Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 8356

 1                           Monday, 11 February 2013

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.33 a.m.

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

 6     courtroom.  Madam Registrar, would 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             No preliminaries, are there, Mr. Groome?

11             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, just to note the Chamber might be

12     expecting an oral argument on exhibits related to two recent witnesses.

13     Mr. Lukic informed us this morning that he had filed written submissions

14     this morning, so rather than orally respond we'll do that in writing.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that seems to be a very practical approach to

16     the matter.

17                           [Trial Chamber confers]

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, are you ready to call your next witness?

19             MR. WEBER:  Yes, Your Honour.  At this time the Prosecution will

20     call Ekrem Suljevic.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Could the witness be escorted into the

22     courtroom.

23             Meanwhile, I put on the record the following:  On the 22nd of

24     November of last year, the Defence requested an extension of the response

25     time for the Rule 92 ter motion in relation to Witness Ekrem Suljevic.

Page 8357

 1     On the 23rd of November, the Prosecution responded disagreeing with the

 2     facts set out in the request but not opposing the brief extension.  On

 3     the 26th of November, the Chamber through an informal communication

 4     granted an extension until the 30th of November.  And that decision is

 5     hereby, although rather late, put on the record.

 6             I take it, Mr. Weber, that the Prosecution requests for leave to

 7     amend the 65 ter list, add two new photographs, will be dealt with when

 8     you come to those photographs, or would you --

 9             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, I was planning on addressing it when I

10     called up the photographs.  And also the Prosecution sought leave to

11     amend 65 ter 19024 and we'll also address that when we come to that

12     exhibit, if it's okay with the Chamber.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  That seems to be the best way to approach the

14     matter.

15                           [The witness entered court]

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning, Mr. Suljevic.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Before you give evidence, I would like to invite you

19     to make a solemn declaration, the text of which is now handed out you to.

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

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

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Suljevic.  Please be seated.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

24                           WITNESS:  EKREM SULJEVIC

25                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

Page 8358

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Suljevic, you'll first be examined by Mr. Weber.

 2     Mr. Weber is counsel for the Prosecution.

 3             Please proceed, Mr. Weber.

 4             MR. WEBER:  Thank you, Your Honours.

 5                           Examination by Mr. Weber:

 6        Q.   Good morning.  Could you please introduce yourself to the

 7     Trial Chamber.

 8        A.   Good morning.  My name is Ekrem Suljevic.

 9        Q.   Mr. Suljevic, have you previously testified before this Tribunal

10     on three earlier occasions in the Dragomir Milosevic, Perisic, and

11     Karadzic cases?

12        A.   Yes, I have.

13        Q.   Prior to your testimony in the Karadzic case, did you provide a

14     consolidated statement containing information from your previous

15     testimony and statements?

16        A.   Yes, I did.

17             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 28668.

18        Q.   Do you recognise the document before you as the amalgamated

19     statement you provided on 9 February 2010?

20        A.   2010?  Yes.

21        Q.   Does your signature appear in the middle portion of this page?

22        A.   Yes, it is.

23        Q.   Did you have the opportunity to review this statement in the

24     Bosnian language prior to court today?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 8359

 1        Q.   During your testimony in the Karadzic case, did you make

 2     corrections to this statement?

 3        A.   Yes, I did.

 4             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, with the Chamber's leave, and I've also

 5     discussed this matter with Mr. Lukic, the Prosecution would read the

 6     previous corrections and ask the witness to confirm them.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  If Mr. Lukic agrees, the Chamber does not object.

 8     Please proceed.

 9             MR. WEBER:

10        Q.   Mr. Suljevic, having reviewed this statement again for this case,

11     would you still make the following corrections:  In paragraph 1, the

12     reference to Stanislav Galic should be replaced by Dragomir Milosevic?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   In paragraph 8, line 2, the words "Mirza Jamakovic" should come

15     after the words "the chief of our department," in the next sentence?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   In paragraph 17, line 5, the words "and the flight" should be

18     deleted.

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   In the same paragraph on line 7, the words "the location from

21     which the projectile had been fired" should be inserted after the word

22     "observed."  It's in the last sentence.

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   In paragraph 48, on two occasions the word "shell" appears.  This

25     word should be changed to "primary charge."

Page 8360

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   In the heading before paragraph 49, the date should read "24th of

 3     May" not "26th of May."

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   As a general point of clarification before we return to the

 6     statement, when you refer to primary charge, what part of the mortar are

 7     you discussing?

 8        A.   The primary charge --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, does it make sense to -- to work on a

10     redacted portion of the statement?

11             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, I just was clarifying it since it was

12     part of the statement.  I'm not intending to lead any evidence related to

13     those events on the 24th of May, 1995.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  But this is how it looks.  How could I -- it's a

15     redacted portion of the statement.

16             MR. WEBER:  It was just the heading that I was seeking to

17     clarify.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  The heading.  Let me just have a look.

19             MR. WEBER:  Which I believe is still unredacted.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  You're right.  The heading is -- let me just

21     check.  You said paragraph --

22             MR. WEBER:  Above paragraph --

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Before paragraph 48.  Yes.  That should be?

24             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, I believe the witness confirmed that it

25     should be the 24th of May, not the 26th of May.

Page 8361

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So now we know what day everything happened,

 2     which we do not know that happened.

 3             MR. WEBER:  Yes.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Well, it's certainly -- that's certainly

 5     assisting.  Please proceed.

 6             MR. WEBER:

 7        Q.   Mr. Suljevic, I just wanted to -- since one of your

 8     clarifications related to the use of the word "primary charge," I was

 9     just asking you to indicate what part of the mortar you're discussing

10     when you say "primary charge."

11        A.   This is primary charge and not a mortar but, rather, a projectile

12     for mortar.  The primary charge is on the lower side of the stabiliser.

13        Q.   Do you have any additional clarifications or corrections to this

14     statement?

15        A.   I don't think there is any need to add anything.  These were

16     simply technical modifications or mistranslations or other mistakes as

17     was the case with the change of using the name Galic instead of

18     Milosevic, which is another technical error.

19             MR. WEBER:  Could we please have page 12 of the English version

20     and page 22 of the B/C/S translation.

21        Q.   When this appears before you, Mr. Suljevic, could you please

22     review the last page of the statement and verify whether you signed this

23     page.

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   If you were asked the same questions, would you provide the same

Page 8362

 1     answers in substance as you did in this statement?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   Now that you've taken the solemn declaration in this case, do you

 4     affirm the truthfulness and accuracy of your statement?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, at this time the Prosecution tenders

 7     the 2010 statement uploaded under 65 ter 28668 into evidence as a public

 8     exhibit.

 9             MR. LUKIC:  No objection.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

11             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 28668 receives number P889,

12     Your Honours.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  P889 is admitted.  Please proceed.

14             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, the Prosecution has provided a list of

15     associated exhibits to the Chamber today.  We've also provided a copy of

16     this list to the Defence and the Registry.  With your leave today, the

17     Prosecution is respectfully requesting a departure from the Chamber's

18     guidance on the number of associated exhibits due to the witness's

19     authentication of documentation of the BiH MUP and comments in a comment

20     chart on a number of materials related to munitions used by the VRS.

21             In the list there are two sections.  The first section

22     corresponds to the associated exhibits being tendered from the

23     amalgamated statement just admitted as P889.  In total there were

24     24 associated exhibits to the statement.  One exhibit has already been

25     admitted as part of P495.  At this time, the Prosecution tenders 15 of

Page 8363

 1     the remaining exhibits which are official BiH MUP reports related to

 2     investigations of projectile impacts between May and July 1995.  After

 3     addressing these exhibits the Prosecution has additional questions for

 4     the witness with respect to a second chart containing comments on the

 5     remaining exhibits.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, do you want to respond at this moment?

 7             MR. LUKIC:  I think I can, that actually we do not object to

 8     three documents from this list, and those are documents composed or

 9     signed by the witness.  Those are -- if you have the newest list from

10     Mr. Weber, that's documents under numbers 6, 9, and 12.  On the first

11     page.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me see the first page.

13             MR. LUKIC:  The first page, documents 6, 9, and 12.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Do you have the --

15             MR. LUKIC:  13, sorry -- no, no, 12.  We do not have objections

16     to those three.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  That is, just for me, 65 ter 10157.

18             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  10162.

20             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  14222.

22             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  And 10206.

24             MR. LUKIC:  No.  No.  The 13 is out, sorry.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Thirteen is out.

Page 8364

 1             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  No objections against those three, yes.

 3             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  And for the others?

 5             MR. LUKIC:  For the others we do object, Your Honour, since this

 6     gentleman did not take part in either composing those documents and we

 7     don't see that he took any part in the work preceding the composition of

 8     those documents.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  You say it is unrelated to the testimony of this

10     witness, because not being the author and not participating in itself may

11     not be a sufficient reason to object.

12             MR. LUKIC:  Maybe he will -- yeah.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps we first hear the testimony of the witness

14     and then --

15             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, and then we can --

16             JUDGE ORIE:  -- but at least --

17             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, we do believe that these are properly

18     admitted through this witness as associated exhibits.  He did

19     authenticate them as being reports he recognised from the BiH MUP and

20     also provided his knowledge with respect to what's in there, and I'm

21     happy to discuss this further with Mr. Lukic and see what we can resolve

22     during the course of the testimony.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll first hear what the witness says about it,

24     although we can read, of course, part of it already in this statement.

25             That is the first portion.  The second portion is of a different

Page 8365

 1     nature --

 2             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour --

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  -- to Mr. Lukic, do you want to --

 4             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, I do have further questions for the

 5     witness before I tender those documents.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Shall we, then, leave that also until when we have

 7     heard the evidence of the witness?

 8             MR. LUKIC:  I would just want to inform the Chamber --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

10             MR. LUKIC:  -- that we do object to admission of all those

11     documents through this witness since he has no knowledge about the

12     documents at all.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Although it seems that the Prosecution leaves

14     an admission from the bar table as an option.

15             MR. LUKIC:  Yeah, that's different issue.  Then we'll address it

16     when it's bar tabled.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Sometimes if documents are in a close

18     relationship with the testimony of a witness, we then deviate from our

19     practice that we would like to have all the bar table documents at a

20     later stage.  So could you then also consider whether, in the present

21     circumstances, whether you would object against admission at this stage

22     of the proceedings.  So apart from any objection as far as content is

23     concerned.  We'll hear from you.

24             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

Page 8366

 1             Mr. Weber.

 2             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have page 2 of

 3     65 ter 28669.  Could the Prosecution please have page 2 of 65 ter 28669.

 4        Q.   Mr. Suljevic, do you recognise the document before you as a chart

 5     of comments you provided on 19 July 2010, prior to your testimony in the

 6     Karadzic case?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   At the top of this page, you state that these documents concern

 9     air bombs and other projectiles.  There are then also cross-references to

10     paragraphs of your amalgamated statement which was just admitted.  My

11     question for you:  Are your comments on this chart based upon the

12     experience you acquired during investigations into the types of

13     projectiles used in shellings of Sarajevo, including modified air bombs,

14     mortars, and artillery?

15        A.   Yes, based on experience and on the teamwork conducted during

16     investigations that were carried out at the request of all the traces

17     that were submitted for expert analysis after being collected in situ.

18        Q.   In each of your comments on this chart, did you note the

19     equipment or munitions you are familiar with from your investigations of

20     traces of projectiles during the war?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   Did you again review this chart and the associated documents

23     prior to your testimony in this case?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   Do you have any corrections or clarifications to your comments in

Page 8367

 1     this chart?

 2        A.   Well, generally speaking there are no major observations.

 3        Q.   If you were asked questions about the documents listed in the

 4     chart, would you make the same comments about these materials?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, at this time the Prosecution tenders

 7     65 ter 28669, the chart of comments.  The Prosecution also can address

 8     the 39 non -- yet not admitted exhibits related to this chart.  The

 9     Prosecution recognises that the witness is not the author of any of these

10     documents and his comments in this chart are based on his knowledge as

11     he's indicate the just now.  Based on that, we are tendering it pursuant

12     to Rule 89(C) from the bar table.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, would you like to respond now?  Would you

14     prefer to take more time?

