1 Friday, 15 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.
6 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours.
8 This is the case IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
10 The Chamber was informed that there was one preliminary matter to
11 be raised.
12 MR. GROOME: Good morning, Your Honours. Thank you.
13 Can I ask that we go into private session for this matter,
14 Your Honour -- oh, I'm sorry.
15 JUDGE ORIE: We move --
16 MR. IVETIC: Your Honour, I'm told there is no B/C/S translation.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Oh. Then we'll have to first check that.
18 [Private session]
11 Page 8717 redacted. Private session.
21 [Open session]
22 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
24 Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
25 Meanwhile, I use the time to -- to deliver the Chamber's decision
1 on admission of a number of documents which have been provisionally
2 assigned exhibit numbers P959 up to and including P976. The parties have
3 received the list of these. P959 up to and including P976 are admitted
4 into evidence; P959 and P960 under seal, the other documents as public
6 [The witness takes the stand]
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. They're all MFI'd. I said -- no.
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE ORIE: They are now admitted.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Suljic.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, good morning.
14 JUDGE ORIE: May I remind that you're still bound by the solemn
15 declaration you've given yesterday at the beginning of your testimony.
16 Ms. Hasan will now continue her examination. Ms. Hasan, you've
17 got your last ten minutes.
18 MS. HASAN: Good morning, Mr. President, Your Honours. Good
19 morning to the Defence and to everyone in the courtroom.
20 WITNESS: EDIN SULJIC [Resumed]
21 [Witness answered through interpreter]
22 Examination by Ms. Hasan: [Continued]
23 Q. Good morning, Witness. If we can just pick up where we left off
24 yesterday, and we can turn to 65 ter 28605, please. And specifically
25 page 31.
1 If you recall, Witness, I was showing you some photographs and
2 asking you whether the photographs depict what you saw, the events that
3 you saw when you were investigating the 8th October 1994 sniping incident
4 and your investigation thereof.
5 Could I ask you to take a look at this photograph and, again,
6 tell us whether the damage to the tram depicted in this photograph
7 comports with your recollection of what you observed and what you
9 A. Yes, the damage reminds me of the events when the incident in
10 question occurred. Damage to the front right part of the tram next to
11 the driver's seat.
12 MS. HASAN: And if we could now turn to page 20, please. Sorry,
13 that's page 22. If we could see page 20, please.
14 Q. Now, Witness, take a look at this photograph. And if you could
15 tell us what it depicts here and whether that also comports with your
17 A. Yes, these are the traces of blood which we found at the scene.
18 And this corresponds to the state which I found there during the on-site
20 MS. HASAN: If we could turn to page 52, please.
21 Q. And, again, Witness, if you can tell us what is depicted in this
22 photograph accords with your recollection.
23 A. Yes, it does.
24 MS. HASAN: Your Honours, at this stage I would offer the pages
25 that were shown to the witness into evidence. Those were pages 38, 39,
1 36 --
2 JUDGE ORIE: They need to be separately uploaded, the three of
3 them, in order to be admitted.
4 And one question, Mr. Ivetic, the pages we just saw, is there any
5 dispute about whether this depicts the scene of the incident as
6 photographed at the time?
7 MR. IVETIC: No, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll wait for the three pages to be uploaded.
9 Usually, Ms. Hasan, if there is a series of photographs is there -- if
10 there's a challenge to either what you see or what it depicts, then it
11 makes sense to ask questions about it. If it is obvious, then there's no
12 need to do that, because the Chamber will then see itself that the broken
13 window is a broken window and that what appear to be blood-stains on the
14 floor are blood-stains on the floor. That's just to inform you that if
15 you're short in time, that this is perhaps of some guidance to you.
16 Please proceed.
17 MS. HASAN: Thank you, Mr. President. I think the exercise I
18 went through --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
20 MS. HASAN: In respect --
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can you please clarify. You have shown us three
22 photographs today and yesterday another one.
23 MS. HASAN: That's correct.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: All together four photographs.
25 MS. HASAN: I believe there are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 all together. I
1 can check the record and make sure that those specific photographs that
2 were shown to the witness and the witness has commented on are uploaded
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You can upload them as a series but we'll
5 check what was admitted yesterday or what was not yet admitted yesterday.
6 Please proceed.
7 Now, the only thing I am wondering, you showed us the last two
8 photographs, page 20 and page 52, I think it was. Is that the --
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE ORIE: Are they depicting the same -- same -- same tram?
11 MS. HASAN: Mr. President, I don't know if you're directing your
12 question to me or to the witness.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'm -- well, I'm asking you because I don't
14 know what you intended to put to the witness.
15 MS. HASAN: They're two separate trams --
16 JUDGE ORIE: They're two separate trams.
17 MS. HASAN: -- that were involved in the incident.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then it's clear to us.
19 Please proceed.
20 MS. HASAN: If we could have 65 ter 28643 displayed on the
21 screens. And if it's possible, could we have page 1 of the English and
22 page 2 of the B/C/S.
23 THE REGISTRAR: No B/C/S, Your Honour.
24 MS. HASAN: I'm sorry, I misspoke. It's 28603.
25 Q. And what this is, it's -- oh. What will be shown is a sketch of
1 a tram, and as soon as that comes up if we could zoom in in the English
2 version on the top right-hand corner, please. There are some notations
3 there. The document bears the date 9 October 1994 and it -- it notes
4 there tram number 206.
5 Witness, you see the translation of the handwritten notations on
6 this sketch in a language that I think you understand. If we could zoom
7 out on the sketch itself.
8 A. Yes, I can see that.
9 Q. And if you could take a look at this sketch. And once you've had
10 a chance to do that, could you tell us whether the damage and the traces
11 of blood noted thereon accord with the location of the damage and the
12 blood as you recall it from your investigation?
13 If you would like us to zoom in on any part of the diagram, let
14 us know.
15 A. As for these sketches, I can confirm that both trams sustained
16 damage in their front part, between the doors which are close to the
17 driver and the next door, in the middle of the tram, as indicated in this
18 sketch. And judging by that, I suppose that this is the sketch of the
19 tram which sustained the damage.
20 MS. HASAN: And if we could turn now to page 6 and 7 of the
21 B/C/S. I don't know if it's possible to see those side by side.
22 Q. Again, we see here another sketch and a translation of the
23 handwritten notations.
24 MS. HASAN: And if we could just briefly zoom in on the top
25 right-hand corner of this sketch to read what it says there. Perhaps a
1 little closer. Thank you.
2 Q. Again, this sketch is dated 9 October 1994. It has a notation
3 that this is tram 236, and there are some additional notations there: An
4 acronym, SBH, indicate which is suspected bullet-hole; and SBF, which is
5 suspected bullet fragment.
6 MS. HASAN: If we could zoom out on the sketch to enable the
7 witness to examine it.
8 Q. And, Witness, could you tell us whether, again, the damage that
9 is noted here on this sketch accords with your investigation of the two
10 trams that were targeted?
11 A. Yes, I can confirm that this is a sketch of the tram in which I
12 conducted the on-site investigation.
13 MS. HASAN: Your Honours, I would then offer 28603 into evidence.
14 MR. IVETIC: No objection.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Document 28603 receives number P977,
17 Your Honours.
18 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
19 Ms. Hasan, I'm looking at the clock. You're approximately at
20 your time.
21 MS. HASAN: And I just have one additional question.
22 JUDGE ORIE: One question.
23 MS. HASAN:
24 Q. Witness, in your Galic testimony you refer to rules of procedure
25 that were followed during the conduct of that investigation of the
1 Markale incident in February 1994. Could you confirm whether or not
2 those same rules of procedure governing the conduct of the investigation
3 were followed in relation to this sniping incident on the 8th of October,
5 A. Yes. In every on-site investigation, we always adhere to the
6 same rules. We would go out to the scene with a team which was led by
7 the investigating judge. There was a forensic officer and officers from
8 the department for war crimes and genocide. We would take notes,
9 establish the identity of the injured and those who were killed, then we
10 confirmed their identity, then ballistics analysis was done, and
11 eventually a report would be drawn up. And that was the well-established
12 procedure for every on-site investigation that we conducted.
13 I could add that if an on-site investigation was like the one in
14 the Markale case where the number of those who were injured or killed was
15 vast, then it wouldn't be a representative of the war crimes and genocide
16 department or it wouldn't be just me as the duty officer but the entire
17 department would participate, because it was necessary to collect as much
18 evidence as possible within as short a time as possible.
19 MS. HASAN: Mr. President, that concludes my direct.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Hasan.
21 Mr. Ivetic, are you ready to cross-examine the witness.
22 MR. IVETIC: I am, Your Honours.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Suljic, you'll now be cross-examined by
24 Mr. Ivetic. Mr. Ivetic is a member of the Mladic Defence team.
25 Please proceed.
1 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
2 Cross-examination by Mr. Ivetic:
3 Q. Sir, I have to advise you that during my questioning, I would
4 please ask that you listen to my question and ensure that your answer
5 directly addresses my question, and that way I hope that we can
6 efficiently move through my questions. Is that understood, sir?
7 JUDGE ORIE: Have you understood what Mr. Ivetic asked you?
8 Mr. Suljic. Mr. Ivetic --
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I have understood.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
11 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
12 Q. First of all, sir, I'd like to ask you some preliminary
13 background questions.
14 Since your Rule 92 ter statement has some information and
15 opinions as to ballistics and forensic analysis - and that's particularly
16 on the 12th page, line 14 through 19; the 13th page, 11 through 18,
17 et cetera - I have to ask you, have you had any training or formal
18 education in ballistics; and if so, when?
19 A. All my Official Notes and reports were drawn up on the basis of
20 statements of experts who gave their assessments at the moment when the
21 on-site investigation was conducted. When I drew up a criminal report, I
22 used the expert opinion of persons who are responsible for ballistics and
23 the forensic --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Suljic, I'm interrupting you. Mr. Ivetic asked
25 you to focus very much -- he didn't ask you on what you relied when you
1 made your reports, but he asked you whether you had undergone any
2 specific training in ballistics.
3 Did you, or did you not?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
5 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
6 Q. And, again, focussing specifically on yourself, have you had any
7 training or formal education in the field of any forensic scientific
9 A. No.
10 Q. And how about forensic pathology. Have you had any training or
11 educational degrees earned or courses taken in the field of forensic
13 A. As for forensic pathology, I had the education that was available
14 to me during my studies. But, apart from that, I did not have any
15 special education in the field.
16 Q. And when you say the education that was available to you, am I
17 correct that this would be the standard programme that all students,
18 regardless of their specialty, had to go through?
19 A. No. No specialty.
20 Q. And so again I ask you, sir, would this be the type of course
21 that all students had to take.
22 A. That's right. Correct.
23 Q. And now I want to ask you about the time that you spent as a
24 member of the armija of BiH. Did you at that time receive any special
25 instruction or training in forensic crater analysis?
1 A. I did not receive any specialty training.
2 Q. And just to complete the picture, with regard to the armija BiH,
3 did you at the time receive any specific training or instruction as to
4 either ballistics or forensic scientific analysis?
5 A. No, I did not receive any training or instruction, either in
6 ballistics or forensic scientific analysis.
7 Q. And to finish off this line of questioning, I would like to ask
8 you: When you first became employed by the CSB Sarajevo, did you at that
9 time undergo any special training or instruction as to the review of --
10 and analysis of craters?
11 A. No, I didn't.
12 Q. And did you at that time when you joined the CSB have any special
13 training or instruction relating to ballistics and/or forensic scientific
15 A. No, I didn't.
16 Q. Thank you, sir. Now I move on to another topic.
17 From the materials that have been disclosed for you and from some
18 of your prior testimony, I know that you were in the armija BiH, so I'd
19 like to focus on that time-period when you were a member of the armija
20 BiH for the following sets of questions.
21 Am I correct that at the beginning of your mobilisation and
22 membership in the armija BiH, your primary task was to provide security
23 to various Territorial Defence buildings and that later you were
24 transferred to provide services in the domain of logistics. Is that
1 A. Yes, that's correct.
2 Q. Now one part that I did not see in either your Rule 92 ter
3 statement or your prior testimony is if you had occasion prior to 1992 to
4 serve your national service in the JNA; and, if so, when and where such
5 service was completed.
