metres
25 would be the best to measure. Let's move on.
1 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Sir, regarding this incident, did you have the opportunity to
3 read the reports on the forensic examination of the site, and did you
4 have the opportunity to look at the findings of the ballistics expert
5 regarding the barrel size in relation to the entry and exit locations of
6 the projectile that hit the tram?
7 A. As you said yourself at the beginning today, I really am not a
8 ballistics expert. I'm not trained in ballistics examinations. It was
9 not my job to conduct such examinations, so I'm not really the proper
10 person to give you answers to these kind of questions or for these kind
11 of analyses.
12 Q. In your official report of the 3rd of March, 1995, you noted that
13 the projectile was fired from the Grbavica area, and was this based on
14 you having some more detailed information about the location from where
15 the projectile was fired?
16 A. In that location fire would usually be opened from the building
17 which at that time was known as the Metalka building.
18 Q. Now, when you know these -- this information about the Metalka
19 building and the directions that were pointed out by the eyewitnesses to
20 the incident, and if necessary we could go back to the picture because I
21 don't want this to be any kind of trick question, but would you agree
22 that the location described by the eyewitnesses, by the wounded person,
23 could not have been hit from the Metalka building? Would that be
25 A. So much time has passed since then, so right now I'm really
1 unable to give you a definitive answer to that question. I cannot say
2 that it was impossible. It's more difficult to hit that than from the
3 location that I marked on that photograph, but I cannot confirm your
4 assertion that it was impossible even if it was that location.
5 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we look at P3 once again,
6 please, page 24. [Microphone not activated]
7 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, could you --
9 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please zoom in just for
10 one octave. Could we zoom out, please. Thank you.
11 Q. Sir, the witness Gicevic, as we read a little bit earlier, said
12 that according to his best recollection the shot occurred when the tram
13 was between the B&H Assembly and Marin Dvor. I would like to ask you
14 this: You've got the key on the photograph, so can we agree on the fact
15 that the Assembly of Bosnia-Herzegovina is this white building just in
16 front of the building marked by the number 4 on this photograph?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And can we agree that the Marin Dvor area are the buildings which
19 are across from the Assembly, and they're along the road that is
20 Zmaja od Bosne Street?
21 A. It's from the church that you can see on the photograph, and then
22 it's to the right, to the east.
23 Q. And can we agree that the Metalka facility, the building, as you
24 referred to it and that is marked in this photograph, is the building in
25 the square marked with the number 8?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And is it possible, now that you can see this aerial photograph,
3 to say that you could hit a tram from the Metalka building that happened
4 to be in front of the B and H Assembly in the manner that you say the
5 eyewitnesses described?
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, was the BiH Assembly building the
7 same at the time of the incident as it is now, to your knowledge? I'm
8 not asking you to give testimony.
9 Perhaps the witness could tell us. Was the building the same at
10 the time of the incident as you now see it on these -- this picture?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was the same, yes, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Then please proceed, Mr. Stojanovic.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My answer to your question would be
14 speculation. I said the first time I answered the question that I cannot
15 really be precise. I cannot say yes, it could have been hit, and in the
16 same way I cannot say it could not have been hit. It's just speculation.
17 The statement by the eyewitness is authentic. There are other
18 statements by witnesses who asserted something else. However, in my
19 report, the location where the shot came from is not specifically
20 mentioned. There is an assumption, but the place could not have been
21 measured precisely from the position where we were conducting the
23 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. So can we're agree then that you as a professional performing an
25 official task now and then, based on the information you obtained on the
1 scene, could not even with close accuracy determine where the shot was
2 fired from or precisely where the tram was when it was struck?
3 A. If we were to rely exclusively on technical possibilities of
4 answering your question, then, no, not a single tram -- for not a single
5 tram was it possible to determine exactly the origin of fire, but there
6 are certain other technical and expect, and I still stand by what my
7 official report states, in fact.
8 Q. Thank you. Did you have any information according to which
9 members of the ABiH had positions in the executive council building as
10 well that we can see in photograph number 4, and in the Assembly building
11 that you have located, and sometimes in the Unis building, which has been
12 marked with number 5 in this photograph? Did you have any such
14 A. As I have already said in answer to one of your previous
15 questions, as a policeman, I didn't have any precise information about
16 the locations at which the ABiH had positions. Given that the
17 demarcation line was near, the front line was near, and the locations you
18 have mentioned, apart from the Unis buildings which are quite far away,
19 our locations where -- I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the ABiH had
20 its own positions.
21 Q. Thank you. Did you know in the course of your work that there
22 were sniper nests, ABiH sniper nests, there, at least in the wider area
23 that we are referring to?
24 A. I didn't have any such information. I still have no such
1 Q. I'd like to ask you something about the person who was involved
2 in ballistics reports, but before we identify the person, I'd just like
3 to tell you the following: According to the documents we have --
4 according to the documents in my possession, forensic investigation of
5 the vehicle was carried out. You were shown photographs, and you can see
6 the bullet entry point. You can see where it came out on the right-hand
7 side of the tram. And according to that information, the barrel was to
8 the right flank of the tram, behind the tram --
9 JUDGE ORIE: If you want the Chamber to be able to follow all
10 your reasoning, then, rather, take us to the photographs you are relying
11 upon so that we can see it, because I'm lost already.
12 "You were shown photographs." I think we have a whole series of
13 photographs. "You can see the bullet entry point." I think we have two
14 photographs with bullet entry points. So take us to the relevant
15 material and we'll be better able to understand the evidence.
16 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with your leave,
17 could we please move into private session very briefly and then it won't
18 perhaps be necessary to proceed in this manner.
