1 Wednesday, 13 February 2013
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.32 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone. Madam Registrar, would
6 you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case
8 IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
9 JUDGE ORIE: I have -- I have French on channel 4.
10 Could we -- yes, I think I have now English on channel 4, and I
11 have French on channel 5.
12 We, for a very brief moment we move into private session before
13 we continue with the witness.
14 [Private session]
8 [Open session]
9 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 Yesterday we briefly discussed the request for an extension of
12 time to respond to the Rule 92 ter motion for Witness RM174. The Chamber
13 has decided on the matter, this motion, and it hereby grants the Defence
14 request for an extension of time to respond to the 14 days from the date
15 of the re-filed Prosecution motion with respect to this witness.
16 [The witness takes the stand]
17 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Suljevic.
18 Mr. Suljevic, I --
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE ORIE: I'd like to remind you that you're still bound by
21 the solemn declaration you have given at the beginning of your testimony.
22 There seems to be a translation problem.
23 Is the witness on the right channel?
24 THE INTERPRETER: Testing, testing.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Let me check ...
1 Do you now receive translation of --
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then -- yes. Then I'd repeat what I said
4 before. That is, that I remind you that you're still bound by the solemn
5 declaration you've given at the beginning of your testimony.
6 And Mr. Lukic will now continue his cross-examination.
7 Mr. Lukic.
8 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 WITNESS: EKREM SULJEVIC [Resumed]
10 [Witness answered through interpreter]
11 Cross-examination by Mr. Lukic: [Continued]
12 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning once again, Mr. Suljevic.
13 A. Good morning.
14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we please see the following
15 document in e-court, 65 ter 12822. We need it again. We need page 35 in
16 B/C/S and page 10 in the English version.
17 Q. This is, again, the incident in Petra Kocica Street, which is
18 nowadays called Telali. Two 76-millimetre shells were found in this
19 street. Did you have any other occasion -- was there any other occasion,
20 actually, on which you found 76-millimetre shells?
21 A. I can't remember whether that was included in my reports. It
22 probably was. But 76-millimetre shell and anti-armour shell of this
23 calibre even hit the house in which I lived.
24 Q. What was the weapon from which such a shell could be fired?
25 A. From a cannon.
1 Q. All right. Let's look at this now. Can you see the photo?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. This is the place of impact in Danila Ilica Street. Now the
4 street is called Oprkanj, but it is one and the same incident; correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. This is the earth blown out from the crater and it was caused
7 after the explosion.
8 A. After the explosion? Yes. These are the fragments and pieces of
9 asphalt and the curb. Probably there are also traces of earth which are
11 Q. Can you see in this photo something has been changed as if
12 someone was scraping the earth with some implement. Do you know how that
14 A. No.
15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] And now let us briefly look at
17 JUDGE ORIE: Could I invite you and the witness to make small
18 pauses between question and answer, and answer and question.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And may I ask, to which street did you refer? I
20 heard different names of that specific --
21 MR. LUKIC: There were two bombs at that instance and they landed
22 and two streets. So one is -- the last one I mentioned was Danila Ilica.
23 That's the old name. And the new name is Oprkanj.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And if I'm not mistaken on page 3, line 18, you
25 mentioned another incident in Petra Kocica Street.
1 MR. LUKIC: Yes. That's the same incident. That's --
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Another street.
3 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Is this the -- yes.
6 MR. LUKIC:
7 Q. Mr. Suljevic, could you please mark on this photograph where the
8 shell hit the ground in Danila Ilica Street, which was its name at the
10 A. No, I cannot find my bearings in this photograph.
11 Q. All right.
12 A. I cannot see where the tram tracks are, so I cannot find my
14 Q. All right. Never mind. Let us move on.
15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] And we'll return to 12822. We need
16 page 40 in the B/C/S version and page 11 in the English version of this
17 document. We need the English version, just for the translation of the
18 caption below the photograph. And in the English version, this
19 translation is under number -- three last numbers 697.
20 Q. At the time of the incident there were metal shutters on this
21 window and the damage is marked on those shutters; correct?
22 I wonder if this was marked by someone or whether this is the
23 damage itself.
24 A. I don't know specifically what you are asking me in your
1 Q. Can you see the damage on the metal shutters, and do you know
2 that these were metal shutters which existed at the time?
3 A. I cannot remember if these were metal shutters or if there were
4 bars. I couldn't really say that from -- after such a long time.
5 Q. Can you notice the damage though.
6 A. Well, some traces are visible. Now what they were caused by,
7 that is something I couldn't say now.
8 Q. All right. We need something from the same document.
9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Page 41 in the B/C/S version, please.
10 And we shall keep the same page in the English version. And the text has
11 been translated under number -- three last numbers 698.
12 Q. This is the window opened after that, so now we can see the bars.
13 Can you see here on this shutter that there is some damage?
14 A. You mean on the shutter behind the bars?
15 Q. Yes. I will suggest to that you there is no damage.
16 A. Well, there are some white spots which are visible, but I really
17 cannot assess on the base of this photograph what that is.
18 Q. All right.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Could the centre part of that photograph be
21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Can you see the damage now, when we have zoomed?
23 A. Well, some damage is visible. Some spots. But I couldn't say
24 whether this was an effect at the moment when it was photographed.
25 Because of the angle, you can see some spots of a different colour. Now
1 whether it was caused then or whether it's a mistake made during the
2 taking of the photo --
3 Q. So you cannot really state. But in the upper left-hand corner
4 can you see any damage on the stone, on the stone lining of the window?
5 Because we will see the same damage in the following photograph. So it's
6 obviously a damage in this stone lining of the window?
7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Now, can we please have a look at
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This photograph is not quite clear
10 to me. On the left, whether this is a shutter or --
11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Here, you can see the damage on the top edge, the stone edge, of
13 the window, above the window.
14 A. I cannot say whether it's the same window. It's possible, but in
15 the other photo on the left side, as far as I could see, one can see the
16 open shutter or so it seemed to me --
17 Q. Yes. The shutter was open on the previous one. And there is no
18 shutter here at all.
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. Why am I showing this photograph to you? Well, just to
21 demonstrate that the same wall is now depicted together with the window
22 and there is no damage on the stone wall.
23 Is it true that when the first report was made, no damage was
24 found on the wall itself, around the window?
25 A. Well, I have not fully understood what you want me to say here.
1 I do not know whether this is the same window that we saw just now with
2 the shutter. It is true that one can see damage in the upper left corner
3 in the stone lining around the window. But as for damage on the stone
4 wall, as the stone is not flat, I'm not so sure whether damage could be
5 discerned so easily.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, when was this photograph taken we're
7 looking now at. That is the window with a part of a red car, when it was
8 it taken.
9 MR. LUKIC: On 18th of September, 2010.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And the other ones are taken immediately after
11 the incident --
12 MR. LUKIC: Yes --
13 JUDGE ORIE: -- I take it?
14 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
16 MR. LUKIC: We would tender this document into evidence.
17 JUDGE ORIE: No objections.
18 Madam Registrar.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Document 1D727 receives number D226,
20 Your Honours.
21 JUDGE ORIE: D226 is admitted.
22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Now we would need, again, 12822;
23 page 28 in the B/C/S version, and page 10 in the English version. The
24 translation of the caption is under -- three last numbers are 685. In
25 B/C/S, we -- yes. All right.
1 Q. This is the same incident, damage in Petra Kocica Street which is
2 now called Telali Street.
3 Could you explain for us why in this photograph one can see that
4 the damage is the -- the surface damage only, whereas in the previous
5 photograph, the same incident, the same shell, on the same surface, it
6 seems completely different?
7 A. Before I move to that, let me just return just briefly to the
8 previous damage next to the window.
9 I cannot confirm that the damage remained from the war and that
10 it was caused by the impact of a projectile. Because there could have
11 been all sorts of damage during ten or more years. So I would like to
12 distance myself from that.
13 And as for this, it's not only surface damage and it's not the
14 same surface. I think that it's possible that this part was with a
15 concrete layer in front of the shops and that below that there was just
16 asphalt and it's possible that it wasn't as thick. So one couldn't
17 expect that the dimensions of the crater and the damage would be the
18 same. But, in this photograph, it's not just surface damage, and I
19 remember this as well, that the craters were quite similar.
20 Q. So, in your view, this crater and the previous crater are
21 similar. But -- all right. You even say that it's possible that the
22 surface was harder here.
23 A. Yes, it's possible. I cannot remember what it was from this
24 point in time. But the traces that were collected on the spot and taken
25 for analysis can be found in our report.
1 Q. Yes, that's what your report says.
2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we now please see image 44. It's
3 page 11 in the B/C/S version, and the translation can be found under
4 number 701 on the same page in English. We'll need page with the last
5 three digits 438. That's the ERN number. So we need to move 33 pages
7 JUDGE ORIE: Page 44 in e-court.
8 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
9 Q. [Interpretation] Here, you can see the fragments which you or
10 somebody else photographed on that occasion, when the report was made.
11 Can you please mark among these fragments the fuse.
12 A. Yes. This photograph was taken by the forensic technician at the
13 site, and I know that because of this piece of plastic or something
14 similar that the fragments were put in. And this was also examined by
15 UNPROFOR members. And now I will mark the fuse. Or, rather, the remains
16 of the deformed fuse.
17 Q. You say that it's deformed. Would you agree with me that the
18 fuse is damaged just a little and that it's almost complete?
19 A. No.
20 Q. All right. In your view, how much is the fuse damaged?
21 A. The fuse is largely damaged. It is not visible in the
22 photograph, but the tip of the fuse is missing. This is just the metal
23 body. And above it is the tip which comes into contact with the surface
24 first. There is damage on the sides as well, but not much can be seen
25 from the photograph, when we speak about the damage. But it's quite
1 damaged. Damaged to a large degree. We cannot even see that the fuse
2 did what it is supposed to do. We cannot see anything in this
4 Q. But you examined the fragments. So we do not have to rely only
5 on the photograph. You had these fragments at your disposal.
6 A. If we talk about fragments and not just about what is visible on
7 the photograph, the fuse was damaged to a large degree. The body was
8 damaged. The tip is missing. The fuse did what it serves for, because
9 the pyrotechnic elements were missing within it, so I claim with
10 100 per cent certainty that the fuse is the remaining fragment of a
11 projectile which fell in this location on that particular day.
12 Q. And that's the fuse to be found under number 9 which bounced off
13 and was found on the trajectory from -- on the incoming trajectory of the
15 A. Yes. It was marked with number 9 during the on-site
16 investigation. It was found there. Now whether it was moved a little
17 bit to the left or to the right, because that was a market, there were
18 many people around. Someone may have caught it with his or her foot.
19 That's a possibility. But it was found at the site and traces of the
20 explosion were fresh on it. And it was included as evidence for the
21 shell which hit in the place marked with number 1.
22 Q. Now that you've mentioned that, we have something that's been
23 admitted as an exhibit. Where could we find that fuse today?
24 JUDGE ORIE: Could -- could I first ask a question.
25 You referred to the fuse or the piece of the fuse to be marked by
1 number 9. What I see in the English is: "Same as previous. Number 10,
2 mark piece of fuse."
3 That's for a different photograph. But I wonder whether there's
4 any confusion about piece of a fuse marked by 9 or by 10. And that is a
5 description of another photograph, I'm aware of that, but -- before we
6 look at it, should we first save this --
7 MR. LUKIC: Yes. Yes --
8 JUDGE ORIE: -- marked photograph.
9 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the photograph marked by the
12 THE REGISTRAR: Receives number D227, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
14 I'm not just -- I see on my screen number 10 marked.
15 MR. LUKIC: I thank you for pointing out that issue. Actually,
16 and we were talking, both witness and me, I think, about 65 ter number --
17 document number 12822 when we looked at that drawing at page 17 of B/C/S
19 JUDGE ORIE: You were talking about the drawing --
20 MR. LUKIC: Yes, and it was saved under D225.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, okay. It's clear to me now that it was a
22 reference not to any of the pictures but to a drawing.
23 Please proceed.
24 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
25 Q. [Interpretation] And now I'm going to ask you something about the
1 incident on the 22nd of May, 1995, in Asikovac Street.
2 In the vicinity of that street, there is Sarac Smailova Street;
3 right? At that time it was known as Drvarska Street.
4 A. I can answer your question only based on a city map. I can't
5 answer from memory. If that's what we can see in a map, then that was
6 the case.
7 Q. Yes, we can probably show you a map. But in any case, did you
8 know that in Drvarska there was the staff of a police unit?
9 A. No, I didn't know that. As I sit here today, I don't know where
10 Drvarska Street. You say that it was close to Asikovac, but I don't
11 know. But with the Trial Chamber's leave, I would provide a comment with
12 regard to these military facilities.
13 The house that I lived in - this is a small digression -
14 anti-aircraft bullets used to come into my house through the windows.
15 The house was hit with a 76-millimetre shell. As many shells fell there
16 as in other parts of the city. A couple of hundred metres away from the
17 house an air bomb fell and all the window-panes were shattered by its
18 explosion. Shrapnel fell on the roof --
19 Q. Are you talking about the area around Asikovac Street?
20 A. No, I'm talking about the house where I lived, and I don't know
21 that there were any military targets in the vicinity. There were no
22 commands or staffs or anything.
23 Q. But you don't know that there were military targets in
24 Asikovac Street; right?
25 A. Yes, that's correct. I didn't know that.
2 Q. In your statement in paragraphs 56 and 57, you talk about the
3 Dositejeva Street and this has been redacted. This was omitted from your
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, we have now two requests on our screen.
6 The one is to slow down. The second one is to make a short pause between
7 question and answer.
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE ORIE: And please proceed.
10 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. You did not participate in investigating the Dositejeva Street
12 incident. There was also the Cobanija Street and the incident there
13 happened on 16 June 1995. Can we agree that you did not participate in
14 that either, either in the investigation or drafting the document?