6 A. I served in the JNA in 1982 in Sarajevo at the Lukavica barracks.
7 Q. And at the time --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Hasan.
9 MS. HASAN: Just a note for the record. There is no Rule 92 ter
10 statement. His prior testimony has been offered. And I think it's a
11 little bit confusing to the witness to refer to a 92 ter statement which
12 he doesn't understand.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, the Chamber has been offered only the
14 transcript of the previous testimony. So the Chamber, if you're
15 referring to another statement, the Chamber doesn't know --
16 MR. IVETIC: I'm referring to that. That's -- my understanding
17 under the jurisprudence, that's what a prior testimony is referred to
18 under Rule 92 ter in written form.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Well, the Rules say statement or transcript. I
20 think it makes a distinction. But it's clear now that where you said
21 statement that you wanted to refer to the transcript of the previous
23 MR. IVETIC: Correct.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
25 MR. IVETIC: And I make the distinction because the witness might
1 think of testimony as being the entirety of the testimony, and of course
2 the excerpt that is provided by the Prosecution is not that, so we still
3 have that problem.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: On that point, Mr. Ivetic, actually, at page 11,
6 lines 10 to 14, you referred to the same Rule 92 ter statement. I even
7 tried to find out where exactly you were, because you gave us pages and
8 lines and I just couldn't follow you because I was looking for a
9 statement. And when I went to the transcript, I didn't find that
10 information that you referred to at this page.
11 MR. IVETIC: I'll apologise, Your Honours. Perhaps I should read
12 the -- according to me it's the twelfth page in e-court. It is
13 transcript page 6819 in Galic, and it is lines 14 through 19. And then
14 the second one is transcript page 6820, lines 11 through 18. Those were
15 two instances that I was able to highlight. I believe our Rule 92 ter
16 response highlighted one other, and that would be at transcript page
17 6816, lines 7 through 10 and 22 through 25.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: That being said, looking at page 6820, starting
19 from lines 11, in the transcript that witness -- the witness specifically
20 says the information was received from the ballistics experts -- expert.
21 And you say at paragraph 11 -- I beg your pardon, at page 11 on today's
23 "Since your Rule 92 ter statement has some information and
24 opinions as to ballistics and forensic analysis, and that's particularly
25 on page 12, line 14 through 19..."
1 Surely what he says here is not his opinions. So I found your
2 statements here to mischaracterise his testimony in the previous case.
3 MR. IVETIC: I was trying to clarify, Your Honours, because the
4 then the next line says "we tried," so then there is some discussion as
5 to who did what parts of the investigation.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: He is part of the team but is he not the
7 ballistics expert.
8 MR. IVETIC: And now we know that.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: But he says so. We knew that before from the
10 statement and his prior testimony.
11 MR. IVETIC: And then, Your Honours, we have the reports that he
12 has --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, the next line is "We then...," and then
14 continues telling that they interviewed people to find out whether they
15 heard multiple shots, so has got nothing to do with ballistics as such.
16 This is not a debating club. You are invited to take it seriously. That
17 is that if the witness says, I relied on ballistic expertise provided by
18 others, that you know not spend so much time on his ballistic training,
19 because he apparently does not rely on it. That is what --
20 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours --
21 JUDGE ORIE: -- just what Judge Moloto wants to convey to you as
22 a message. And you may proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
23 MR. IVETIC: With a decision pending on our Rule 92 ter response,
24 I have to go through these questions with the witness.
25 JUDGE ORIE: You may proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
1 MR. IVETIC: [Overlapping speakers] ...
2 Q. Now, with regard to the time-period when you were mobilised into
3 the army BiH, sir, and that is June 1992 and onwards: First of all, am I
4 correct that at the beginning you and other soldiers of the armija BiH,
5 at least in your battalion, did not have uniforms?
6 A. In the beginning we didn't have uniforms. We later received
7 uniforms that were tailored and sewn in one of the tailor's shops in
9 Q. During the time-period that you were providing security to
10 various Territorial Defence buildings, could you tell us first if indeed
11 the Territorial Defence headquarters was located in the city centre of
12 Sarajevo at a location known as Ciglana?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And at the time you were providing security services, were the
15 buildings that you and your colleagues secured all deemed important to
16 the work of the Territorial Defence headquarters?
17 A. There was just one building which housed the Territorial Defence
18 headquarters. I can't assess the significance of that particular
20 Q. How many buildings did you and your colleagues provide security
21 for and where were they located? Were they all in the centre of
23 A. My colleagues and I provided security for that one building.
24 There was no other building. There was this one building which housed
25 the Territorial Defence.
1 Q. Thank you for that clarification. Now I want to focus on the
2 time-period after you were transferred to work for a logistics battalion,
3 and I want to know as to both your battalion and the brigade of the
4 armija BiH that it belonged to, if the headquarters of both were located
5 in the part of Sarajevo town known as Stup, which was adjacent to the
6 Ilidza area?
7 A. The Command Staff of our brigade was, indeed, at Stup near
9 Q. And would you agree with me that from this location in Stup, your
10 battalion's activities were to provide logistic support to the forces at
11 the front lines that were engaged in combat with the -- with the VRS, the
12 Bosnian Serb army?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Could you please tell us which brigade your battalion belonged
15 to, the name?
16 A. While I was in the army, it was the 2nd Motorised. The 2nd or
17 the 3rd; I'm not sure anymore.
18 Q. I -- if I can refresh your recollection, if you testified during
19 Galic that it was the 3rd, would that refresh your recollection of
20 whether it was the 2nd or the 3rd?
21 A. I suppose that it was the 3rd. My memory must have served me
22 better at the time. So I suppose it's the 3rd.
23 Q. Okay. And as far as this brigade, whether it's the 2nd or the
24 3rd is irrelevant for my questions, but this motorised brigade, am I
25 correct that in addition to automatic weapons such as Kalashnikovs and
1 automatic rifles, the brigade also had other armaments or what would be
2 called heavy weapons or in the native language "orudje"?
3 A. As far as I remember, it did not. On occasion, a tank would
4 arrive from some other brigade. As far as I remember, it came two or
5 three times.
6 Q. Thank you, sir. And at time-period when you were part of armija
7 BiH, am I correct that you witnessed members of that army with infantry
8 weapons that were equipped with sniper sights?
9 A. There was a kitchen in the logistics battalion. Soldiers would
10 come there bearing rifles mounted with sniper sights.
11 Q. Thank you, sir. And could you please verify for us the area of
12 Stup where your brigade battalion were headquartered? Am I correct that
13 there was also an armed formation of the so-called HVO, the Croat Defence
14 Council, known as the Kralj Tvrtko unit also based in that area?
15 A. There was a HVO unit and I think that it was called the
16 Kralj Tvrtko.
17 Q. Now in addition to your battalion and your brigade in this
18 region, and this HVO unit, whether it was Kralj Tvrtko or something else,
19 am I correct that in addition to these forces of the forces of an
20 individual named Juka Prazina would also pass through and be engaged in
21 Stup although they were not permanently stationed there?
22 A. When combat activities were fiercer, we would receive
23 reinforcements from other units.
24 As far as I recall, Juka Prazina's units spent only a short
25 period of time in town before being deployed to Igman. It is possible
1 that in that early period they would come over there. Later on that was
2 not the case because they were deployed out of town.
3 Q. And with respect to Juka Prazina at the time when you left the
4 army and moved over to the police, did you have any other further
5 information or dealings with Mr. Prazina?
6 A. No, I didn't. When I transferred to the police, at that time I
7 believe Juka Prazina's units were already out of town.
8 Q. And when you say they were out of town am I correct that at some
9 point in time Mr. Prazina came into conflict with the remainder of the
10 armija BiH, and there was fighting that broke out between his units and
11 other elements of the armija BiH?
12 A. If I can give my opinion here, my feeling was that the unit was
13 operating outside of the system, and I believe that there was some
14 internal conflict going on as well.
15 Q. And just to be clear, sir, in your answer you say the unit, are
16 you talking about the unit led by Mr. Juka Prazina?
17 A. Yes, that's the unit I'm talking about.
18 Q. Before I move to your time spent in the CSB Sarajevo, that is the
19 police, I'd like to ask about one more armed formation. And this one is
20 of the armija BiH, and I want to ask you about the so-called Seve Unit.
21 Am I correct that after the war you for the first time learned about the
22 existence of this clandestine special unit of the armija BiH?
23 A. Yes, that's correct.
24 Q. And did some of the information that you learned after the war
25 include information or allegations that the Seve Unit was engaged in
1 staging attacks against its own side, that is, against citizens loyal to
2 the armija BiH so that the Serb side could be blamed for those attacks?
3 A. After the war, I joined the civilian authorities and had -- and
4 in fact during the war, I had no knowledge of that Seve Unit. All the
5 subsequent knowledge I have of it comes from the daily newspapers.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Suljic, the question was whether that
7 information included that the Seve Unit was engaged in staging attacks
8 against its own side.
9 Was that part of what you learned, as I do now understand, from
10 the newspapers?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That, too, is something I came to
12 know from the newspapers. During the war, I had no knowledge whatsoever
13 of the existence of the Seve Unit.
14 MR. IVETIC:
15 Q. Thank you, sir.
16 MR. IVETIC: I'd now to look at 65 ter number 1D00423.
17 Q. And, sir, while we wait for that I can advise you that the
18 document is an information report of the discussions of another witness,
19 General Sir Michael Rose, with the Prosecution dated 29 August 2009. And
20 when that document comes up, if we can have page 3 of the same.
21 MR. IVETIC: I believe it might actually be the -- the next page
22 in the B/C/S. As I'm not seeing the same text on the screen. And,
23 indeed, it's actually the next page because it's ...
24 Okay. It's the last paragraph on the -- on the B/C/S. Thank
1 Q. Sir, if can you follow along with me, the section I'd like to ask
2 you about here reads as follows:
3 "I am sure that the Serbs were firing at the trams, but I believe
4 Ganic also organised his secret police to snipe trams. His sniper unit
5 sniped so that the angle of the shot matched the direction to the Serb
6 line. During long cease-fires, I think that [sic] Ganic and the Muslims
7 were responsible for breaking the cease-fire. This kept the tension."
8 And, sir, first of all, I have to ask you: Did you have the same
9 information about Bosnian Presidency secret police snipers sniping at
10 trams and mimicking the direction of Serb fire, did you have any such
11 information during the time-period that you were doing investigations of
12 attacks on trams?
13 A. No, I didn't have knowledge to that effect.
14 Q. Did the information that you obtained after the war about the
15 so-called Seve Unit, did it include this type of activity that
16 General Rose is linking to the secret police of Mr. Ganic?
17 A. I didn't go about gathering information about the Seve Unit.
18 Q. My question was related to the information you obtained from the
19 public media after the war. Did it include information similar to what
20 is described here as the activity of the secret police under Mr. Ganic?
21 A. The information I had about the Seve Unit concerned, for the
22 better part, the liquidations within the MUP and their units. That's
23 something that I learnt about from the newspapers. The liquidations
24 within the armija BiH and the MUP. I didn't have any knowledge to the
25 effect that this unit was being used as a terrorist unit.
1 Q. Thank you, sir. And, sir, now I think I'd like to move to the
2 time-period you spent working for the CSB Sarajevo.
3 First of all, sir, I want to -- well, let's start at -- let's
4 start at your Rule 92 ter prior testimony that has been accepted by this
5 Chamber. And that is P957, marked for identification, and if we can have
6 page 2 in e-court. And for your information, sir, lines 11 through 20
7 talk about how you first came to apply for a position within the CSB due
8 to a suggested -- due to a suggestion from a friend, so we do not need to
9 hear about that again. But I do want to focus on asking you if prior to
10 applying for this position within the CSB you had had any prior
11 experience working with any police forces; that is, prior -- prior to
12 this outbreak of the war?
13 A. No, I didn't.
14 Q. And in this regard if we look at your Rule 92 ter prior
15 testimony, again, it's on page 2 and it is lines 5 through 8, so this
16 would be transcript 6809 of the Galic proceedings. And, here -- well, I
17 guess I should read for you the selection, sir, so you can get the
18 translation because my recollection is that you do not understand
19 English. So please follow along with me, sir.
20 "Q. And this CSB as it was called then is or was the regular
21 police force for Sarajevo, was it?
22 "A. Yes. The CSB, the Security Services Centre, was an
23 institution belonging to the state, and it also existed there before the
24 war, and it continued being a security service centre during the war, and
25 it operated under the same principles as it had before the war."
1 And I'd like to ask you, sir, about the last part of that answer
2 that was in your prior testimony. And I want to ask you since you did
3 not have any prior experience working for the CSB, what is the bases for
4 your assertion that they operated under the same principles as they had
5 prior to the war?
6 A. When I joined the CSB, the heads of services were, for the most
7 part, people who had been in the same position during the -- before the
8 war. They taught us what it was that was relevant to document a crime,
9 and they assisted us initially in the drafting of criminal reports before
10 we became fully trained and able to do the job independently.