19 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
20 [Private session]
25 [Open session]
1 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
3 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please see P612 again.
4 I'd like to see page 19 in the B/C/S version and page 13 and 14 in the
5 English version. First page 13 and then page 14. Thank you.
6 Q. Sir, you have already seen this document when you had the
7 proofing for your testimony. Am I correct?
8 A. Yes. This is one of the documents that was shown to me -- that
9 was shown to me.
10 Q. And you said that the person who drafted the document was someone
11 whose name is Zlatko Medjedovic; is that correct?
12 A. I can't remember having mentioned my colleague Medjedovic.
13 Q. Perhaps I'm mistaken but in that case, have a look at the
14 document. Is the transcript --
15 JUDGE ORIE: It's what the document says. I don't know whether
16 there is any dispute about that but ...
17 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours, but it bears
18 the signature of a different person.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It's signed on behalf of. So therefore I
20 wouldn't expect the same person to sign, because otherwise you wouldn't
21 write down "on behalf of." Please proceed.
22 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Thank you. Do you know who drafted this document?
24 A. Since one name is printed but it bears a different signature
25 under "for," I don't know who drafted it, but I do know that both these
1 individuals are ballistics experts.
2 Q. Can you remember who was with you in the course of the
3 investigation, which one of the two, or were both of them present?
4 A. I can't remember. I think Medjedovic was there. I can't
5 remember whether the other one was there.
6 Q. Thank you. I'll now show you some photographs, but,
7 Your Honours, perhaps it might be a good time to have a break now, and
8 then after the break I could go through these documents.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and then do I understand that you then finish
10 in half an hour from there? Okay. We'll take a break, but we'll first
11 move into closed session, and we'll remained in closed session until we
12 have resumed after the break.
13 [Closed session]
8 [Open session]
9 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I'd
12 just like to apologise on behalf of General Mladic for having started
13 five minutes late.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, you may proceed.
15 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
16 Q. Sir, we have this document on the screen, the one we were dealing
17 with before the break, and in the last paragraph it says that according
18 to the ballistics expert, the position of the mouth of the barrel at the
19 time the projectile was fired was to the right of the tram and behind the
20 tram, at the rear. It says the direction from which the fire was shot
21 was from behind the front, from the right to the left.
22 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, could we have a
23 look at P612, page 12 in the B/C/S version, and it's the same page in the
24 English version.
25 Q. And let's briefly go through -- through this. Is this a
1 photograph that shows the point of entry of the bullet, the point at
2 which it penetrated the side of the tram?
3 A. Yes, that's the photograph in question.
4 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Let's have a look at page 6 -- I
5 mean page 16 in the B/C/S version, and it's page 12 in the English
6 version. We can stay on page 12 in the English version. We have the
7 text here.
8 Q. Could we agree that number 2 marks the position hit by the bullet
9 on the other side of the tram, or is that the same side of the tram that
10 we are dealing with, the side of the tram that you referred to in your
11 official report?
12 A. It's difficulty to me -- for me to be sure about this photograph.
13 I can't answer your question on the basis of this photograph. I can't
14 say whether this is where the bullet entered on the same side of the tram
15 or whether it was on the other side of the tram.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, let's first check which part of the
17 English page covers this photograph. Let me -- is that "Interior of the
18 tram, garage number 268, with traces marked with the numbers 2 and 3," in
19 the middle? Is that the one?
20 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That's text, Your Honours.
21 Photograph number 6. So it's the sixth comment, if you're looking at the
22 English testing.
23 JUDGE ORIE: I see "Traces marked with the numbers 2 and three,
24 photographed at closer range." That is what we're looking at at this
1 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That's correct.
2 Q. Let's conclude. You cannot say for certain here today whether
3 the position marked with number 2 is the other side, the opposite side of
4 the tram or is this the photograph from the inside of the tram of the
5 site at which the bullet entered the tram number 268.
6 A. I think this is the entrance, but I can't say for certain on the
7 basis of this photograph, but I do think that this is the point of entry
8 of the bullet that penetrated that side of the tram.
9 Q. Thank you. Let's have a look at photograph P3 again. It's
10 page 24. And then to the best of your recollection, I would like to ask
11 you to mark this photograph, to mark the place where
12 Zmaja od Bosne Street turns into the Marsala Tita Street, the location at
13 which these two streets intersect.
14 JUDGE ORIE: To start with, could we zoom in to have a better
16 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. If you could mark this photograph with a transversal line in
18 relation to the Zmaja od Bosne Street. Could you mark the location of
19 the intersection, or in fact could you mark the location in which
20 Marsala Tita Street starts.
21 A. I'm not certain, but I think that this location can't be seen by
22 the building that is now the building of the joint institutions of
23 Bosnia and Herzegovina. It's perhaps at the first third of these
24 buildings where the buildings of the institutions are now located.
25 Q. Thank you. Now according to what we see, what you're describing,
1 if we look at the Metalka building, the place where Zmaja od Bosne
2 becomes Titova Street, if the tram were in that location, could that shot
3 have come from the Metalka building?
4 JUDGE ORIE: If you can answer that question, please do so.
5 But on the basis of these kind of photographs, Mr. Stojanovic,
6 without a position from where the photograph is taken exactly at the
7 point from where you say it could or could not have a line of sight, that
8 is -- the Chamber does not accept that as a possibility, unless the
9 witness has any other explanation on why he thinks he could do it. But
10 on the basis of these kind of photographs, it's just impossible to do it,
11 apart from any inaccuracies that may exist in other respects, but please
13 Witness, if you can answer the question, please do so.
14 If not, Mr. Stojanovic, you're invited to put your next question
15 to the witness.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I cannot add anything
17 to what you have already said. I'm really not able to answer this
19 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. In that case, can we
20 now please look at P3, photograph that is on page 25. This is the next
21 photograph in the e-court system. Thank you. Can we please look at the
22 photograph on the left-hand side. It's a close-up.