15 A. I would gladly see the reports. I did work on a case in
16 Dositejeva Street where an air bomb fell there. I would like to have
17 reports in front of me. I don't want to be put in a position to have to
18 testify from memory only.
19 Q. Let us have your statement on the screen. We are interested in
20 paragraph 59.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, because 56 and 57 are redacted.
22 MR. LUKIC: Redacted, yes. Now we are at paragraph 59. In B/C/S
23 version, it's page 17. In English version, it's page 9 and it goes to
24 page 10, the next paragraph.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, Dositejeva Street is the heading above
1 56, 57, and 58, whereas 59 is Cobanija Street.
2 MR. LUKIC: Yeah, we move to Cobanija Street.
3 JUDGE ORIE: We move now to Cobanija Street. Please proceed.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: What was your conclusion about Dositejeva?
5 MR. LUKIC: There is nothing about Dositejeva in the statement,
6 just about the document.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Let me say that it was by mistake that you
8 raise the matter with the witness. Please proceed.
9 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I --
10 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. I can see here what you --
12 MR. WEBER: I would just raise for the record that counsel did go
13 into the matter that is redacted and showed the specific report to the
14 witness two days ago. So this matter has been triggered.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 MR. LUKIC: Okay. Let's go back.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Not any further at this moment. But I leave it your
18 hands, Mr. Lukic.
19 MR. LUKIC: Let's go back. Let's see the previous page in B/C/S.
20 Q. [Interpretation] Look at the title, Dositejeva Street,
21 16 June 1995. This was redacted from your statement.
22 Let's go to the following page in the B/C/S version.
23 In paragraph 58, you say:
24 "I have also reviewed a report made by the KDZ within the CSB of
25 Sarajevo, dated 26 June 1995, concerning this incident. The document is
1 done in the form which was being used at the time, and appears to be
2 authentic to me."
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Can we then conclude that you did not participate in this case at
6 A. I did not participate in the drafting of the report by the KDZ
7 within the CSB report. But if we're talking about the incident in
8 Dositejeva, I would like to see the report because we did take part in
9 the investigation.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
11 MR. WEBER: Just to avoid any confusion that may cause on the
12 record, the Prosecution, in its 92 ter motion indicated that we were
13 redacting the two paragraphs because it related to a dropped incident.
14 We kept this paragraph 58 because it related -- there are three events on
15 this date. So paragraph 58 related to a document from one of those other
16 events. So just to avoid any confusion that might arise, because I see
17 we have some redactions.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.
19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. With regard to this document, did you participate in its
21 drafting? Did you participate in anything relating to that document?
22 A. It says that it is a report by the KDZ of the Sarajevo CSB. I
23 did not participate in its drafting. But I don't know what case you're
24 talking about. I don't know who worked on this case. I inspected the
25 document. I reviewed the document --
1 Q. When was that?
2 A. Previously. I can't tell you exactly when. I -- I'm sure that
3 it was recorded. And that document, as a document, is authentic. It was
4 drafted by the Sarajevo CSB. I did not concern myself with the contents
5 of the document because I did not participate in its drafting.
6 Q. Thank you. And now I would briefly come back to the fuse that I
7 asked you about but you didn't answer. Where could we find that fuse
8 today? The fuse that exploded in Petra Kocica Street?
9 A. All the material traces that were submitted for analysis
10 accompanied by requests were analysed, were tested, a report was drafted,
11 and they were returned to the Sarajevo CSB. They were safe-guarded there
12 on their premises. After the war, the basement was flooded and that
13 resulted in some problems as far as I know. I don't know whether they're
14 still kept there. You should check that with the Sarajevo CSB.
15 Q. Thank you. Now we're talking about Cobanija and the incident
16 that happened on the 16th of June, 1995.
17 Is it correct that you did not participate in the drafting of
18 this document either?
19 A. I would like to see the document. It is possible that I did not
20 draft the report but that I reviewed the material traces. However, based
21 on this, I can't tell you that I did not sign this.
22 Q. Let's go to paragraph 60. This is your statement, so I am really
23 surprised that you don't know what you stated in your statement.
24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Let's go to paragraph 60.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, the statement deals with a lot of
1 matters, and the witness just asks to be able to see the document.
2 MR. LUKIC: I don't have time to show him document. It's his
3 statement. If he does not know what is in his statement, we would accept
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic. Could we have on our screen 65 ter 9798.
6 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I believe that's a Karadzic 65 ter
7 number and the statement --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MR. WEBER: -- the corresponding 65 ter number in the Mladic case
10 I have is 10145.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Could we have that on our screen.
12 MR. LUKIC: My explanation is in this witness's statement he said
13 that he didn't in paragraph 60. That's where I wanted to go. He said he
14 didn't sign and he didn't write it. We don't have to go to that
15 document --
16 JUDGE ORIE: The witness says, I would like to have a look at it
17 in order to avoid mistakes. He's entitled to look at it and to avoid to
18 make mistakes. That's even what we expect him to do.
19 Please proceed.
20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] In paragraph 60 of your statement you
22 "This report was compiled and signed by Emir Turkusic."
23 And the report is in front of you.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can we go to the last page in both versions.
25 MR. WEBER: And, Your Honours, counsel moved down to paragraph
1 60. However, the document that I believe that the witness had requested
2 related to paragraph 59. And that was the one that the Chamber read out
3 the 65 ter number in the Karadzic case for.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, but I thought we were in Cobanija street. Yes.
5 Would you like to see the report of Cobanija Street or would you
6 like to see the report of Dositejeva Street?
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We were talking about
9 Cobanija Street as far as I can remember. That was the last question,
11 JUDGE ORIE: We that in front of us.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But this is not part of the MUP
13 report of the KDZ of the MUP of the RBiH. This is probably part of a CSB
14 report, one of their reports.
15 However, this is about the same incident in Cobanija Street.
16 JUDGE ORIE: What we see on our screen now, Witness, bears the
17 title: "Forensics and KDZ department."
18 And a little bit further down, it says: "Centar SJB Public
19 Security Station."
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can we go back to page 1 in the B/C/S version.
21 MR. WEBER: And, Your Honours, if I may offer some assistance.
22 In -- Judge Fluegge is asking, I believe, about the first report here.
23 That report ends on page 3 of the -- the upload.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Could we have a look at page 3 of this document. In
1 And the same for B/C/S.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. This report was compiled and
3 signed by my colleague, Emir Turkusic, which means that I did not
4 participate directly in -- in the compilation of this document.
5 However, I reviewed the document, and I confirmed its
6 authenticity before testifying in the previous cases.
7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. However, you can't say anything about the contents of the
9 document; right?
10 A. We could analyse it after reading it, but I did not draft it. I
11 did not see the traces. It would not be good for me to draw conclusions.
12 I do not have any doubts about the conclusions provided here by my
13 colleague who signed the document.
14 Q. The following incident is the Trg Desete Krajiske on the
15 18 June 1995. We'll dwell upon it for a bit longer.
16 You say in paragraph 61 of your statement that you participated
17 in the on-site investigation when the projectile landed at Trg Desete
18 Krajiske, which is today known as Teheranski Trg.
19 A. I don't know of all the streets that have changed names. But if
20 you say so, that must be true.
21 Some streets were even split into two parts and now bear two
22 different names, so I would not go into that, into the name changes.
23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we now see 1D761.
24 Q. Let me jog your memory. This is the place, right, in front of
25 the entrance number 8 in that square?
1 A. Probably. I was not in charge of taking photos, so I can say
2 that you are probably right.
3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We will not tender this document. We
4 need 1D764 instead of this one.
5 I apologise. Let's see 1D763 first. It's a broader picture.
6 And then we will come back to the document that I called previously.
7 Q. Would this correspond to the place where the shell landed in
8 front of entrance number 8?
9 A. If it is part of the photo documentation, that -- it must be it.
10 It's very hard for me to remember after such a long time where the crater
11 was. It's practically impossible. It's even impossible for me to say
12 which part of the town these two buildings are in without all the other
13 constituent parts of the report.
14 I don't know when this photo was taken.
15 Q. Did you read your statement before coming here to testify?
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, when was this photograph taken?
17 MR. LUKIC: It was taken later. Later on. But the marking of
18 the asphalt is the same.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Well, when is "later on"? After five, ten --
20 MR. LUKIC: Also in 2010.
21 JUDGE ORIE: 2010.
22 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
23 JUDGE ORIE: And the marking is the same, you say. But is there
24 evidence for that?
25 MR. LUKIC: We couldn't find any pictures readable that --
1 visible that could be analysed so that we provide --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, so it's --
3 MR. LUKIC: -- provided this one.
4 JUDGE ORIE: It is your assumption that it is the same.
5 MR. LUKIC: It is my knowledge that it is the same.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Well, you're not giving testimony here, Mr. Lukic.
7 MR. LUKIC: I know.
8 JUDGE ORIE: It's your -- therefore, your assumption which you
9 may produce evidence on.
10 Please proceed.
11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] And now I would like to call up
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before you do that, Mr. Lukic, I would like to
14 find out, is this photograph part of the report that was compiled by this
16 MR. LUKIC: It is not.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much. You may proceed.
18 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
19 Q. [Interpretation] Thus, it is my assumption that this explosion
20 happened in front of the building in Teheranski Trg number 8. Let me
21 give you the exact date. It was taken on the 17th September 2010.
22 Do you see the traces of shrapnel in the asphalt in this photo?
23 A. Yes, I can see the traces of shrapnel and a crater as well. The
24 only thing that I can tell you about this photograph is this. And, as
25 for the rest, I can only rely on the contemporaneous report. I cannot
1 confirm that there are no other craters next to this one. So it's
2 superfluous to compare this and the contemporaneous photos, and no link
3 can be established between this photo and the report.
4 Q. Okay. But we are working on the assumptions. Does this measure
5 tape demonstrate the approximate direction from which the shell arrived
6 before landing on the asphalt surface and creating this crater in it?
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
8 MR. WEBER: Objection. Foundation. Those facts related to this
9 photo have not been established. Also relevance, the probative value of
10 this photo based on what the witness has said is so extraordinarily low
11 at this time we object to it.
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE ORIE: The probative value of the testimony of this witness
14 if based all on assumptions, Mr. Lukic, is not assisting the Chamber.
15 Please proceed.
16 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, the Defence has the right to conduct its
17 own investigation and to check the testimony --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 MR. LUKIC: -- of the witness.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Of course, you can do that.
21 MR. LUKIC: But since I cannot testify and I cannot say, yes,
22 this is the picture of that place, but we will have our experts coming
23 here and --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Fine. Fine, but this witness --
25 MR. LUKIC: If he cannot --
1 JUDGE ORIE: -- on basis of his assumptions he says, "I cannot,"
2 and then to say, "I force you," although we're working on the basis of
3 assumptions, first, establish what we are working with and then you could
4 ask the witness further questions about it, but not at this moment on
5 this basis.
6 Please proceed.
7 MR. LUKIC: I think that the picture --
8 JUDGE ORIE: It's not a debate. You may proceed, Mr. ...
9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. This photo is not assumption, Witness. This photo shows
11 something. Do you agree with me that the direction from which the shell
12 landed is depicted by this tape measure?
13 A. There are no traces around the crater. They are not visible
14 enough for me to be able to estimate the exact direction from which the
15 shell arrived.
16 I have some doubts about the position of this measuring tape. I
17 don't know if this is the direction. It looks wrong. It doesn't tally
18 with how I would interpret this very unclear photo.
19 Q. Thank you. In your statement, you also mentioned what happened
20 in Marka Oreskovica Street on the 21st of June, 1995. This can be found
21 in paragraph 62 of your statement. Page 18 in B/C/S; page 10 in English.
22 Again, you did not participate in compiling the document.
23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we see the witness's statement on
24 the screen, please. P889. Can we zoom in on paragraph 62. You will
25 soon see that you say: "I have reviewed a CSB Sarajevo report ..."
1 Can we agree that you didn't work on this case, that you did not
2 participate in the drafting of this report?
3 A. Yes, we can agree that I did not participate in the drafting of
4 this report.
5 Q. The next incident is Geteova Street. The incident happened on
6 the 22nd of June, 1995 --
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Lukic, just for clarity of the record, the
8 witness said that he was not participating in compiling this report. But
9 in paragraph 62 of his statement, we still have it on the screen, there
10 states in the middle of that paragraph:
11 "The report lists me as a member of the investigating team."
12 MR. LUKIC: That's true. We have it in the statement. I just
13 wanted to check whether he took any part in compiling the report because
14 it was proposed as the evidence in this trial. And we object to
15 admission of this document.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can the witness -- I would like to ask the
17 witness: In which way did you participate in investigating this event?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I was there. I was on
19 the site as a member of the investigating team. The CSB in any case
20 drafted its report, and I did not participate in the drafting of that
21 report. After such a long time, I cannot remember whether this request
22 came as a request to analyse the traces of the projectile and whether it
23 arrived at the KDZ of the republican MUP where I worked, and whether some
24 of my colleagues drafted their report upon such request, if such a
25 request indeed [indiscernible].
1 This means that I did participate in the on-site investigation
2 and in collection of traces, but I did not participate in the drafting of
3 the CSB report in this case.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
5 Mr. Lukic.
6 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
7 Q. [Interpretation] Let's move onto Geteova Street, which can be
8 found in the following paragraph, 63, where you say that:
9 "The report was drafted and signed by Emir Turkusic and also
10 signed by Mirza Jamakovic."
11 You did not participate in the drafting of this document. You
12 did not participate in the preparation of this document.
13 A. No, not in drafting the document, but whether I helped my
14 colleagues when examining certain traces, because we exchanged our
15 experiences in all of our work. But specifically in providing the
16 findings is something I didn't do.