11 Based on their explanations and experiences, I came to learn that
12 those were the same methods that they been applying before the war, since
13 they continued applying their well-established method of work during the
14 war and after the war.
15 Q. Okay. Thank you for that information, sir.
16 And -- we'll get to that later. If -- I'd like to stay on this
17 page of the prior testimony that's been submitted under Rule 92 ter, and
18 I would like to, if possible, focus on lines 24 through 25.
19 And here, sir, you identify that you started to work -- I
20 apologise. It's at -- that's not accurate. It's lines 11 through 25, I
22 Here you state that you started to work at the CSB in
23 September of 1993 and you did not offer any corrections, and so I'd like
24 to ask you, sir, isn't it correct that you were a member of the armija
25 BiH until December of 1993, not September of 1993?
1 A. I can't state that with any certainty anymore.
2 Q. Let me try to refresh your recollection.
3 MR. IVETIC: If we can call up 1D787. And this is the complete
4 transcript from Galic for this day. And if we can have page 60 in
5 e-court. And lines 9 through 11 on the screen.
6 Q. And, sir, again, I would have to read for you since it's in the
7 English, so please follow along and bear with me.
8 "Q. You told us that you were a member of the army BiH, the
9 3rd Motorised Brigade, until December 1993. Is that correct?
10 "A. Yes."
11 Does this serve to refresh your recollection as to when you would
12 have left the armija BiH to join the CSB Sarajevo?
13 A. My recollections at present are such that when I joined the CSB,
14 I worked for a period of time in the department for theft, burglaries,
15 and material damage. Only later on was I transferred to the department
16 for war crimes and genocide. Since Markale happened in the month of
17 February, I must have been working on other on-site investigations for a
18 while because Markale was not my first on-site investigation. But I
19 cannot confirm the dates of my time there.
20 MR. IVETIC: If we can turn to page 58 of the document that is on
21 the screen now. And that would be equivalent to transcript page 6864 in
22 the Galic proceedings and lines 20 through 25, and then it will bleed on
23 to -- up to line 3 on the next page.
24 Q. But, sir, I'd like to present this portion of your prior
25 testimony to you to just try and clear up this aspect.
1 "Q. You told us that after two or three months you were tasked to
2 join the logistics battalion, if I understand you correctly?
3 "A. Yes, you did.
4 "Q. Can you please tell us, this logistics battalion, what
5 formation as it a part of, what formation it belonged to?
6 "A. I think it was in September 1992, that is when the brigades
7 were established or set up. At that time, I was a member of the
8 3rd Motorised Brigade, and there was this logistics battalion which was a
9 part of the brigade."
10 Does this refresh your recollection that you were only
11 transferred to the logistics battalion of the 3rd Motorised Brigade in
12 September of 1993?
13 JUDGE ORIE: You read 1992, Mr. Ivetic. At least that's how it
14 appears in the transcript.
15 MR. IVETIC: I apologise.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please verify what you read, whether that
17 accurately reflects ...
18 MR. IVETIC: I apologise. Then I withdraw the question,
19 Your Honours.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
21 But perhaps we take a break --
22 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honours.
23 JUDGE ORIE: -- first.
24 Witness, we'll take a break of 20 minutes. May I invite you to
25 follow the usher.
1 [The witness stands down]
2 JUDGE ORIE: We resume at five minutes to 11.00.
3 --- Recess taken at 10.35 a.m.
4 --- On resuming at 10.56 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted in the courtroom.
6 Meanwhile, Mr. Stojanovic, yesterday the Prosecution filed an
7 urgent motion to add five documents to its 65 ter exhibit list to be
8 tendered through Witnesses RM048 and RM013. It is urgent because the
9 witnesses are scheduled already for next week. It is submitted that the
10 documents are short and that there would be no prejudice.
11 Could we, if possible, hear from the Defence today so an
12 expedited response to this urgent motion. And I can imagine that you're
13 not very amused by the short time given, especially since there are not a
14 lot -- lot of explanation as to why it came so late.
15 But, if possible, we'd like to hear from you today. Yes?
16 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes.
17 [The witness takes the stand]
18 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. By the end of
19 the working hours today, we will give you a response to this request of
20 the Prosecution, and the Prosecutor submitted to us hard copies of the
21 relevant documents yesterday.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
23 Mr. Suljic, apologies for continuing to do something else.
24 Mr. Ivetic will now continue his cross-examination.
25 Mr. Ivetic, you may proceed.
1 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
2 Q. Sir, you indicated before the break at temporary transcript page
3 23, that your superiors within the CSB assisted you in drafting criminal
4 reports until you were fully trained.
5 Now, you joined the war crimes and genocide department in
6 January of 1994, and the Markale incident was in February of 1994. Am I
7 to understand from those two parts of your testimony that the superiors
8 of the Department of War Crimes and Genocide had a role in assisting you
9 to draft the criminal report and documentation relating to the Markale
10 incident that occurred in February of 1994?
11 A. No, the training about conducting an on-site investigation and
12 drafting criminal reports was something I received in the beginning while
13 I was still working in the department in charge of theft and burglary.
14 As for the department for war crimes, we did not receive such training
15 there. We did this part of the work independently because it was
16 considered that we were already well versed enough to do this on our own
17 and also to draft criminal reports.
18 Q. Thank you, sir. Now I want to ask you, since I'm confused by the
19 name. It's known as the Department of War Crimes and Genocide. So I'd
20 like to know what was the criteria that you used within the department to
21 determine or distinguish if an incident was to be investigated as
22 genocide or not?
23 A. Whenever the consequence of an incident was death or wounding of
24 civilians caused by shelling or sniping, the Department of War Crimes and
25 Genocide was in charge of the on-site investigation.
1 Q. Am I correct that there was also a department for crimes of
2 blood, "krvni delikti," in the CSB Sarajevo?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Wasn't that department also charged with examining incidents
5 where there were persons that were injured or killed?
6 A. Yes. But these were incidents of clashes among civilians rather
7 than persons who were injured by the effects of shelling or sniping.
8 Q. And was it the policy in your department to always refer to the
9 Bosnian Serb side as the, quote/unquote, aggressor forces?
10 A. Yes, that was the term in use at the time.
11 Q. Did you, in the course of performing your duties within this
12 department of the CSB Sarajevo, ever have occasion to investigate a case
13 yourself or hear of one of your colleagues investigating a case against a
14 suspected Bosnian Muslim perpetrator?
15 A. The question is not quite clear. What do you mean by
16 "perpetrators being Bosnian Muslims"? Do you mean civilians or someone
17 else? Who specifically do you have in mind?
18 Q. I mean any Bosnian Muslims of any nature; whether army, or
19 civilian, police, any armed force. Did you investigate any incidents
20 against any suspected perpetrators that were Bosnian Muslims.
21 A. If the perpetrators were members of the BH army, then the
22 investigation was conducted by the military police. If a perpetrator was
23 a citizen of Sarajevo, then the violent crimes department was this
24 charge. We were in charge of on-site investigations in incidents where
25 someone died or was injured, as a consequence of shelling or sniping.
1 Q. Sir, do you permit the possibility that in an instance of
2 shelling or sniping at the time that an incident occurs you do not know
3 who the perpetrator is; is that correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Was it the standard operating procedure of your department to
6 work from the starting assumption that the Bosnian Serb side was
7 responsible for every shelling and sniping incident that you
9 A. Our department worked on the basis of information we received
10 from the information centre of the CSB. We went out to the scene to
11 conduct the on-site investigation if civilians were wounded or killed.
12 There were assumptions about the position from which a projectile may
13 have arrived until the team of forensic experts and ballistic experts
14 determined where it had, indeed, come from. And from that point on, we
15 worked not on the basis of assumptions but on the basis of physical
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, to the extent you intended to raise the
18 issue that during investigations the investigators may not have had a
19 sufficiently open mind as to whom may have been the perpetrators, you
20 perfectly succeeded in drawing your attention to that element. You even
21 could have done it in approximately 25 percent of the time you used for
22 it. But you may proceed.
23 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
24 If we could focus on the so-called first Markale incident of
25 5 February 1994.
1 Q. Am I correct that you, the duty officer on that day, received
2 information about this incident during normal working hours from your
3 chief -- from the chief of your department?
4 A. Yes. I was the inspector on duty. And after the end of my duty
5 hours, I had to continue working on the following day, up until 4.00 p.m.
6 That was the standard procedure. On this following day, I received the
7 information that a massacre had been perpetrated in Markale and I
8 received an order from my immediate superior to form a team and go out to
9 the scene in order to conduct the on-site investigation.
10 Q. I'd like focus on something that you just said and to help
11 everyone who is following along.
12 MR. IVETIC: If we could have P957 MFI up on the screen, and if
13 we can have page 3 in e-court. That should correlate to transcript page
14 6810 of the underlying Galic transcript, and at lines 10 through 19, I
15 believe, is the section that correlates to some of what the witness just
16 spoke of.
17 And I wanted to -- to see if I'm understanding you correctly,
18 sir, based upon what you had just testified about.
19 Am I to understand that you had been on duty and working already
20 from -- as of 4.00 p.m. the day before the Markale incident, that is, the
21 4th of February, 1994, when you heard about the incident on the afternoon
22 of February 5th, 1994?
23 A. I was on duty since 8.00 a.m. on the 4th of February.
24 Q. Thank you. So you had already been working, then, in excess of
25 24 hours. Is that accurate?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Now, do you recall if it was a busy shift for you? That is to
3 say, were there other cases that you were involved in on that day or the
4 previous day?
5 JUDGE ORIE: Could I just first verify exactly.
6 You said on the 4th of February you were on duty since 8.00 in
7 the morning. Did you have any sleep until the -- the 5th? Did you sleep
8 at night, did you find ...
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No activities are engaged in during
10 the duty. There are the rooms where the duty officer stays and sleeps.
11 And only if it's necessary, if the security services call him, then he
12 has to engage in any activities. And throughout this time, the duty
13 officer has at his disposals rooms for rest, including sleep.
14 JUDGE ORIE: And the night, from the 4th until the 5th, did you
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, certainly.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
18 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
19 Q. Now, here, in your -- in your prior testimony that has been
20 accepted under Rule 92 ter at lines 15 through 16, you state that:
21 "The shelling on the Markale market and the massacre of the
22 Markale market occurred ..."
23 And I want to ask you, sir, at the time that you received
24 information from your department chief, were your superiors and even
25 yourselves already calling this incident a massacre by the Serbs?
1 A. We received information that the projectile exploded at the
2 Markale market and that there were many dead and injured persons. So we
3 used this term internally in the sense that a massacre had occurred.
4 That meant that there were many people who were dead and injured.
5 Q. Okay. Now I'd like to go through some of the specific
6 recollections that you have as to this incident in question and the
7 investigation you were a part of.
8 MR. IVETIC: First of all, if we can have page 4 in e-court of
9 this prior testimony under Rule 92 ter. That should be transcript page
10 6811 of the underlying transcript, and lines 18 through 20. Or it might
11 even be 16. I'd like to present that portion to you of your answer and
12 then ask you some follow-up questions.
13 Here, from, I would start at line 16, and read it -- reads as
15 "The site was already secured. The police had proceeded to do
16 that, police from the Stari Grad Police Station. And on site of the
17 Markale market, it was not possible to approach that perimeter. Nobody
18 had access to it aside from us, who had come there to carry out the
19 on-site investigation."
20 And now I want to ask you, sir, when you say "nobody had access
21 to it aside from us," is the "us" in this selection referring to the
22 investigative from the CSB and the investigative judge or to any other
24 MS. HASAN: Mr. President.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Hasan.
1 MS. HASAN: I think it's fair to read the entire answer to the --
2 the witness gave because it puts it in context.
3 JUDGE ORIE: [Microphone not activated]... entire answer,
4 Mr. Ivetic.
5 MR. IVETIC: Sure.
6 Q. I will begin then at line 13. Please follow along, sir.
7 "A. On site, when we arrived, we found traces of blood, scattered
8 objects that were on the stalls, human body parts, as well as a great
9 number of citizens that were in a state of panic. And they watched the
10 scene in terror. The site was already secured. The police had proceeded
11 to do that, police from the Stari Grad Police Station. And on site of
12 the Markale market, it was not possible to approach that perimeter.
13 Nobody had access to it aside from us, who had come there to carry out
14 the on-site investigation."
15 And, sir, my question was when you say "nobody had access to
16 aside from us," is the "us" in this selection meant to include only the
17 investigative judge and the investigative team from the CSB Sarajevo?
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, this may create some confusion.
19 When you said "nobody had access," did you mean that no one was,
20 apart from you, were allowed to move into that area? Or did you intend
21 to say that there was no -- there were no persons, others, than you and
22 your team, on that place?