23 Q. Do you agree that this aerial photograph provides a view of the
24 Franje Rackog and Zmaja od Bosne intersection and the Metalka building
25 that you talked about but now looking from the position of the
1 Holiday Inn Hotel?
2 A. Yes, I agree with you there.
3 Q. And would you agree with me that you can see on the
4 Zmaja od Bosne Street clear traces of tram rails which at one point
5 separate off? And if we look at that from the direction that tram 268
6 was moving, this forks off to the right. Do you see that on the
8 A. Yes, I -- I can see that on the photograph.
9 Q. And would you agree with me that you didn't know when you
10 mentioned that the possible direction of fire from the Metalka building
11 from Grbavica, you were unable to say from which part of the building the
12 shot could have been fired? You simply don't know that, do you?
13 A. That is correct, I don't.
14 Q. And also, you don't know after Grbavica was reintegrated, which
15 is how you put it, and after investigations were conducted in this area
16 the Metalka, you did not actually go to the Metalka building and conduct
17 an investigation there in order to be able to determine the location from
18 where the fire came?
19 A. Yes, I personally did not go to inspect that particular building.
20 Q. Thank you. I'm going to put the last question to you relating to
21 this incident. The question is: Do you recall that that day at that
22 time there was an incident, and there was firing between a patrol of the
23 French battalion and units at positions around the Miljacka river in
25 A. I think this is stated in my official report, and if I recall
1 correctly, there was an exchange of fire that day between the French and
2 the -- and that fire was opened from positions of the Army of
3 Republika Srpska and those of the French battalion, but this is something
4 you would need to check in the report, but I think that that's what
5 happened around that time when this tram incident occurred.
6 Q. All right. Thank you very much. I don't have to show you the
7 official report. I am satisfied that this is stated in your report.
8 Now I'm going to put this question to you: You assert that if
9 the bullet did come from the Metalka building, according to the
10 ballistics expert's findings, it could have only have had come from there
11 if the tram was exactly at the Zmaja od Bosne and the Franje Rackog
12 intersection. It could not have happen in the way that Witness Gicevic
13 described, and it could not have been in the way that it was described in
14 the dispatch. Would I be correct? This is what we, the Defence, assert.
15 A. Again, I'm unable to give you a precise answer to this question.
16 Q. Thank you. Well, I will not be dealing with this topic anymore.
17 Could we briefly just turn to the events of the
18 23rd of November, 1994, which you also investigated. Do you recall that
19 you were questioned about this incident during the examination-in-chief
20 in this courtroom?
21 A. I'm really not sure that I understood your question.
22 Q. Well, I will try to reformulate it and to make it simpler. Am I
23 correct that on the 24th of November, 1994, you investigated, as the
24 leader of a team, one incident that struck another tram that was going
25 along that same street?
1 A. Yes, that is correct.
2 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we look at P614 now.
3 Q. This is your report, and I'm just going to ask you if you can
4 remember if you know, according to the people who are in charge of these
5 duties in your investigation team, where this bullet came from.
6 A. I think that according to eyewitness statements, I haven't found
7 it yet in the report, but as far as I can remember, I think they refer to
8 these four skyscrapers in Grbavica, but I would really need to look at
9 the report.
10 Q. Was this sniper fire?
11 A. When we talk about incidents that occurred in Sarajevo as a
12 result of firearms, it's very difficult to assess whether they were
13 explosive sniper weapons or some other kind of infantry weapons.
14 Q. Can we look at page 2 of this document in both versions. And in
15 those documents you state that at 1545 hundred hours, tram number 238 was
16 hit while moving towards the new part of town, towards the west. And the
17 tram was hit in the stretch of Zmaja od Bosne Street running from the
18 Philosophy Faculty to the museum. Do you see that part?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And would you agree with me that you didn't provide any more
21 detailed information about the type of weapon and that you describe the
22 location as being from the south to the south-east or south-west, I don't
23 see which one, in relation to the spot where the tram was hit from the
24 direction of Grbavica?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And what I want to ask you now is this, and this is from document
2 P619. Can we see that in e-court, please. And while we're waiting I
3 would just like you to confirm the following: Is this the incident that
4 you established as the one where no traces of bullet could be found
5 because the bullet entered through an open window?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Thank you. I'm not sure why in the English version there is a
8 part that is blacked out, but I will ask you this: Do you recall that
9 one of the eyewitnesses at the time said that the tram was hit by a burst
10 of fire?
11 A. At the time when we had cases like this, my colleagues would
12 interview witnesses. These colleagues were from other departments, so if
13 you asked me if some witness said that the tram was hit by bursts of
14 fire, then what I can say is no, at this moment I cannot recall whether
15 anybody said that or not.
16 Q. I'm asking you this because we have the official report in front
17 of us, and in paragraph 2 of the report, and you can see that for
18 yourself, it is noted that according to a statement by an eyewitness,
19 Mr. Tanovic [as interpreted], he heard a burst of automatic gunfire, and
20 then after that she felt a blow in her shoulder and heard glass
22 My question is this: Do you agree that this eyewitness statement
23 is opposite of what you actually found on the site, and that is that the
24 bullet entered through an open window?