15             MR. LUKIC:  I think that we should take more time, but in general

16     we do object to admission of this chart, because there's only reading the

17     document and saying, yes, that type of ammunition was used.  So there is

18     three -- two, three types of ammunition used in that conflict in total,

19     so we are not gaining anything from having 39 documents to learn that

20     there is 82-millimetre mortar shell was used in that conflict.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Have you agreed on the use of 82-millimetre mortar

22     being used, because that's what you're suggesting.

23             MR. LUKIC:  In the conflict, yes.  It was used.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  In the conflict.

25             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, these documents indicate much more than

Page 8368

 1     that, and if I could give an example and there are things that are --

 2     that the Prosecution recognises that are beyond the witness's direct

 3     knowledge.  The first document, 65 ter 8768, is a document from the

 4     director of the Pretis holding company dated 10 May 1994 to the

 5     Main Staff of the VRS personally to the accused, and this references

 6     1.000 GRAD 122-millimetre rockets.  It does have a nexus to the witness's

 7     evidence in the context of the fact that on, as an example, page 9 of

 8     P495, the witness authors a report concerning scheduled incident G13,

 9     where the witness concludes the same type of rockets -- rocket engines

10     were used and found at the location of the projectile impact.  The

11     witness further comments on this type of rocket engine in paragraph 53 of

12     his amalgamated statement.  So we're offering it in that context.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  One second.

14                           [Trial Chamber confers]

15             JUDGE ORIE:  The Chamber has decided that it will reserve

16     40 numbers for these 40 documents, that's the chart and the 39 underlying

17     documents, and invites the parties -- Mr. Lukic, there seems to be

18     disagreement as to what exactly the chart and the comment of the witness

19     brings us.  Therefore, the parties are invited perhaps also in a chart

20     format to bring to the attention of the Chamber, you, Mr. Weber, what

21     favours admission, and you, Mr. Lukic, what does object admission.

22             And of course, for Mr. Weber, there's no need to repeat what is

23     already in the chart itself, and I think the simplest way would be that

24     the Defence first formulates its objections and that the Prosecution then

25     further specifies the reason why it seeks admission of those specific

Page 8369

 1     documents.

 2             Could the parties agree on a kind of a schedule for that?

 3             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, I'd be happy today to provide Mr. Lukic

 4     with a Word version of a chart for him to provide comments on the

 5     individual documents.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, would that be a practical way of --

 7             MR. LUKIC:  It is very, Your Honour, only I don't know if the

 8     numbers in this chart are from Karadzic trial.  So it can create

 9     confusion.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  It says "Mladic 65 ter numbers," but is that --

11             MR. WEBER:  On the chart -- on the chart distributed to the

12     Chamber and to the Defence today those are the Mladic 65 ter numbers.

13     I'm happy to include in the chart that I provide to Mr. Lukic today the

14     corresponding Karadzic numbers, just so when he reviews the comment chart

15     he can --

16             MR. LUKIC:  Sorry, I was referring to this second statement from

17     the 19th of July, 2010.  We have old numbers from Karadzic trial.

18             MR. WEBER:  Mr. Lukic is correct that in the comment chart itself

19     those are -- that appear in the far left column, those are the Karadzic

20     65 ter numbers.  We have attached a table of concordance and I can also

21     provide in the chart today, in the Word version, both the 65 ter numbers

22     so he can easily go through them one by one.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, if you would prepare a chart for Mr. Lukic so

24     that he always has the two numbers in two columns available to himself.

25             Mr. Lukic, rather than to change what seems to be a document

Page 8370

 1     where the witness commented on certain matters, rather not change

 2     anything in that and have the conversion chart for you available.

 3             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Then we'll proceed.

 5             Madam Registrar, the numbers to be reserved for these purposes

 6     are?

 7                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  The numbers reserved exclusively deal with the chart

 9     and the underlying documents of the chart.  All the -- I would say the

10     section 1 associated exhibits is not covered by that yet.

11             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, may I proceed with the summary of the

12     witness's evidence?

13             JUDGE ORIE:  One second.  We'll first ask Madam Registrar to tell

14     us which numbers she reserved.

15             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, 40 numbers reserved are from number

16     P890 up to and including P929, Your Honours.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Those numbers are reserved.

18             Please proceed, Mr. Weber, and read the summary of the statement

19     of the witness and you have explained to the witness what the purpose of

20     it is.

21             MR. WEBER:  Yes, Your Honour.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And for the public, we'll now read the summary

23     of the statement of the witness which is the core of the evidence the

24     witness has given although not viva voce today.

25             MR. WEBER:  Mr. Ekrem Suljevic is a mechanical engineer and was

Page 8371

 1     an investigator for the Counter Sabotage Protection Unit, or KDZ, of the

 2     Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

 3     Mr. Suljevic participated in 50 to 60 investigations of shelling

 4     incidents at civilian locations during the siege of Sarajevo.  One of the

 5     first investigations the witness worked on was the Markale I shelling.

 6     In his amalgamated statement, Mr. Suljevic discusses reports by the RBiH

 7     MUP KDZ and the Sarajevo CSB related to shelling or modified air bomb

 8     impacts in Sarajevo between May and July 1995.

 9             The witness explains the methodology of the RBiH MUP when

10     investigating shelling incidents, including determining the direction of

11     fire and the collection and analysis of projectile fragments.

12     Mr. Suljevic further explains his familiarity with components and

13     manufacturer markings of various projectiles, including markings found on

14     mortar stabilisers which indicate the year in which they were

15     manufactured and the location of manufacture, which in many cases was the

16     Krusik factory in Valjevo, Serbia.  Mr. Suljevic also discusses the

17     components of modified air bombs.

18             This completes the summary of the witness, and, Your Honours, may

19     I proceed with questioning?

20             JUDGE ORIE:  You may proceed.

21             MR. WEBER:

22        Q.   Mr. Suljevic, in paragraph 7 of your amalgamated statement, P889,

23     you state:

24             "The kinds of projectiles whose craters we inspected were mortar

25     shells, artillery gun shells such as howitzer shells, and modified air

Page 8372

 1     bombs."

 2             During the course of these inspections, did you personally become

 3     familiar with the crater patterns caused by both mortar and artillery

 4     shells?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   Is there a difference in the appearance of an impression or a

 7     crater that would be left by a mortar shell as compared to an artillery

 8     shell?

 9        A.   Well, there is a difference between a crater created by a mortar

10     shell and a crater caused by some other type of weaponry.  There is also

11     a difference between a crater created by an air bomb which explodes.

12        Q.   We'll discuss the differences at greater length in a second, but

13     before doing that, I'd like to ask you do you know why a mortar shell

14     leaves a distinguishable crater pattern from that of an artillery shell?

15        A.   Let's put it very simply.  There are several distinguishing

16     traits, starting with the shape of the shell, the way the shell flies,

17     and the way the projectile is stabilised, because mortar shells do not

18     rotate during flight.  They are stabilised by stabiliser, whereas shells

19     from other artillery pieces such as cannons and howitzers rotate, and

20     their rotation provides them with the necessary flight stabilisation.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I stop you for a second.  Mr. Weber didn't ask

22     for all the differences between the two projectiles and how they are

23     functioning or flying but was specifically asking about the pattern on

24     the ground upon impact.  May I invite you, unless it is necessary to

25     understand that, to start with that first.  What do you see on the ground

Page 8373

 1     upon impact?

 2             Mr. Weber, that's what you asked, isn't it?

 3             MR. WEBER:  Yes, Your Honour.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, if you didn't, then rephrase your question.

 5             MR. WEBER:

 6        Q.   Are the distinguishing traits that you've just mentioned in your

 7     answer, do these affect the crater pattern that is left on the ground?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, at this time I'd ask that the witness

10     be provided with a pen and a blank screen to draw upon.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  To be -- Mr. Weber, my colleague just reminds me

12     that your question was not about what the differences are on the ground

13     but why they left that.  So I misread your question.  My apologies for

14     that.

15             And the witness may be provided with a pen and a blank screen.

16             MR. WEBER:

17        Q.   Mr. Suljevic, I'd first like to discuss mortars with you.  On the

18     screen before you, could you please draw how a mortar impacts and

19     explodes on a horizontal surface such as the ground.

20        A.   Yes.  I'll try and do it from what I remember.  [Marks].

21        Q.   If -- before you continue with your drawing, could you please

22     explain to us what you have drawn.  It appears to be a mortar, and you've

23     drawn a number of lines.  If you could please explain these to us.

24        A.   Yes, just briefly.  The drawing depicts a mortar shell on impact

25     with a horizontal surface, and the lines represent actually from the

Page 8374

 1     centre of explosion, and every part of the shell body, i.e., every

 2     fragment moves in the direction of these lines.  This is just a

 3     simplified representation.  Most of the shell fragments will hit the

 4     surface on the side from which the shell was launched.  On the other side

 5     there will be less fragment impact, and those fragments will form a

 6     rose-shaped pattern or a paw pattern as we used to call it.

 7        Q.   With respect to how mortars -- their angle of descent, does this

 8     impact how the pattern is created at all?

 9        A.   It does.  I will repeat that I did not carry out analysis and

10     calculations of angles of descent, but the angle of descent does define

11     the crater pattern, and later, based on calculations, you can also

12     calculate the angle of descent at the moment of impact.

13        Q.   You began to draw a line in the middle of this page.  I was

14     wondering if on the right of this line, if you could draw what you've

15     described to be the rose-shaped or paw pattern that is created by the

16     mortar.

17        A.   Yes.  [Marks].  Generally speaking, that would be the shape.  In

18     the centre is the crater centre, and around it are non-symmetrical shapes

19     elongated towards the opposite side from the side from which the shell

20     came.  A more dense pattern on the surface, i.e., a smaller distance

21     between the rings can be seen on the side from which the projectile came.

22             Generally speaking, the pattern is symmetrical and once you

23     establish the axis of the pattern, you can continue analysing the crater

24     further.

25        Q.   You just mentioned the pattern being symmetrical and an axis, on

Page 8375

 1     this drawing could you draw what the symmetry would be in the axis?

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Just for my understanding, when you said symmetry

 3     and when you're talking about axis, is it that the symmetry is around the

 4     axis on the two sides of the axis and that you have already drawn the

 5     axis which comes from the right upper part of this screen and that

 6     therefore the symmetry is found on the -- to the left and to the right

 7     of -- or at least to the two sides of that axis you've drawn already?  Is

 8     that well understood?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely, Your Honour.  The

10     symmetry that I'm talking about is not a hundred per cent symmetry.  We

11     cannot claim for a fact that there is the same number of fragments on

12     both sides, but they are more or less symmetrical.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Please proceed, Mr. Weber.

14             MR. WEBER:

15        Q.   Mr. --

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Before you continue --

17             MR. WEBER:  Sorry, Your Honour.

18             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  -- may I put another question.  Can we please

19     indicate by an arrow from which side the -- the shell landed or was

20     fired.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps could the arrow indicate the --

22             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Direction.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  -- direction of the projectile at impact.

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  In this particular case, the

25     projectile would have come from the right-hand side, and it would have

Page 8376

 1     ascended at an angle which would depend on the angle at which it was

 2     fired.  The descent angle obviously depends on the firing angle.  Based

 3     on that we carry on all the analysis.

 4             MR. WEBER:

 5        Q.   Mr. Suljevic, could you please mark an M, the letter M, at the

 6     top of this drawing.

 7             MR. WEBER:  And after the witness marks, the Prosecution would

 8     tender this as a public exhibit.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Marks]

10             JUDGE ORIE:  The M standing for "mortar," we assume, Mr. Weber.

11             MR. WEBER:  Yes, Your Honour.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  This impact of a mortar shell.

13             No objections?

14             MR. LUKIC:  No objections, Your Honour.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

16             THE REGISTRAR:  Document created by the witness in court receives

17     number P930, Your Honours.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted.  Please proceed.

19             MR. WEBER:

20        Q.   Mr. Suljevic, I'd like to do the same exercise with you with

21     respect to an artillery shell.

22             MR. WEBER:  If the witness could be again provided with a blank

23     screen.

24        Q.   If you could please again --

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, often -- but that's my understanding,

Page 8377

 1     often a mortar is considered to be part of artillery.  So an artillery

 2     shell and mortar shell seems to confuse.