17 Q. Thank you. The same goes for paragraph 64, incident in
18 Vahida Maglajlic Street, on 25th of June, 1995; correct?
19 A. Yes. My answer would be the same as the previous one. But this
20 report was signed and drawn up by my colleague Nedim Bosnic.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 MR. LUKIC: It's time for a break, I think, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you -- you -- the "[Previous translation
24 continues] ..." you wanted to take the break now?
25 MR. LUKIC: Yeah, I think it's time.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it's time.
2 The witness may follow the usher.
3 [The witness stands down]
4 JUDGE ORIE: We take a break, and we resume at ten minutes
5 to 11.00.
6 --- Recess taken at 10.32 a.m.
7 --- On resuming at 10.51 a.m.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted into courtroom.
9 Mr. Groome.
10 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, in -- just in follow-up of the proposal
11 that I made yesterday with respect to the change in the witness order and
12 the withdrawal of a witness, I spoke with Mr. Lukic this morning, and the
13 Mladic Defence will not be opposing that, Your Honour.
14 So the Prosecution, just to reiterate, next week, the second
15 witness that the Prosecution will call to give evidence will be RM013 and
16 that would be the second witness, and I would imagine that that witness
17 would begin their evidence on Tuesday morning.
18 [The witness entered court]
19 JUDGE ORIE: If the parties agree on this change of scheduling,
20 the Chamber does not oppose it.
21 Please be seated, Mr. Suljevic. Mr. Lukic will now continue his
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Mr. Suljevic, we stopped at paragraph 65 in your statement.
1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We need the following page in both
2 the B/C/S and the English versions.
3 Q. This is the incident in Kosevo Street, dated the 26th of
4 June 1995. You were a member of the investigation team. Mr. Turkusic
5 made the report. Are you familiar with the location? And is it correct
6 that it is around 100 metres away from the 1st Corps Command?
7 A. I cannot claim what the distance was, but it's in the same
8 neighbourhood. So it is in the vicinity.
9 Q. All right. Thank you. We have covered Mis Irbina Street;
10 Parmolinska Street; 30th of June, 1995.
11 Can we also agree that you were not the author of the relevant
13 A. You mean paragraph 68?
14 Q. Yes. Yes. Mr. Turkusic was the author of the report; right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Thank you. The following is Ilije Grbica Street, signed by
17 Mr. Jamakovic and yourself. I mean the report. As discussed in
18 paragraph 69 of your statement.
19 Can we just pull it up a little bit, the B/C/S version.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. You know where the location is, Ilije Grbica 5. You have told us
22 before that you did not know where this was.
23 A. No, I really don't know where I will Ilije Grbica Street was from
24 this point in time. There were so many streets and so many analyses, so
25 many on-site investigations. I don't even know what part of the city it
1 is in.
2 Q. Today it is it called Nize Banje Street. Does that mean anything
3 to you?
4 A. I have heard of that street, Nize Banje, but I don't know. Only
5 if you could show me a carte and maybe we could then find our bearings.
6 Q. All right.
7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] 1D770, please.
8 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: The map is what
9 needs to be shown to the witness.
10 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Do you see a street which stretches from north to south called
12 Nize Banje? That was the street in which the incident occurred. And the
13 previous name of the street was Ilije Grbica.
14 A. Can you just tell me in which section of the map?
15 Q. In the middle of the upper part and the street is vertical from
16 the north to south, and it's crossed by Dzenetica Cikme Street.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Can you tell us where the location of the incident that occurred
19 is? If you can't, it's all right.
20 A. No, I can't.
21 Q. Do you know where the Svjetlost building is located?
22 A. No. Svjetlost had a number of buildings around the city and I'm
23 not aware of all of them. Even if it is in this particular area, I
24 wouldn't know where it is.
25 Q. It's indicated on the map below Ferhadija, that's
1 Ferhadija Street. And Nize Banje Street ends right there where the
2 building is on Ferhadija?
3 A. I'm not sure whether Nize Banje Street really extended down to
4 the street.
5 Q. Yes. It continues down. I'm not sure if it's like a
6 continuation of the street but can you see how it continues that it ends
7 at the Svjetlost building?
8 A. Yes, I can see where the Svjetlost building is.
9 Q. Did you know that in this building a part of the Supreme Command
10 of Bosnia-Herzegovina was located?
11 A. No.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You should really pause between question and
13 answer, and answer and question.
14 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour. I'm obviously rushing too
16 [Interpretation] We do not need this exhibit any longer because
17 the witness did not recognise anything.
18 So the following in the statement -- so can we please have the
19 statement on the screen again, please. It's P889. We need page 18 in
20 the B/C/S version. Excuse me, page 21 in the B/C/S version. And, in the
21 English version, page 11, paragraph 70, Mustafa Behman Street.
22 Q. Once again, you did not participate in the work --
23 A. No, not in drafting this CSB report.
24 Q. In paragraph 71, you say --
25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we please move onto the following
1 pages in both versions.
2 Q. "I have also inspected an authentic RBiH MUP KDZ report dated the
3 22nd of September, 1995, signed by Mirza Jamakovic and Nedim Bosnic, and
4 I confirm it as authentic. The report sets out the analysis of my office
5 done in order to determine the type of projectile."
6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we now please see this
7 document, 10250.
8 Q. You can see what report it is. The date is the 22nd of
9 September, 1995.
10 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we please move to the next page
11 in both versions.
12 And can we please now focus on the last two paragraphs in the
13 B/C/S version.
14 Q. Can you see it? And can you read the last two paragraphs? Or
15 even the third from the bottom up?
16 A. No, no. Not in their entirety. The penultimate perhaps partly
17 but not all of it.
18 Q. It's not even translated into English. Only the first two
19 paragraphs of the finding are in -- are translated. And the opinion not
20 at all. Have you examined this version or did you examine a different
21 version when you confirmed the authenticity of the document? Or did you
22 confirm the authenticity of the illegible document?
23 A. I confirmed the authenticity of the document itself, not of its
24 contents. And from this point in time, I cannot remember what sort of
25 document I had at my disposal. It was probably possible to read it all.
1 Q. This is the only one that we received and that is in the system.
2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I would, once again, ask to see the
3 witness's statement. Could we please see the statement of this witness.
4 We need page 20 in B/C/S and page 11 in English.
5 I apologise. The following page in both versions, please. We
6 are interested in paragraph 72, Velesici.
7 Q. Did you take part in drafting this document?
8 A. No. This is another document from the Security Services Centre.
9 Q. All right. Thank you.
10 And now something unrelated to your statement. Can a shell fall
11 symmetrically relative to its trajectory, or is there any bending because
12 the explosive expands and the body of the shell bursts?
13 A. A shell arrives symmetrically until the impact and then there's
14 bursting of the body only during the impact. The position is unchanged
15 on impact, but after the explosion, the body of the shell bursts.
16 Q. At the moment when it bursts, what happens with the traces on the
17 asphalt? Are they completely symmetrical with the incoming trajectory or
18 not? Or do they deviate, is there a deviation?
19 A. I did not do that kind of analysis, but I think that after an
20 explosion, the body of a shell is fragmented into a huge number of
21 shrapnel and we cannot talk about the position of the body of the shell
22 any longer. But, for that, I think a detailed analysis would be
23 necessary, if you really want to go in depth into a discussion of such
24 technical details.
25 Q. I'm not even able to enter such a discussion with you because I'm
1 a layman in this area. But I want to ask you, when you did your
2 analyses --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you asked whether the traces are
4 symmetrical with the incoming trajectory or not. Symmetry is something
5 along an axis, on one part of the axis, that it's the same as at the
6 other part of the axis. The trajectory of a shell has a lot of axes.
7 There's the angle of descent. There is the direction. There's a lot of
8 axes. So, for symmetry, you need to further define symmetry on the basis
9 of what axis. Otherwise - but if the witness would disagree, I would
10 like to know - it seems to be a useless question, undefined question.
11 Would you agree with that, that symmetry requires to know
12 symmetry in relation to what axis?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct, Your Honour.
14 And the question specifically had to do with the position of the
15 projectile, the body of the projectile, as far as I understood. And it
16 was not about the traces on the surface. If I understood the question
17 correctly. I was only talking about the position of the projectile at
18 the moment of the impact and whether this position changes on impact or
20 JUDGE ORIE: It was about traces on asphalt. But let's not
21 further discuss the matter.
22 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Just another question. The traces on asphalt, do they reflect
25 the exact angle at which the shell fell and hit the asphalt?
1 A. They reflect the exact direction from which the shell came. And
2 the angle has to be calculated, and the traces are measured, and then the
3 angle of descent is calculated. But the traces do not move.
4 Q. All right. Thank you. Did it happen that UNPROFOR took away
5 shell fragments so that you could not perform your analysis?
6 A. I wouldn't know that. When I participated in on-site
7 investigations, I did not see them taking away traces, at least not those
8 that we collected. I don't know whether they did things on their own.
9 Although I can say for a fact that they had never preceded our
10 investigation teams. They never arrived on any of the sites before us.
11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Please bear with me.
12 I would like to call up 1D722A.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Document is not in e-court, Your Honours.
14 MR. LUKIC: I was informed it is. Then we'll have to work on
16 We'll have to rotate this image for 90 degrees clockwise.
17 Q. [Interpretation] This is where I left it off the other day. This
18 is the incident in Dositejeva. I tried to pull up a different map, but I
19 have not been able to do it for the second day. It's not in e-court, so
20 we will work with what we have.
21 This is Dositejeva Street, which is now known as
22 Branislava Djurdjeva Street. Would you be able to mark the command of
23 the 105th Motorised Brigade in Trampina Street. Did you know that it was
25 A. No, I didn't know that it was there.
1 Q. Very well. Can you mark Dositejeva Street. Dositejeva Street
2 number 4. And now it is called Djurdjeva.
3 A. I don't know where number 4 is. If it is the building where the
4 incident happened --
5 Q. Yes?
6 A. This is the building which was hit by the projectile in question.
7 Q. Very well. Can you now mark for us the CSB, just below
8 Mis Irbina Street. I believe it's well visible in the map.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, could you assist me in telling us which
10 paragraphs of the statement deal with the ... with these incidents.
11 MR. LUKIC: Yes, hold on one second.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber seems to ...
13 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I believe this is a redacted portion of
14 the statement, paragraphs 56 and 57. The Prosecution has uploaded a
15 version of the statement with these paragraphs unredacted under 28668B,
16 as in Boy.
17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. And now can you mark the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina for
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And now can you put number 4 next to Dositejeva Street, or
22 perhaps D4.
23 A. [Marks]
24 Q. And can you put letters "CSB" where you encircled the CSB
25 building for us.
1 A. [Marks]
2 Q. Do you know where the command of the 1st Corps was in
3 Danijela Ozme Street?
4 A. I wouldn't know what building that was in.
5 Q. Was the nozzle of M63 of 128 calibre found there?
6 A. I would have to see the report.
7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] 65 ter 10. Just a moment while we
8 have the photo on the screen. Let me see if something else needs to be
10 Can we keep this as the following Defence exhibit, please.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
12 THE REGISTRAR: Document 1D722 marked by the witness receives
13 number D228, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE ORIE: D228 is admitted into evidence.
15 I put on the record, Mr. Lukic, that most of the markings - not
16 exactly the same - are found in D219.
17 Please proceed.
18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. And now I would like to
19 call up 10153. This is a Prosecutor's 65 ter number, 10153.
20 Q. As you can see this is a report issued by your service on the
21 24th of June, 1995.
22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] What we need in this document is
23 page 5 in B/C/S and page 5 in English.
24 Q. Please look at the fourth paragraph in B/C/S and the eighth
25 paragraph in English. It says here:
1 "The metal fragment of irregular shape with the stamped mark
2 128-millimetre, M63 and BK, originates from the exhaust duct of a
3 128-millimetre Plamen M63 rocket which most probably was not part of the
4 device that had exploded."
5 Would you agree with me that this rocket could not be used to
6 propel because it does not have fins and it is stabilised to high-level
8 A. I did not analyse this. However, in our report, this is what we
9 indicated because this is a trace that we analysed together with all the
10 other traces collected on the spot. And this particular trace was
11 eliminated from our analysis because it was established that it most
12 probably did not belong to the device that had exploded on the spot at
13 the time of the incident.
14 Q. The document was signed by yourself; right? You can see your
16 A. Yes.
17 MR. LUKIC: We tender this document into evidence, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Document 10153 receives number D229,
20 Your Honours.
21 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. And now I'm going to show you 1D747.
24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] The document is illegible, but this
25 is the only version that we have at our disposal. It has been sent for
2 We need page 8 in the B/C/S version of the document. This is a
3 document which originates from the Security Department of the
4 Sarajevo-Romanija Corps. We are interested in paragraph 2, looking from
5 the bottom of the page. It says:
6 "The Sarajevo squadron consisting of eight pilots from the former
7 JNA billeted in Dositejeva 2 Street, the six pilots flew on Gazela
8 aircraft, one on ME-8 [as interpreted] and one on a Jastreb aircraft."
9 Q. Did you know that one of the addresses indicated in your report
10 was where the pilots of Bosnia-Herzegovina were billeted?
11 A. I didn't even know that the BiH army had pilots.
12 MR. LUKIC: We would ask for this document to be marked for
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
15 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, we have a number of objections to this
17 The one main objection is that the vast majority of the report is
18 illegible and blurred. I -- even through the course of not having a
19 translation, I have not been able to decipher what most of this document
20 is about. So we would oppose even the tendering of this.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic --
22 MR. WEBER: I apologise. If I could just add for the record that
23 based on the condition of the document also, the Prosecution is quite
24 disadvantaged at this time in being able to understand or even to be able
25 to contextualise this document with the witness.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you read from it. That the pilots were
2 billeted in Dositejeva Street.