25 A. Yes, it is opposite.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Harbour.
2 MS. HARBOUR: To the extent that the witness said he was
3 testifying about the incident when the bullet entered the open window, I
4 believe that the Defence should first direct the witness to the first
5 paragraph in this statement and be careful not to confuse the two
6 different trams that were hit in this incident.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, there seems to be a clear problem if
8 this statement here says that the window was shattered and at the same
9 time to say that this is the same incident as with a bullet entering
10 through an open window. That should be clarified first before we draw
11 further conclusions. Could you please follow the suggestion of
12 Ms. Harbour.
13 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I will, Your Honour. I think I
14 already tried that with the question whether this tram is from that same
15 incident but I will try to be a bit clearer.
16 Q. In your official report it states that on that day, two trams
17 were hit, one at 1530 [Realtime transcript read in error "1535"] hundred
18 hours, that's tram 263, and then 15 minutes later, tram 238 moving in the
19 same direction was also hit. And this is why I asked you whether the
20 indent that involved 238, the one when the bullet entered through the
21 open window, was the one involving tram 238.
22 A. Thank you for that clarification. As you yourself said, there
23 were two trams. The first one was hit through an open window, and this
24 was not the case with the second tram.
25 Q. Thank you. I'm going to end with this question that was also put
1 to you by the Prosecutor.
2 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please look at P618.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Just before you move to the next, just a
4 clarification for the record, Mr. Stojanovic. At page 54, line 4, you
5 said one at -- one was hit at 1535 hundred hours, but in the document it
6 was 1530 hundred hours.
7 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. Thank you for
8 your intervention. It was at 1530 hundred hours, and that is what the
9 official report also states. Thank you.
10 Q. So this is just what I wanted to clarify. In this report that
11 was shown to you and for which you said during the examination-in-chief,
12 if you recall, that this is probably an error here by the person who
13 wrote the report, tram 263 that is mentioned in the report and for which
14 it is said that the rear right side glass of the front car was damaged,
15 could that be actually something that applies to tram 238, and could this
16 perhaps be a typing error?
17 A. With all due respect, I'm really unable to deal with such
18 details. I would like to be specific and precise, but I cannot in this
20 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I thank the witness. I would
21 like to thank the Trial Chamber. I have no further questions for this
23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Stojanovic.
24 Ms. Harbour, any need to put further questions to the witness?
25 MS. HARBOUR: Just very few questions, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
2 Re-examination by Ms. Harbour:
3 Q. Mr. Miokovic, at temporary transcript page 10 today, there was a
4 discussion about your 1995 statement, which is P609, and paragraph 14,
5 and this was regarding the second round of shelling on Livanjska Street
6 on the 8th of November, 1994, and you were asked:
7 "In it statement, is it true that the conclusion you drew is that
8 one shell fell, not two?"
9 And you responded:
10 "What you are saying is correct. All I can do is assume that I
11 was referring to the second shell because it had certain consequences.
12 As for the shell that hit the ground, that was embedded in the ground.
13 There were no consequences."
14 I would like to make it very clear to the Chamber what actually
15 happened that day in this second round of shelling, so I'm going to show
16 you the official report that you drafted, which is P622?
17 MS. HARBOUR: If we could go to the bottom of page 1 in the
18 English, and it's about three-fourths of the way down in the B/C/S
20 Q. Now, the very last line in the English, and it's near the end in
21 the -- in your version, states:
22 "On 8 November 1994, at around 1725 hours a mortar shell fell and
23 exploded on the asphalt road surface across the road from house number 36
24 in Livanjska Street, killing one person."
25 And if we could please have the next page in the English,
1 although it's on the same page in the original.
2 The very first line reads:
3 "On the same day, at around 1730 hours, another mortar shell fell
4 in the yard of house number 36 in Livanjska Street, slightly wounding one
6 Does this report accurately reflect the situation you
7 investigated, Mr. Miokovic?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Moving on to the next topic, at transcript page 18 and 19 from
10 today, there was a discussion about whether a criminal report was
11 submitted with regard to the first shelling on Livanjska Street on the
12 8th of November, 1994.
13 MS. HARBOUR: And I would like to call up 65 ter 28606. And,
14 Your Honours, I will mention that this I am bringing up directly in
15 response to the cross-examination. This document is not on our 65 ter
16 list, but it was disclosed to the Defence in batch 5.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed. I've heard of no objections on this
19 MS. HARBOUR:
20 Q. Mr. Miokovic, do you recognise what this document is?
21 A. Yes. This is a criminal report that was submitted in relation to
22 the consequences of the first shelling on the 8th of
23 March [as interpreted].
24 Q. 8th of -- you said the 8th of March. Did you mean to say the
25 8th of March?
1 A. I said November.
2 MS. HARBOUR: Could I tender this report into evidence,
3 Your Honours?
4 JUDGE ORIE: I hear of no objections. Madam Registrar.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Document 28606 becomes Exhibit P624,
6 Your Honours.
7 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
8 MS. HARBOUR: For completeness of the record, I would also like
9 to tender the criminal report that was shown to the witness related to
10 the second shelling on Livanjska Street, and that is now uploaded as
11 65 ter 12942B.
12 JUDGE ORIE: In the absence of any objections, Madam Registrar.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Document 12942B becomes Exhibit P625,
14 Your Honours.
15 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
16 MS. HARBOUR:
17 Q. Mr. Miokovic, we have discussed the fact that
18 Zmaja od Bosne Street turns into Marsala Tita Street and I would like to
19 know from you does Franje Rackog Street intersect with the tram-line and
20 the street that the tram-line runs down at more than one location?
21 A. If I have understood your question correctly,
22 Franje Rackog Street does not intersect the tram-line. It merges with
23 the Zmaja od Bosne Street, but it does not intersect the tram-lines.
24 Q. Let me rephrase. Does Franje Rackog Street intersect with the
25 street on which the tram-line runs, whether it's Zmaja od Bosne or
1 Marsala Tita? Does it insect with that street at more than one point?
2 A. There was a problem with the interpretation. No. It intersects
3 it only at one location.