 3             MR. WEBER:  I understand, Your Honour.

 4        Q.   Mr. Suljevic, I'd like you to repeat this exercise with an

 5     artillery projectile without a stabiliser such as one launched from a

 6     cannon or a howitzer.  If you could please first on the left-hand side of

 7     the screen draw how such an artillery shell would impact and explode on a

 8     horizontal surface.

 9        A.   Yes.  [Marks].  This is a simplified representation.  When it

10     comes to these shells, unlike with mortars, there are direct firing.

11     They fall under a very acute angle with respect to the surface.  Most of

12     the fragments, therefore, can be found in the back behind the axis of the

13     flight.  The others are dispersed in the air and they do not hit the

14     surface.

15        Q.   If to the right of this drawing, if you could please draw how

16     that pattern would appear on the ground.

17        A.   Yes.  I will try to draw the crater pattern from memory.

18     [Marks].  In very simple terms, most of the fragments would hit behind

19     the crater.  As far as I remember, it would be a funnel or a jet-shaped

20     pattern, whereas very small numbers of those fragments may be expected in

21     front of the crater.

22        Q.   Could you please on this pattern draw an arrow that would

23     indicate the direction from which the artillery would arrive.  Thank you.

24        A.   [Marks]

25        Q.   And if at the top of this drawing would you please write the

Page 8378

 1     letter A.  I'm just using it for "artillery."

 2        A.   Let's clarify once again.  Mortars are also artillery pieces.

 3     Maybe we can put the letters AR standing for "rotating artillery."  Maybe

 4     that would explain things better.

 5        Q.   Thank you very much, Mr. Suljevic.

 6             MR. WEBER:  At this time --

 7             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  May I put another question.  On the right side of

 8     your drawing you put some lines, uninterrupted lines on the right side of

 9     the right drawing.  What do they represent?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, these are some lines that

11     represent the border lines for the density of the jet.  They do not exist

12     on any crater.  I just use it to delineate the zone where most of the

13     projectile fragments land.

14             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  That was very helpful.  Thank you very much.

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  May I also add my --

16             MR. WEBER:  Of course, Your Honour.

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  If this is rotating artillery, may I suggest we

18     call it RA instead of AR.

19             MR. WEBER:  Thank you, Your Honour.  The Prosecution at this time

20     tenders the drawing.

21             THE WITNESS: [Marks]

22             MR. LUKIC:  We don't have any objections, if you want to hear

23     from us.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar, the number to be assigned?

25             THE REGISTRAR:  Document create by the witness in court receives

Page 8379

 1     number P931, Your Honours.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  P931 is admitted.

 3             MR. WEBER:

 4        Q.   Mr. Suljevic, as a general question, at what -- how would the

 5     pattern be affected if the rotating artillery impacted upon a vertical

 6     surface?  Such as a wall.

 7        A.   If it were to hit a vertical surface, although I never analysed

 8     any such craters, but I did have opportunities to see those on the walls.

 9     There would be a higher degree of dispersion of the fragments from all

10     sides of the crater, because the projectile would ascend under a very

11     large angle with respect to the surface.  In any case, there would be a

12     more prominent density on the side from which the projectile came, on the

13     side of the descent angle of the projectile.

14        Q.   Could you please tell us how the damage caused by a modified air

15     bomb differs from the damage caused by a mortar or rotating artillery

16     shell?

17        A.   Well, generally speaking, they are intended for different

18     purposes.  Air bombs are destructive weapons.  They destroyed facilities,

19     and they cause and create large craters on impact.  There are fewer

20     fragments because they're not intended for individual impact but for

21     destruction, whether artillery -- whereas artillery projectiles have

22     individual impact.  They create smaller craters, and they leave more

23     fragment traces on the surface.

24        Q.   In addition to your participation in on-site investigations, did

25     you perform laboratory analysis of trace evidence recovered from the

Page 8380

 1     scenes of explosions?

 2        A.   We performed laboratory analysis of traces, but not chemical

 3     analysis of the materials which were found at explosion sites.  We just

 4     inspected visually.  We measured, and we did comparative analysis with

 5     the assets that we had in our department.  Obviously, we relied on

 6     professional literature when we did that.

 7        Q.   In paragraph 53 of your amalgamated statement, you comment upon a

 8     report dated 19 June 1995, which was authored by yourself and

 9     Mirza Jamakovic concerning the traces recovered during a shelling

10     incident on Safeta Hadzica Street on 26 May 1995.  Did you participate in

11     the on-site investigation of this shelling?

12        A.   No, I didn't.  I didn't take part in the investigation on the

13     location.

14             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P495,

15     page 11 of the B/C/S original and page 10 of the English translation.

16             Your Honours, I am about to go on to another document.  I do note

17     the time.  It is okay if I break at this point.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Then we'll take the break now.

19             Witness, we'll take a break of 20 minutes.  You may follow the

20     usher.

21                           [The witness stands down]

22             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll take a break and we'll resume at 10 minutes to

23     11.00.

24                           --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.

25                           --- On resuming at 10.52 a.m.

Page 8381

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

 2             Meanwhile, Mr. Lukic, just a very brief survey by the Chamber

 3     revealed that at least for a number, I think we came to four now, of the

 4     documents you said the witness did not author or had nothing to the

 5     investigation, the witness himself says that he either drafted the report

 6     or was involved in investigating.  So would you please be very precise in

 7     the formulation of your objections.

 8             MR. LUKIC:  Your Honour, I couldn't find that in the document.

 9     Maybe he said "drafted," but I found --

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, if he says that in his statement --

11             MR. LUKIC:  -- his name only on those three.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but if he -- if he states that he was drafting,

13     although not signing sometimes the report, that of course brings him very

14     close to those documents.

15             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, if I may assist.  I'm going to lead a

16     little bit more evidence on this.  The initials ES appear in the

17     documents which I'll believe is -- I'll lead some further evidence about

18     what that ES means.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And apart from that, Mr. Lukic, of course,

20     before objecting, we would have to look at both the statement and the

21     document and not just the one of the two.

22                           [The witness takes the stand]

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Weber.

24             MR. WEBER:  Could we have page 11 of the B/C/S and 10 of the

25     English translation of Exhibit P495.

Page 8382

 1             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, the document is under seal.

 2             MR. WEBER:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.  If it could not be

 3     broadcast to the public.

 4        Q.   Mr. Suljevic, I'd like to return to discussing the shelling on

 5     Safeta Hadzica Street.  I'd like to direct your attention to another

 6     report dated 10 -- if we could please have -- I'd like to draw your

 7     attention to another report dated 10 June 1995 concerning the same

 8     incident but in relation to the analysis of traces of a projectile that

 9     hit the wall of a building on Safeta Hadzica Street.  Do you recognise

10     the document before you?

11        A.   Yes.

12             MR. WEBER:  Could we please have the next page of both versions.

13        Q.   On this next page we see the report was signed by the head of the

14     unit, Mirza Jamakovic.  To the left of the signature and the stamp there

15     are the initials ES.  Could you please verify if these are your initials

16     and tell us who drafted the analysis described in this report.

17        A.   Yes.  These are my initials.  I drafted this report, and the head

18     of unit, Mirza Jamakovic, was the one who signed every report produced by

19     the unit.  So I drafted the report, and I carried out the analysis with

20     assistance of my colleagues.  I was not in charge of this case but I did

21     compile a report.

22        Q.   I'd like to discuss your analysis in this report.  On the same

23     page you found that the projectile was probably a high explosive

24     88-millimetre calibre shell.  What kind of shell is this?

25        A.   That's a projectile fired from an artillery piece, and it's a

Page 8383

 1     rotating projectile.  It was most probably fired from a gun.

 2        Q.   What do the remarks "4.5 mm klb (n)" represent?

 3        A.   That represents the marking of the projectile that led us to make

 4     conclusions based on the analysis of the traces, and this is the way in

 5     which projectiles were marked, which indicates that this specific

 6     projectile was not produced in the former Yugoslavia, but I think most

 7     probably it was made in Germany.

 8        Q.   How was it that you were able to determine that this was a

 9     rotating artillery shell based on the recovered fragments from the

10     projectile?

11        A.   After analysing and measuring the fragments retrieved, although

12     we didn't get too many of them, and after analysing all these fragments,

13     we were led to believe that this was probably this specific projectile.

14     We were not 100 per cent sure that it was, in fact, this projectile.

15     However, by process of elimination of all the other known projectiles,

16     based on the measurements and the detailed analysis of the traces, we

17     were led to believe that this projectile is the one as specified in this

18     report.

19        Q.   Are there any measurements or observations that you made related

20     to the thickness of the materials recovered which indicated to you that

21     the projectile likely came from a rotating artillery shell as opposed to

22     a mortar?

23        A.   Well, there are measurements.  One measures the thickness, which

24     is a dimension which indicates the thickness of the wall or the body of

25     the projectile, and that is one of the elements that led us to believe

Page 8384

 1     that this was an artillery projectile, because no other known projectile

 2     could have been associated with these specific traces, and all the

 3     samples of other projectiles we had on our premises, and we used them for

 4     comparison and analysis.

 5             MR. WEBER:  The Prosecution is finished with this document.  We'd

 6     like to move on to a different date.  Could the Prosecution please have

 7     65 ter 10140, page 2 of the B/C/S version only.

 8        Q.   Mr. Suljevic, the Prosecution would now like to discuss with you

 9     some photographs related to projectile impacts on 16 June 1995.

10     Appearing on the screen before you shortly will be photographs of items

11     found at the scene of a projectile impact near 10 Trg Medjunarodnog

12     Prijateljstva Square.  Before we discuss these projectiles, do you know

13     where the square is located?

14        A.   Yes, Trg Medjunarodnog Prijateljstva is in the part of town

15     called Alipasino Polje.

16        Q.   Directing your attention to the top photo, could you please

17     describe the items depicted starting from the item on the far left and

18     continuing to the right.  If needed, we can zoom in closer on the photo.

19        A.   This photo depicts the remnants of rocket motors.  On the

20     left-hand side is a piece with seven openings.  That's the rear part of

21     the motor, the so-called jet part.  During the combustion of fuel, it

22     produces gases which produce thrust for the projectile.  In the middle

23     one can see two cylindrical parts.  These are also rear parts of rocket

24     motors, and to the left is a piece of metal sheet probably coming from

25     the body of the motor which due to the explosion was deformed, which

Page 8385

 1     means that the motor was destroyed and the metal sheet was deformed.

 2             In these two middle cylindrical parts, one can see tail-fins of

 3     stabilisers that each rocket has.

 4        Q.   Do you know what these rockets were used for during the conflict?

 5        A.   These rockets were used as a propelling part that consisted of

 6     rocket mortars as a propelling device and --

 7             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness please repeat the last part

 8     of his answer.  Thank you.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you please repeat the last part of your

10     answer.  You said "these rockets were used as a propelling part that

11     consisted of," and then repeat from there.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As a propelling part for modified

13     air bombs that consisted of the propelling device, i.e., rocket engines

14     that propelled the entire improvised device and an aerial bomb itself

15     which served as a warhead, i.e., as an explosive device which exploded on

16     impact and inflicted huge damage, destruction, and loss of life.  These

17     two parts were technically welded to one another by an adaptor in the

18     shape of a plate in order to make it compact.

19        Q.   The --

20             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  For the clarity of the record I will put one

21     question to the witness.

22             In one of your previous answers you said -- this is at least what

23     was translated to us:

24             "To the left is a piece of metal sheet probably coming from the

25     body of the motor."

Page 8386

 1             Did you really say to the left or to the right?  You explained

 2     which because of the explosion was deformed.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's the piece on the far right of

 4     irregular shape.  It's a piece of metal sheet originating from the rocket

 5     motor.

 6             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you for this correction of the record.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  You also referred to the stabiliser part.

 8     Could you tell us exactly where you find this stabilising part of the

 9     projectile.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In this photograph there are a few

11     fins of the stabiliser.  To the left where you have this piece with jet

12     openings, you can see two fins which are not open.  And you can also see

13     stabiliser fins each on the two central pieces, as far as I can see.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Do I understand that on the central pieces the --

15     the shapes for both of them to the right lower part, slightly bended, are

16     these the stabiliser elements attached to the -- to the rocket part.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Then I have one final question on this.  The fact

19     that there are stabilisers which apparently are movable, does that mean

20     that these projectiles do not rotate in the air but are supposed to fly

21     without rotation?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If we speak about a rocket, a

23     rocket does not rotate and neither did this modified device made up of an

24     air bomb and rocket motors.  Only I would like to add that probably these

25     fins never opened in this modified device.  They were fixed, because

Page 8387

 1     there was no need for them to stabilise the flight of this specific

 2     projectile.  I think that they were fixed, and therefore it was

 3     impossible for them to open.  I think that we discovered that they were

 4     fixed in a way in order to prevent them from opening.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, could we zoom out again so that we have

 6     this together with the other.