23 The word "access," therefore, is it new people coming in or was
24 everyone removed who was there already?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At the moment when we came to the
1 scene, it was secured for the purpose of conducting the on-site
2 investigation. Securing the scene means that the policemen secure it so
3 that unauthorised persons cannot have access to it. As there were many
4 citizens gathered around the Markale market who took part in saving
5 people and property, the police prohibited these people from coming
6 closer to the scene. That is to say, the Markale market. So there was
7 tape, limiting off the space, and no one was allowed to enter that space
8 apart from the investigators. And let me just add that members of
9 UNPROFOR were also present and also had access to the scene of the
11 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
12 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
13 Q. You mentioned members of UNPROFOR. Am I correct that already at
14 the time that you arrived at the scene that the -- I believe the
15 investigative judge, Mr. Kanlic, spoke with the UNPROFOR personnel and
16 learned that they had already carried out some investigations on the
18 A. Members of UNPROFOR arrived to the scene before us, and, together
19 with our investigating team, they participated in conducting the on-site
20 investigation. Whether they undertook any activities before that, that's
21 something I don't know. But I know that during the work of forensic
22 technicians and ballistic experts, they participated in that work.
23 Q. Based on your answer, then, I would like to look at 1D789 which
24 while we wait for it, sir, is a statement you gave in 2001 to the Office
25 of the Prosecutor of this Tribunal.
1 And, first off, sir, while we have the first page up, is that
2 your signature in the bottom right-hand corner of the document?
3 A. Yes, it is.
4 Q. If we can turn to the second page in both languages, and I
5 believe it's the third paragraph from the top in both languages. And the
6 selection reads as follows, sir:
7 "When we got to the Markale area, I met with UN representatives
8 who had arrived before us. Mr. Kanlic spoke with them and we learned
9 that they had already carried out some investigations at the site. All
10 of the victims and casualties had been removed."
11 Does that refresh your recollection as to whether you knew and
12 had personal knowledge that the UNPROFOR investigators had already
13 performed some investigations before you arrived?
14 A. I was not an eye-witness of these activities, and I do not know
15 whether UNPROFOR members really carried out these activities. What this
16 statement contains, it's a statement which I received from
17 Mr. Asim Kanlic, a judge, and I don't know what they discussed. I did
18 not understand it as I do not speak the English language.
19 Q. Fair enough, sir. And just to complete the record, am I correct
20 that it took somewhere between a half-hour and an hour for you to put
21 together the team and to set out for the Markale market location after
22 being informed of the -- of an explosion by your superiors?
23 A. That was approximately the time needed to set up the
24 investigating team.
25 Q. Okay. With regard to when you -- first of all, with regard to
1 the standard operating procedures at the CSB Sarajevo during the time of
2 your employment, was it standard procedure that crime technicians would
3 take photographs at the scene of a crime, especially noting positions of
4 any dead bodies and forensic evidence samples?
5 A. No. Forensic technicians do not take photographs of bodies.
6 They take photographs of the traces of an exploded projectile. And, in
7 principle, the bodies are always transported away before the
8 investigating team comes to the scene. Because the citizens usually
9 drive all the injured and wounded to health institutions. And, as for
10 dead bodies, the photographs of them are taken in the morgue.
11 Q. Okay. Let me ask you this question. Was it the standard
12 operating procedure of the CSB Sarajevo to take photographs of all
13 persons who were deceased as a result of an incident that you were
15 A. The photo file mostly implied that as well.
16 Q. I'm a little unsure what you mean "mostly implied that as well."
17 Was that standard operating procedure of CSB Sarajevo or was it not?
18 A. Yes, that was the standard operating procedure.
19 Q. Was the standard operating procedure followed for the
20 investigation of the Markale I incident, 5 February 1994?
21 A. As far as I remember, yes, it was.
22 Q. And so we should have photographs of 67 corpses of persons
23 deceased as a result of the investigation in the file?
24 A. We should have all these photographs, in view of the standard
25 operating procedure.
1 Q. Thank you, sir. Now, with regard to the scene at Markale, you
2 were asked by the Prosecution to say what you had -- what you had saw.
3 And I understand that your primary role was in regards to identifying the
4 injured and those who been killed, but I also want to ask you about the
5 scene before moving onto that part that you performed.
6 Can you -- can you please confirm for us if there were stalls at
7 the Markale market that were undamaged at the time that you arrived with
8 the rest of your team.
9 A. The Markale market takes a big surface, and there were really
10 many stalls on it. So I cannot say with any certainty whether there were
11 any stalls that remained undamaged.
12 Q. How about near the site where the crater was?
13 A. Yes. All the stalls were down in that area, and there were many
14 traces of blood. There were goods on the stalls that had not been
15 toppled, and also on the ground, below the stalls, scattered around.
16 So that was the first impression that I had on arrival to the
18 Q. Can you verify for us that you were physically present at the
19 scene when the tail fin was discovered?
20 A. Yes, I was present.
21 Q. Do you recall whether it was an UNPROFOR member or a member of
22 your team who first noticed the tail fin?
23 A. I could not say with any certainty who first noticed the tail fin
24 of the shell.
25 Q. In any event, do you know who removed the tail fin from the
2 A. I think that a member of the UNPROFOR removed the tail fin from
3 the asphalt surface.
4 Q. Did anyone from either the UNPROFOR team or from your team at
5 that time remark that the location of the tail fin was odd; that is, the
6 manner in which it was buried was unexpected?
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, to answer such a question we would have
8 to know what "odd" means and what you would expect under the
9 circumstances. Because if the witness answers the question, he may have
10 had different expectations than you may have had or I may have had or
11 others at the scene may have had.
12 MR. IVETIC: And I believe we can follow up on that if he answers
13 that anyone said anything. If people didn't say anything, then it's a
15 JUDGE ORIE: If you want to ask the witness whether anyone said
16 anything about it, then that's a different question. Of course, you can
17 ask that question.
18 MR. IVETIC:
19 Q. Sir, did anyone either from your team or from the UNPROFOR
20 investigative team say anything about the manner in which the tail fin
21 was buried?
22 A. There were no comments about the way in which the tail fin was
23 buried. Actually, it was not buried. It broke through the asphalt
24 surface on impact and that was where it exploded. I had seen the tail
25 fins of projectiles earlier during other onsite investigations and this
1 one was not special in any way compared to the other on-site
2 investigations that I had conducted.
3 Q. And how long did you stay at the scene at Markale before going to
4 the hospital to continue your portion of the investigation?
5 A. I suppose that it took us an hour, an hour and a half, to carry
6 out the on-site investigation.
7 Q. And we've both been talking about UNPROFOR or UN investigators.
8 Can you verify for me if these UNPROFOR personnel in question were of the
9 French nationality?
10 A. Yes, I can confirm that.
11 Q. And did anyone at the scene from either the French UNPROFOR
12 personnel or your own forensic personnel mention that they felt the shell
13 had exploded above ground rather than at ground level?
14 A. There were no such comments. Based on my experience from earlier
15 on-site investigations, I could tell that it had exploded on impact as it
16 hit the ground, and this was obvious from the rose-shaped impression that
17 the projectile left, which meant that it had first hit the ground. And,
18 in essence, the pattern that the projectile left was substantially the
19 same as the ones that I had seen in earlier on-site investigations, and,
20 from what I know, forensic officers and ballistics officers use the
21 pattern to establish the direction of fire.
22 Q. I'd like to ask you about some of your observations of the work
23 of the two ballistics teams concerned; that is, your team and the French
24 team. I'd like to focus on your prior testimony.
25 MR. IVETIC: If we can have 1D788 up on the screen. And this
1 should be at page 5 in e-court, which should correlate to 6901 of the
2 Galic case, and lines 9 through 16.
3 Q. And, sir, I will have to read for you so you can have translation
4 of your prior testimony since there is no translation. So please follow:
5 "Q. Can you please tell us on the basis of what did the
6 ballistics expert determine the direction from which the shell had come
8 "A. Both the ballistics experts and the UN representatives used
9 the same method. The ballistics experts applied the usual methods to
10 determine the direction from which the shell had come in, using the
11 pendant and the compass, the rule, and -- the ruler, and perhaps some
12 other devices. But these were the basic elements they used to determine
13 the direction from which the shell had come ..."
14 Now, can you confirm, sir, for us your previous testimony as
15 being truthful and accurate as to this point that the UN and the Bosnian
16 investigators used the same method to determine the direction of the
18 A. In my earlier testimony, I spoke about what I had seen. I saw
19 them use a pendant, a ruler, protractor; and at the end of the on-site
20 investigation, the information I obtained was that the analysis made by
21 our investigators was consistent with that made by UNPROFOR
23 Q. And this method that you say you saw being used, was it being
24 used both by the UNPROFOR personnel present and by your own
1 A. Yes. Both of them were determining what the angle of descent was
2 based on the pendant and protractor. They would mark the spot with chalk
3 where the traces of the shell shrapnel were, because they would also be
4 indicative of the direction of fire, as well as the rose-shaped pattern.
5 That was my understanding of what it was that they were doing.
6 Q. And just so we're clear, this was the -- this was on the first
7 day, that is, on the 5th of February, 1994, the same French investigators
8 that you saw when you arrived at the scene?
9 A. I didn't understand the question.
10 JUDGE ORIE: The question is -- you told us that you observed
11 them to determine the direction of fire, as you said, in the way you
12 usually observed it, and similarly done by your people and the UNPROFOR.
13 The question was whether the UNPROFOR members dealing with this
14 investigation you described, whether those were the same French members
15 of UNPROFOR you referred to earlier.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We began the on-site investigation
17 on the 5th and continued on the following day. I'm not sure anymore
18 whether they were the same UNPROFOR members.
19 JUDGE ORIE: On the second day, the same as the first day; or --
20 is that what are you saying, that you're not certain -- sure about?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I'm not sure what it was that
22 was done on the first day as opposed to the second. I don't remember,
24 JUDGE ORIE: Do you remember that these were French members on
25 the first day and exclusively French members, or are you not certain
1 about that either?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that they were -- actually,
3 it's hard for me to answer the question because I was making my
4 conclusions on the basis of the language spoken by these individuals. I
5 think that it was the French on the first day, but I do allow for the
6 possibility that I might be mistaken.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
8 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
9 Q. Well, let me go through all the possibilities.
10 MR. IVETIC: First, if we can call up Exhibit P538 from the
11 Prosecution list. This is the excerpted report of the UNPROFOR
12 investigation as to this incident. And if we can have page 10 in the
13 B/C/S and page 8 in the English up on the screen. And the English --
14 it's the first paragraph of the B/C/S and also the first paragraph in the
15 English, although the title in the B/C/S is apparently still on the prior
17 Q. But this relates to the FrenchBat 4 team crater analysis, sir,
18 and as you can follow along, and it says that:
19 "This was the first crater analysis after the explosion. The
20 FreBat 4 team used a method which was unconventional in that the two
21 members individually stood over the centre of the crater and by looking
22 at the ground, and the shrapnel scrape pattern thereon, estimated the
23 centre of the direction from which the round might have come. They then
24 took a compass bearing along this estimated line, and noted this as their
25 result. Comment: To obtain an alignment, it is essential to fix two
1 points along a line and shoot the bearing based on these two points.
2 The accuracy of the method used by this team is therefore suspect."
3 Sir, I want to ask you, did any of your technical personnel or
4 ballistics experts on the CSB side comment at any time that the method
5 that was being used by the French team in the first crater analysis was
6 unconventional or that its accuracy was suspect?
7 A. I didn't hear any comments about the method used to determine the
8 impact of projectile as being suspect. I told you what you I knew about
9 the method used to determine the impact of the projectile.
10 Q. Thank you, sir. I appreciate that. And I'm -- whenever I ask a
11 question, I'm only concerned about what you observed or heard, so
12 we're -- I think we're both on the same page on that.
13 I'd like to now address the point of the 6th of February and the
14 investigators who were present there. I believe I have a method of
15 assisting you on that.
16 MR. IVETIC: If we can have 1D789 up on the screen.
17 Q. And this would again be the 2001 statement which you gave to the
18 Prosecution. And I believe that will on page 3 of both versions, page 3
19 in both versions, at the top of the page, in both versions, although it's
20 the second paragraph in the English version, I believe here you talk
21 about this second trip to the Markale site on the 6th of February, 1994.