4 MS. HARBOUR: Thank you. I have no further questions,
5 Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Harbour.
7 Mr. Stojanovic, any further questions related to -- in relation
8 to the re-examination of the witness?
9 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honours.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Then just for me to better understand,
11 Mr. Stojanovic, you were suggesting that there may be an error somewhere
12 in the description of the two tram incidents, the one involving tram 263
13 and the other one, 238. That's at least what I understood from your
14 questions, although it's not entirely clear to me. You asked our
15 attention for a witness saying that the window was completely demolished,
16 whether that was the same tram as the tram with the open window through
17 which the bullet entered, and it was not entirely clear to me what you
18 meant, because what the witness describes relates to tram 238.
19 Now, the description of a tram where no damage was found to the
20 glass was a description of tram 263. Now, it was not entirely clear to
21 me where you suggested there may have been an error.
22 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm referring to
23 document P618 in relation to which the witness said in the course of the
24 examination-in-chief that he considered there to be an error in the
25 document. In that document which you'll have in front of you now, it
1 says that when the incident involving tram 263 is related, well, we have
2 determined that that is the tram that was hit by a bullet which entered
3 through an open window, and in that document it says -- this isn't the
4 right document. It's P618.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Could we have a look at that, because I want to try
6 to understand all the evidence.
7 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That's the right document,
8 Your Honours, thank you.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Let's have a look.
10 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] In this document, the technician
11 who drafted the document stated with regard to tram 263, and in relation
12 to that tram, if the witness agrees, we have determined that that is the
13 tram that was hit by a bullet through an open window. And the conclusion
14 that was drawn in relation to that tram is that the bullet entered
15 through the rear windowpane on the right side, and the witness confirmed
16 that the tram was heading from the east to the west and that the bullet
17 could only have been fired from the south, that is to say from the
18 left-hand side of that tram. I'm not sure whether I have been clear
20 JUDGE ORIE: I see that, but I still do not see -- that is a
21 comment on what is described for tram 263. That doesn't say a word about
22 tram 238. So, therefore, I'm confused what -- what consequences it would
23 have for the accuracy of where the witness says for tram 238 that the
24 window was broken. It's unclear to me, but if that is how you explained
25 your questions, I'll have to do it with that.
1 We have no further questions for you, Witness. Therefore, I'd
2 like to thank you very much for coming to The Hague and for having
3 answered all the questions that were put to you both by the parties and
4 be the Bench, and I wish you, Mr. Miokovic, a safe return home again.
5 Before you leave the courtroom, we turn into closed session.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Just for a short while.
8 [Closed session]
15 [Open session]
16 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
18 Ms. Bolton, you have an opportunity to address the Court. I
19 think you asked for ten minutes.
20 MS. BOLTON: Thank you, Your Honours. There are two different
21 issues I'd like to address the Court on, and the first is with respect to
22 some of the housekeeping matters arising after General Fraser completed
23 his evidence.
24 Your Honour, you asked us to prepare a redacted statement for the
25 public of General Fraser's statement, and that is now available and has
1 been uploaded, and with the Court's permission, if we could release that.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Do you have a number for it or --
3 MS. BOLTON: I do, Your Honour. It's 28590A.
4 JUDGE ORIE: And it is exactly what?
5 MS. BOLTON: It is General Fraser's amalgamate the statement and
6 you will recall there was one issue in the statement.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 MS. BOLTON: That that paragraph -- entire paragraph has been
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's -- the new version, then, can replace
11 the old one that was about protected information, family relations.
12 MS. BOLTON: Correct.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Yes, the new version, the redacted
14 version can replace the unredacted version.
15 MS. BOLTON: Secondly, Your Honours, there was -- you will recall
16 after the 92 ter procedure with General Fraser, I moved for the admission
17 of all the exhibits with the exception of three exhibits, and I
18 understand that the exhibits had -- that weren't contested have been
19 assigned provisional exhibit numbers.
20 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand that the others have been assigned
21 provisional exhibit numbers as well, but the three that were objected to
22 you said you would come to them later.
23 MS. BOLTON: Yes. My information was that the ones that had been
24 given provisional exhibit numbers had also been MFI'd, and I don't --
25 JUDGE ORIE: They were all MFI'd. We'll decide on admission.
1 Those not objected to of course we'll admit, but then three are
2 remaining. The first one is 65 ter 8735, which has been provisionally
3 assigned number P588.
4 MS. BOLTON: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you. With respect to that
5 document, I should indicate with respect to all three documents it's the
6 Prosecution's position that they meet the test for admission as
7 associated exhibits, and in particular, that they would meet the test --
8 the lower of the two standards being that they would render -- their
9 exclusion would render of lower probative value the witness's statement.
10 The first of those --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Should we first identify all three of them so we
12 know for sure what we are talking about. The first one as I said was
13 65 ter 8735. The second one is 65 ter 9741, and I think the third one is
14 65 ter 11189.
15 MS. BOLTON: That's my understanding, Your Honour. Thank you.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. These three you say they meet the standard for
18 MS. BOLTON: Yes. And dealing with -- so with respect to 65 ter
19 11189, my only submission is that it meets the test for admission as an
20 associated exhibit.
21 With respect to 08735, it's my respectful submission that some of
22 the evidence that was a tendered through the witness provides additional
23 corroboration of the authenticity and reliability of this document. This
24 was, to remind Your Honours, a VRS Main Staff order that had been signed
25 by General Milovanovic, and the issue was who controlled -- we would say
1 it indicates that the freedom of movement for the UN and UNPROFOR was
2 controlled at the level of the Main Staff of the VRS. That is what the
3 witness has indicated in his statement at -- I believe it's paragraph, I
4 think, 130 or 132.