 7             May I take it that what we see close to the number 1 on the

 8     picture above is the same -- that is, the seven holes part of this -- the

 9     part of the projectile with the seven holes, that that is the same as we

10     see on the lower part lying flat to the left of the two others?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I presume that is the case.  I

12     didn't make the photograph.  However, these jet parts are found in the

13     central pieces as well, only you cannot see them in this photo.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps if we zoom in on the lower photograph we

15     might see it, because it's taken from a different angle, and even a

16     smaller part -- yes.  We see a similar seven holes at least in the middle

17     one as we saw earlier to the left.  Thank you.

18             Please proceed, Mr. Weber.

19             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, the Prosecution tenders 65 ter 10140

20     into evidence, the photos.

21             MR. LUKIC:  No objections.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

23             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 10140 receives number P932,

24     Your Honours.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

Page 8388

 1             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 10394,

 2     page 9 of the uploaded B/C/S version.

 3        Q.   Mr. Suljevic, in paragraphs 59 and 60 of your amalgamated

 4     statement you authenticate a report concerning a projectile that landed

 5     at Cobanija Street on the same date, 16 June 1995.  Coming before you

 6     will be some photos of items recovered at the location of this impact.

 7             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Could you repeat the numbers and the page of this

 8     statement.

 9             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, it's -- I have paragraphs 59 and 60 of

10     the amalgamated statement.  It's related to the Cobanija Street.

11        Q.   If we could start with the top photograph.  If you could tell us

12     which items are depicted in this photo.

13        A.   The top photo shows several pieces of damaged and distorted metal

14     sheet.  These fragments are parts of rocket motor.

15        Q.   And directing your attention to the bottom photo.  Could you tell

16     us what are the items that we see.

17        A.   This photo shows parts of the rear end of the rocket motor.  The

18     one to the very left is the stabiliser axis, only there is no stabiliser

19     that can be seen on this particular piece because it probably fell off

20     during the explosion.

21             The other two parts came from the rear end of the rocket motor

22     where the jets are, only they are damaged and distorted.

23             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, at this time the Prosecution tenders

24     65 ter 10394 into evidence as a public exhibit.

25             MR. LUKIC:  We would object to this one and maybe to MFI this,

Page 8389

 1     and during the cross-examination we will show why we object to this

 2     document.

 3             MR. WEBER:  That's fine.  I can -- depending on what happens, I

 4     can re-tender in redirect.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Although usually objections are formulated and

 6     reasoned when admission is sought, but it maybe very practical to deal

 7     with it --

 8             MR. LUKIC:  I can say now, because maybe this gentleman should be

 9     asked whether he composed the document or not and what's his knowledge

10     about that document.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Let's see what he exactly says about that so

12     that we are prepared --

13             MR. LUKIC:  Because I find some other people's names on this

14     document, not his.

15             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, the -- if I could get to the -- the

16     reports are authored by a colleague of his.  He indicates and

17     authenticates the signature related to the reports in this statement.

18     With respect to the witness's evidence, the witness has knowledge and has

19     been able to provide us with relevant knowledge concerning the items that

20     are in these photographs.  This is the same date as scheduled incident

21     G15, so the impact of modified air bombs or rockets are directly relevant

22     to this case.  We ask that the photos be admitted at this time.  That's

23     the only basis.

24             MR. LUKIC:  I'm sorry maybe there is a misunderstanding on my

25     part.  If that's only the photos, we do not object, but I thought we are

Page 8390

 1     talking about the whole paragraph, 59, and about the document inside.  I

 2     mentioned that paragraph.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  I think that there may be two matters to be

 4     distinguished.  The first one, the authentication of the report and the

 5     signature by this witness which is apart from the content of the report.

 6             Now, each of these separate issues would already justify

 7     admission into evidence although the probative value then to be discussed

 8     as to what the witness could tell us about the content of the report,

 9     therefore it seems to go rather to whether the content of the report also

10     provides probative value or whether it's primarily or exclusively the

11     authentication of the document and the signature.

12             MR. LUKIC:  If it's that -- just the authentication, then

13     probably he can recognise that signatures of his colleagues, but about

14     the content --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but --

16                           [Trial Chamber confers]

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  But can we clarify --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  We will have it MFI'd, I think, for whatever

19     purpose, if only for authentication purposes that might already justify

20     admission, but let's wait and see what you come up in cross-examination.

21     One second, please.

22                           [Trial Chamber confers]

23             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Can we have a clarification?  The document

24     65 ter 10394, does that contain the report or only these two photographs

25     on the screen now?

Page 8391

 1             MR. WEBER:  Two separate materials, Your Honour.  There's a

 2     report and then there are the photographs I've shown the witness.  So I'm

 3     asking for the admission based on the testimony of this witness at this

 4     stage right now of the photographs.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Of the photographs only.

 6             MR. LUKIC:  No objection.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar, the number would be?

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 10394 receives number P933,

 9     Your Honours.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

11             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, at this time, in our 92 ter motion for

12     the witness we sought leave to add photographs.  We're requesting

13     permission to show these photographs to the witness at this stage of the

14     examination.  They have been uploaded under 65 ter 28670.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, I hear of no objections of the

16     photographs to be shown to the witness to start with.

17             MR. LUKIC:  No objections at this moment for this.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  That would also mean that you do not object against

19     adding them to the 65 ter list because they now become potential

20     evidence.

21             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Leave is granted to add them to the 65 ter

23     list.  You may show the photographs to the witness.

24             MR. WEBER:  If the Prosecution could please have page 4 of

25     65 ter 28670.

Page 8392

 1        Q.   Mr. Suljevic, directing your attention to the bottom photo before

 2     you.  Do you recognise the location as depicted?

 3        A.   Yes.  This is a factory -- or, rather, the Ilijas ironworks, and

 4     Ilijas is a place near Sarajevo.  Throughout the war, Ilijas was under

 5     the control of the Army of Republika Srpska.

 6        Q.   Where -- where is the Ilijas ironworks factory in relation to the

 7     centre of Sarajevo?

 8        A.   It is not in Sarajevo.  Before the war Ilijas used to be one of

 9     Sarajevo municipalities, but nowadays Ilijas is a small settlement some

10     20 to 30 kilometres away from Sarajevo.  This means that Ilijas is

11     actually on the road towards Zenica.  It is not part of the city of

12     Sarajevo at all.

13        Q.   And when you say it's 30 kilometres away from Sarajevo, is it

14     30 kilometres to the north or is it 30 kilometres --

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, the Chamber has maps.

16             MR. WEBER:  I was just trying to clarify.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  If it is Ilijas and the town or the -- of Ilijas,

18     then there should be no problem to find it apart from that you could

19     agree on where Ilijas is, but I don't think there is much dispute about

20     it.  Please proceed.

21             MR. WEBER:  Very well, Your Honour.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Unless the specific location of the factory is some

23     relevance.  Then, of course, I'm not keeping you from exploring that,

24     but ...

25             MR. WEBER:  Thank you, Your Honour.

Page 8393

 1        Q.   Do you know when these photographs were taken, approximately?

 2        A.   I know when they were taken.  They were taken after the signing

 3     of the Dayton Accords.  During the reintegration process of the

 4     municipalities and the parts that had been under the control of the Army

 5     of Republika Srpska, after the Dayton Accords they were given to the

 6     Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina.  Those parts were reintegrated and our

 7     department was one of the first that entered those reintegrated areas in

 8     order to make sure that other persons could enter, to make sure that

 9     there were no explosions, that mines were cleared if they were found, as

10     well as to carry out inspections at requests by companies and individuals

11     if they suspected that explosives and explosive devices could be found at

12     certain places.  At the time when those photos were taken I was not in

13     Ilijas myself, but one of the teams from my department were given the

14     task, and during the integration process and during the inspection of the

15     area they took those photos.  Somebody from the team, I don't know if

16     that person was from my department, but in any case, those photos were

17     taken in early 1996 by a team member, who did not necessarily have to be

18     a member of my department.

19        Q.   If I could direct your attention to the top photo now.  Could you

20     please tell us what is depicted.

21        A.   It depicts bombs as they are stored.

22        Q.   Do you know what type of bombs these are?

23        A.   I don't know.  I don't know what type it is, but in any case,

24     they are air bombs.

25             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have page 6.

Page 8394

 1        Q.   Mr. Suljevic, directing your attention to the bottom photo, do

 2     you know what is depicted?

 3        A.   The bottom photo depicts 200-litre barrels filled with

 4     explosives.  On the left-hand side is a barrel without any additions,

 5     probably filled with explosives, which we can't see, but we can see

 6     wheels belonging to cargo vehicles which were attached to the barrels

 7     which in turn made the barrels for transport or for lowering them

 8     downhill.  Actually, that's how they were used to bomb settled areas.

 9     Barrels would be rolled down the hill.  The explosives would be activated

10     by slow fuses, and when the slow fuses burnt down completely, the

11     explosives would be activated and the barrel would explode.

12             During the war, that happened on the slopes above Sarajevo in the

13     settlement called Bistrik.  I myself wasn't there, but I heard that

14     residential buildings and other facilities were destroyed in that manner.

15             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, at this time the Prosecution tenders

16     65 ter 28670 into evidence as a public exhibit.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

18             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 28670 receives number P934,

19     Your Honours.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

21             MR. WEBER:

22        Q.   And if we could just clarify one thing with respect to these

23     photos.  Does your signature appear at the bottom of each page of these

24     photographs and a date when you signed it?

25        A.   Yes.  I can see it on this page.  I don't know whether my

Page 8395

 1     signature is on all pages.  In my previous testimonies, I offered those

 2     photos because I had them at my disposal, and I did that on the date

 3     depicted in the photo.

 4        Q.   I'd like to move on to a --

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber, before we do so, before I start being

 6     puzzled about it, could you tell me what -- whether there's any

 7     difference between the photograph on the first page of this document and

 8     the lower photograph on the last page, that is page 6 of this document?

 9     They seem so much the same to me --

10             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, I believe that there's multiple photos

11     that depict --

12             JUDGE ORIE:  The same photos.

13             MR. WEBER:  Yes.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Then if that's the case, I'll not try to --

15             MR. WEBER:  There's also multiple photos of the -- what the

16     witness has described to be the aerial bombs.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

18             MR. WEBER:  There are slight differences in those, though, I

19     believe.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

21             MR. WEBER:

22        Q.   Mr. Suljevic, I'd like to turn to a different topic.  During the

23     course of your investigations, did you become familiar with markings on

24     fragments of mortar shells?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 8396

 1        Q.   What type of markings would you find on the remaining fragments

 2     of a mortar shell after the shelling?

 3        A.   A mitigating circumstance was when one found markings on a

 4     fragment.  However, when it came to mortar shells, whenever a stabiliser

 5     was found, and it was found in most cases, on the lower end the primary

 6     charged -- charge contained markings.  According to professional

 7     literature which dealt with the markings of artillery ammunition, things

 8     were described in detail, and we used that.  The markings consisted of

 9     the designation of the producer, the year of production, the series in

10     that year when that device was manufactured.  The letter markings

11     indicated the producer, the manufacturer.  The former JNA -- or, rather,

12     its purpose industry had well-established markings for the companies that

13     produced explosives.  For example, SRB denoted --

14        Q.   Mr. Suljevic, sorry to cut you off.  We will go through some

15     examples.

16             MR. WEBER:  If the Prosecution at this time could please display

17     an amended version that we sought leave to amend in our 92 ter motion of

18     65 ter 19024.  We have uploaded it as 19024A.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  It is part of the motion.  Mr. Lukic, no objection

20     against it being used at this point in time.  Therefore, the amended

21     version is now part of your 65 ter list.

22             MR. WEBER:  If the Prosecution could please have page 2 of

23     65 ter 19024A.