22 And you say with regard to this, it's in the middle of the third line in
23 the English:
24 "The site had been protected by police overnight. A thorough
25 investigation was conducted again with more photographs taken and the
1 site examined by ballistic experts. The international personnel who were
2 on the site also took measurements and did on-site investigations
3 independently of us. Comparison of the technical details were made, and
4 I think the results were very close. These examinations were conducted
5 by the technical personnel and I was not involved with this aspect of
7 First of all, sir, does this selection accurately and truthfully
8 depict your knowledge and recollection as to this second investigation of
9 the Markale site, which occurred on 6 February 1994?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And the international -- international personnel, as is the term
12 used here, would this again be UNPROFOR? With the caveat that we're not
13 sure whether it's the same UNPROFOR unit or a different unit.
14 A. I assume that they were UNPROFOR members. I cannot remember
16 In the situation such as this one involving on-site
17 investigations, it was always military personnel, namely, UNPROFOR, who
18 participated, rather than civilian personnel.
19 Q. I appreciate that. And am I correctly interpreting your
20 statement here the -- the -- the -- the 2001 statement and the
21 paragraph that we've just read, am I correctly interpreting that your
22 technical personnel compared the measurements they did with the
23 measurements and results of the UNPROFOR personnel and that the results
24 were very close; that is, the results of the inspection on the 6th of
25 February, 1994 were very close?
1 A. I included this in my report because that was the information I
2 received from forensic officers who participated in the on-site
3 investigation. My role in that second part of the on-site investigation
4 did not include much more than just being present at the scene.
5 Q. Thank you, sir. I thought as much, and I thank you for making
6 that clear.
7 MR. IVETIC: Now, if we can return to P538 briefly. And -- and
8 this time it will be, again, I guess, page 10 in the B/C/S and page 8 in
9 the English. And, again, this is the UNPROFOR -- extract from the
10 UNPROFOR report. And in the middle of the page in the English, and it
11 should also be in the middle of the page in the B/C/S.
12 Q. We have the second analysis and it's -- related to Captain Verdy,
13 and it says here, I'll read, sir, and you can follow under A for bearing:
14 "Captain Verdy used a more conventional method; he began by
15 marking the lines formed by the wings of the fragment scrape and measured
16 the angles formed by these lines. Based on these measurement, he then
17 calculated the back bearing from the crater to the weapon. However,
18 based on his notes, he appears to have made a mathematical error which
19 led to an incorrect final back bearing. Therefore, though his method may
20 have been sound, based on the figures he used his result were flawed."
21 Did any of the experts from your side, the CSB who were comparing
22 notes with the UN investigators on this day, note any problems with the
23 figures used for the back bearing and the mathematics used, as far as you
25 A. I didn't have this information.
1 Q. Thank you, sir. Now, yesterday at transcript page 8700 and
2 onwards, you were asked by the Prosecution about interviews that you and
3 colleagues from the CSB undertook after your ballistic experts told you
4 what direction the round came from. I don't need to you repeat that
5 testimony, but I would like to ask you if you can confirm for us that all
6 of those interviews with eye-witnesses who claim to have seen the round,
7 or heard the round, all those interviews took place a full week after the
8 Markale incident, between the 10th of February and the 12th of February,
10 A. This is what I can confirm: I received written information from
11 my colleagues about the interviews conducted in the course of the process
12 when facts were being gathered to underpin the criminal report. Along
13 with the written information, I was given some pieces of information
14 verbally; i.e., that their job was not that difficult. In other words,
15 they were able to contact the relevant citizens who could confirm the
16 findings of the ballistic officers. Now when these interviews were
17 conducted is not something that I can date specifically.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Hasan.
19 MS. HASAN: Mr. President, my friend Mr. Ivetic referred to
20 interviews being conducted between the 10th and 12th of February. In
21 fact, there were interviews conducted also on the 9th of February.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Well, first of all, Mr. Ivetic asked a question, not
23 excluding anything, and you could have considered it in the
25 Please proceed. But if there is any written source for the one
1 or the other, then, of course, it would be a matter to discuss between
2 the parties and not perhaps to rely on the recollection of a witness
3 after almost 20 years.
4 Please proceed.
5 MR. IVETIC: Thank you. And, Your Honours, I'm basing it on P868
6 that was looked at yesterday. At page 10 in both languages, the report
7 we looked at yesterday was dated the 11th of February; whereas, page 8, I
8 believe, also in both languages, says that the interviews were -- that
9 the interviews with eye-witnesses as to the mortar sound and travelling
10 in the air were done through the 10th and 11th of February. That's for
11 your information.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Most important seems be that the parties agree that
13 it was at least quite a few days after the --
14 MR. IVETIC: Correct.
15 JUDGE ORIE: -- event itself. That seems to be not in dispute.
16 Please proceed.
17 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
18 Q. Now, yesterday you identified that these person who had been
19 interviewed, according to your information, had both heard the mortar
20 round being fired and had also heard it in flight. To your knowledge,
21 did they describe the particular type of sound that it made while it was
22 travelling through the air?
23 A. I cannot comment on the statements taken by colleagues. However,
24 I can comment on the statements that I myself took. Based on personal
25 experience, since the projectiles were fired from not a far distance, you
1 could hear the shell being fired and then an explosion where it landed.
2 And this was something that all the citizens were able to tell at the
4 JUDGE ORIE: And is that what they told you?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I personally experienced it.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But the questions are about interviews you
7 conducted with persons who told -- who gave a statement about having
8 heard something. And my question is, whether, apart from you considering
9 yourself to be able to hear these kind of things, whether that is what
10 the interviewees had taught you?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, they did.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, I'm looking at the clock.
13 MR. IVETIC: Oh, are we at the break? We can have the break,
14 Your Honours.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could I first ask the witness to follow the
17 [The witness stands down]
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, how much more time you think you would
20 MR. IVETIC: I believe I'm on track to finish in an hour and 15,
21 hour and 20.
22 JUDGE ORIE: So 75 to 80 minutes.
23 And, Ms. Hasan, as matters stand now, how much time you think you
24 would need for important questions?
25 MS. HASAN: Mr. President, I have already four or five questions,
1 just based on what's been said so far, which would probably take at least
2 15 minutes or 20 minutes.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Which means that we would still -- let's see, that's
4 75, 15, 20; that's approximately 100 minutes. That would still fit
5 within the time still available.
6 Could I urge you very much, Ms. Hasan, to ask, as I said before,
7 important questions and not the obvious ones as what do you see on the
8 photograph? I see a scattered glass. Because that's the kind of things
9 the Chamber can see itself as well.
10 We take a break and we resume at quarter past 12.00.
11 --- Recess taken at 11.57 a.m.
12 --- On resuming at 12.18 p.m.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted in the courtroom.
14 Meanwhile, I raise the following matter. By an informal
15 communication on the 13th of February, the Prosecution has submitted a
16 request to use a comments charge with Witness Anton Brennskaag, RM108, in
17 relation to four non-associated exhibits. The Chamber notes that the
18 request relates to four documents and does not object to using a chart.
19 However, should the OTP wish to tender these four documents into
20 evidence, the Chamber notes that they amount to in excess of 80 pages in
21 total and urges the Prosecution to make a careful selection of what it
22 seeks to tender.
23 MR. GROOME: We will do that, Your Honour.
24 [The witness takes the stand]
25 JUDGE ORIE: And yes. One remaining matter, but let's first
1 focus again on the testimony of this witness.
2 Mr. Ivetic, if you're ready, you may proceed.
3 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honour, I was just trying to find the
4 transcript reference.
5 Q. Sir, just before the break, you were questioned by the
6 Honourable Judge Orie based upon what the witnesses told you, and at
7 temporary transcript page 47, lines -- lines 20 through 23, or
8 thereabouts, you said something about since the projectiles were fired
9 from not a far distance you could hear the shell being fired and then an
10 explosion where it landed.
11 Did you also have occasion to hear from people that they either
12 heard or saw the round or shell in flight? If could you clarify that for
14 A. No.
15 Q. Okay. Fair enough. Now I'd like to focus about the time that
16 you left the on-site investigation, headed to the hospital to perform
17 your portion of the investigation.
18 MR. IVETIC: And if we can follow along P957, MFI, is the prior
19 testimony under Rule 92 ter. Page 5 of the same should be correlating to
20 T6812 of the Galic proceedings.
21 Q. And lines 18 through 25 should be the part where you are talking
22 about the hospital. There you go. And the question asked, sir, is as
24 "Q. When you went to the hospital, what did you do in respect to
25 this task of trying to identify the dead and the injured?
1 "A. In the admissions department of the Kosevo Hospital, the
2 records are kept of all the persons who had -- had been admitted to the
3 hospital, so the full name of the person admitted is recorded, the time
4 of admission, as well as other personal details. And these records
5 enabled me to determine the number of patients that had been admitted to
6 the Kosevo Hospital in the time-period after the explosion at the
7 Markale market. After that, I went to the morgue and there, on the bases
8 of the documents that I had gathered from the personnel in the morgue, I
10 And then you go on on the next page to describe what you
12 What I want to ask you about, sir, is this seems to imply that
13 you went and reviewed the admissions records on the first day before you
14 went to the morgue. Is that, in fact, accurate?
15 A. Yes. As we arrived at the hospital, we first established what
16 the list of persons admitted to the hospital was. It was a list of
17 persons that they had registered in their admissions records.
18 Q. Sir, do you know approximately what time it is that you arrived
19 at the hospital?
20 A. I arrived after the on-site investigation. I can't tell you what
21 time it was with any certainty.
22 MR. IVETIC: If we can have 1D789 up in e-court. Page 2 in both
23 versions. This is, again, the 2001 statement of the witness.
24 And I'm confused because, sir, the statement you gave seems to
25 indicate the opposite, that you went to the morgue first, but I'd like to
1 present that to you and get your comment on it.
2 So we're looking at page 2 in both versions, the first full
3 paragraph on the English version. Whoops. Sorry, the third full -- the
4 fourth paragraph.
5 It says:
6 "I then went to the morgue at Kosevo Hospital, Sarajevo, with the
7 team. There were four rooms full of bodies and I could see that they
8 were mainly older men and women. I met with workers and employees at the
9 morgue, and they were searching the bodies and trying to find papers or
10 documents which could identify the people who had been killed."
11 And if we skip to the last couple of lines of this paragraph, it
13 "I remained at the morgue for approximately two hours that day.
14 I think approximately 60 people were confirmed dead at Kosevo Hospital.
15 Some people died later from their injuries and more bodies were brought
16 from other hospitals."
17 Now, according to this, you went to the morgue the first day.
18 Can you help us here? Which -- which is accurate?
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. -- let's -- let's try, Mr. Ivetic, to --
20 Is there anywhere that the witness in this statement says that he
21 first went to the morgue and then to the admission department? Because
22 then there may be a contradiction. From what I read, but I'm reading it
23 now in a second only, I only see that the witness here says that he went
24 to the morgue and did not say that he went after that or that he went
25 before that to any other department of the hospital.
1 So if you are seeking to -- clarification, fine. No problem.
2 But not in terms of which of the two is true and then not contradicting.
3 Please proceed.
4 MR. IVETIC: I thought I'd asked for clarification because the
5 statements starts -- the last line [Overlapping speakers] ...
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, I said you could proceed and you ask him
7 which of the two, isn't it? If you really insist. The question was:
8 "Which is accurate?"
9 That suggests a contradiction which I have not found. You may
10 proceed, and we'll listen to your next question and the answer.
11 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
12 Q. Sir, can you confirm for us whether, in fact, you went to the
13 morgue the first day or did you view the admissions records the first
14 day? Or both? Or neither? Please help me.
15 A. The morgue and the admissions department are situated on the same
16 wing of the Kosevo Hospital. I can tell you with certainty that I was
17 both at -- in the admissions department and the morgue. It can be
18 assumed that I first went to the admissions department and then to the
19 morgue, though I can't vouch for that. It's been a long time. What I
20 can confirm with certainty is that I visited both these departments.
21 Q. Can you confirm this part of your statement where it says:
22 "I remained at the morgue for approximately two hours that day"?
23 A. Well, I don't know how long I stayed there. What I know was that
24 the whole fact-finding effort took two days.
25 Q. Well, do you have any reason to believe that when you gave this
1 statement that you signed an affirmation for in December 2001, that, when
2 you said you spent approximately two hours in the morgue, that your
3 memory was clearer and better on that day than it is today?
4 A. Yes, certainly.
5 Q. How much time did you spend in the admissions department
6 reviewing the records of the hospital on that first day, the 5th of
7 February, 1994?
8 A. I don't remember.
9 Q. If we can turn to your Rule 92 ter testimony, P957, MFI, and page
10 7 of the same, that should correlate to transcript page 6814 of the
11 underlying transcript. And I'd like lines 1 through 4 of the same. And,
12 sir, again, I have to translate this for you since do not have a Serbian
13 or Bosnian translation.