5 That evidence, in my respectful submission, was corroborated by
6 the re-examination of General Fraser, and in particular, the
7 re-examination on Defence document 1D00474. That was a SRK document
8 which the Defence put to the witness, and in that document there is -- I
9 read a portion of it to the witness regarding freedom of movement of the
10 UN where General Galic had emphasised that that was an issue not in his
11 competence and proposed the issue be resolved at the highest level as
12 part of the overall problem of Sarajevo.
13 So in my respectful submission, that portion of the document is
14 further corroboration of the contents of the proposed associated exhibit
15 and enhances its reliability and authenticity.
16 And finally, Your Honours, with respect to 65 ter 09741, it's
17 discussed at paragraph 134 of the witness's amalgamated statement, and
18 it's a document again signed by General Milovanovic, dated the
19 12th of June, addressed to the Ilidza Brigade and indicating that it is
20 the VRS Main Staff that decides on the use of aerial bombs and not -- and
21 possibly a corps if the VRS GS approves and not a brigade according to
22 its plan. And it's my respectful submission that the contents of this
23 document and its reliability are corroborated by two exhibits that were
24 introduced through General Fraser, being Exhibits P580 and P581. And
25 P581, Your Honours may recall was a letter - or I would characterise it
1 as a correspondence, I guess - from General Mladic to Colonel Tadija
2 where he was questioning a planned use of modified air bombs, asking
3 questions about who had authorised it, and reminding him that he needed
4 the approval of either the level of the Main Staff or if it had been
5 issued by the commander, the supreme commander, he wanted to know.
6 So in my respectful submission again, that document corroborates
7 the authenticity of the proposed associated exhibit.
8 Those are my submissions with respect to the admissibility of the
9 exhibits, Your Honour. Do you wish me to --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Should we try to deal with this first, because these
11 were the three objected to by the Defence. I don't think, but forgive me
12 when I'm wrong, that we have received yet the reasons for the objection,
13 Mr. Ivetic.
14 MR. IVETIC: That's correct, Your Honours, apart from the very
15 general objections that were in the response to the Rule 92 ter motion,
16 if I can begin, I guess, with 08735, I have here, Your Honours, that the
17 witness has not given any personal testimony as to any personal knowledge
18 of this particular document, and it is dated before the witness assumed
19 his position as MA in sector Sarajevo.
20 With regard to 09741, although it is during the time period when
21 the witness was present in Sector Sarajevo, the statement and the
22 testimony of the witness have not added anything to the document. He
23 cannot authenticate a document that is not signed by him and for which
24 there is no testimony that he received or was aware of the document
25 during the relevant time period.
1 With respect to 11189, this is again a document that purports to
2 be of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps, and therefore the witness would not
3 have been a signator to it. It is not discussed by the witness and does
4 not -- he does not add any personal knowledge to this document.
5 So, again, those are the bases for the objections to these three
6 documents. Thank you.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The Chamber will consider the submission by
8 the parties and then decide on admissibility.
9 Apart from that since the others were not objected, provisionally
10 assign exhibits to which provisionally were assigned numbers P590 up to
11 and including P602, and next range, P604 up to and including P607 are
12 admitted into evidence.
13 Ms. Bolton, there was another matter which you would like to make
15 MS. BOLTON: There is, Your Honour. Just before we leave this
16 area, just so there's no misunderstanding, the unredacted statement
17 admitted under seal from General Fraser has been assigned an exhibit
18 number, and we -- we do wish to rely on that for the Trial Chamber's
19 deliberations at the end of the day. So we would need a separate P
20 number for the public version.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I think -- but -- but let me -- I think I'm now
22 back on track again on this matter. It's not a matter of replacing the
23 evidence. The evidence remains as it was before. I don't think, but
24 we'll check that, that new exhibit numbers would be assigned to public
25 versions of the same evidence, but we'll deal with that. It's clear that
1 there is now a version available which is ready to -- for the public, and
2 we'll deal with that together with Madam Registrar.
3 MS. BOLTON: Thank you, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Bolton.
5 MS. BOLTON: Yes. So the other issue I would like to address
6 Your Honours on, and I thank you for the opportunity to do so, has to do
7 with some issues that arose primarily at the beginning of
8 General Fraser's testimony last week on the 5th of December. And I
9 think, Your Honour Justice Orie, you correctly indicated at one point
10 that I seemed to be taken aback or somewhat dismissive of the Defence's
11 complaints with respect to the -- the addition of that one exhibit to the
12 65 ter list, and I think that that was fair criticism, Your Honour, but
13 I'd like to perhaps indicate that there is some area of confusion for the
14 Prosecution, and it would be helpful to us if we could clear up that
16 So there were two issues that were raised at the very beginning
17 of General Fraser's testimony by the Defence, and they both pertain to an
18 e-mail that I had sent on the 2nd of December, 2012, which I copied the
19 Trial Chamber on, and that was an e-mail indicating that the existing
20 65 ter summary for the witness didn't include three topics, and also that
21 there were two additional potential exhibits that I intended to present
22 to the witness during proofing and that I might possibly seek to
23 introduce them through the witness.
24 And at the beginning of proceedings, the objections raised by the
25 Defence were to first -- they were of the opinion that we had not
1 complied with the Chamber's guideline with respect to the amendment of
2 the 65 ter summary; and secondly, that we had not complied with the
3 guidance with respect to the addition of exhibits after the seven-day
4 guidance rule. And specifically at page 5765, the Defence stated:
5 "Defence notes that it received an e-mail on Sunday,
6 December the 2nd, 2012, at 6.35 p.m. for this witness with three now
7 topics for the 65 ter summary and two new 65 ter documents of exhibits.