3 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: And then your question was whether the witness knew
5 that one of the addresses indicated in the report was where the pilots
6 were billeted.
7 That requires a link between a street and a house. That's not
8 the same. Is there any --
9 MR. LUKIC: Yeah. You can see Dositejeva dva. There's number 2
10 as well. Dositejeva and then number 2 and then --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just have a look whether I see that. That
12 is -- yes, that's not what was reported as -- yes. I see you mean the --
13 in the red box, first word of the semi-last Dositejeva and --
14 MR. LUKIC: Number 2.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Well, whether it's 2 or not, but at least there is
16 something following before there is a dot apparently.
17 Now, do we need the document? You have read this. We have now
18 seen that there is "Dositejeva" and something added to that, which looks
19 like a 2. Comes close to a 2. Whether it really is a 2 is difficult --
20 MR. LUKIC: It's not necessary. We can try to tender this
21 document at the other occasion.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes --
23 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I don't think that resolves the matter.
24 I mean if -- the counsel introduced a document and is putting it in front
25 of the Chamber, and right now I have got -- I have no idea where this
1 document came from. I see the pages are --
2 JUDGE ORIE: But I think --
3 MR. WEBER: -- but I can't re- examine.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I suggested to Mr. Lukic to not tender it at this
6 MR. LUKIC: I'm not tendering it.
7 JUDGE ORIE: You're not tendering it. Therefore no need to
8 further discuss. Please proceed.
9 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
10 [Interpretation] I would like to call up 1D748 at this moment.
11 It is legible but it does not have a translation. It is pending. I am
12 going to read it and you -- the document is only one half-page long.
13 MR. WEBER: At this time, I'm going to object to proceeding
14 without translations.
15 MR. LUKIC: I will ...
16 JUDGE ORIE: Let me first have a look.
17 What is it we're looking at, to start with, before we --
18 MR. LUKIC: We don't have it on our screens. It's the letter
19 from President Izetbegovic to Prime Minister Silajdzic.
20 JUDGE ORIE: And where does it come from?
21 MR. LUKIC: There is ERN number. We found it in the system.
22 JUDGE ORIE: You found it in the system. Most likely --
23 MR. LUKIC: Probably the Prosecution --
24 JUDGE ORIE: -- in view of the ERN number that it -- most likely
25 it originates at least on the Prosecution.
1 Mr. Weber.
2 MR. WEBER: We do not have a translation for the document. I can
3 inform the Chamber that we received it from the Presidency archives on
4 the date of 15 October 2000.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber does not oppose you using this document
7 at this moment. A different matter is -- whether finally it would be
8 admitted is a different matter.
9 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour. I will read the portion we
10 want to present to this gentleman.
11 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Suljevic, President Izetbegovic sent a
12 letter to Dr. Silajdzic, who was prime minister at that moment.
13 Look at the second paragraph which starts with the words: "There
14 is another problem ..."
15 "Chetniks opened fire on the Presidency building and they keep on
16 saying that they do that because it houses a -- the Ministry of Defence.
17 They know that. It doesn't really matter what Chetniks say but UNPROFOR
18 say the same. For them, this is a military facility. Besides, the
19 building is registered as a listed building. According to The Hague
20 Conventions and our own laws, such buildings must not house anything that
21 might present a military target. This is why the Ministry of Defence
22 should be the first to move out from the building."
23 You will agree with me that this abbreviation, MNO, does indeed
24 stand for the Ministry of National Defence?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Did you know that the Presidency building also housed the
2 Ministry of Defence? The letter was issued on the 17 of April 1995.
3 A. I didn't know what was located where. This is what is written
4 here, and it's probably correct. I'm not denying it. But, as I say, I
5 didn't know what was housed in the Presidency building, nor which unit or
6 brigade was located in which location.
7 Q. Thank you.
8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We would suggest that the document be
9 marked for identification and that we wait until we receive the
10 translation and then we can tender it.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you want to tender it through this
12 witness because the witness is not familiar with the letter, not familiar
13 with anything in the letter, apart from that he affirms that MNO most
14 likely stands for Ministry of National Defence.
15 You have read to him what you wanted to read.
16 MR. LUKIC: Then we don't have to tender through this witness,
17 Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Then please proceed.
19 MR. LUKIC: Just one second.
20 Q. [Interpretation] This is the last subject. My time is running
22 So let me ask you this: You worked on the incident on the
23 Zavnobih Square in Alipasino Polje; correct?
24 A. I would like to see the report once again because that would
25 allow me to see which particular incident that was.
1 Q. That is 1D742. We did not plan to use this, but I just meant to
2 ask you briefly something about it.
3 It is an incident of the 10th of November, 1993. And you were
4 engaged in the reconstruction of the incident. Do you remember that?
5 You did that in 1995.
6 A. I did that, specifically?
7 Q. Yes.
8 A. Well, I don't know. I would like to see some document because I
9 cannot remember the events.
10 Q. Just a moment.
11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we please see 1D742.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It's on the screen.
13 JUDGE ORIE: You asked for it before. It is on our screen. I do
14 not know what you further want.
15 MR. LUKIC: 721 ... 742. We need page 12. I'm sorry. We need
16 page 12.
17 Q. [Interpretation] You see report on the reconstruction of on-site
18 investigation, 16th of November, 1995. And your name is to be found
19 under number 5. You're listed as one of the participants.
20 A. Yes. My name is listed under number 5, but I was not a member of
21 the KDZ of the CSB. I do not know who Emin Turkovic is. I would have to
22 read the entire document because this is the first time I see it.
23 Q. All right.
24 Do you remember this reconstruction from 1995?
25 A. No.
1 Q. All right. If you don't remember ...
2 I will try to remind you that it was a reconstruction of an
3 incident in which many students were supposed to be killed but, in some
4 way, it was prevented.
5 Never mind. If you cannot remember, we'll try to clarify this
6 with someone else.
7 These were all the questions I had for you, and thank you for
8 answering them.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Lukic.
10 Mr. Weber, how much time you think you would need?
11 MR. WEBER: Approximately 20 minutes.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Approximately 20 minutes. Then let's ...
13 Let's get started. If you're able to -- well, let's say, to
14 finish by five minutes to 12.00, that would be five minutes after the
15 time of the break and that would give you 18 minutes so that we can see
16 whether we can conclude before the break.
17 MR. WEBER: Yes, Your Honour. If I may assist, I can break it up
18 and leave some procedural stuff until after the break, potentially.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please.
20 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 28725,
21 page 7. We ask that this page not be broadcast to the public. The
22 materials being brought up are scans of the photocopied pictures that are
23 part of D222, MFI'd.
24 Re-examination by Mr. Weber:
25 Q. Mr. Suljevic, with respect to the shelling on Mis Irbina Street
1 on 27 June 1995, I'd like to return to the photos of Haris Jamakovic. On
2 page 5817 [sic] of yesterday's transcript, it was suggested to you that
3 Haris may have died as a result of a device that exploded in his hands.
4 In those photos, are you able to see both of his hands?
5 MR. LUKIC: I'm sorry, I just have to clarify something. I think
6 I said either in his hands or in front of him. That's what -- what I
7 think I --
8 MR. WEBER: I'm asking him about a particular suggestion that was
9 made to him. If counsel wants to ask for clarification --
10 JUDGE ORIE: The issue is what the suggestion was. Could you
11 give me again the --
12 MR. WEBER: It's on page 50 -- I'm sorry, 8517.
13 JUDGE ORIE: 8517.
14 MR. WEBER: And I believe the direct quote is -- it was suggested
15 to him that [Overlapping speakers] ...
16 JUDGE ORIE: Let me see.
17 MR. WEBER: [Overlapping speakers] ... or immediate proximity. Or
18 very close proximity.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Let me -- and, again, it was line ... 11.
20 One second, please.
21 It was stated yesterday by Mr. Lukic -- he asked you whether it
22 would be more consistent what you see with an explosion of an explosive
23 device which was in his hands, perhaps, or in his very close vicinity.
24 Mr. Weber now asks you whether you can see both hands of the
25 young Jamakovic.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is not possible to see that in
2 the photographs. Or, actually, yes. Yes, both arms and hands are
4 MR. WEBER:
5 Q. Let us know if you need us to zoom in. But do you see any
6 indications of an explosive device having injured either of these hands?
7 A. It is not necessary to zoom in.
8 No damage can be seen on this person's hands in these
10 Q. In the top photo, Haris appears to be lying on a stretcher. Do
11 you know where this photograph was taken?
12 A. No. I don't know where it was taken, and it was -- yesterday was
13 the first time that I saw this photograph.
14 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have page 1 of these
15 photos. It's okay for the next photo to be broadcast to the public.
16 And if we could please have the -- zoom in on the bottom photo.
17 Q. Mr. Suljevic, in the investigative file for this incident, one of
18 the reports indicate that there were nine vehicles that sustained damage
19 as a result of the shelling. I'd like to draw your attention to the
20 bottom photo here and ask you if you recognise the area depicted first.
21 A. If we were looking only at this photograph, I could not say what
22 it was. But considering the entire photo file, I remember that there
23 were sacks or bags filled with earth which were there to secure the
24 policeman who was performing regular security duties there. And from
25 this point in time, I cannot remember all the details and the
1 surroundings. Actually, I could not draw some other conclusions.
2 That is the location which was in the courtyard between those
3 buildings, and one entered it through a passageway leading from
4 Mis Irbina Street. And it is implied that this was also Mis Irbina
6 MR. WEBER: If we could zoom in on the car in this lower photo.
7 Q. Do you see any damage on this car?
8 A. On the car, to specify examples of damage, that's something I
9 couldn't do now. It's visible that the car is -- seems to be smeared
10 with something or that's a matter of the quality of the photograph. But
11 whether there are any places where the body of the car is pierced, that's
12 something that I cannot really see. Though one can see damage on one
13 part of the car. The rear-view mirror seems to be moved.
14 Q. Are you able to see anything in this photo on the car that would
15 be an indication of shrapnel hitting the car?
16 A. If we could zoom in on the car a little bit.
17 One can notice that the body of the car seems to be pierced in
18 many places which was probably caused by shrapnel.
19 MR. WEBER: At this time, the Prosecution tenders the --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Could -- could we ask the witness to mark on this
21 photograph where he sees the body being pierced, the body of the car.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
23 Let me not speculate any further, but this is noticeable.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, you earlier said that the quality of the
25 photograph was such that it was difficult. Is this just what you
1 consider to be possible? Or do you have a more firm position as to ...
2 as to the damage?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My position is that such damage can
4 be caused by pieces of shrapnel from a projectile. And I was --
5 JUDGE ORIE: My first question was whether you identified this as
6 damage, whether the photograph is clear enough for you to say, Well, I
7 see damage on this car?
8 I'm not suggesting in either way yes or no, but you earlier
9 expressed your difficulties in finding details in photographs which are
10 not always very clear.
11 So I'm asking you whether with this zoomed-in photograph you
12 are ...
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am completely convinced that I
14 what marked are instances of damage caused by shrapnel from a projectile
15 which pierced the car.
16 JUDGE ORIE: And, Madam Registrar, the number would be?
17 MR. WEBER: If we could first tender the marked photo and then --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I think that is what we are doing because this
19 is part of a report which was already MFI'd, I think, or --
20 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, the D22 was MFI'd for a translation of
21 the file. We would be tendering separately the photos that have been
22 scanned under 28725. But before doing that, I believe we should tender
23 the marked photo.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, perhaps we first do the marked one.
25 Madam Registrar, the photo marked by the witness.
1 THE REGISTRAR: Page 1 on document 28725 receives number P937,
2 Your Honours.
3 JUDGE ORIE: P937 is admitted into evidence.
4 And you wanted to have the scanned photographs in the entire
5 series as well tendered.
6 MR. WEBER: Yes, please, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, we're now talking about the whole
9 THE REGISTRAR: Document 65 ter 28725 receives number P938,
10 Your Honours.
11 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
12 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 28724.
13 We're just showing this document for the -- for the photo in it.
14 Q. Mr. Suljevic, on page 8496, you confirmed that you worked on this
15 incident and that Haris Jamakovic was killed during the shelling. On the
16 screen before you, the Prosecution would just inquire whether you could
17 identify whether the individual depicted in this photograph is Haris
18 Jamakovic before the time of his death?
19 A. Yes. I just don't know whether this photograph was made
20 immediately before the incident or perhaps taken a few years earlier.
21 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, the Prosecution would tender this
22 exhibit into evidence for the identification.
23 JUDGE ORIE: And for what evidentiary purpose exactly?
24 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, we've been talking about this boy on
25 cross-examination for many pages and the Prosecution feels it's proper
1 that his photo be identified and who he is be established on the record
2 at this time.
3 MR. LUKIC: There is no -- any probative value in this document.
4 JUDGE ORIE: What would it prove, Mr. Weber?
5 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, it's just -- it's the same boy that was
6 killed on this incident.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But ...
8 MR. WEBER: If Your Honours don't feel it is relevant, I leave it
9 to the Judges' discretion.
10 JUDGE ORIE: The photograph lacks sufficient probative value to
11 be admitted. Therefore, it's -- your request is denied.
12 MR. WEBER: Very well, Your Honour. Could the Prosecution please
13 have page 2 of D209.
14 Q. Mr. Suljevic, you have been asked questioned about the projectile
15 that hit the RTV building on 28 June 1995 and an imprint on the roof of
16 the Studio C building. I'd like to direct your attention to the bottom
17 photo on this page. Do you recognise this as the imprint on the roof of
18 the Studio C building?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. First a basic question: Does the roof bear signs of an impact?