14 "Q. How long did you remain at the Kosevo Hospital on the 5th of
15 February, 1994?
16 "A. On that day, I remained there for two hours. About two hours
17 in the Kosevo Hospital."
18 Now, sir, and I put it to you that if you spent a total of about
19 two hours at the Kosevo Hospital, and your statement to the Office of the
20 Prosecutor in 2001 says that you spent approximately two hours at the
21 morgue, that could you not have spent any significant amount of time in
22 the admissions Department of Kosevo Hospital on the same day, as the time
23 would eclipse two hours.
24 Are you perhaps willing to concede that the admissions department
25 was viewed by yourself at some point in time after the 5th of February,
2 A. No, I'm not willing to concede that.
3 Q. When were the post mortems performed as to the bodies that were
4 at the Kosevo Hospital, at the morgue?
5 A. I wasn't present when the post mortems were carried out.
6 Q. Were you present when the pathologist examined the bodies and
7 confirmed the cause of death as being shrapnel wounds?
8 A. Dr. Dobraca and I, together, carried out the identification of
9 the bodies for whom we had no evidence of identity. Through the local
10 radio station, we launched an appeal to all the persons who knew their
11 family members were missing to come to the morgue for identification
13 So Dr. Dobraca and I were there receiving these individuals who
14 were coming to the morgue to confirm that they knew some of the victims.
15 Because some of the victims were terribly disfigured, Dr. Dobraca would
16 ask the family members or friends coming whether the individual had
17 undergone an appendix surgery or something like that, and if the answer
18 was affirmative, then we were able to establish that it was, indeed, a
19 relative of theirs.
20 Q. I'm confused. My question asked about examinations of the
21 bodies. Were you present for any post mortems performed by Dr. Dobraca
22 on the bodies or at the hospital morgue relating to the Markale incident.
23 A. No, I was not present for the post mortems.
24 Q. Then I would ask to you please explain page 9 of your Rule 92 ter
25 transcript, which correlates to transcript page 6816 -- well, first of
1 all, if we can start from the prior page, line 23 of the prior page which
2 would be 6815, which would be page 8 of P957, MFI.
3 And, again, sir, you'll have to follow along with me. It says
4 here, beginning at line 23.
5 "Q. Very well. Now, on the 6th of February, 1994, did you
6 observe any proceedings carried out on the bodies of the deceased?
7 "A. All the persons who had been killed were examined by the
8 pathologist, and he carried out an expert examination of the bodies in
9 order to determine the cause of death. And every person that was brought
10 into the Kosevo Hospital, the cause of death was determined and records
11 were kept of the proceedings.
12 "Q. Were you present when these examinations were conducted?
13 "A. I was present in most of the cases but I don't remember
14 whether I was present during the examination [sic] of all those who had
15 been killed. But I had the relevant documents by the pathologist
16 confirming the cause of death for all those persons, specifying that they
17 were all killed by shell shrapnel."
18 Is this portion of your Rule 92 ter testimony accurate, or do you
19 wish to change it?
20 A. This portion of my testimony was either mistranslated or
21 misinterpreted. It relates, I believe, to my work with Dr. Dobraca on
22 identifying these victims. We spent together the total of two days
23 establishing the identity of individuals. At the time, Dr. Dobraca was
24 dealing with those individuals whose identity could not be established,
25 showing the body and establishing the causes of death. I did not,
1 however, participate in his special, technical examination.
2 Q. I'd like to take a brief look at 1D789. That's, again, the 2001
3 statement. Page 1 in both languages. And the second paragraph from the
4 bottom in both languages.
5 And I would read for you as follows. You could follow along,
6 sir, in the Bosnian version. The second paragraph from the bottom
8 "I returned to Kosevo Hospital again on the 6th February 1994.
9 We continued the process of trying to identify the bodies. Friends and
10 relatives came and we went to each body trying to identify them. I met
11 with Dr. Ilijas Dobraca who was the pathologist on duty. He examined the
12 bodies in my presence and confirmed the cause of death in each case as a
13 result of shrapnel wounds. Some of the bodies had dreadful injuries."
14 Is this portion of your 2001 statement accurate?
15 A. I believe it is. Let me just add: It was quite evident that the
16 cause of death was shrapnel. As he was walking through the morgue,
17 Dr. Dobraca explained all these injuries were the result of -- of an
18 explosion. Now when he was writing down his findings, that's something
19 that I didn't have any part in.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I -- at this point in time, put a question to
21 the witness.
22 Can you describe the method Dr. Dobraca used in your presence
23 examining the bodies? How did he do that; and was that different or
24 identical with post mortem?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wouldn't say that Dr. Dobraca
1 conducted the actual post mortem in my presence. He would approach each
2 and every one of the victims and say, you see, this is the effect of
3 shrapnel. If the body is headless or something like that, then obviously
4 it could not have been the result of gun-fire. So we went from body to
5 body, and he would explain to me that the cause of death was shrapnel.
6 His official report, when he was producing an official report on
7 autopsies, that's not something that I participated in. We were walking
8 around the morgue, looking at the various bodies, and he was telling me
9 that all these people had died as a result of shrapnel wounds, and he was
10 showing me, in fact, what sort of effect shrapnel can produce.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you for that clarification.
12 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
13 Q. Thank you, sir, for clarifying this matter.
14 Now, I'd like to return back to your 92 ter testimony. P957,
15 MFI. And this will be at page 14, which should be transcript page 6821,
16 lines 5 through 25. I don't think I have to read the whole thing for
17 you. I think you can see there, sir, the -- the numbers 142 and 67.
18 Here it is recorded that you determined and reported that 67 lives were
19 lost and 142 people incurred injuries. And I want to ask you, first of
20 all, with regard to these figures, can you confirm the bases, the
21 totality of the bases that these figures are based upon? What records,
22 indeed, were reviewed to come to these totals.
23 A. When determining these figures, we used the figures we received
24 from the Kosevo Hospital, the State Hospital, the UNPROFOR headquarters.
25 These sources I can cite with certainty as having been the ones that we
1 based our figures on.
2 Q. You mention the UN headquarters. Was there a significant amount
3 of information from the UN headquarters, or was the primary focus the
4 hospital records of the State Hospital, on the one hand, and the
5 Kosevo Hospital, on the other?
6 A. No. We received one piece of information from the UN
7 headquarters. I think it was in the PTT building because several injured
8 persons had been transported there. There were dead persons as well, if
9 I remember correctly, but I don't know what the exact numbers were of
10 either the dead persons or injured persons. I mean those who had been
11 transported to the UNPROFOR headquarters and the UNPROFOR hospital.
12 Q. And I forget if it was in your 92 ter statement or in your --
13 it's in the selection from the 2001 statement wherein you said:
14 "I think approximately 60 people were confirmed dead at
15 Kosevo Hospital."
16 Would that imply that the majority of the casualties were derived
17 from the review of the records of the Kosevo Hospital?
18 A. Yes. The majority of the injured persons were transported to the
19 Kosevo Hospital, and most information was received from the
20 Kosevo Hospital.
21 Q. If we can -- first of all, sir, isn't it true that due to the
22 volume of persons that were coming in that the hospital staff did not
23 enter data into the admission records for -- for the injured and deceased
24 persons coming in from the Markale location at the time that they
25 arrived, but, rather, entered the data throughout the day in batches when
1 they had time; that is, after -- many times hours after the people
2 arrived? Did you discover that when you reviewed the documents?
3 A. I cannot remember now that I established that, nor whether I had
4 such knowledge. The situation was unusual and extraordinary, and it is
5 perhaps possible that not everything was done according to the normal
6 procedure. But this is something I don't remember.
7 Q. Do you remember how much time you spent going over the hospital
8 admissions records in terms of was it significant, was it brief? Was it
9 alone or with the assistance of somebody? Any further information you
10 can give us as to the process by which you examined the hospital records
11 to determine and find the identities and numbers of persons that were
12 killed and injured?
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, is the question related to the 5th of
14 February only or the couple of days --
15 MR. IVETIC: The entirety of his investigation, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So the question was about how many time
17 approximately you spent going through the hospital admission records, not
18 exclusively on the 5th but during your investigation.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I couldn't say now how much time
20 was used to check the hospital records. I know for sure that the process
21 of establishing the identity of persons lasted two or three days on the
22 whole. And it wasn't just me who took part in that but my colleagues as
24 MR. IVETIC: I wish to take a look at 65 ter number 10458. And
25 when that comes up on the screen, I'd like to look at the first page of
1 the document.
2 Q. And, sir, if you could look at the -- if you could look at the
3 one in the original language.
4 MR. IVETIC: And perhaps for purposes, if we can have just have
5 the original language up on the screen and enhanced so that the witness
6 could have the best opportunity.
7 Q. Sir, looking at this, can you recognise or confirm for us that
8 this is the type of hospital records that you would have reviewed of the
9 Sarajevo Clinical Centre reception and triage block?
10 A. I had before me the records from the Kosevo Hospital. But I
11 cannot claim with certainty that these were the records because I cannot
12 see the hospital's stamp anywhere here. Which does not exclude the
13 possibility that these are the records, because judging by the rubrics it
14 seems to me that this was what I examined.
15 Q. If we can go on the second page, I think the second page has a
16 stamp. In the original. That's a little bit better.
17 Do you recognise that stamp, sir?
18 A. Yes, yes, certainly. That is the stamp from the Kosevo Hospital.
19 Q. Okay. If we return to the first page of this document in the
20 original. And it would be, I think, page 4, unfortunately, in the
21 translation. And if we look at entry number 705, will you agree with me,
22 sir, based on the date and time of this entry that this would be the
23 first potential victim from the Markale incident that came to the
24 Kosevo Hospital?
25 A. I really couldn't comment on that.
1 Q. Well, is it your understanding, sir, that the Markale incident
2 occurred sometime after noon on the 5th of February, 1994?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And this entry shows the individual came in at 12.35 on that
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And that the individuals before are all dated at 8.00 in the
8 morning and 10.00 in the morning and that therefore they can be excluded
9 from the Markale group. Would you agree with that?
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Lukic -- Mr. Ivetic. Mr. Ivetic --
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Look at 699, I see something that looks like 1635
13 or something like that. And 698, I see 12-something. 701, I see 1.30.
14 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honour. And if you look at the top of the
15 page, that's the 4th of February 1994 and the -- starting at line 701 is
16 the 5th of February, 1994.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
18 MR. IVETIC:
19 Q. Sir, if we can turn to page 7 in the B/C/S and it's going to be
20 page 22 in the English. I apologise. The translation is much different
21 from the original pages.
22 And if we can look at entry 777 for a Hodzic Fikret. Do you see
23 that all the other entries around are at 1235 and his is at 15 hours, and
24 I believe, 45 minutes in the original. Although I think the English
25 might have had 15 minutes. In any event, that this individual was
1 received three hours after the approximate time of the Markale explosion?
2 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Hasan.
3 MS. HASAN: I don't see the English.
4 MR. IVETIC: In the English, again, it's page 22. And it should
5 be the bottom entry. And -- oh, it does 1545. I had it wrong in my
7 Q. Can we exclude this individual, number 777, from being part of
8 the group of persons brought in from Markale based upon the time?
9 Mr. Witness?
10 A. Well, I couldn't say because I don't know on what basis this
11 patient showed up at the hospital. Did he sustain slight injuries and
12 came to hospital himself? Or whether he sustained any injuries in some
13 other place, this is something that I really couldn't tell you.
14 Q. Okay. If we can -- do you know --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.
16 MR. IVETIC: Yes.
17 JUDGE ORIE: I noticed that the following numbers are back at
18 1235 again.
19 MR. IVETIC: Correct.
20 JUDGE ORIE: So, therefore, apparently the sequence of
21 registration may not be the same as the sequence of being brought to the
22 hospital. Because I see 778 is again 1235.
23 MR. IVETIC: [Overlapping speakers]
24 JUDGE ORIE: So whether this one we have no explanation as yet,
25 and the witness has not given any at this moment.
1 Please proceed.
2 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
3 Q. And, sir, the question I guess following up on what the
4 Honourable Judge has mentioned, would this not indicate to you that the
5 hospital admissions records were being written at a later time, i.e., not
6 at 1235 but at some later time when the hospital staff found time to
7 enter this information?
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic [sic] it's so -- Mr. Ivetic, it's so
9 obvious. If I have five pages in the same handwriting with 1235, to
10 assume that that all could have been written in one minute is, of course,
11 out of my imagination.
12 MR. IVETIC: Well, Your Honours, the witness said that he
13 examined the admissions records when he first arrived. If they weren't
14 written, how could he have do that?