8 This is not more than a couple of days before the testimony of the
9 witness, and this testimony has been scheduled for at least two months."
10 With respect, Your Honour, to the 65 ter summary, your guidance
11 of the 24th of August, 2012, at page 1638 indicated that the purpose of
12 Rule 65 ter witness summaries is to notify the opposing party and the
13 Chamber of the content of evidence expected to be elicited from a
14 witness. Such notice should be given sufficiently in advance of a
15 witness's testimony so as to enable the opposing party to prepare for the
16 witness's cross-examination.
17 When amendments to the 65 ter summary concern information which
18 was included in the witness statement was filed per the 92 ter motion,
19 the Chamber will consider that the Defence has been on notice
20 sufficiently in advance of the witness's testimony of the Prosecution's
21 intention to lead the proposed additional evidence which is included in
22 the 92 ter statement.
23 The e-mail I sent on the 2nd of December, 2012, indicated that
24 the existing 65 ter summary for General Fraser didn't include references
25 to modified air bombs, targeting, or the witness's personal observations
1 of General Mladic. However, I expressly stated repeatedly in the e-mail
2 that these were issues that were addressed in the witness's amalgamated
3 statement, and I provided paragraph references to those portions of the
4 amalgamated statement. And my intention, in fact, in sending this e-mail
5 was to avoid the very situation that arose, which was to avoid any
6 suggestion that these were new areas, and so I was a little taken aback
7 when having taken -- or made the effort to avoid the situation that it
8 did arise, and I apologise, because I obviously displayed that annoyance,
9 and I did not intend to. I try never to lose patience in court or to
10 display emotion, and so I do apologise to the extent that I was not
11 successful in doing so. And I certainly can understand why the
12 Trial Chamber was critical of my tone of voice when responding to those
13 areas of inquiry.
14 The second issue raised is the area where I think there may be
15 some confusion with respect to the existing guidance from the
16 Prosecution's perspective at least, and I think in fact the Defence has
17 also indicated in their submission on this issue that there may be
18 misunderstanding as to what is required.
19 In that e-mail I've averred to, I had indicated I intended to
20 present the witness with two documents that I had not included on the
21 list of potential exhibits that was disclosed to the Defence seven days
22 before the start of General Fraser's testimony. These were documents
23 that are not discussed in the witness's statement or have never been
24 discussed in his prior evidence. They're not documents he authored, and
25 so I didn't know whether or not he'd be able to identify the documents or
1 to speak to their contents. And in including this information in the
2 e-mail, again I thought I was adhering with the guidance, which on the
3 4th of September, 2012, indicated this with respect to the sending of the
4 list of documents. This is at transcript page 2160, for the record:
5 "The Defence sought guidance from the Chamber about when such
6 list of documents used by the Prosecution with witnesses should be sent.
7 The Chamber will not set any strict time limits in this respect at this
8 stage and is confident that the parties can find common ground on this
9 issue without involving the Chamber. At the same time, the parties are
10 encouraged to send lists of documents to be used during
11 examination-in-chief as early as possible. The Chamber would expect that
12 a first list of documents be sent no later than seven days prior to the
13 witness's testimony. Such a list could then be complemented at a later
14 stage following any proofing of the witness."
15 The way the Prosecution interprets this guidance is that we
16 should include all documents on our seven-day list that we know may be
17 introduced through the witness. So documents that we already know the
18 witness can speak to but that the guidance allows for the possibility
19 that a limited number of addition documents may be added after proofing
20 and whether or not that is allowed will depend on whether there is any
21 actual prejudice to the Defence, and that's an issue that must be
22 determined on a case-by-case basis. And it is our respectful submission
23 that this is the only interpretation of your guidance that would be
24 consistent with the Rules, because the adoption of a hard and fast rule
25 that prohibited the Prosecution from relying on documents that weren't
1 included on its seven-day list would amount to a finding of prejudice any
2 time such documents were included and wouldn't involve any case by case
3 analysis of whether there was actual prejudice.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Bolton, you have used now 20 minutes
5 approximately on a matter you said you would deal with in 10 minutes.
6 Let me try to cut matters short, because I think that you have dealt with
7 the -- what the specific document was about, I'm not talking about the
8 adding to the 65 ter summary at this moment because that's something that
9 finally did not -- was not the focus of -- and was not the basis for our
10 decision. It was a document, a handwritten document, documentation about
11 a modified air bomb which landed in Hrasnica. That was a document which
12 consisted of two parts: The first part a general description of that
13 bomb falling there, and the second a -- detailed sketches, et cetera, on
14 all kind of particles of that bomb that were found.
15 Now, if the modified air bomb was part of a specific section of
16 the witness's statement, and it was, five or six paragraph, and where the
17 Hrasnica incident was the only specific incident referred to, there was
18 another one but without any further specifics, then the Chamber would
19 have expected that the -- the Prosecution would have foreseen that the
20 Hrasnica incident was part of the evidence to be given by that witness,
21 and it was. We have two other documents, one preparing for, another one
22 reporting about this air bomb being -- this projectile being fired.
23 Under those circumstances, the Chamber had difficulties in understanding
24 why it was only during proofing that a far more detailed report about the
25 landing of that air bomb would suddenly have come up from the blue of the
1 sky and suddenly turned out to be relevant where its relevance was
2 perfectly clear on from the beginning.
3 Second, if you intended to use it only to establish that that
4 modified air bomb fell there, there was no need to do that, because there
5 were already -- there was one other, even an insider document which
6 confirmed that. We fired it. That is where it was.