24        Q.   Mr. Suljevic, in the previous answer that you just gave, you

25     stated that you used professional literature which dealt with markings of

Page 8397

 1     artillery ammunition.  Do you recognise the document before you as one of

 2     those pieces of literature?

 3        A.   Yes.  This was one of the basic books which dealt with markings.

 4     This is a textbook which was used by the students of the military academy

 5     in Zagreb.  It was an institution of higher military learning in Zagreb.

 6             MR. WEBER:  Could the Prosecution please have page 4 of both

 7     versions of this document.

 8        Q.   Mr. Suljevic, I'd like to direct your attention to the centre of

 9     the page, the part entitled "Designation for an explosive-filled series

10     of projectiles."

11             Could you please explain to us what kind of projectiles does this

12     section relate to?

13        A.   This relates to all projectiles filled with some explosive,

14     either gunpowder or something else, some other explosive agent.  And this

15     could be either primary charge or the casings of artillery projectiles

16     including mortars, and that's when they were filled with explosives.

17     This is what is described here.

18        Q.   There's reference to a table 11 in this section.  I'd like to

19     take you to that table right now.

20             MR. WEBER:  If the Prosecution could please go two pages forward

21     in both versions.

22             I'm sorry, Your Honour, did you have a question?

23             JUDGE ORIE:  No.  I see it already.  Yes.

24             MR. WEBER:  If we could actually go one page back.  I'm sorry.

25        Q.   In the far left column of this table is an explanation for the

Page 8398

 1     designations for projectiles produced in the former Yugoslavia.  I'd like

 2     to draw your attention to the example provided for KB 5701.  Could you

 3     just take us through this example and explain what these markings mean.

 4        A.   As you can see, there are two parts of a designation, the letter

 5     part and the numerical part.  KB is in Cyrillic, and it stands for Krusik

 6     Valjevo.  It's actually not KB but KV, but in Cyrillic.  Krusik Valjevo.

 7             Fifty-seven, the first two digits in the numerical part,

 8     represent the year when the projectile was filled with charge.  The rest

 9     of the numerical part designate the series in the year when that

10     projectile was filled with the charge, because explosives were filled in

11     batches, in series, and each of the batches, each of the series, bore its

12     own series number.

13        Q.   Just to take you to another example, in paragraph 48 of your

14     amalgamated statement, you comment on a portion of a report related to a

15     120-millimetre mortar projectile that landed on Asikovac Street on the

16     date of 22 May 1995.  You indicate that the marking KB 9502 is short for

17     Krusik Valjevo in Serbia and the year of manufacture is 1995 as part of

18     the second series.

19             Do I understand correctly that these markings indicate that the

20     mortar was manufactured in Serbia during the same year that it impacted

21     upon this location?

22        A.   We're talking about the primary charge.  This means that the

23     primary charge was manufactured and inserted in the casing in 1995.

24        Q.   Just so we're clear --

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I just want some clarification.

Page 8399

 1             MR. WEBER:  Yes.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  At lines 12 at page 42, starting from line 12, the

 3     witness says:

 4             "57, the first two digits in the numerical part, represent the

 5     year when the projectile was filled with charge."

 6             And then he says:

 7             "The rest of the numerical part designate the series in the year

 8     when that projectile was filled with the charge."

 9             MR. WEBER:  I understand.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I'm not quite sure I understand the distinction

11     between those two.

12             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, I think that it would be best to just

13     ask the witness to -- if he could further clarify that for us.

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  If you could clarify that.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  The numerical part -- or,

16     rather, the letter part indicates the manufacturer, i.e., the company

17     when all the works were done.  The first part of the numerical part

18     designates the year of production.  If it's 57, that means the year 1957.

19     In the year 1957, there were several series or several batches when

20     explosives were filled.  It was not done continuously.  There were

21     interruptions between the series, and each of the series in the year was

22     designated by a different number, a different serial number.

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  I would have one additional question in relation to

25     this.  You said filling was the primary charge which was filled.  Do I

Page 8400

 1     understand that you are talking about the primary charge as the explosive

 2     charge?  So not a charge which served for propelling the projectile, but

 3     the charge with explosives which were to explode upon impact?  Is that

 4     how I have to understand your primary charge, use of that term?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We're talking about the primary

 6     propellant, the gunpowder which is inserted in the -- in the propellant

 7     part.  In this particular case, we did not find a fragment with the

 8     designation that would indicate as to when the charge was filled in the

 9     casing of the explosive device.  Maybe the casing was manufactured in

10     1994 or perhaps even earlier.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  So we are here talking about the propelling charge

12     only, and that is what these designations stand for, that is the --

13     where, what year, what batch, or am I -- let me just --

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In this case, yes, that would be

15     the case.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So all the numbers here, et cetera, we're

17     talking about are exclusively about the propelling charge of the

18     projectile, not the exploding part.

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When we're talking about the

20     markings, this relates to the primary charge, and in general terms we're

21     talking about two different charges, the charge in the casing and the

22     propelling charge.

23             When you say "filling," it applies to both cases, the case of

24     filling the shell casing with explosive or the propellant charge, and the

25     designations are the same for both, but it all depended on the

Page 8401

 1     manufacturers.  The markings will not be identical for different

 2     manufacturers.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So similar designation could be found on the

 4     body of the shell and on the propelling part and would be interpreted in

 5     a similar way but might be different.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.  If a primary charge was

 7     manufactured in one company, that does not necessarily mean that the

 8     projectile, the casing itself, was made in the same factory.  That may

 9     well be the case, but it doesn't have to be.  In any case, whatever

10     markings are found, they indicate the manufacturer.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

12             MR. WEBER:

13        Q.   Mr. Suljevic, today at page 6, lines 11 and 12, after I asked you

14     to clarify what you meant by "primary charge," you stated:

15             "The primary charge is on the lower side of the stabiliser."

16             Is this the location where you would find the markings that

17     you've described?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   In your amalgamated statement, you comment on a number of other

20     reports related to other shelling incidents in 1995.  Six of these

21     reports note markings on 120-millimetre stabilisers as KB 9309, KB 9402,

22     two stabilisers recovered nine days apart had the markings KB 9501, and

23     two stabilisers recovered ten days apart had the markings KB 9503.  From

24     these markings can you confirm that all of these primary charges were

25     manufactured in Serbia at Krusik between 1993 and 1995?

Page 8402

 1        A.   Yes.  However, the letters should be KB in Cyrillic standing for

 2     KV, not KD, at least that's what I heard in the interpretation.  So KD is

 3     wrong.  It should be KB in Cyrillic standing for KV.  In other words, all

 4     of these primary charges were completed.  They were manufactured and

 5     completed in the Krusik Valjevo factory from 1993 to 1995.  This is what

 6     I can interpret from the markings.

 7             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, at this time the Prosecution tenders

 8     65 ter 10924A into evidence as a public exhibit.  For the Chamber's

 9     reference, there are diagrams that are also uploaded as part of this.  If

10     you saw in the earlier paragraph, there was references to these images

11     and they are also attached.

12             If -- with Your Honours' leave, too, I can take the witness

13     through another report if the Chamber and Mr. Lukic would like, but I

14     would tender also -- 65 ter 15696A is another report authored by the

15     witness concerning the shelling on 2 July 1995 in Novi Grad where the

16     markings on the primary charge were found to be KB 9404.  We are offering

17     this report to show a consistent pattern in the use of certain types of

18     projectiles during shellings on Sarajevo.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic.

20             MR. LUKIC:  No objections.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  No objection.  Madam Registrar.

22             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 19024A receives number P935,

23     Your Honours.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And then we also have 15696A.

25             THE REGISTRAR:  Receives number P936, Your Honours.

Page 8403

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  P935 and P936 are admitted into evidence.

 2             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, at this time the Prosecution tenders

 3     the witness.  No further questions at this time.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Mr. Lukic, perhaps the best would be to

 5     take the break first before you start your cross-examination.

 6             MR. LUKIC:  I agree, Your Honours.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Then we will take another break.  Would you please

 8     follow the usher, Witness.

 9                           [The witness stands down]

10             JUDGE ORIE:  We take a break, and we resume at 10 minutes past

11     12.00.

12                           --- Recess taken at 11.49 a.m.

13                           --- On resuming at 12.12 p.m.

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

15                           [The witness takes the stand]

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Suljevic, you'll now be cross-examined by

17     Mr. Lukic.  Mr. Lukic is counsel for Mr. Mladic.

18             Mr. Lukic, please proceed.

19             MR. LUKIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

20                           Cross-examination by Mr. Lukic:

21        Q.   [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Suljevic.

22        A.   Good afternoon.

23        Q.   I will start with the issue of fragments that my learned friend

24     Mr. Weber asked you about.  You told us that you did not carry out any

25     chemical analysis, that you only did the visual inspection of the

Page 8404

 1     material retrieved.  Is it true that the core of the shell, particularly

 2     a mortar shell, remains embedded into the ground?

 3        A.   Are you referring to the stabiliser?

 4        Q.   No.  I'm referring to the core, the fuse.  Does that become

 5     embedded into the ground?

 6        A.   Well, it depends on the type of the surface that it hits.

 7        Q.   Thank you.  There was mention today of documents that were

 8     drafted by the KDZ.  Did it ever happen in your department that, for

 9     example, a person does something and then you were the one who signed it?

10        A.   No.  It never happened that somebody else did something and that

11     then I put my signature on it.  I cannot confirm that.

12        Q.   Is it also true --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Could you make a short pause between answer and

14     question, and could I invite you, Mr. Suljevic, also to do the same.

15     Otherwise, the interpreters will not catch all the words spoken.

16             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   Are you receiving any interpretation, because I have been

18     notified that you're not receiving it.

19        A.   No, I'm not.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  May I take it the witness on channel 6, where

21     apparently translation is received.

22             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   Can you hear it now?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   Is it also true that whenever you drafted something, somebody

Page 8405

 1     else would sign it?

 2        A.   It is absolutely true.

 3        Q.   Thank you.

 4        A.   It was the head who signed all the documents.

 5        Q.   Yes, as the person who was in control.

 6             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we please now have Exhibit P934.

 7        Q.   I'm talking about the photographs taken in Ilijas that you have

 8     already seen.  What we are looking at is on page 6 -- or, actually, it's

 9     not.  Anyway, the photograph that you see before you, did you ever check

10     the content of the barrels, and I mean you personally?

11        A.   I never visited the site where these barrels were, therefore I

12     never checked it.  However, during the process of reintegration, we

13     destroyed all these devices that we discovered.  On one occasion I had an

14     opportunity to see a barrel full of TNT, and I was present when it was

15     destroyed.

16        Q.   Did you locate any barrels filled with concrete?

17        A.   Not I.  I didn't find any barrels or anything similar filled with

18     concrete.  However, we did found a boiler bodies and also that was the --

19     the device that we destroyed during this integration, and these bodies

20     were filled with explosives as well.

21        Q.   Did you know that devices similar to the ones in the photo were

22     used to break through a minefield?

23        A.   No, I'm not aware of that.

24        Q.   Thank you.  You graduated from the faculty of mechanical

25     engineering.  In your career did you have an opportunity to investigate

Page 8406

 1     bipolar melting and welding of metals?

 2        A.   Well, that was part of the welding course in the first year of my

 3     studies, and one of those aspects was the connection of metals as a

 4     result of explosions.  I never had any practical experience in that area.

 5     However, I am familiar with it.

 6        Q.   In other words, can you tell me that the explosion causes the

 7     melting and bipolar welding of metal parts of the shells and that these

 8     parts remain in the ground provided the shell becomes embedded there?

 9        A.   Yes, it is quite possible.  At any rate, even if the surface was

10     made of concrete, it did happen that certain parts remained embedded

11     under the concrete surface.

12        Q.   Let us now focus on the military document which prescribes the

13     marks on shells and grenades, and you spoke about the markings that you

14     discovered on projectiles.  Can you tell me on which specific part of the

15     shell did you find these markings where you said that, for example,

16     Cyrillic KV and then the year and the serial number?  Which particular

17     part was it imprinted on?

18        A.   Well, it all depended on the specific projectile.  The textbook

19     that we saw provides detailed explanations for each and every projectile

20     indicating where the markings is made.  So they are not all on the same

21     and identical places on a projectile.  We analysed the markings, and if

22     we managed to find a fragment bearing the markings, preferably the full

23     markings, then we would use that textbook as a reference.