21 A. On the roof, one can see traces, and considering both the
22 photograph and my memory, on the roof, there were traces as if an object
23 caught the roof surface, or grazed it, and damaged the hydro-isolation
25 Q. Are you able to provide any reliable evidence as to what caused
1 this imprint?
2 A. I can suppose, if that is acceptable, that with one of its parts,
3 the projectile just caught that part of the surface and then flew on
4 towards the place where it fell.
5 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 10142,
6 page 3 of the B/C/S upload only.
7 Q. Mr. Suljevic, I'd like to discuss with you briefly the shelling
8 of the Dositejeva Street on 16 June 1995.
9 I'd like to direct your attention to the top photo on this page.
10 Do you recognise the location?
11 A. Yes. From my memory, but if this were the first time I see the
12 photograph, I wouldn't be able to. But I do remember this, and on the
13 basis of the damage caused to the building, I can also say yes.
14 Q. What building are you referring to?
15 A. I'm referring to the building on which a modified air explosive
16 device fell and exploded. The one that is most destroyed, that was the
17 building of the university medical centre. I'm not sure what speciality
18 was housed there.
19 MR. LUKIC: I'm sorry, but I think that it does not -- his line
20 of questions are not in any way related with my cross-examination. I
21 never questioned the witness about this incident.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
23 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, the Prosecution completely redacted this
24 incident and didn't lead any evidence on it since it was a dropped
25 exhibit. However, counsel now on cross-examination has questioned
1 extensively about this incident. It's on the record. We do plan to
2 re-tender the statement with those portions in it, and this witness
3 participated in that investigation. So I'm asking him about the photos,
4 and I will ask him about items that were recovered next.
5 JUDGE ORIE: And this is exactly which paragraphs? This is ...
6 MR. WEBER: 56 and 57.
7 JUDGE ORIE: 56 and 57.
8 MR. WEBER: So this matter directly arises out of the cross
9 because of counsel's questions.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE ORIE: It's the recollection of the Chamber that it was
12 touched upon by the Defence but that not as far as the real content of
13 it. We focussed a bit on 58 but we did not go into the details
14 of [Overlapping speakers] ...
15 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I believe the Defence actually tendered
16 whole documents related to this incident under 65 ter 10153.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, if you want the Chamber to look at the
18 whole of it, then, of course.
19 MR. LUKIC: We do not want the Chamber to look into the whole of
20 it. We just wanted to deal with the document [Overlapping speakers] ...
21 JUDGE ORIE: So you tendered it exclusively for the purposes of
22 knowing what document it was that this witness said is that it is done in
23 the form which was being used at the time. So purely for authenticity.
24 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
1 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, that document is in evidence now. And
2 there's -- the document contains information about this witness's work
3 and the traces that were found. I was just establishing initially the
4 location. I'm going to go directly to the traces, the items that were
5 found. I believe counsel actually went substantively into a Plamen
6 rocket that was recovered at the scene and did go into the substance of
7 the document, and I want to the ask him about the traces.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now ...
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber will ...
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber will consider the matter during the
14 We take a break of 20 minutes.
15 The witness may follow the usher.
16 And we'll resume at 20 minutes past 12.00.
17 [The witness stands down]
18 JUDGE ORIE: We resume at 20 minutes past 12.00.
19 --- Recess taken at 12.01 p.m.
20 --- On resuming at 12.21 p.m.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
22 Meanwhile, the Chamber has considered the objection, Mr. Lukic.
23 The -- paragraphs 56 and 57 were dealt with, together with 58, not only
24 in relation to the authenticity. It was raised in relation to the
25 vicinity of military targets as well. And, for that reason, the
1 Prosecution is allowed to further question the witness.
2 MR. LUKIC: I -- maybe it was immediately after the questions,
3 but the question about the Presidency and whether it was the military
4 target was also with Mis Irbina or any other incident in -- in this
6 [The witness takes the stand]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Relevant for this one as well, possibly.
8 Mr. Weber.
9 MR. WEBER:
10 Q. In your last answer on this photograph, on page 51, you said
11 that -- that you're referring to the building on which a modified air
12 explosive device fell and exploded, the one that is most destroyed.
13 I was wondering if you could please take a pen and mark the
14 building that you're talking about.
15 A. [Marks]
16 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, at this time, the Prosecution tenders
17 the marked photo.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Photograph marked by the witness receives number
21 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
22 THE REGISTRAR: I apologise, P -- P939, Your Honours.
23 JUDGE ORIE: And is --
24 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution --
25 JUDGE ORIE: -- admitted into evidence under this last number.
1 MR. WEBER: I'm sorry, Your Honour. Could the Prosecution please
2 have page 11.
3 If we could please zoom in on the photograph.
4 Q. Mr. Suljevic, do you recognise the items that are depicted in
5 this photo?
6 A. These are remains of rocket engines which propelled modified
7 explosive devices.
8 MR. WEBER: Could we please zoom in on the lower portion of the
9 photo at the bottom of the cylinders.
10 Q. Mr. Suljevic, are you able to see the bottom of the cylinders;
11 and are you able to tell us what is depicted here?
12 A. Yes. These are rocket engine tails, with stabilisers. You can
13 see that their fins are not opened. You can see openings at the bottom
14 for exhaust gases. You can't see much of the detail of these openings,
15 but you can discern that those are exhaust pipes of a rocket engine.
16 Q. You mentioned that the fins are not opened. How would that
17 impact - if you know - the flight of the rocket? The fact that the
18 stabiliser fins are not opened.
19 A. We're talking about a modified device, with several rockets
20 combined into one. In my opinion, you cannot combine the flight of a
21 modified explosive device with a rocket launched in a typical way. In
22 this case, stabiliser do not have the function which they normally have
23 in a rocket. Its -- their function is excluded, it is omitted, and
24 rocket flies only because it is propelled by a propellant, and it flies
25 all the way to its target propelled in that way.
1 MR. WEBER: The Prosecution at this time tenders 65 ter 10142
2 into evidence.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Document 10142 receives number P940,
5 Your Honours.
6 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE ORIE: This was page 11, you're tendering the whole of the
9 document, which is -- let me just see.
10 MR. WEBER: It's the photograph file related to the incident.
11 JUDGE ORIE: All the photographs.
12 MR. WEBER: Yes.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Nothing else. That is photo documentation only.
14 MR. WEBER: It's all photo documentation.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please proceed.
16 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, with that, the Prosecution has no
17 further questions but we would like to address the witness's statement.
18 The Prosecution originally tendered Mr. Suljevic's
19 9 February 2010 statement with portions redacted related to dropped
20 Scheduled Incidents. This statement was admitted as P889. At this time,
21 the Prosecution is seeking to re-tender the statement and additional
22 associated exhibits based upon the cross-examination. Specifically,
23 during its examination, the Defence posed questions related to the
24 projectile that struck Dositejeva Street on 16 June 1995, initially at
25 transcript page 8429 to 30, and then returning during today's
1 proceedings, along with the projectiles that landed near the Bascarsija
2 flea market on 22 December 1994. Those questions were at today's
3 transcript, pages 8517 -- sorry. Yesterday's transcript at pages 8517 to
4 8522, and today's transcript from pages 3 to 12. Based on these
5 questions, the Prosecution re-tenders the witness's statement which now
6 includes paragraphs 43 to 47 and 56 and 57 related to these incidents.
7 This version has been uploaded as 65 ter 28668B.
8 The Prosecution is also re-tendering the associated exhibits. We
9 have provided a revised list of those exhibits to the Registry, Defence,
10 and also to the Chamber. In this revised list it includes additional
11 associated documents with the now unredacted paragraphs, those being
12 65 ter 10089, 14223, 10088, and 10091. On the list, the Prosecution has
13 placed those additional items in bold.
14 So we're asking for the re-tendering of the statement and the
15 admission of the associated exhibits which have not yet been marked for
16 identification. There are 19 associated exhibits in total being
18 The Prosecution would note, as it came up in cross-examination,
19 that 65 ter 10250, which is item 14 on the list, had an incomplete
20 translation, and we agree that the translation should be completed or a
21 more legible version found and then have that tendered at that time. So,
22 with respect to that one, number 14, if that could be marked for
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, would you like to respond immediately or
25 would you rather --
1 MR. LUKIC: I think I can respond immediately, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. One of the concerns I have, whether we have to
3 use the presence of the witness for that, and whether we should not first
4 perhaps see whether there are any further questions for the witness.
5 MR. LUKIC: No further questions, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, well --
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE ORIE: I have one or two questions.
9 Questioned by the Court:
10 JUDGE ORIE: You remember the incident with the sandbags and
11 whether the car was damaged by shrapnel, yes or no.
12 Did you go yourself to that site? Have you personally observed
13 that scene?
14 A. Yes, Your Honour. I was on the site. I participated in the
15 investigation and the analysis of the crater. I also collected traces,
16 i.e., fragments, that resulted from the explosion of the projectile.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, we haven't seen an English version of
18 this report, so we're a bit handicapped, but could you tell us: What I
19 saw on the photograph with the car next to the small structure surrounded
20 by sandbags, did we see on that photograph the point of impact at the
21 lower part of the sandbags?
22 A. Yes, Your Honour. You can see where the projectile landed, as
23 well as the soil surface that was marked on -- in the schematic as a -- a
24 green surface. Can you see that the surface was green and all around it,
25 there was an asphalt surface.
1 The projectile landed in the close vicinity of the sandbags, and
2 I believe that all that was on a soil surface. That's where the
3 projectile exploded.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Again, we have not seen the report. Do you
5 know of any investigation about where the children had been when they
6 were affected by the explosion?
7 A. When we arrived there, I did not see any children. According to
8 people's statements, the children had been behind the door that we
9 discussed yesterday, on the staircase.
10 As far as I can remember, one boy was in the courtyard, and he
11 had been slightly wounded by the explosion.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Was, in that report, or what you remember from the
13 investigation, was there ever mentioned more than one explosion
14 approximately at that same time and at the same spot?
15 A. No, Your Honour. There was only that explosion.
16 And immediately after that, perhaps a couple of days after that,
17 I entered the chief's apartment, and I couldn't see that anything was
18 happening in the apartment. And I entered the apartment in order to
19 express my condolences to the family.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And you were then at that stairway behind the
21 door. You have seen that place?
22 A. Yes. During the on-site investigation, I was there as well.
23 However, what we did most of the time was analyse the crater and
24 the traces around it. I don't know whether a fragment was found within
25 the crater. In any case, we collected everything that we could find on
1 the spot at the time.
2 JUDGE ORIE: When I asked you whether you were at the -- where
3 the stairs were just behind the door inside, you went to that place also
4 when you went to the family a couple of days after the incident. Is that
5 well understood?
6 A. Yes. You had to enter through that door in order to get to the
7 apartment. The apartment was on the first floor, I believe.
8 In any case, you had to go through the door. You had to climb a
9 flight of stairs in order to enter the apartment itself.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. I have no further questions for you.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Judge Fluegge has one or more questions.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please, one follow-up question.
14 When you visited this site with the sandbags and the car, was the
15 car, at that time, there in the courtyard?
16 A. After such a long time without any photos to jog my memory, I
17 wouldn't be able to say. In all likelihood, the car was there, because
18 the photo was taken during the on-site investigation. Without having
19 seen that photo, I would not be able to rely on just my memory in order
20 to remember all the details.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: But today you saw photocopy of a photograph of
22 that car, and you indicated where you assumed the impact of the shrapnels
23 could be seen. Is that correctly understood?
24 A. Yes. Several places were marked in the photo, indicating several
25 shrapnel impacts on the car -- car's metal body.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Indeed. I just want to know if you recall having
2 looked at this car when you were present in this courtyard.
3 Did you look at the car? And did you investigate if there are
4 any signs of impact?
5 A. Your Honour, after such a long time, I really wouldn't be able to
6 reconstruct the whole procedure. I can't tell you everything we did. I
7 don't know whether I did it, but there were several of us who were
8 involved in the same job. We collected traces, and we analysed places
9 where fragments could be found.
10 So, if not I, then maybe one of them inspected the car.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE ORIE: No further questions from the Bench. Have the
14 questions of the Bench trigged any need for further questions?
15 Apparently not. I suggest to the parties that we'll deal with
16 the procedural matters in the absence of the witness.
17 Then, Mr. Suljevic, I'd like to thank you very much for coming to
18 The Hague and for giving your testimony, questions put to you by the
19 parties and by the Bench. You have answered them. I wish you a safe
20 trip home again.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: You may follow the usher.
23 [The witness withdrew]
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you said you were ready to respond to the
1 submissions made by Mr. Weber.
2 MR. LUKIC: In the first place, we oppose introducing the
3 evidence from the crossed-out portions, since we couldn't see which
4 documents that were included in those portions. And, today, we went
5 through every incident with this witness, asking him about which document
6 he has knowledge, he has -- he participated in composing the document,
7 and we saw that, of course, he couldn't participate and has no knowledge
8 about the work of CSB of MUP of Sarajevo. And -- because he was not part
9 of that organ. And he never knew what they did. And, now, trying to
10 introduce those documents through this witness is improper. Because he
11 does not -- does not have any knowledge and could not have any knowledge.
12 Unless those documents were sent to him and he worked on them. And we
13 recognised it, and we used -- we used those documents, not tendered by
14 the Prosecution.
15 So we used all CSB documents he worked on. But others, he has no
16 knowledge. And I don't know about the rest, about the VRS documents
17 whether it is still on the table, and definitely we would oppose
18 introduction of those documents through the witness who just testified.
19 Since we asked him also, does -- does he have any -- did he have -- have
20 any knowledge about the documents of Army of B&H, he said no. How could
21 he possibly have any knowledge about the documents of VRS?
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, need for a brief response?
23 MR. WEBER: Yes, Your Honour, just so I can supply the Chamber
24 with some additional information.