15 JUDGE ORIE: We don't know when it was down. Whether it was at
16 1240, 1200. We do not know exactly. The witness doesn't remember
17 exactly when it happened. Let's try to avoid a quasi-accuracy which may
18 not be in line with reality, and the Chamber is primarily interested to
19 know what happened in reality.
20 Please proceed.
21 MR. IVETIC: Thank you. If we could -- if we could turn to -- if
22 we could turn to page 9 in the original B/C/S and page 27 in the English,
23 at item number 795, we see an individual Keso, Bisma, admitted at 1610
25 Q. Do you know whether you included her in the count of Markale
2 JUDGE ORIE: Do you mean injured? Or dead or --
3 MR. IVETIC: Injured or dead. At this point I'm just asking for
4 the total count.
5 JUDGE ORIE: If you do remember, answer the question. If you
6 don't remember, tell us, please.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As for this person Bisma, Keso, I
8 couldn't say whether she was on the list or injured and so on and so
9 forth. I do not remember the name and I cannot say with any precision
10 how many casualties either injured or dead there were at the moment. But
11 I stand by the information included in the official report and the
12 criminal report which I wrote later on because I believe that that
13 information is correct and authentic.
14 MR. IVETIC:
15 Q. If we look at this page, the last entry that has the 1235 marking
16 is item 797, entry 797, with all the subsequent entries being 17 and 1800
17 hours, would you be able to confirm that entry number 797 is likely the
18 last Markale-related entry in this hospital admission log-book?
19 A. No, I could not confirm that.
20 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I would like to tender this document
21 at this time into evidence.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
23 MS. HASAN: No objection.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Document receives number D237, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
1 MR. IVETIC: Now I'd like to look at number 9998 in e-court.
2 Q. And when that comes up, sir, I'll ask again to focus on the
3 original language version, the first page.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Could I meanwhile ask another question.
5 Witness, could you tell us when you went to the admission
6 department, what they had written down there as admitted patients, was
7 that already in its final format or - that means written in the books -
8 or would there have been notes to then later to be entered into the
9 official records?
10 Do you have any recollection of what you found there? If you
11 have, please tell us; if you don't have, please tell us as well.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you allow me, Your Honours, on
13 my arrival to the Kosevo Hospital, the first thing I found there was a
14 big upheaval, running around, panic, patients coming from all sides. In
15 many instances the dead were directly transported to the morgue. Those
16 who were injured were brought to departments and so on. So the service
17 did not operate normally and sometimes if they contacted them from a
18 specific department and said the patient reached us, they would then
19 enter him in the protocol, so I'm sure that under such extraordinary
20 circumstances they could not observe any type of rules for registering
21 the incoming patients.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
23 MR. IVETIC:
24 Q. Looking at the first page of this document, sir, in the original
25 language, do you recognise it and can confirm that this is the -- appears
1 to be the admissions book for the records of the State or Military
2 Hospital in Sarajevo?
3 A. I did not examine the books of the State Hospital, as far as I
5 Q. How --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, we are looking at P706, MFI'd, at this
7 moment, which is the same as 65 ter 9998.
8 Please proceed. This is just for those who are reading the
9 record later.
10 MR. IVETIC: I apologise. I did not realise that it'd already
11 been used in these proceedings.
12 Q. How did you obtain the information from the State or Military
13 Hospital if you did not look at the admissions records for the same in
14 reaching your total determination of the totality of the injured and --
15 the injured and the deceased from this incident that you were
17 A. I cannot remember with certainty how we obtained the information,
18 but there were two possible ways. Either one of my colleague was there,
19 examined it, and then submitted the report to me, or the hospital
20 submitted a report on these persons who were admitted and who had been
21 injured or killed, and they would have submitted such a report at our
22 request. We followed the same procedure as regards the UNPROFOR base.
23 Q. If we can look at entry number 851 which should be at the top of
24 the page that is on the screen now. Would the time and date for this
25 incident be consistent with this individual being an entry for a
1 Markale-related victim? Again, as I read it, it's the 5th of February,
2 1994, and if we zoom in under the patient name, I believe -- well, now I
3 can't be certain if that's the time or something else. That could also
4 be something else.
5 Do you see the date at least on the left, sir?
6 A. It says the 5th of February, 1994. I could not say anything
7 about this because I'm not familiar with the document as such. So if
8 this person is listed here, then it was probably established that this
9 was a person injured or killed at the Markale market and then transported
10 to the State Hospital.
11 Q. Okay. Since it is MFI'd, I think we do need to go through some
12 items that I did not note on the English translation that do exist on the
13 B/C/S original.
14 If we can look at the third page in B/C/S and the second page in
15 English, I think this one is okay. I think that on both we have a cross
16 out of the -- of the item on the top, number 856. Yes, it's crossed out.
17 So that one is okay.
18 If we look at page 9 in the B/C/S and page 6 in the English, and
19 I think the entries at 879 and 880 in the original are crossed off but
20 are not so denoted on the translation.
21 Can you confirm, sir, based upon your review of other hospital
22 records, did any staff ever explain to you what it meant when entries
23 were crossed off on these types of ledgers or books that they kept?
24 If you don't know, you don't know.
25 A. These are not records from the Kosevo Hospital, as far as I can
1 remember. And I already said that I did not examine the records from the
2 State Hospital, so I cannot provide an explanation for anything that has
3 been crossed out here.
4 Q. Did you ever go to the State Hospital as part of your
6 A. No, I -- as far as I remember, I did not go to the State Hospital
7 during the investigation. I didn't go there personally, but it's
8 possible that some of my colleagues did go.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 MR. IVETIC: Then, Your Honours, for the attention of the parties
11 and Chamber, I believe at page 11 in B/C/S and 7 in English, item number
12 882 is another entry that is crossed or scratched off where the English
13 translation does not denote the entirety of that answer. I bring that
14 everyone's attention since it is a MFI'd document.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could the Prosecution seek that the
16 translation will be reviewed so that crossed out portions are indicated
17 as such also in English.
18 Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
19 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
20 Q. Sir, looking at the totality of these two documents together, I
21 went through all the entries, and according to my math, we could come up
22 with only 39 deceased individuals and 120 wounded individuals. I looked
23 at the photographs that were taken as part of the -- the -- the
24 investigation, and I note that there are 39 photographs of 39 deceased
25 individuals. Where are the photographs of the remaining fatalities from
1 this investigation that would have been taken pursuant to the standard
2 operating procedure that you testified about earlier that would have been
3 followed for the Markale investigation?
4 A. I cannot provide an explanation for the part of my work for which
5 the forensic officers were in charge.
6 I can say that when I visited the morgue, when touring the four
7 rooms of the morgue, I found around 60 bodies at the morgue. It's
8 probable that the families of the deceased took over the bodies of their
9 relatives from the morgue and so the photographer was unable to make
10 those photographs. But this is just an assumption. I cannot really give
11 an explanation of this fact.
12 Q. At Exhibit P868, there's a document dated the 5th of February,
13 1994, and it appears at pages 22 and 23 of both versions of that exhibit
14 that identifies named and unknown fatalities as to the incident, and that
15 document identifies 41 dead individuals.
16 Is this a document that you had access to and that you relied
17 upon in doing your own investigation and reaching your determination of
18 67 fatalities?
19 A. The number of fatalities kept growing because there were people
20 who had been transported alive but who then died during transportation or
21 on being admitted to the hospital. And then they were sent back
22 downstairs to the morgue, and, therefore, the number of fatalities kept
23 growing per hour.
24 Q. Am I correct that on the 8th of February, 1994, the CSB
25 documented 69 dead, whereas your final tally, authored on the 17th of
1 February, 67 are dead. Do you recall that?
2 A. Information is collected until the moment when investigation is
3 ended and a criminal report is being drafted. So the information may be
4 changed if new facts are determined.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, I'm looking at the clock.
6 MR. IVETIC: We could take the break now, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 Witness, would you please follow the usher.
9 [The witness stands down]
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, the Chamber wonders, are -- is this line
12 of questioning, is this about imperfection of registration and mistakes
13 and flaws in what happened on that day, or is this a basis for a
14 suggestion that it was fraudulent and it was all staged? In which case,
15 I think it would be fair to put that to the witness. Which of the two is
17 MR. IVETIC: At this stage, I'm examining the witness to give
18 facts and to allow the Chamber to make that determination. I'm more than
19 happy to put it to the witness that there was pressure on the CSB from
20 the Sarajevo authorities to inflate the numbers. I can -- I would be
21 more than happy to put that to the witness. That was my next question.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Is it inflation of numbers or the whole thing being
23 staged and fraudulently presented?
24 MR. IVETIC: Your Honour, this witness only dealt with the
25 identification of the victims and therefore I believe that it --
1 JUDGE ORIE: I'm asking you what the Defence's case is in this
2 respect, because it would be fair -- if you elicit evidence from a
3 witness in support of the Defence's case, then I think that it is
4 appropriate to put to that witness what the Defence case is in that
5 respect. That's what the Rule requires.
6 Would you please think this over during the break.
7 We'll take a break, and we will resume at 25 minutes to 2.00.
8 --- Recess taken at 1.18 p.m.
9 --- On resuming at 1.36 p.m.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted in the courtroom.
11 Meanwhile, I use the time. I started with the request of the
12 13th of February earlier. In that same e-mail, there also is a request
13 to add associated exhibits that the Prosecution had omitted from its
14 Rule 92 ter motion and is still in relation to Witness RM108, and the
15 Prosecution should request any relief it seeks on the record when the
16 witness testifies.
17 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
18 [The witness takes the stand]
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, the Chamber appreciate if you would be
20 able to finish in, well, let's, say, 15 to 20 minutes.
21 MR. IVETIC: That is my plan, Your Honour, and hopefully I can do
22 it without the monitor.
23 Q. Mr. Witness, I put it to you that there was a great deal of
24 pressure on the CSB personnel performing the investigation into this
25 Markale incident from the BiH government authorities to manipulate and
1 inflate the numbers of casualties for this incident in order to support
2 the propaganda that was being presented to seek intervention against the
3 Serbs. Would you agree or concede any portion of that based upon your
5 A. I didn't have pressure put upon me on -- of this sort in my line
6 of work, nor was my impression that my work colleagues were under any
7 such pressure. The aim we had was to collect as much evidence and facts
8 in as short a period of time, and any pressure other than this one can be
9 fully ruled out.
10 Q. Okay. I'd like to move onto the last part of my examination
11 dealing with the incident at Marin Dvor that you also testified about,
12 the sniping incident you said with the trams yesterday.
13 And I'd like to ask you, first of all, at this trial we've had
14 evidence, specifically at transcript page 5870, from an UNPROFOR official
15 by the name of David Fraser relating to other incidents in this same
16 general area that are from February of 1994, so a few months after the
17 incident in question. And at that time it was determined that the trams
18 were hit by machine-gun fire that was found to be the result of a
19 fire-fight between Serb and Muslim forces that were located 300 metres
21 At the time that you were conducting the investigation into the
22 incident in October of 1994 -- I apologise, I misspoke. When I was
23 talking about February, it was February of 1995. The incident that you
24 investigated was in October of 1994. Did you at that time have
25 information as to the positions of the combatant forces and how near they
1 were to the tram line so as to determine if there had been any combat or
2 exchange of fire during the date when the incident occurred?
3 A. The information about positions is something that I had. This
4 sort of information was available to all citizens because it was commonly
5 known that across from the Miljacka river there were positions held by
6 the VRS, whereas on the other bank of the Miljacka, on the right bank,
7 there were BH army positions. This line of confrontation was, I'm not
8 sure, but roughly 300 metres away from the tram line in question. As far
9 as I remember now, trams were operational only at times when there were
10 cease-fires in force. They weren't operational at all times.
11 Q. Okay. Now, yesterday you were shown a photograph of the one
12 deceased individual. Am I correct that his entry wound was on the right
13 side of his head and the exit wound was on the left side at the
14 shoulder-blade level?
15 A. I wasn't present when the post mortem was carried out of this
16 body, and the only thing I had was the photograph that was taken by the
17 photographer at the time that was sent to me by the department.
18 MR. IVETIC: If we can look at P493 and not broadcast the same,
19 as it is under seal. And page 3 in the English and page 2 in the B/C/S.
20 Q. This is the report that was, I believe, viewed yesterday with
21 you. And did you have occasion -- looking at the first page, do you --
22 do you recall this -- this report that you looked at yesterday?
23 A. Yes, I do.
24 Q. And if we can look at page 3 in the English and page 2 in the
25 B/C/S, dealing with the deceased person, it is in the text stated that
1 the deceased person is identified, it says:
2 "He had died from a perforating wound to the right part of his
3 head where the entry wound is located, while the exit wound is on his
4 left shoulder-blade."