24        Q.   For example, on an 82-millimetre shell, where would you find the

25     marking KV 5701?  Or KB, if we pronounce it in the Latin alphabet.

Page 8407

 1        A.   Whenever I would start my work, before that I would check the

 2     textbook, because in principle when we retrieve a fragment, it is not

 3     very simple to establish from which particular part it came, whereas the

 4     textbook has a clear indication of that.  I think that it might be

 5     somewhere close to the centering ring, but in any event, I would refer to

 6     the literature in order to be sure which part we are talking about.

 7        Q.   And how was this marking made?  Was it imprinted?  Was it

 8     painted?

 9        A.   Well, they were imprinted.  At least on the projectiles made in

10     the former Yugoslavia.  The markings were etched.

11        Q.   Thank you.  We'll come back to this question again when we speak

12     about specific incidents.

13             As we established, you are a mechanical engineer by profession.

14     Let me just ask you:  Is it true that the mechanics is the basic study at

15     the faculty that you graduated from?

16        A.   Yes.  I am a mechanical engineer, and I finished the production

17     course.  There were other courses as well.

18        Q.   Thank you.  You said you worked at the Zrak factory where you

19     were involved in the production of sighting devices, and before 1993 you

20     didn't have any specific knowledge of ballistics.  Is that true?

21        A.   Yes, it's true.

22        Q.   Then you said that in 1993, you and another two colleagues of

23     yours were transferred to the MUP, to the Counter Sabotage Protection

24     Unit.  Who were the two colleagues who were transferred alongside you?

25        A.   One of them was an electrical engineer.  He finished military

Page 8408

 1     technical academy in Zagreb.  And the other one was a mechanical

 2     technician.  He had been employed for many years at the Zrak company, and

 3     he had some 10 years of experience more than I and this other colleague

 4     had.

 5        Q.   Can you tell us their names or do we have to move into private

 6     session?

 7        A.   Well, I would prefer a private session if that is not a problem.

 8             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we please move to a private

 9     session.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  We briefly move into private session.

11                           [Private session]

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25                           [Open session]

Page 8409

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

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

 3             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

 4        Q.   In your statement, you stated that the KDZ of the RBiH MUP was a

 5     unit for counter-intelligence protection.  Its official task was to

 6     protect individuals in places where they moved and protect them from

 7     planted explosives.  We find this in your statement under paragraph 4 in

 8     both versions.  Do you still believe that that was the main task of the

 9     KDZ where you worked?

10        A.   Yes.  It is still KDZ's task.  During the war, the scope of our

11     work was much bigger because of inspections, expert reports that we had

12     to draft about explosions and so on and so forth.

13        Q.   And now I would like to reinstate that the protection was against

14     planting explosives.  During the war did you have anything to do with

15     planting explosives?

16        A.   In any case our work was preventative.  When we carried out our

17     normal work, we prevented such cases.  I don't remember a single case

18     when we found that something was planted before meetings when we

19     inspected routes that protected individuals use.  There were no cases

20     indicating that explosives were used in order to put protected

21     individuals at risk.

22        Q.   Thank you.  You mentioned that the head of the KDZ was Mirza

23     Jamakovic.  What was his profession?  What is his profession?

24        A.   He has a degree in chemistry.  He is a chemistry engineer.

25        Q.   All right.  When the KDZ received a request from an investigating

Page 8410

 1     judge to get involved in an investigation, who was it who decided on who

 2     would be sent to the site?

 3        A.   In principle it would be the chief.  The chief deployed the

 4     personnel to various tasks and sites.

 5        Q.   Could you personally, for example, when you heard an explosion,

 6     could you personally take the equipment and go to the place of the

 7     explosion -- or, rather, did you have to wait for somebody to tell you to

 8     go there together with the team?  How did that function in practice?

 9        A.   Nobody could take the equipment of their own will and go to the

10     place of an explosion.  There was a procedure in place.  First we

11     received a call from the security services centre who were the first to

12     receive information from the spot.  Police stations belonged to them, and

13     they were closely connected.  Through them we received information and

14     calls to go to a certain place because they needed our assistance.

15        Q.   The chief of your service, Mr. Jamakovic, was he also involved in

16     operations on the ground, or was he only in charge of managing the KDZ?

17        A.   I was in KDZ from November 1993, and after that he was not

18     involved in operations on the ground.  It is possible that from time to

19     time in certain cases he would join a team, and I'm not excluding the

20     possibility that he was also with us on a couple of occasions, but he was

21     not involved in operations.  He was a manager.  He managed the department

22     and deployed personnel more than anything else.

23        Q.   Mr. Jamakovic lost his arm.  Do you know how and when?

24        A.   Mr. Jamakovic lost his right hand before I joined the KDZ.  That

25     was before November 1993, in other words.  According to what I learned

Page 8411

 1     from my colleagues, he lost his hand when a hand grenade exploded in his

 2     hand.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Before you continue, could I ask you when did that

 4     happen?  Did that happen during the armed conflict, at least as it was

 5     told to you, or was it from before?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It did happen during the war.  I

 7     believe that that happened in early 1993.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Was that a hand grenade that was part of his own

 9     equipment, armament, or was it during an investigation that he found a

10     hand grenade which then exploded?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I know, according to what

12     I know, he was involved -- involved in some testings, and that hand

13     grenade exploded in his hand.  That's as much as I know.  They did not

14     detect explosives.  They were involved in either testing of some

15     equipment or filling the assets that would then be delivered to the units

16     on the ground, but I don't know.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.  Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

18             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

19        Q.   One of your tasks was to locate remains and establish what

20     projectile was involved.  That's what you told us.  You drafted official

21     reports about the results of your investigative work; is that correct?

22        A.   Yes.

23             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I would like to call up 1D743.  I'm

24     interested in the first page of that document.

25        Q.   I'm interested in the number, and you were already asked that at

Page 8412

 1     previous trials.  This is one of your reports.  Do you recognise it?  Or

 2     perhaps you want us to look at the last page?

 3        A.   Yes, please.  I want to be absolutely sure.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

 5             MR. WEBER:  Is there a translation for me to follow?

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, there is no translation.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  I think that's what was -- Judge Moloto was seeking

 8     as well, and the explanation, especially if it has been used in previous

 9     cases.

10             MR. LUKIC:  That's my understanding.  We'll ask for this document

11     to be MFI'd and hopefully we'll solve the problem soon, and we'll just

12     need the gentleman to recognise his signature, and we'll discuss the

13     number and the first page.  Nothing else for now.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Nevertheless, I would urge you to provide the

15     Prosecution with an English version, because what you're interested in

16     might not necessarily be the same as what the Prosecution is interested

17     in, but let's proceed for the time being.

18             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

19        Q.   Mr. Suljevic, is this your signature at the bottom of this page?

20        A.   Yes.  It is.

21             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we go back to the first page,

22     please.  We saw a number, 00945615.  The document was provided to us by

23     the Prosecution, and if they don't have a translation, we will make sure

24     that it is provided very soon.

25             We can see a number here at the top of the page.  Could you

Page 8413

 1     please zoom in on the number to make things easier for Mr. Suljevic.

 2             The number is 02/4-233-648.  The document was issued on the

 3     17 July 1995.

 4        Q.   Let's first explain the last part of this number, 648.  What is

 5     it?  What does the whole numerical designation consist of?

 6        A.   This is the protocol number of the document which was received by

 7     the republican Ministry of the Interior.  It was not received by the

 8     department but in the MUP.  02/4 was the designation of our department,

 9     and 233, I don't know what that is.  That is the way numbers are

10     distributed.  And last number is the last number in the log-book of our

11     protocol.  We had nothing whatsoever to do in our department with this

12     number.  This is the number that we were given when we received the

13     document, and when we issued a document related to this, we had to use

14     the same number.

15        Q.   In other words, somebody else drafted this document, then you

16     received it and signed it.  You were not the one who typed this document.

17     You said that you did not type this number 648.

18        A.   No, no, no.  When a request was received, it's an incoming

19     document with a cover sheet with this number.  We continue working on it.

20     We use the same number.  It's the case file number.  Whatever is received

21     later on in respect of the same case has to be given the same number.

22     The only thing we add is perhaps the date, but we have to use the same

23     number that was on the incoming document.

24        Q.   Now I understand.  Thank you.  In other words, somebody in the

25     MUP headquarters marked all the cases with numbers.

Page 8414

 1        A.   Yes.  Every case was given a number.  It could happen, for

 2     example, that documents with bigger or higher numbers could be pre-dated.

 3     Some cases lasted longer.  They may have been received earlier, and they

 4     were then dispatched later when the case was completed.  So it is not

 5     possible to collate the case number with the date when our report was

 6     issued.  They do not have to correspond.  There doesn't have to be a

 7     logical relationship between the two.

 8        Q.   But as far as I could understand you, you said that the last

 9     number, 648, on this document was preassigned to the case at the moment

10     when the case was assigned to your unit, to you; right?

11        A.   Yes, that's right.  But let's clarify a little.  Maybe it will be

12     somewhat clear.

13             That case, 648, may have been received on a certain date,

14     whereas, for example, the case 649 was received later but was less

15     complex and the results could have been dispatched before the results

16     of -- of the case 648.  The two do not have to be interconnected in that

17     way.

18        Q.   Thank you.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Let's focus on what apparently is the issue.  This

20     is administrative example of case numbers, and let's see where the

21     problem lies.

22             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   In other words, your explanation for the mismatch between the

24     chronology or the chronological sequence in the numerical designation is

25     the fact that some cases were more complex and took longer to resolve.

Page 8415

 1     However, do you know that there are huge discrepancies and differences

 2     between documents when it comes to their numbers and dates?

 3        A.   I don't know what you're talking about.  I don't know what you're

 4     asking me.  However, I was involved in investigations, and this date is

 5     the date when the case was completed, and as for the number of the

 6     protocol, that was received on the incoming document.

 7        Q.   I will no longer belabour that.  We will finish with this.

 8             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, just for the record, we did check the

 9     ERN in our system.  It's part of a 100-page ERN range and we do not

10     appear to have a translation for it.  I see based on a general

11     description that might relate to a shelling that occurred on the

12     28th of June 1995, of the RTV building.  We would still appreciate a

13     translation of the document.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  What I do not fully understand, Mr. Lukic, is how it

15     could have been used in another case without translation.

16             MR. LUKIC:  That is the information I got, and I was even more

17     surprised now today when we have those documents tendered by -- created

18     by VRS and not tender the document created by this witness.  I would

19     expect that the Prosecution would tender the documents created by this

20     witness.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Which case was it?

22             MR. LUKIC:  I was -- I thought it's from Karadzic case, but I

23     have to check really.  I cannot --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

25             MR. LUKIC:  -- confirm that.

Page 8416

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Because we cannot see -- without a translation, we

 2     cannot even start thinking about possible contradictions between dates

 3     and numbers and -- there's only one thing that -- but perhaps, Mr. Weber,

 4     I'll first give you an opportunity to --

 5             MR. WEBER:  I think Your Honour is just noting this.  We're

 6     just -- we'd appreciate a translation.  I will also try to seek

 7     assistance of language assistant to -- without that we can't formulate

 8     whether or not we would or would not object to the tendering of the

 9     document.  We understand it's [indiscernible].

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Now, Witness, unless I misunderstood you.  You said

11     the number had got something to do with completing that case, which

12     surprises me, because administratively, one usually gives a number to a

13     case at its beginning rather than at its end, because you wouldn't know

14     how to -- what number to mention in your reporting, correspondence,

15     communications.  Could you explain how that happened that you only

16     assigned a number at the very end of an investigation or a case?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.  The protocol

18     reference number was entered at the time of request for an investigation.

19     The only thing that we added was the date, and that was the date when the

20     case was completed.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  And was that date added to the number or are you

22     referring to, for example, this document where we find a date mentioned

23     in the document after the word "Dana"?  Or were you referring to another

24     date?  I see in the document that it's the 8th of July with a different

25     protocol reference number preceding it.