25 On 11 November 2011 and 29 June 2012, the Prosecution disclosed
1 the entire statement of the witness unredacted to the Defence. They've
2 had it for quite a period of time. In our 92 ter motion filed in
3 November 2012, we indicated all the non-associated exhibits that we were
4 going to not be tendering at that time in its -- in its annex based on
5 the redactions. We did reserve the ability should those matters arise
6 during the examination to tender those items, which is exactly what we're
7 doing now.
8 So, with respect to the -- what were originally section 1
9 documents, the ones associated to the amalgamated statement, we believe
10 that the witness has authenticated them, provided valuable evidence
11 related to them. We ask that they be admitted at this time and that the
12 unredacted version of the statement be admitted. One section is still
13 redacted and that relates to an incident that Mr. Lukic did not go into.
14 So, Your Honours, counsel made a strategic choice what -- what to
15 go into and not go into in cross-examination, and now I believe that in
16 all fairness to the Chamber that the witness's statements related to
17 those incidents should be before it.
18 With respect to the VRS-related documents, I wasn't making a
19 submission at this time about them. For the record, I did provide a
20 chart, as instructed by the Chamber, to the Defence for them to provide
21 their comments, and we await receiving those comments back from the
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.
24 MR. LUKIC: I'm sorry, I have to address one more thing.
25 We just heard that those documents were non-associated and that
1 the Prosecution reserved the right to use the documents. But, at the
2 end, we can see that they reserved to -- to use shaded documents. There
3 were no shaded documents in non-associated exhibits. We can find shaded
4 documents only among associated exhibits.
5 So the right to use non-associated exhibits is not reserved, as I
6 can understand this list we received through 92 ter motion.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 MR. LUKIC: Maybe I'm wrong. My learned friend will correct me
9 if I'm wrong.
10 MR. WEBER: I would just direct counsel to footnote 4, where it
11 said that it may be the case that cross-examination of this witness by
12 the Mladic Defence renders it necessary to --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
14 MR. WEBER: I apologise.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Not only that. But if we are conferring, of course,
16 you can continue to speak but that doesn't help very much.
17 MR. WEBER: My apologies, also.
18 JUDGE ORIE: You refer to the fairness of the Chamber. I do not
19 know whether we have any fairness rights but it certainly makes sense.
20 You wanted to add anything, Mr. Weber? Is that --
21 MR. WEBER: I guess just simply put that the Prosecution did
22 indicate very clearly in footnote 4 of the annex that it may be that the
23 cross-examination of the witness by the Mladic Defence renders it
24 necessary to tender one or more of those documents, and we indicated that
25 it may render it necessary to tender the materials in re-direct of the
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's all hereby on the record.
3 Mr. Lukic.
4 MR. LUKIC: Only I cannot find that on the version I have.
5 Really. The only reservation I have is concerning --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Could --
7 MR. LUKIC: -- associated documents.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Could I stop you there.
9 MR. LUKIC: But --
10 JUDGE ORIE: But Mr. Weber will show to you in the next break
11 where it is found. And if it is a version which was not provided to you,
12 we'd like to hear from you.
13 But let's not --
14 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour. Thank you, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: We cannot check it.
16 MR. LUKIC: We will -- Mr. Weber and I will speak during the
17 break, for sure.
18 JUDGE ORIE: That's a good idea. Then the Chamber will not rush
19 into decisions on these matters. We'll carefully consider all the
20 submissions made. We'll then decide on the various matters raised by the
22 We leave it to that at this moment.
23 Is the Prosecution ready to call its next witness?
24 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. If we could just have a few
25 moments to have Ms. D'Ascoli approach the podium. I think we can get set
1 up in the time it takes to bring the witness in.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Meanwhile, could the witness be escorted into
3 the courtroom.
4 No protective measures?
5 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, Ms. D'Ascoli informs me she has a
6 preliminary matter. I will allow her to use my microphone and I'll just
7 sit in the back row --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but then we should wait a second. Unless it --
9 is it of any problem if the witness would be in, Ms. D'Ascoli?
10 MS. D'ASCOLI: No. There's no problem. It's just that it's a
11 procedural matter. That's all.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
13 Ms. D'Ascoli.
14 MS. D'ASCOLI: [Microphone not activated].
15 My preliminary procedural matter regards the oral application to
16 add two documents to the 65 ter exhibit list of the Prosecution.
17 We move to add two medical documents. These are marked and
18 uploaded with 65 ter numbers 28675 and 28676.
19 The first one, 65 ter 28675, is a two-page death certificate for
20 victim Osman Kapetanovic of shelling incident G2.
21 The ERN range of this document actually shows that the document
22 belonged to another -- another document, 65 ter 27127, already on the
23 Prosecution 65 ter exhibit list, being in fact the death certificate, the
24 last page of the document, which was inadvertently excluded from
25 65 ter 27127.
1 As the death certificate should rightly have been part of the
2 document that was excluded, the Prosecution makes this oral application
3 to rectify this oversight. I don't know if we should welcome the witness
4 in court.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, let's first -- good afternoon, Mr. Nakas, I
6 presume. Before you give evidence, the Rules require that you make a
7 solemn declaration. The text is now handed out to you. May I invite you
8 to make that solemn declaration.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
10 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
11 WITNESS: BAKIR NAKAS
12 [Witness answered through interpreter]
13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please be seated.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Before we start your examination, Mr. Lukic, is
16 there any objection against adding the two documents? No, it's Mr.
18 MR. LUKIC: Mr. Stojanovic will answer --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Any objection against adding the --
20 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: The oral application is granted.
22 Dr. Nakas, you'll first be examined by Ms. D'Ascoli.
23 Ms. D'Ascoli is counsel for the Prosecution.
24 You may proceed, Ms. D'Ascoli.
25 Examination by Ms. D'Ascoli:
1 Q. Good afternoon, sir. Could you please state your full name for
2 the record.
3 A. Good afternoon. My name is Bakir Nakas.
4 Q. And could you tell the Chamber what is your current profession.
5 A. I am the director of a General Hospital. I've been in that
6 position since May 1992.
7 Q. Dr. Nakas, do you remember providing a statement to the Office of
8 the Prosecutor of the ICTY in The Hague on 8 September 2010, a statement
9 that amalgamated evidence from your previous testimony before this
10 Tribunal but also from previous statements, with some additional
11 observation as well as comments to the medical documents.
12 Do you remember providing that statement?
13 A. Yes.
14 MS. D'ASCOLI: Can I ask the Court Officer to display
15 65 ter 28671 on the screen, which is the witness statement.
16 Q. And, Dr. Nakas, once the document is on the screen, can I ask
17 that you view the first page of the English statement, in particular, the
18 signature at the bottom of the page, and indicate whether you recognise
19 that signature.
20 A. Yes, this is my full signature.
21 MS. D'ASCOLI: Can we also go to page 34 of the English.
22 Q. And again, Dr. Nakas, I would ask you if you recognise the
23 signature under the witness acknowledgment.
24 A. Yes. This is my signature, Bakir Nakas.
25 Q. Dr. Nakas, do you have an opportunity to read and review your
1 statement and the associated documents in preparation for your appearance
3 A. I had an opportunity to review the entire document, as well as
4 the associated documents.
5 Q. And you also had some corrections and clarifications to your
6 statement; right?
7 In the meantime, can I ask the Court Officer to display,
8 65 ter 28711, please.
9 A. As I was reading the statement, and as I compared the Bosnian
10 version with the English version, I spotted some mistranslations, and I
11 asked for some interventions to be made to some parts of the translations
12 in order to make them clearer.
13 Q. Yes, Dr. Nakas, you have in front of you the chart that was made
14 after your observations and includes both some corrections or missing
15 parts in the original -- well, in the B/C/S translation, given that the
16 original is in English, as well as some other observations of -- more of
17 a substantive comment.
18 Do you remember this chart, and did you review its content?
19 A. Yes. During proofing, I reviewed this chart and to familiarize
20 myself with the contents thereof, both in Bosnian and in English.
21 MS. D'ASCOLI: Could we go to the second page of the document.
22 Q. Dr. Nakas, I would ask you whether you recognise the signature at
23 the end of the document.
24 A. Yes, I recognise my initials.
25 Q. With these corrections and clarifications, are you satisfied the
1 statement is an accurate record of your evidence?
2 A. The entire statement, including the corrections, represent my
3 entire statement.
4 Q. And if you were asked today the same questions you were asked
5 when the statement was taken, would you give the same answers and provide
6 the same information, in substance?
7 A. Bearing in mind the developments that I described and the
8 statements I provided on several occasions before, I would fully adhere
9 to the contents of the statement as it -- it is now.
10 MS. D'ASCOLI: Your Honours, the Prosecution tenders 65 ter 28671
11 into evidence. The document should be admitted under seal and we have
12 also prepared a public redacted version. The reason for that is that the
13 same document was admitted under seal in the Karadzic case, and it's
14 because the -- the comments in the statement referring to the description
15 of the medical documentation refer to protected witnesses in that case or
16 in previous cases.
17 So we have prepared a redacted version where the chart with the
18 documents is not visible.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now redacted versions should be filed. That
20 is --
21 MS. D'ASCOLI: Sorry, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE ORIE: We deal with the original version.
23 MS. D'ASCOLI: Okay. Then I would ask that the 65 ter 28671
24 would be admitted under seal into evidence.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic.
1 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] No objections, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
3 THE REGISTRAR: Document 28671 receives number P941,
4 Your Honours.
5 JUDGE ORIE: P941 is admitted under seal.
6 MS. D'ASCOLI: Your Honours, for -- if it is convenient, we have
7 already filed the redacted version with the 92 ter motion, and we have
8 already -- we have an uploaded document with the 65 ter number. If
9 Your Honours believe that it would be more useful to tender it at this
10 stage as a public version, otherwise we can proceed as you prefer.
11 JUDGE ORIE: I think the Chamber has adopted the system that any
12 redacted document should be filed but not be admitted into evidence. Now
13 the corrections and clarifications have we dealt with those already?
14 MS. D'ASCOLI: No, Your Honours. I would ask -- I would tender
15 the table of correction and clarifications as well. That is marked with
16 65 ter 28711. And there's no need for it to be under seal.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
18 THE REGISTRAR: Document 28711 receives number P942,
19 Your Honours.
20 JUDGE ORIE: P942 is admitted into evidence.
21 You may proceed, Ms. D'Ascoli.
22 MS. D'ASCOLI: Thank you, Your Honours.
23 There is also a table of concordance that --
24 MR. LUKIC: I'm sorry to interrupt, but I think that this is
25 wrong number. Under 28711 we have some photographs, from the -- that I
1 used previously. I think. I'm sorry if I'm wrong.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, could you -- let me just try to
3 understand what the problem is.
4 MR. LUKIC: In the transcript we have 28711.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 THE REGISTRAR: 28711 is now on our screens, Your Honour, English
7 version, and I'm placing B/C/S version now.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If --
9 MR. LUKIC: I might be wrong --
10 JUDGE ORIE: -- what is on our screen is 28711, then I think we
11 have the right number.
12 You may proceed, Ms. D'Ascoli.
13 MS. D'ASCOLI: Thank you, Your Honours.
14 I was mentioning that we prepared a table of concordance to
15 provide the numbers, the corresponding numbers between the Karadzic and
16 the Mladic case considering the high number of references in this
17 statement. This is marked with the Prosecution 65 ter number 28618, and
18 the Prosecution tenders it into evidence. And this should be under seal
19 as well.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Document 28618 receives number P943,
22 Your Honours.
23 JUDGE ORIE: P943 is admitted, under seal.
24 MS. D'ASCOLI: Your Honours, there are also 51 exhibits
25 associated to Dr. Nakas' statement. Upon review, we indicated that we
1 would tender 28 of these documents which are mostly hospital and medical
2 records. However, I have to note that three of these associated exhibits
3 have already been admitted into evidence as indicated in the exhibit list
4 provided for this witness. And other 12 documents have been assigned
5 provisional exhibit numbers when tendered as associated exhibit during
6 the testimony of Dr. Mandilovic.
7 In addition, we will not tender four of the associated exhibits
8 initially notified and these, in fact, appear as shaded items in the
9 current version of the exhibit list. And in particular, the documents
10 marked with the 65 ter 10398 and 10109 will not be tendered as separate
11 exhibit because they're already part of one of the other associated
12 exhibits, namely, 65 ter 10442.
13 So this leaves with us a total number of eight associated
14 exhibits which are medical records to be tendered. Now I can do this at
15 the end of the testimony, together with other evidentiary issues.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE ORIE: It is such a limited number, Ms. D'Ascoli, you're
18 invited to deal with them right away.
19 MS. D'ASCOLI: Absolutely, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE ORIE: And if you could guide us --
21 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes, I will.
22 So the table of correction and clarification has been admitted.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 MS. D'ASCOLI: Then we have the first -- well, you see
25 immediately after the table of concordance, 65 ter 28618, which has been
1 admitted as well. Then we have prepared two lists for -- of -- of 65 ter
2 numbers in this case for the documents listed in two of the associated
4 So I would tender this as well because it would provide an easy
5 reference to the parties.
6 So I would start with 65 ter 28673 to be tendered under seal --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Let me see. Let me have a look. I have before me
8 at this moment the Prosecution exhibits for non-associated and we are
9 talking about associated exhibits and we find them associated exhibits --
10 MS. D'ASCOLI: It's page 9 of the list, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Page 9. And then we have --
12 MS. D'ASCOLI: We have gone through the first ones so we move to
13 page 10 of the list.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. 28673. Madam Registrar.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Receives number P944, Your Honours.
16 MS. D'ASCOLI: And this should be admitted under seal,
17 Your Honours.
18 JUDGE ORIE: P944 admitted under seal.
19 Next one.
20 MS. D'ASCOLI: 65 ter 28674 as well to be admitted under seal.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
22 THE REGISTRAR: Receives number P945, Your Honours.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted under seal.