7 If, however, you wanted to use it for the technical details,
8 pages and pages of small sketches, then of course it would be prejudicial
9 for the Defence not to be aware of that, because they might want to
10 consult experts on these specific small drawings, sketches, et cetera.
11 Now, you didn't ask any question to the witness about those
12 details, so therefore we take it that it was only that you intended to
13 use it primarily and perhaps even exclusively for that modified air bomb
14 having landed where the SRK -- the, yes, SRK report already says that it
15 was fired and that's where it landed.
16 So under those circumstances, the Chamber did not fully
17 understand why that had not come up any earlier, and if you're
18 interpreting our guidance and if you say, We understand it that you can
19 add on the basis of proofing, then you should also understand that the
20 Chamber expects the Prosecution to present a first list with all
21 reasonably to be expected documents on that risk, leaving it open that
22 something new may come up. But the Chamber had some difficulties in
23 understanding that this was entirely new and could not be foreseen. That
24 is the gist of what it is, and this is, as you may have noticed by now,
25 is expressed on this case by case considerations.
1 If there's anything further you'd like to say about it, again you
2 asked for ten minutes. We have now spent 20 minutes, even 25 minutes on
3 it. You may make further submissions on the matter, but you now know in
4 more detail what -- what triggered, more or less, the focus on this
6 At the same time, Mr. Ivetic, of course, since the details of
7 that document have not been used in any way by the Prosecution, the mere
8 fact that the modified air bomb landed in that area without further
9 details, is there any dispute about that? Is there any prejudice
10 inflicted on the Defence if we leave apart the sketches and the further
12 MR. IVETIC: I don't believe there is a dispute as to that fact.
13 The dispute was as to getting the document and all this other information
14 through a witness who would not have the ability to comment on it.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Then the parties are invited to see to what extent
16 they can agree on admission of either the whole or a portion of that
17 document into evidence or to agree, for example, on the fact that the
18 modified air bomb landed at that point in time exactly at that spot.
19 We take a break. If there is any need for further submissions,
20 we'll hear from the parties. If the parties agree on anything the
21 Chamber will hear from that from the parties on that matter.
22 We need the next break also to prepare for the protective
23 measures for the next witness. We take a break and we resume at
24 5 minutes to 2.00, and we only have limited time after that, only 20 more
25 minutes to start the examination of the next witness.
1 --- Recess taken at 1.36 p.m.
2 --- On resuming at 2.00 p.m.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Technical difficulties are there which we'll have to
4 discuss in closed session. Therefore, and just to inform the public,
5 there's hardly any chance that there will be any substantial hearing of
6 evidence further today. We have to move into closed session.
7 [Closed session]
11 Pages 6066-6068 redacted. Closed session.
2 [Open session]
3 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
5 Mr. Shin, I'd like to deal with two matters briefly. First, you
6 know that the Chamber has adopted in its guidance a reduction of the
7 number of associated exhibits. To the extent possible, would you please
8 consider or reconsider whether all the documents, all the associated
9 exhibits on your list, whether you really need them, and then inform the
10 Chamber accordingly. That is one.
11 The second one is that on your list, non-associated exhibits and
12 associated exhibits, we find two times 65 ter number 8139. The range of
13 ERN numbers is for both the same, which already requires further
14 clarification as to whether it's an associated exhibit or a
15 non-associated exhibit, but perhaps even more important, the description
16 of the documents, although bearing the same ERN numbers, is quite
17 different. If I only look at the date the associated exhibit being of
18 the 19th of February, 1994, whereas the non-associated with exactly the
19 same ERN numbers, the 16 of August, 1994, and apart from that also
20 different descriptions, different persons involved. Could you please
21 make sure that this be clarified before we start with the testimony of
22 the witness.
23 MR. SHIN: Yes. Thank you, Your Honours. If I may just briefly
24 address those points. It was indeed my intention to revisit the issue of
25 the associated exhibits in courtroom as we had indicated rather than do a
1 reply brief on the first point, and I would be pleased to do that
3 The -- on Your Honour's second point, yes, we had sent an e-mail
4 noting that we had recognised an error but we will confirm that and be in
5 a position to clarify that this afternoon.
6 The -- just a quick look, myself, and being familiar with this
7 list, of course, is that the document was intended to be proposed as an
8 associated exhibit, and this additional entry on the non-associated
9 exhibit will be deleted.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then the description is the correct one,
11 the remaining description is the correct one.
12 MR. SHIN: Yes, that's correct, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Still with same ERN numbers, still quite
14 alarming, but at least resolved for this moment for this case.
15 MR. SHIN: Yes. I apologise for that error, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I suggest that we adjourn for the day. Who
17 will be -- Mr. Ivetic, you'll cross-examine the witness.
18 Is there any other matter in relation to what we just -- nothing.
19 Then we adjourn for the day, but not until after you've read the little
20 note just passed to you by your client, Mr. Ivetic.
21 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honours. Our client is just again
22 reiterating the objection to the protective measures sought for this
23 witness as I believe we have already set forth in the filing that we made
24 on 23 November, 2012.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. As you may have noticed, they have been
1 imposed in other cases. We're not free to just change them, only if we
2 have reasons to do so, and after consultation with the other Chamber we
3 would be in a position to do it.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE ORIE: That is on the record, that Mr. Mladic objects to
6 the protective measures.
7 We adjourn for the day, and we will resume tomorrow, Tuesday, the
8 11th of December, at 9.00 in the morning but uncertain yet in which
9 courtroom we'll be.
10 We stand adjourned.
11 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.17 p.m.,
12 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 11th day
13 of December, 2012, at 9.00 a.m.