Page 8417

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.  I was referring to the date on

 2     this document, 17th of July, and it indicates the date of the completion

 3     of the assignment.  And the number beneath that was the number of the

 4     document sent by the CSB Sarajevo on the 8th of July requesting us to

 5     carry out certain activities.  So this number is totally unrelated to

 6     anything that we did.  It was the number from the CSB protocol, except

 7     with a designation 233, which is identical because it was classified as

 8     the case that belongs to the same group, group 233.  Other activities had

 9     other numbers, not 233.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

11             MR. LUKIC:  Probably I had the wrong choice of a document, and we

12     will be discussing the documents during our cross-examination, so maybe

13     we can clarify this on another document that has translation.  Maybe that

14     would be easier.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  I hope so, because it took quite a while with no

16     great results until now.

17             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   Sir, you made a drawing today of the traces left by a mortar

19     shell on a surface as well as the traces left by a rotating projectile.

20     If that were to be plotted or transferred from the flat surface to a

21     wall, would we have the same traces with regard to the descent angle, for

22     example, of a shell?

23        A.   Yes, definitely, because, as a rule, the density of the traces

24     from shrapnel were concentrated on the side from which the fire

25     originated, that is to say, from the direction where it came and upon the

Page 8418

 1     impact with the surface.  Let me just explain a little bit more.  If

 2     there was a ricochet, it is possible for the projectile to change its

 3     trajectory and then this will not indicate a precise point of fire.

 4        Q.   Then in that case there will be no rose-shaped trace.

 5        A.   If the projectile hit it regularly, we have this paw-shaped

 6     trace.  For the projectile it is necessary for the fuse to be activated.

 7        Q.   Excuse me, you are talking about the end point of impact, and I

 8     am talking about ricochet.  There is no explosion in that event.

 9        A.   Yes, there can only be physical trace of where the projectile

10     impacted, but there would be no explosion.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  I notice that there's quite some confusion in what

12     the questions is about and what the answer are about.  If we are talking

13     about these kind of things, let's be clear.  Let's use sketches.  Let's

14     use whatever.  But the angle of descent and the angle of impact on a wall

15     my not be exactly the same.  Therefore, let's be very precise in our

16     terminology in this request.  Just to say that the angle of descent could

17     be understood as the angle under which the projectile approaches the

18     earth surface, that's usually considered to be the angle of descent,

19     whereas the angle of impact, if it falls on a wall, could be the angle

20     between the direction in which the projectile hit that wall and the wall

21     itself.

22             Without clear visualisation, these matters are at risk to confuse

23     rather than to assist.  Could everyone keep that in mind, and I'll do the

24     same.

25             MR. LUKIC:  Can I continue, Your Honour?

Page 8419

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Please, as long as you keep in mind what I

 2     just said.

 3             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.

 4        Q.   [Interpretation] Did you have any information, now that you

 5     mentioned it, about the conditions under which a projectile may ricochet,

 6     and what do you know about that?

 7        A.   Yes.  A projectile can ricochet if it comes under a very acute

 8     angle with regard to the surface, which means that the tip of the fuse

 9     does not touch the surface but it ricochets instead.  Maybe I can make a

10     drawing of that for the benefit of the Chamber in order to clarify this

11     matter.

12        Q.   If you could be so kind to do it briefly.

13        A.   [Marks].  I hope I've managed to depict this properly.  If a

14     projectile comes under angle alpha, which is very small, it makes a

15     ricochet.  The projectile itself only damages the surface.  The descent

16     angle is not nearly the same as the one when the surface was touched for

17     the first time.  According to the theory and firing tables, this should

18     not have happened with this projectile.  It shouldn't have exploded.

19        Q.   Thank you.  We shall discuss the issue of ricochets at later

20     stage.

21             Can you tell us what was the largest calibre of projectile that

22     you registered, and would you agree that that was 128-millimetre calibre,

23     the one that I found in your documents?

24        A.   I cannot remember any reports dealing with higher calibres, but

25     we did have samples of 155-millimetres of projectiles fired at the city

Page 8420

 1     of Sarajevo, and we still keep them in our department.  So I'm talking

 2     about the 155 howitzer.  I'm not sure if I was personally involved in

 3     these examinations, but we have a whole series of unexploded projectile

 4     of that calibre.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, unless you wanted to have added something

 6     to the sketch, I think that we should have it in evidence as an exhibit.

 7             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, Your Honour.  I have nothing to add.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  Document created with the witness in court

10     receives number D200, Your Honours.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  D200 is admitted into evidence.  And I suggest that

12     we use the angle alpha from now on as the angle of descent and the angle

13     beta as the angle of impact.  That is the angle between the direction of

14     the projectile upon impact, the angle with the surface on which it

15     impacts.  Please proceed.

16             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

17        Q.   In paragraph 34 in B/C/S, page 10, and in English page 6, you

18     said that you only made photographs of the location, did your own

19     measurements and calculated the direction from which the projectile

20     originated.

21             "UNPROFOR decided their own conclusions -- made their own

22     conclusions about the direction irrespective and independently of what we

23     did.  After that we would compare our respective conclusions, and as

24     regards the direction, there were no inconsistencies between the two."

25        A.   That is correct, but I have nothing on the screen.

Page 8421

 1             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I'm sorry.  Could we please have

 2     P889, page 10, and page 6 in the English version.

 3        Q.   I was reading part of paragraph 34 of your statement.  Can you

 4     see it now?

 5        A.   Yes, I can.

 6        Q.   Were you ever present while representatives of UNPROFOR claimed

 7     that the shot had come from the territory controlled by the Army of BH?

 8        A.   No.  At least I never heard of that.  And I never discussed this

 9     topic with any of them.  I have no knowledge about that.

10        Q.   This is in relation to incoming fire.  Now, let me ask you about

11     the points of impact of the shell.  You said that you never concluded

12     that the target was a military one.  You also said that you never

13     participated in the investigations of incidents aimed against units of

14     the Army of BH.

15        A.   Yes, that is correct.

16        Q.   Let me just say -- very well.  You gave me an answer.  Did you

17     conduct investigations in part of the town that were close to the

18     separation line?

19        A.   Yes, we did.  A couple of hundred of metres.  We knew that

20     civilians were being killed at 200 metres from the separation line.

21        Q.   In the course of your work, did you come across a situation where

22     units of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina were billeted in those houses?

23        A.   I have no information to that effect.  In principle, civilians

24     outside buildings were the victims in most cases.  Sometimes they were

25     killed inside the houses, but the majority of the incidents that I

Page 8422

 1     investigated happened outdoors, whether on the ground or on some hard

 2     surface.

 3        Q.   Let us now concentrate on the incident on Vrbovska, which

 4     happened on the 2nd of July, 1995.

 5             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We need 65 ter document 15696.  It's

 6     a long document, at least the version that we have.  It has 436 pages,

 7     and I see that we have an English translation on the screen, although we

 8     couldn't locate one.  This is the KDZ Department for Crime and Forensics.

 9        Q.   On page 1 it is stated in a report drafted on the 20th of August,

10     1995, that Ahmet Bijelac was killed.  Could you see that?  Ahmed Bijelac.

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   On page 3 it is stated that Ahmet Bilejac was killed.  And then

13     on page 15, in the post-mortem report the name is Ahmed Bjelak.  In the

14     B/C/S version we can see a statement provided by his wife.  It is stated

15     herein that he, meaning her husband, had set out to the barracks.  An

16     aggressor shell fell in the playground at Vrbovska Street at the given

17     time.

18             Do you know whether there are barracks close to that street?

19        A.   Let me just explain.  The first document I was shown was not

20     issued by our department.  It was issued by the CSB.  They had a

21     department for forensics and the KDZ.  It's their report.  I suppose that

22     the mistakes in the family names arise from the fact that those documents

23     were issued by different institutions, but I'm not familiar with this at

24     all.  Vrbovska Street is in the annex.  I don't know whether there are

25     any barracks nearby -- actually, there are the Viktor Bubanj Barracks

Page 8423

 1     nearby.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber is already for a while on his feet.

 3             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, I was just standing to hopefully

 4     provide some assistance as to what is before the Chamber.  Uploaded is a

 5     rather large file containing many reports, photographs, other types of

 6     documentation, statements, medical records of the such.  The translation

 7     relates to this witness's report.  We tendered that as a sub-exhibit

 8     under the same 65 ter plus A during -- at the end of our direct

 9     examination.  I am checking in our system, and we do appear to have a

10     couple additional translations to this documentation, but I just want to

11     make the Chamber aware that there's additional B/C/S documents that do

12     not correspond to the English translation before the Chamber.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  We have in e-court an original of 436 pages,

14     and we have an English version of 5 pages.  And it appears that what we

15     have on the screen now is in the English and in the B/C/S not the same,

16     but --

17             MR. LUKIC:  It's not.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Therefore, let's try to look all at this same page

19     of the same document.  Perhaps, Mr. Lukic, that's best done after the

20     break.

21             Witness, we take a break of 20 minutes.  After that, we are

22     organised again.  You may follow the usher.

23                           [The witness stands down]

24             JUDGE ORIE:  We resume at 25 minutes to 2.00.

25                           --- Recess taken at 1.15 p.m.

Page 8424

 1                           --- On resuming at 1.38 p.m.

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

 3                           [The witness takes the stand]

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

 5             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 6        Q.   Mr. Suljevic, may we proceed?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Now I'd like to call up 1D769.  It's

 9     a map depicting one part of Sarajevo.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  By the way, Mr. Lukic, what we had on our screen

11     previously seems to be page 11 in B/C/S out of 436, and it was the first

12     of the five pages.

13             MR. LUKIC:  Let me check.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  That's what we had earlier on our screens.

15             MR. LUKIC:  Okay.  [Interpretation] Thank you.

16        Q.   Before us we have a map depicting one part of Sarajevo.  You

17     mentioned just a while ago the Viktor Bubanj Barracks.  Would you be able

18     to mark that?  There is an inscription, "Annex."  Would the barracks be

19     there?

20        A.   Yes.  I'll try and mark the barracks from memory.  It is now the

21     court of Bosnia and Herzegovina.  In these documents, I did not see a

22     reference made to the Viktor Bubanj Barracks, but in any case, I'll try.

23     [Marks].  This is the location of the barracks.  This is couple of

24     hundred metres from the beginning of Vrbovska Street, which leads up to

25     Mojmilo Hill.

Page 8425

 1        Q.   Can you mark Vrbovska Street by a line, and can you put a letter

 2     V next to that line.

 3        A.   [Marks]

 4        Q.   Again, can you use this map and mark the street that was then

 5     known as Ozrenska and today it is Novo Pazarska.

 6        A.   [Marks]

 7        Q.   Would you agree with me that to the right --

 8        A.   I don't know how far it stretches, but I believe that the street

 9     goes to the right-hand side brink of the map.

10        Q.   Can you do that?

11        A.   [Marks]

12        Q.   And would you tell us whether you know that the separation line

13     was there on the right-hand side of the map.  Not in the direction of

14     Mojmilo Hill but to the right.

15        A.   Yes.  In the direction of Grbavica, the Grbavica stadium was

16     either between the two lines or somewhere along the separation line.  The

17     separation line went in that direction and Mojmilo Hill is up there, and

18     Ozrenska Street, I suppose it was somewhere in the vicinity of the

19     separation line.

20        Q.   The Judge wants to put a question to you.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, I did not but I wanted to clear up the record.

22     That is the double line east-west or west-east is where the witness

23     marked Ozrenska Street.  The marking V stands for the north-south bended

24     line, whereas the circle is for the Viktor Bubanj Barracks.

25             Please proceed.

Page 8426

 1             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Now it all disappeared.  I don't know what -- oh,

 3     well, the witness is apparently very good in manipulating -- yes.  The V

 4     now still stands next to the north-south single line, and all the rest I

 5     said remains valid.

 6             MR. LUKIC:  We would just tender this evidence -- this into

 7     evidence.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar, map marked by the witness.

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  Receives number D201, Your Honours.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Is admitted into evidence.

11             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

12        Q.   And now would I like to ask you whether you know that in

13     Vrbovska Street there was the command of one of the units of the

14     101st Motorised Brigade of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina?

15        A.   No, I didn't know that.

16        Q.   Very well.  Do you know that the stretch -- or, rather, the

17     conflict line between Raca and Dobrinja was one of the lines where the

18     gravest battles were waged throughout the war?

19        A.   I know that the Sarajevo-Dobrinja road was cut off initially and

20     there were check-points controlled by the BH Army, and later on there

21     were skirmishes and fighting going on on all separation lines, on the

22     slopes of Trebevic and Zuc, and so on and so forth.  So I would not

23     qualify things in that way.