24 Next one.
25 MS. D'ASCOLI: 65 ter 10262 can be admitted as a public document.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
2 THE REGISTRAR: Document 10262 receives number P946,
3 Your Honours.
4 JUDGE ORIE: P946 is admitted.
5 MS. D'ASCOLI: The following one is 09931. As well, a public
7 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Document 09931 receives number P947,
9 Your Honours.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
11 MS. D'ASCOLI: The next 65 ter number is 10297.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Receives number P948, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted. Any need to have it under seal -- no.
15 Street map.
16 Please proceed.
17 MS. D'ASCOLI: Then the next exhibit is 10292, to be admitted
18 under seal.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Document 10292 receives number P949,
21 Your Honours.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted under seal.
23 Please proceed.
24 MS. D'ASCOLI: 10293, under seal.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
1 THE REGISTRAR: Receives number P950, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE ORIE: P950 is admitted under seal.
3 MS. D'ASCOLI: Exhibit -- sorry. 65 ter number 10442. Public
5 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Receives number P951, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE ORIE: P951 is admitted.
8 MS. D'ASCOLI: Prosecution 65 ter number 10112, equally public
10 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Receives number P952, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence as a public exhibit.
13 MS. D'ASCOLI: Prosecution 65 ter number 10260.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Receives number P953, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted.
17 MS. D'ASCOLI: And I have the last two 65 ter numbers.
18 JUDGE ORIE: I thought there were eight remaining, but apparently
19 there are 12 remaining.
20 MS. D'ASCOLI: Well, the first two were the -- there are two
21 lists that we created in order to provide reference to the Chamber, and
22 then there were two associated exhibits, the photo and -- marked and a
23 letter from Dr. Nakas that were not within the medical records. When I
24 was mentioning the eight documents, I was referring purely to medical
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then now the eleventh would be?
2 MS. D'ASCOLI: 65 ter 10424.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Madam Registrar.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Document 10424 receives number P954,
5 Your Honours.
6 JUDGE ORIE: P954 is admitted. Any need to have it under seal?
7 MS. D'ASCOLI: No.
8 JUDGE ORIE: No. Public.
9 Last one.
10 MS. D'ASCOLI: The last one is 65 ter 10099, under seal. Should
11 be admitted under seal.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Receives number P955, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE ORIE: P955 is admitted, under seal.
15 You may proceed, Ms. D'Ascoli.
16 MS. D'ASCOLI: Thank you, Your Honours.
17 I also wanted to put on the record that in reliance of the
18 adjudicated facts we will not tender 65 ter 10080, which is document 16
19 on 65 ter 10293. And this is in reliance on adjudicated facts 2807 and
20 2817. And as well, we will not tender at this time 65 ter 10256 in
21 reliance on adjudicated fact 2801. I just wanted to put this on the
23 JUDGE ORIE: Which is done hereby.
24 MS. D'ASCOLI: Your Honours, with your leave, I will now
25 summarise the written evidence of the witness for the public and the
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Nakas, there's a bit of patience required here.
3 Ms. D'Ascoli will now read a summary of your statement.
4 Please proceed.
5 MS. D'ASCOLI: Thank you, Your Honours.
6 Bakir Nakas is a doctor of medicine who worked as a general
7 manager of the State Hospital, formerly the JNA military hospital, in
8 Sarajevo, throughout the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1992 to 1995.
9 The witness was also one of the expert advisors to the Ministry
10 of Health of Bosnia-Herzegovina, responsible for communications regarding
11 humanitarian aid, as well as a member of a crisis centre, which was an
12 organisation comprised of managers of all health institutions in
14 The witness discusses the shelling and sniping directed at the
15 State Hospital throughout the war and describes its effects upon patients
16 and staff and how that affected the overall functioning of the hospital.
17 The witness further gives evidence about the civilian casualties of the
18 shelling and sniping campaign in Sarajevo and its effects on the
20 In his capacity of general manager of the State Hospital,
21 Dr. Nakas was responsible for the organisation of the hospital, including
22 establishing medical records and documentation for the hospital. In his
23 statement, he authenticates hospital and medical records pertaining to
24 schedule sniping incidents F11, F12, F13, F15, F16, and scheduled
25 shelling incidents G2, G4, G6, G7, G8, G10, G13, G15, and G18.
1 That concludes the summary of the witness evidence.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. If you have any further questions for
3 the witness, you may proceed.
4 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes, Your Honours, I do. Thank you.
5 Q. Dr. Nakas, first of all, I have just a quick question about the
6 location of the State Hospital.
7 Paragraph 12, you describe that the hospital was in the central
8 district of Sarajevo called Marin Dvor. Could you tell us if the
9 hospital was located on a hill or on a plain?
10 A. Marin Dvor is a plain bordering on the centre of Sarajevo. It is
11 surrounded by the slopes of Crni Vrh and a little bit further -- further
12 by the slopes of Trebevic. Which means that the hospital is on a plain
13 at the very foot of Crni Vrh.
14 Q. Thank you. I now want to move to the impact that the shelling
15 and the sniping had on the State Hospital. You discuss this in several
16 parts of your statement, for example, for the record, paragraphs 34 to
18 In paragraph 48, you speak of a deliberate targeting of vital
19 parts of the hospital, of the intention to destroy the hospital as such.
20 Can you explain to the Court how you developed this conclusion or
21 whether anyone told you about such intention or whether you heard it from
23 A. Having been appointment [as interpreted] the person who was
24 supposed to organise the work of the State Hospital in Sarajevo, I spoke
25 to those individuals who had worked in the former military hospital.
1 That was after the 9th of May, 1992. Some of my staff confirmed that
2 some of our previous employees, including an orderly from the internal
3 diseases department, Rajko Krunic, stated that they would destroy the
4 hospital, that they would level it with the ground.
5 As for the confirmations about the hospital being hit and what
6 the real target was, came from a professor of architecture who surveyed
7 the damage on the Sarajevo State Hospital and stated that the eighth
8 floor was the heart of the stability of the central building, and if that
9 eighth floor were to be damaged, the hospital would implode. That was
10 Professor Hadzimusic who, unfortunately, died immediately after the war.
11 Q. And with regard to what you just said, "some of my staff
12 confirmed that previous employees had made such statements," did you also
13 hear any such statements during one of your official gatherings; for
14 example, the meetings of the crisis centre organisation of which you were
15 a part?
16 A. As a member of the Crisis Staff, or, rather, crisis centre - we
17 may call it like that because it is probably easier to translate into
18 English like that. We had an opportunity to discuss on a daily basis the
19 situation in the health service. At one of such meetings, held in 1992,
20 we received information that our earlier colleague, a surgeon,
21 Dragan Kalinic, who was at the time a minister in the government of
22 Republika Srpska, said at one of the working meetings after the military
23 hospital, in their view, had been lost for the JNA and themselves, that
24 it would be good and necessary to target the Kosevo Hospital and other
25 health care institutions, I suppose the military hospital included, in
1 order to reduce the possibility of treating and providing care to the
2 injured citizens of Sarajevo and thereby cause uncertainty in the health
3 services in the surrounded Sarajevo.
4 MS. D'ASCOLI: Your Honours, my next questions implies calling up
5 of an exhibit. I see it is time for a break. It might be convenient to
6 stop at this time.
7 JUDGE ORIE: If it would take you more than two minutes, I would
8 agree that we take the break.
9 But perhaps I have one additional question.
10 Mr. Nakas, you said it was explained to you that the eighth floor
11 was of vital importance. Did you mean to say that therefore the eighth
12 floor was targeted specifically, in order to make the hospital implode?
13 Is that the gist of your testimony?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] During the assessment of damage
15 caused by shelling, Professor Hadzimusic and his team, together with me,
16 made a tour of the hospital and he showed to me a damage to a pillar on
17 the eastern side on the eighth floor. So he said, as an expert, that if
18 that pillar was broken or sustained more damage, the hospital would
19 practically break down and it would implode.
20 So realising that a number of hits were directed on the eighth
21 floor, we supposed that this was an attempt to render the hospital unfit
22 for use.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that answer.
24 We'll take a break first.
25 Would you please follow the usher? We take a break of
1 20 minutes.
2 [The witness stands down]
3 JUDGE ORIE: We will resume at 20 minutes to 2.00.
4 --- Recess taken at 1.21 p.m.
5 --- On resuming at 1.41 p.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 [The witness takes the stand]
9 JUDGE ORIE: You may proceed, Ms. D'Ascoli.
10 MS. D'ASCOLI: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Can I please call up the document marked for identification with
12 P00431. This is a transcript of the 16th session of the RS Assembly,
13 dated the 12th of May, 1992. Can we please go to e-court page 19 of the
14 B/C/S and 17 of the English.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: What is the document?
16 MS. D'ASCOLI: It is a transcript of the --
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: P -- P what?
18 MS. D'ASCOLI: Oh, sorry, P431. This document is marked for
20 Q. Dr. Nakas, we can see at the end of the page that Dragan Kalinic
21 is taking the floor. Do you see that in the original document? It's the
22 last person scheduled to speak.
23 A. Yes. Yes, yes. After Krajisnik, the next speaker is
24 Dragan Kalinic.
25 Q. And you just mentioned Mr. Kalinic in one of your answers some
1 minutes ago. Can you repeat us who Mr. Kalinovic was -- sorry, Kalinic.
2 A. Mr. Kalinic was the health minister in Republika Srpska at the
3 time, and he was a doctor, a surgeon. And it so happened that we took
4 the entrance exam at the Faculty of Medicine together and we also were
5 fellow students for five years together, and we also did our
6 specialisation together at the clinical centre so that we knew each other
7 quite well.
8 MS. D'ASCOLI: Could I now have page 21 of the B/C/S and page 19
9 of the English. It is the speech of Dragan Kalinic that continues to --
10 well, to speak and here in this part he discusses the fact that they have
11 lost the Kosevo Hospital and the military hospital. I read from the
12 English, "it all fell into the hands of the enemy," more or less in the
13 mid of the page of the English.
14 Q. But what -- what I want to ask your comments about, Dr. Nakas, is
15 the very -- is the end of Mr. Kalinic's speech, towards the end, which I
16 think you find -- yes, towards the end of the paragraph in mid page of
17 the B/C/S. And, in English we have it also towards the very end of the
19 Well, towards the very end. It's -- yeah, let's say,
20 three-quarters down to the end. I just want to read from the English one
21 of the statements that he made.
22 Mr. Kalinic says, after having said that they lost the hospitals
23 and talking about the fate of the military hospital:
24 "Let me tell you this right now," I'm quoting, "if the military
25 hospital falls into the hands of the enemy, I am for the destruction of
1 the Kosevo Hospital so that the enemy has nowhere to go for medical
3 Do you see that in the B/C/S, Dr. Nakas?
4 A. Yes, I can see it here.
5 "Let me tell you this right now, if the military hospital falls
6 into the hands of the enemy, I am for the destruction of the
7 Kosevo Hospital so that the enemy has nowhere to go for medical help."
8 Q. Yes, I take it you were reading from the original document;
10 A. Yes, yes. From the original document.
11 Q. Yes. That's the portion of his statement that I also read to you
12 from the English.
13 Dr. Nakas, can you comment on what I just read what was said by
14 the RS Minister of Health, Dragan Kalinic, and whether this was
15 consistent with what you heard in May 1992.
16 A. Yes. That is more or less an explanation of the statement which
17 we heard at the meeting of the Crisis Staff about the necessity of
18 destroying the Kosevo Hospital and making it impossible to use the
19 medical resources in the surrounded city of Sarajevo.
20 Q. Do you remember, more or less, when this meeting you discussed
22 A. It was in the summer, in 1992.
23 Q. Okay. Thank you for that clarification.
24 MS. D'ASCOLI: Your Honours, this document is marked for
25 identification so I would just leave it. And I note in e-court that the
1 parties are supposed to agree about which parts of the document to be --
2 to tender. So we will make sure that, of course, these pages, meaning
3 pages 19 to 21 of the B/C/S, and 17 to 19 of the English, will be part of
4 the portions that we want to submit. But if you believe that it is
5 better to tender this as separate exhibit --
6 JUDGE ORIE: I think on the 1st of November we decided that we'll
7 wait what will be used and that, finally, in order to avoid that we have
8 the totality of a document in evidence --
9 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes, that was my understanding as well.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Then we leave it as it is, and you keep record of
11 what you have used so that you can agree with the Defence on it later --
12 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes, we will, Your Honours.
13 Q. Dr. Nakas, in several parts of your statement, you discuss the
14 shelling and the sniping that hit the State Hospital at different points
15 in time, and you also state that this fire, this shelling, sniper fire,
16 emanated from the areas of Trebevic, Osmice, Vrace, and Grabovica, which
17 were under the control of the Army of the Republika Srpska. And I read
18 this from your statement at paragraphs 21, 25, 30 to 33.
19 Now, can I ask you, what's the basis of your conclusion that the
20 shelling of the fire was the responsibility of the Army of the
21 Republika Srpska, was coming from the areas under their control?
22 A. Well, the foundation of such a statement of mine was based on
23 several facts.
24 One fact was well-known to everyone, including the UNPROFOR and
25 international community; namely, that from May 1992 onwards, this area
1 was under the control of the Serbian forces and the former Yugoslav
2 People's Army.
3 The second fact was that I personally saw tank shells being fired
4 from Vrace and hitting Marin Dvor, including the military hospital, that
5 is to say, the State Hospital in Sarajevo. My secretary was wounded by a
6 shot which was probably fired from a sniper, and, after that, a similar
7 shot hit my office. That convinced me that this was the location from
8 which the majority of mortar fire came, as well as the majority of the
9 projectiles that landed on the State Hospital.