24        Q.   Would you agree with me that on the Vraca-Mojmilo line the

25     BH Army could have positions mostly in settled areas?

Page 8427

 1        A.   Or on the brinks.  The area's settled almost to the top.  I don't

 2     know where the lines were exactly, but it is possible that the lines went

 3     along the brinks of the settled areas there.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  Since you didn't know where the lines held by the

 5     Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina were exactly positioned, can we also agree

 6     that you didn't know either whether any of those facilities located there

 7     were civilian or military ones?

 8        A.   I don't know which facilities were being used by the BH Army,

 9     therefore, I cannot ascertain whether there were any facilities shared by

10     both civilians and the army.  I don't know that.

11        Q.   We can see Mojmilo Hill here at the bottom of the map.  Do you

12     know that there was a water tank there and under whose control it was?

13        A.   I know that there was a water tank.  I don't know its exact

14     micro-location.  If I remember correctly, at the beginning of the war, I

15     know that a tank was firing on Sarajevo and Dobrinja, but after that I

16     don't know if the line shifted.  However, I'm not sure about this, and

17     therefore I wouldn't like to go into any details relating to something

18     that I'm not sure about.

19        Q.   Of course we expect you to give us the answers only about what

20     you know for sure.

21             Do you know that at the foot of Mojmilo Hill, Dobrinja was

22     connected with the rest of Sarajevo?

23        A.   At the foot of the hill, yes.

24        Q.   Can we please move to the incident on Safeta Hadzica, but before

25     that, let's discuss the television building.

Page 8428

 1             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] And for that we need document 1D768

 2     [Realtime transcript read in error "1D786"].  Can we please enlarge the

 3     monument or this memorial plaque so that we can see what's written on it.

 4        Q.   This memorial plaque was put up in honour of the man who was

 5     securing the BH TV.  He was killed on the 28th of June, 1995.  And it

 6     says on the plaque "Ibrahim Salaka shall be remembered.  Severed youth

 7     and severed camaraderie.  Members of the 3rd Company."  You know that the

 8     TV building had a military security detail around it?

 9        A.   I think that the TV was secured by the police.  That is as far as

10     I know.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Lukic, just to correct the record, the record

12     mentions 1D678 -- 786, whereas we are looking at 1D768.  I think you gave

13     the right number and we are looking at the document you would like to

14     see.  So we are looking at 68 rather than 86.  Please proceed.

15             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

16        Q.   In the course of your work, did you see that artillery of Army of

17     Bosnia-Herzegovina was firing from the vicinity of the TV building?  And

18     I'm referring particularly to multiple-rocket launchers.

19        A.   No, I didn't see that, but if we can go back to this memorial

20     plaque.  I knew the deceased personally.  His name was Salaka, and his

21     nickname was Majo.  I think he was a police officer when he was killed.

22     Before that, before the war, he was probably in the army, and it is

23     possible that this plaque was put up by his fellow combatants.  This is

24     the first time that I'm seeing it.

25             But I never saw any fire being opened from within or without the

Page 8429

 1     compound of the TV building, nor did I see any artillery pieces deployed

 2     in that area.  Of course, I didn't go there on a daily basis.  Sometimes

 3     months would pass by before I went there, but as I say, I never noticed

 4     anything of that sort.

 5        Q.   You are talking about the period between May and September 1995,

 6     because in UNPROFOR reports it was said that Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina

 7     was opening fire from that area, but since you said that you didn't visit

 8     that location every day, let us move on.

 9             Let's now move to Dositejeva, numbers 2 and 4.  First of all, let

10     us establish that this address is in the vicinity of the Presidency of

11     BH.  Is that correct?

12        A.   Yes, that's correct.

13             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we please have in e-court exhibit

14     of the Prosecution 65 ter 10153.

15        Q.   You can see that this document was produced by your department.

16     I'm going to show you your signature on the last page.  Do you recognise

17     this document?

18        A.   Yes.

19             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we please go to the last page of

20     the document.  Actually, in e-court we need page 5.  Can we please have

21     page 5 in B/C/S so that we can look at Mr. Suljevic's signature.  Can we

22     zoom in into the bottom part of the page so that we can read the

23     signatures.

24        Q.   Mr. Suljevic, is this your signature on page 5?

25        A.   Yes, it is.

Page 8430

 1             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We can go back to page 1 in both

 2     versions.

 3        Q.   In the second paragraph we can see that this document deals with

 4     the request mentioned in the previous paragraph, and it says that at

 5     around 11.05, on 16th of June, 1995, a projectile fell on

 6     Dositejeva Street.  So this is the document that deals with the

 7     Dositejeva Street incident; is that correct?

 8        A.   Yes, it is.

 9             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we please now have 1D722 in

10     e-court.  It's a map.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

12             MR. WEBER:  Your Honours, is the Defence tendering the previous

13     document, 65 ter 10153?

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Are we done with it already, or --

15             MR. LUKIC:  I'm not done yet.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  No.

17             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I am sorry, but apparently it seems

18     that the map has been rotated counter-clockwise in the e-court, so if we

19     can rotate it back clockwise.  Can we save it as it is?

20             [In English] After the witness draws his sketches on the map, can

21     then it be saved?

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that makes sense.  Otherwise, we have another

23     map of the same.  Please guide the witness what he's supposed to mark.

24             MR. LUKIC:  Yes, I will.  Thank you, Your Honour.

25        Q.   [Interpretation] Sir, obviously this is a more serious problem

Page 8431

 1     than we originally thought.  I'll have to go back to this, because

 2     obviously one part of the map disappeared in e-court -- actually,

 3     portions of the map on all four sides, and these are exactly the portions

 4     that we need.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Is there anyway you get the whole map on the screen?

 6     If not, then we'll wait for a later moment.

 7             MR. LUKIC:  Yes.  We have to upload the map again with all its

 8     parts.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  We'll -- we'll wait for that to be done.  In

10     general, Mr. Lukic, if you upload maps, could you always take care that

11     at least there is either a clear grid reference so that we know what

12     distances we are looking at, or that there's a clear scale on the map.

13     That's one.

14             Second, preferably maps should be used which indicate street

15     names as they were in the period 1991-1995, rather than the present maps.

16     Roads may have been changed, names likely will have changed.  Therefore,

17     it better assists to use the old maps with clear grid references.

18             MR. LUKIC:  But sometimes we are not able to get old maps,

19     Your Honour.  We are -- we brought the map probably from this time, but

20     if there is any discrepancy, we would mention it, and I did it with this

21     gentleman today.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  You did it relation to Ozrenska Street.  You

23     could consider to look at the Prosecution's maps, who are often referring

24     to the names of the streets as they were at the time.

25             MR. LUKIC:  We did, but we couldn't use for these purposes.  We

Page 8432

 1     tried to use their maps, but we couldn't.

 2                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

 4             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

 5        Q.   Thank you.  We'll have to leave this topic, but we'll get back to

 6     it.  Let us now focus on the incident of 28th June 1995 relating to the

 7     TV building.  It is crucial in order to connect it to the incident on

 8     Safeta Hadzica Street, number 52.

 9             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We need Prosecution Exhibit 10167.

10        Q.   We can see that this is a document produced by the Sarajevo CSB

11     on the 28th of June, 1995, and under number 9 in the list we can see your

12     name, indicating that you took part in the on-site investigation of this

13     incident.

14             Do you recall visiting the site on this occasion?

15        A.   Yes, I do.

16             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we please have document 10166 in

17     e-court.  This is a sketch of the scene, and we need page 3 in both

18     versions.

19        Q.   In this sketch, and you remember we talked about ricocheting, can

20     you explain to us where was the point of impact of the bomb, how it

21     ricochetted and where it actually exploded?

22        A.   Yes, only I would like to say that during the on-site

23     investigation at the place of explosion, we did not find any trace

24     evidence of rocket motors.  I heard from my colleagues that those motors

25     had later been discovered in the river Miljacka, but we didn't find them

Page 8433

 1     during our on-site investigation, and we did not mention them.

 2             On the roof of this building an impression was discovered --

 3        Q.   Can you please put numbers and tell us exactly what you're

 4     talking about.

 5        A.   First I'll draw an arrow to show the direction from which the

 6     projectile came.  [Marks].  I'll put number 1 next to the imprint on the

 7     roof, which was made as a result of the projectile flight.  This is the

 8     elliptical part here.  And then I'll put number 2 next to the crater and

 9     the place where the projectile exploded.

10        Q.   Did it have to ricochet once again in order to hit the wall on

11     the left-hand side?

12        A.   Yes.  In order to hit the wall of the adjacent building, i.e.,

13     the adjacent wall of the Radio-Television building.  If I'm not mistaken,

14     if there are no other obstacles that should be the wall.  I've marked it

15     by number 3.

16        Q.   Thank you.

17             MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can this be admitted, please?  I'm

18     afraid we will have to continue tomorrow because we are close to the end

19     of our working day.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Weber.

21             MR. WEBER:  No objection to the marked exhibit, but the

22     Prosecution would just place on the record now that there's three

23     exhibits that have been shown to the witness that have not yet been

24     tendered.  I do have record of them if the Chamber would like.  We

25     believe that they should be tendered because they were shown to the

Page 8434

 1     witness and the witness provided comments.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I must say that - let's first start with the

 3     last one - I'm lost.  I do not know what is a roof.  I do not know what

 4     is an open space.  I've got no idea.  A wall --

 5             MR. LUKIC:  We will go through pictures as well.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Then, could this be already --

 7     Madam Registrar, could a number be assigned to what we have at this

 8     moment on our screen, which is the sketch.

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  The document as marked by the witness receives

10     number D202, Your Honours.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  D202 is admitted into evidence.

12             Mr. Lukic, any --

13             MR. LUKIC:  I know I missed to tender 10167.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, now, I have a bit of a problem with that one

15     before you tender it.  In the original version I see long lists of names

16     on page 3 and 4, which are not found in the English translation, if I'm

17     not mistaken, which is a three-page document.  So it seems that 10167,

18     that the English version does not correspond with the -- therefore, I

19     would rather have 10167 be marked for identification and that you verify,

20     Mr. Lukic and/or Mr. Weber, because it's a 65 ter document, to see

21     whether the English and the B/C/S correspond.  The first page is still

22     okay, but the further we go.  For example, if you look at the last page.

23     Last page in the original.  I see a lot of names before the last series

24     starting with Tokalija, which I don't see in the English version.  Oh,

25     the list of the wounded follows.  It's not included in the -- well,

Page 8435

 1     apparently in the original there is a list of wounded, whereas in English

 2     there's not.  I would like to have that clarified before we decide on the

 3     matter.

 4             MR. WEBER:  Your Honour, I believe in the third page of the

 5     English translation, the translator just put in a notation under the

 6     third paragraph in brackets, "The list of the wounded follows."

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  And then we're supposed to wait before we have a --

 8     until when, Mr. Weber?

 9             MR. WEBER:  I just believe that --

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Do you want us to admit it as it is now?

11             MR. WEBER:  It is fine with the Prosecution to admit it as is.  I

12     believe the translator just did not transcribe the names from the B/C/S

13     version into the translation.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but I do not know whether there is any

15     description of the type of wounding.  I've got no idea.  Whatever the

16     case may be, could the parties either agree on what is left out or that

17     we'll receive a full translation.

18             Then 10167 to be marked for identification will receive number?

19             THE REGISTRAR:  D203, Your Honours.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  D203 is MFI'd.  Is there any other --

21             MR. LUKIC:  And for the rest we'll have to revisit it tomorrow

22     since I had to leave that area.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll revisit all the rest tomorrow.

24             Mr. Suljevic, I would like to instruct you that you should not

25     speak or communicate in any other way with whomever about your testimony,

Page 8436

 1     whether that is testimony you've given today or testimony still to be

 2     given.  If that is clear to you, I would -- we would like to see you back

 3     tomorrow morning at 9.30 in this same courtroom.  You may follow the

 4     usher.

 5                           [The witness stands down]

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  We adjourn for the day, and we resume tomorrow,

 7     Tuesday, the 12th of February at 9.30 in the morning in this same

 8     Courtroom I.

 9                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.19 p.m.,

10                           to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 12th day

11                           of February, 2013, at 9.30 a.m.