10 Likewise, the fact that everyone in the city and everyone else
11 was well informed about the so-called "Sniper Alley," that was
12 Trscanska Street which directly opens onto the State Hospital from
13 Marsala Tita Street, and it made sniper fire possible in many ways.
14 So these were the various elements that led me to make such an
16 Q. Just one follow-up question to clarify your second -- the second
17 element that made you have -- conclude -- made you -- had such a
19 You say -- when you say you personally saw this fire or some
20 tanks -- shells being fired, from where did you observe this? Where were
21 you located when you -- you saw what you described.
22 A. During the first two months after we had made it possible for the
23 State Hospital to function, due to frequent shellings, most of what we
24 had was moved from upper floors to the basement. However, I insisted
25 that my office remain where the former office of the director of the
1 former military hospital used to be. That is, on the third floor in the
2 policlinic administration building of the State Hospital in Sarajevo.
3 From my room, I had direct access to a terrace which faces Trebevic,
4 Vrace, and Osmice. And on a daily basis, I had an opportunity to look
5 from this terrace or through the open window or open door, and I could
6 watch the firing from that direction and the other activities that were
7 going on there at the time.
8 Q. I will move to another area and I will be seeking your help to
9 clarify or interpret certain medical records.
10 MS. D'ASCOLI: Can I please have on the screens, well, it's now
11 marked with exhibit number P951. This was one of the associated exhibits
12 to the witness statement.
13 This is a criminal investigation file relating to the
14 18th of November, 1994, sniping incident, and in the report there's
15 medical documentation of the victims. It is the Scheduled Incident F12.
16 Q. Dr. Nakas, I would now ask your help to clarify a diagnosis in
17 this document or the way of reading the descriptions that we find in
18 medical records.
19 MS. D'ASCOLI: Can we first go to e-court page 4 of the English
20 and 5 of the B/C/S.
21 Q. Well, first of all, Dr. Nakas, you're familiar with this type of
22 investigation reports; right?
23 A. Yes. This is the standard format of an official report drawn up
24 by police investigators who conducted certain examination and then drew
25 up Official Notes on unfortunate events. Sometimes they would draw them
1 up in my office, and, on other occasions, I had the chance to see them
2 when they came by to check whether some of the persons who were
3 investigated into were treated at the State Hospital, were still there,
4 and then we would, together, compare the findings and the state of health
5 of such patients.
6 So this is a form of official report that I'm quite familiar
8 Q. Now, Dr. Nakas, in this incident of the 18th of November, 1994, a
9 woman and her son were hit by sniper fire. If you can please look
10 towards the end of page 5 of the B/C/S, meaning the page that is now on
11 your screens, I will read for you what the report of the security service
12 centre, CSB, in Sarajevo says.
13 For us, on the English, the part is the penultimate paragraphs.
14 So the report says:
15 "The interview conducted at the Sarajevo KCU administrations and
16 triage dispensary yielded information that the wounded woman,
17 Dzenana Sokolovic, had received an entry-and-exit wound in the abdominal
18 area and was admitted for treatment at the KCU abdominal clinic. The
19 entry wound is on the right, and the exit wound on the left side of the
21 And I will stop here.
22 MS. D'ASCOLI: Now can we please go to e-court page 6 of the
23 English and 10 of the B/C/S.
24 This is a letter of discharge issued by the Sarajevo medical
25 centre for Ms. Sokolovic.
1 Q. Dr. Nakas, can you please read the diagnosis for this patient and
2 tell us what it means. If it's visible on the B/C/S. I see it's a poor
4 A. Yes. It is visible. It says vulnus transsclopetarium tegmenti
5 abdominis, which means that it is an entry/exit wound caused by a
6 fire-arm on the abdominal wall.
7 Q. Thank you.
8 MS. D'ASCOLI: Can we now move to page 7 of the English and 11 of
9 the B/C/S. And if we can zoom in towards the end of the diagnosis.
10 Q. Dr. Nakas, I want to direct your attention to the part of the
11 medical record that says:
12 "Entry point of wound, 0.5 centimetres wide, to the paramedian
13 left, bleeding, and exit point wound, 3 times 2 centimetres, to the
14 paramedian right and bleeding."
15 Can you please clarify what this means in layman's terms.
16 A. In Latin, when you say "median," that means that we're talking
17 about the central line that goes through our body. It's the middle part
18 of our body from the head to the lower extremities.
19 Paramedian means that something is next to that central line, not
20 very far from it, not placed laterally but very close to the median line.
21 It says here that one can see the entry wound on the left side, and on
22 the right side there is an exit wound. Both wounds are bleeding. There
23 is blood coming from both of the wounds.
24 Q. And I note that we just read, if you remember, from the CSB
25 report that the entry wound was on the right side of the victim and the
1 exit wound on the left side of the abdomen of the victim. How would you
2 explain this, in conjunction with what the medical report says?
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic.
4 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Objection, Your Honour.
5 These are questions for an expert witness, not a fact witness.
6 Especially bearing in mind that the medical documentation was issued by
7 the hospital where the witness that we are seeing today did not work at
8 the time.
9 JUDGE ORIE: The objection is denied. The witness may answer the
11 MS. D'ASCOLI:
12 Q. Shall I repeat the question, Dr. Nakas.
13 A. [In English] Yes, please. Please.
14 Q. Yes. We just saw -- I just read from the medical report that the
15 entry wound was on the paramedian left, and the exit wound to the
16 paramedian right. And then I asked if you remember that just some
17 minutes ago I read from the CSB report that the entry wound -- of course,
18 we're talking about the same victim. The entry wound was on the right
19 side of the victim and the exit wound was on the left side of the abdomen
20 of the victim.
21 And I asked you, whether -- as a doctor, when you read such a
22 diagnosis or such an explanation, how can you explain the two documents
24 A. [Interpretation] Well, you see, objectively speaking, when you
25 read both of these documents, you will arrive at a conclusion that they
1 differ in one important fact.
2 In one document, the entry wound is found on the right-hand side,
3 where in the other document it is found on the left-hand side. Bearing
4 in mind the circumstances surrounding all of the developments in the city
5 of Sarajevo, which was encircled, and the burden suffered by those people
6 who were working on treating all those who were wounded and who were sick
7 at the time, mistakes were certainly possible.
8 Even today, we can see that in the United States of America and
9 in Sweden, there are trials conducted against hospitals where a healthy
10 kidney was removed instead of a sick kidney or a healthy leg was operated
11 upon instead of a -- a -- a sick leg. Mistakes are possible.
12 Mis-recording of wounds is possible. And it was particularly prominent
13 when there was no time or technical capabilities to produce accurate
15 The most accurate record would be a photo that would confirm the
16 accuracy of either one or the other document. Unfortunately, at that
17 time, there was no time to make photo documentation of all the cases that
18 we saw.
19 Q. You just discussed the -- the burden, the difficult circumstances
20 suffered by those that were treating the wounded in -- well, in the -- in
21 those days, in those years in Sarajevo.
22 Can I ask you whether, considering the circumstances, this
23 diagnosis of paramedian, right or left, could be based upon the view of
24 the examiner looking at the patient? Meaning the doctor making the
25 diagnosis by looking at the patient, so that the perspective would be the
2 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Objection.
3 The witness is asked to speculate, Your Honour.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE ORIE: What caused the mistake. The witness has explained
6 that mistakes are made, and we leave it to that at this moment.
7 Please proceed, Ms. D'Ascoli.
8 MS. D'ASCOLI: Okay, Your Honours. I will move on.
9 Q. Dr. Nakas, in your statement, for example, paragraphs 67 to 68,
10 you describe also the incident of the 28th of June, 1995, when the Radio
11 Television centre was hit by an air bomb.
12 In describing the injuries of those who received the medical
13 assistance in your hospital, you say that there were also injuries caused
14 by the blast syndrome, meaning injuries suffered to internal organs, in
15 which there is air -- due to the increased air pressure of the
16 explosion -- due to the explosion.
17 This is in your statement. That's why I am recalling this. Can
18 you explain us the difference between a blast injury and the blast
20 A. The blast syndrome is a combination of symptoms that appear in
21 people who are exposed to a direct explosion. It's something that
22 medical professionals come across quite often, and we learn about it
23 during our studies. It's a syndrome that we come across during peace
24 time and especially during war time.
25 Explosions cause certain injuries in the hollow organs within the
1 organism resulting in damage to the lungs, abdomen, ears, and all the
2 other cavities that are filled with air. Due to a blast, heart can stop
3 working which leads to a sudden death. There may be other injuries such
4 as bleeding in the central nervous system, or lungs, or the stomach. So
5 this is a combination of symptom, and depending on the power of the blast
6 and the impact on various types -- parts of the body, can have all sorts
7 of different manifestations.
8 Q. And these last ones you described would be the blast injuries, I
9 take it.
10 A. Yes. These would be the so-called blast injuries, yes.
11 Q. Okay. Thank you for that.
12 Doctor, do you remember viewing also medical records for the
13 victims for the two Markale market incidents, the first on the
14 5th of February, 1994, and the second one on 28th of August, 1995; right?
15 MS. D'ASCOLI: Can I please have on the screen 65 ter 10094.
16 For the record this is also part of the document chart that I
17 will later discuss with the witness and it's document 6 on the chart.
18 Can we please go to e-court page 2 of both the English and the
20 Q. These are post-mortem records from the Kosevo Hospital of people
21 killed at the Markale market incident on 5 -- on the 5th of February,
23 Dr. Nakas, do you remember reviewing these -- this autopsy --
24 this post-mortem records in preparation for your testimony?
25 A. As a matter of fact, these are excerpts from autopsies which were
1 carried out at the school of medicine in Sarajevo. They were performed
2 at the Department of Forensic Medicine in Sarajevo.
3 The documents provide the name, the diagnosis, the injuries, and
4 the causes of death.
5 Q. Can you --
6 A. There's also a statement to the fact that the autopsies were
7 carried out by forensic medical experts, in order to establish the
8 death -- the cause of death.
9 Q. And, sir --
10 A. The documents were all signed by Professor Ilijas Dobraca.
11 Q. Sir, can I ask you to comment on the diagnosis of this autopsy
12 report that we see on the screen.
13 A. The diagnosis is in Latin, and it reads:
14 "Amputatio explosiva extremitatis inferioris."
15 In translation this would mean amputation of lower extremities
16 caused by explosion. The findings point out that the lower extremities
17 were amputated by explosion.
18 MS. D'ASCOLI: Can we now move to the next page. I have one
19 following-up question --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. D'Ascoli --
21 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes, I wanted to finish on this document and then
22 we can take the break. We can adjourn for the day.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. One more question.
24 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yeah, we're now on page 3 of both the English and
25 the B/C/S.
1 Q. And again, Dr. Nakas, I wanted to ask you if you can quickly
2 comment just on the diagnosis, not on the rest of the document.
3 A. It is the blast syndrome. This is the diagnosis. And in
4 addition to that, there is also the diagnosis of vulnus explosivium
5 capitis, thoracis, abdominis et extremitatis inferioris.
6 The final diagnosis is the destructio explosiva pedis sinistri.
7 In other words, this was a blast syndrome and explosive wounds on the
8 head, the thorax, the abdomen, and both extremities. And, as a result
9 there was a complete destruction of the foot of the left leg caused by
11 Q. Yes. I take this last point is in conjunction with the previous
12 elements, with the previous injuries already noted.
13 JUDGE ORIE: This was your last question.
14 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes.
15 Q. I just wanted to ask whether these injuries or causes of death
16 that we notice in the majority of these autopsy reports are consistent
17 with the explosion of a mortar or shell, in your opinion, for what you
18 can see -- say.
19 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Objection.
20 Again, the expert is asked to provide an expert opinion -- or,
21 rather, the witness is required to provide an expert opinion, and this is
22 our main objection to the testimony of this witness.
23 MS. D'ASCOLI: I was just asking for the medical observations
24 with regard to --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Of course, you're asking for medical opinion on
1 whether it's consistent with.
2 Now, you could even say that if your left foot is totally
3 destroyed, if you have explosive wounds on your head, on your body, on
4 your -- and if -- on your extremities, then it comes close to what is
5 common knowledge, I would say. There's no need for the witness to answer
6 the question, I would say.
7 Facts of common knowledge do not need any proof.
8 Ms. D'Ascoli, could you tell us whether this was your last
9 question of your examination?
10 MS. D'ASCOLI: No, not the last question of the examination. The
11 last question for today.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But you indicated that you would need one
13 hour. You are beyond that already. So, therefore --
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE ORIE: 30 minutes was then extended to one hour. You're
16 now over one hour. You're approximately at 64, 65 minutes, and therefore
17 you should consider whether there are really -- I mean, and translation
18 exercise in Latin is, of course, not what we really need. It's certainly
19 a matter to be discussed with the Defence. I mean, the diagnosis, all of
20 that, is just ordinary language.
21 MS. D'ASCOLI: Yes. But I do have other areas to cover, Your
22 Honours. And I believe that most of today was used also for procedural
23 matters and for the admission of exhibits.
24 JUDGE ORIE: That is included in the time schedules. We'll
25 consider. But please prepare for very limited time tomorrow, if at all.
1 MS. D'ASCOLI: I will.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Nakas, I'd like to instruct you, that you should
3 not speak with anyone about your testimony, whether that is testimony
4 you've given today or testimony still to be given tomorrow. We'd like to
5 see you back tomorrow at 9.30 in the morning, in this same courtroom, I.
6 And you may follow the usher.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
8 [The witness stands down]
9 JUDGE ORIE: We adjourn for the day, and we will resume tomorrow,
10 Thursday, the 14th of February, at 9.30 in the morning, in this same
11 Courtroom I.
12 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.21 p.m.,
13 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 14th day of
14 February, 2013, at 9.30 a.m.