5 Now does that refresh your recollection that this was a fact that
6 was determined by the investigation that you were a part of?
7 A. I think that this is an established fact.
8 Q. Now based on your knowledge and experience investigating
9 incidents and perhaps a little bit of logic, doesn't this seem to
10 indicate to you that the shooter was shooting downwards at him from a
11 closer distance as opposed to a distance further away?
12 A. According to my logic and experience at that time, my conclusion
13 would be that the fire had been opened from some distance higher up
14 because the bullet entered the head and exited at the shoulder level,
15 indicating that fire had been opened from a higher position, and this is
16 something that we experienced in sniper fire.
17 Q. With regard to the surroundings of the tram line, did you in fact
18 investigate to determine if any higher positions in the vicinity could
19 have been manned by any units of the BiH forces that could have been the
20 source of the shot?
21 A. In the area where the incident took place, there are no
22 elevations. There are only buildings. Sky-scrapers on both sides of the
23 Miljacka. On the left bank of the Miljacka, which was under the control
24 of the Army of Republika Srpska, I know for a fact - and it was generally
25 known - that there were Serbian sniper units in the Metalka building.
1 May I conclude --
2 Q. Sir, I have to -- I have to interrupt because my question was
3 very specific and I have very little time.
4 Did you investigate buildings manned by the BiH forces that were
5 in an elevated position; i.e., higher -- high rise buildings surrounding
6 the tram line on the BiH side? Did your investigation look into those
7 buildings to exclude them as the source of fire?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Am I correct that some UN personnel on the scene actually
10 reported that the fire came from one of these buildings as opposed to
11 from the other side of the river?
12 A. We didn't investigate the buildings surrounding the scene of the
13 incident, and according to my information UNPROFOR did not take any
14 actions to establish what the state effects was.
15 Q. If we could take a look at the first page of this document that's
16 still up on the screen in e-court. And I'd like to read the first
17 paragraph of the actual report that starts: "This Centre ..."
18 "This centre was informed by the duty operative at 1245 hours on
19 08 October 1994 that in Marin Dvor in Centar municipality, near the
20 building of the museum, fire was opened from the aggressor's positions
21 which are on the Grbavica PZT against trams that were transporting
23 Can we confirm from this official report that at the time that
24 the investigative team was sent to the scene, the CSB had already
25 predetermined that the source of fire were the aggressor forces at the
1 Grbavica PZT?
2 A. This report was sent to the chief, and I did inform the chief
3 about my knowledge about this event. It was the assumption of the
4 forensic technicians that that was the direction of fire, and I included
5 that information in my report and informed the chief of the CSB about it.
6 Q. I'd like to turn to page --
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Ivetic, I just want to say receiving
8 information is one thing. Predetermination is quite another.
9 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honours. And this, I believe, is at the
10 time that the team hasn't even been out to the site yet.
11 JUDGE ORIE: They have just received information. The sentence
12 says the center was informed by the duty operative. That's the
13 information they have. Now they are going to investigate that
15 MR. IVETIC: Okay. Let's turn to page 2 in the English and stay
16 on page 1 in the B/C/S. I'd like to see exactly where the information
17 came from and at what time.
18 Q. The part that I am interested in starts with the name Milos,
19 Vjekoslav, son of Ferdinand, and mother Marija, born 11 April 1955 in
20 Sarajevo, was the driver of tram number 206, which had been shot at. He
21 permanently resides at 11 Bozidar Adzic -- Adzije Street. He stated
23 "Burst fire was opened against the tram at about 1219 hours and
24 that the aggressor soldiers probably fired from the Grbavica PZT, that
25 is, from the building known as Metalka."
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, you're reading.
2 MR. IVETIC: Too fast, sorry.
3 Q. So the pertinent part here is that the tram driver said that he
4 thought, believed, that the aggressor soldiers probably fired from the
5 Grbavica PZT. It is this the bases for the conclusion by your team that
6 in fact the source of fire was this Metalka building?
7 A. I repeat, these are all facts and statements that we took in the
8 course of the investigation and the official opinion was given by the
9 forensics team who had examined the scene to see what -- where the
10 projectile had arrived from. And the driver here was probably relating
11 his feeling that the projectile had come from that direction. It was
12 probably on the basis of this statement that we received news of fire
13 having been opened from Metalka and that we should attend the scene to
14 establish what the actual state of facts was.
15 Q. Did your investigation determine why this driver felt that the
16 shots came from the Metalka building? Did he see muzzle flashes?
17 A. If you allow me to explain this.
18 In this area, on the side --
19 Q. Sir, I want to know what your investigation found out from this
20 driver of this tram. What is the bases for his position that the fire
21 came from Metalka?
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic. First of all, please calm down. That's
24 Second, I think the witness explained that they noticed that the
25 driver said that he thought, believed, that it was probably fired from
1 there and there. If the witness -- if the driver would have said, I saw
2 the flashes of the muzzle, of course, the evidence would be entirely
3 different. Then the witness further explained that it apparently was an
4 impression by the driver. And then to ask these kind of questions do not
6 It's clear that it was a subjective impression by the driver
7 which was at the basis of the report.
8 Now, that may be important for the Defence, but then to follow up
9 and to say, Did he see any muzzle flashes? That seems not to be
10 assisting the Chamber.
11 MR. IVETIC: Your Honour, I'm trying to found out what the
12 witness's bases is for his statement earlier that the forensic guys
13 determined from where the fire is coming from. If they are relying upon
14 the bus driver and that's the bases of their examination, that's fine.
15 JUDGE ORIE: He doesn't know apparently.
16 MR. IVETIC: Okay.
17 JUDGE ORIE: I could use then, perhaps, the last few minutes you
18 have. You put to the witness that at page - which one was it? - at page
19 5870, testimony of Mr. Fraser, that the testimony he gave:
20 "... that it was determined that the trams were hit by
21 machine-gun fire that was found to be the result of a fire-fight between
22 Serb and Muslim forces that were locate the 300 metres away."
23 Could you please indicate to me where on that page this
24 conclusion can be found?
25 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honour. Lines 1 through 21.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Which says that, at the same time, there was
2 exchange of fire. I do not read in any way that the projectile that hit
3 the tram was determined to be part of that exchange of fire.
4 MR. IVETIC: Line number 14:
5 "During the same time-period both sides were involved in a
6 fire-fight 300 metres away in the area of the Vrbanja Bridge (BP 912589).
7 An MG CFV has been attributed to both the BiH and BSA for the event
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MR. IVETIC: And this witness, Mr. Fraser was questioned upon
11 that, and this is one of the incidents that was dropped from the
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, my simple question is: Where in this
14 page it is said that the bullet that hit the tram was part of that
15 exchange of fire? Because that is what you put to the witness. And the
16 only thing I see is that there was an exchange of fire and that a
17 registered violation of a cease-fire agreement was established for both
18 sides, which means both sides apparently fired in violation of a
19 cease-fire agreement. It doesn't say anything about the bullet that hit
20 the tram was part of this exchange of fire, is it?
21 MR. IVETIC: I'd have to go back and look at the underlying
22 document number 1096, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: No. You said it was found on page 5870. That's
24 where I looked and that's where I do not find it, and you're invited to
25 next time to specifically read the line you are referring to in order to
1 avoid such kind of difficulties.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I add something.
3 On page 5870, in e-court, in the question there's a quotation
4 from a previous testimony, probably of this witness, but the witness
5 didn't answer any question on that page. Only the very short one at the
7 "Yes, it says a machine-gun cease-fire violation."
8 This is the only answer of that witness recorded on that page.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Hasan you were on your feet.
10 MS. HASAN: Yes. And I was going to raise this matter later, but
11 since we're on the topic, the -- Mr. Ivetic put on the record that
12 David Fraser referred -- there was incidents that occurred in
13 February 1995. On -- that were shown to David Fraser and discussed with
14 him. In fact, he was shown one document relating to a single incident
15 that occurred in February 1995.
16 So I just wanted that correction to --
17 MR. IVETIC: That is correct.
18 MS. HASAN: -- to be clear.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic you may conclude in the next three
21 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Q. You yesterday talked about the forensic examination that
23 determined that the bullet that caused the fatality may have been from
24 the death sower. What investigations did you undertake to determine if
25 armija BiH forces on the side of the confrontation line closer to the
1 tram had a death sower in their inventory? And where would we look to
2 find those investigative efforts?
3 JUDGE ORIE: The first simple question is whether you have any
4 knowledge whether the BiH forces had death sowers.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I supposed that they did.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Do you have any specific knowledge or you supposed?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, while I was serving the army
8 in Stup, I could see some soldiers who had these sowers of death.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Next question now is: Did you make part of your
10 investigation whether the fire by the death sower may have come from BiH
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We excluded that aspect from our
13 investigation for the reason that the ballistic experts determined the
14 incoming trajectory of the projectiles which did not include any
15 indications suggesting that it could have got there from the positions of
16 the BiH army.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, you may proceed.
18 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
19 Q. Would it be the standard operating procedure of the CSB Sarajevo
20 to fully document any such investigations including any forensic
22 A. In our investigation, we certainly used the findings and opinion
23 of experts.
24 Q. My question was a bit different. Was it standard operating
25 procedure of the CSB Sarajevo to fully document in writing the
1 investigative steps and any forensic findings?
2 A. Yes, that was the standard procedure.
3 MR. IVETIC: Your Honour, I have no further questions for this
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Ivetic.
6 Ms. Hasan, any need to re-examine the witness?
7 MS. HASAN: Yes, Mr. President. I have one question.
8 But before I do so, yesterday when we discussed the admission of
9 the 92 ter transcript, I understood from Your Honour that there -- the
10 Defence may have an opportunity to tender portions of the
11 cross-examination after the completion of the testimony, and I think I
12 need to get the Defence's position before I re-direct, because if there
13 are any portions that are included now, then I would have to assess them
14 to see if there's any questions arising from that.
15 JUDGE ORIE: As matters stand now, the Defence has referred to a
16 few portions being read out literally to the witness and they did not
17 tender any other portions of the transcript. Therefore, the Chamber
18 assumes, at this moment, that the Defence does not tender any additional
19 portions --
20 MR. IVETIC: That is correct, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: -- and only will rely on portions read out
23 MS. HASAN: Thank you.
24 Re-examination by Ms. Hasan:
25 Q. At page 20 to 22 of today's transcript, my friend Mr. Ivetic
1 asked you questions about media reports, newspaper reports that you had
2 read regarding the existence of Seve Units, et cetera.
3 I take it, Witness, that would you -- well, my question is, would
4 you be in a position to comment on the truthfulness or accuracy of those
5 media reports that you read?
6 A. It would be difficult for me to say anything specific about this
7 event because I did not know anything about this while I performed my
8 duties as an inspector in the war crimes and genocide department.
9 The manipulation of these -- of this information began after the
10 war, after I had transferred to the civilian authorities. My position to
11 such information is that I receive it with some reserve, because if I may
12 say so before this Tribunal, this information is used in order to achieve
13 certain goals in the conflicts between various political parties.
14 So I accept the information but with a certain amount of
16 And if I may add, even if they are true, I would say that these
17 units were primarily used for the purposes of internal settling of
18 accounts within the ranks of the BH army and police, rather than to
19 liquidate the Serbian population, as this is sometimes claimed in the
21 And that is my personal position about this.
22 MS. HASAN: I have no further questions, Mr. President.
23 Q. Thank you, Witness, for answering all of my questions.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Hasan.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber has no further questions.
2 Mr. Ivetic, has the one question by the Defence -- by the
3 Prosecution triggered any need for further questions?
4 MR. IVETIC: It has not, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: It has not.
6 Then, this concludes your evidence, Mr. Suljic, your evidence in
7 this Court. I'd like to thank you very much for coming to The Hague and
8 for having answered all the questions that were put to you by the parties
9 and by the Bench, and I hope that you'll have a safe journey home again.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: You may follow the usher.
12 [The witness withdrew]
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE ORIE: Then I use -- yes, Ms. Hasan.
15 MS. HASAN: I just wanted to follow up on a number of outstanding
16 issues from the examination of this witness; mainly, the transcript, the
17 proffered 92 ter transcript has not yet been admitted. It's been MFI'd.
18 That's P957, if I'm not mistaken.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Ivetic, the translation issue is standing,
20 that remains or?
21 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honours. As a matter of fact, from the
22 examination of the witness, I think we've realised at least two or
23 three-points that the printed transcript or what is said the witness said
24 is incorrect, so I think that it needs to be addressed whether it's a
25 transcription error or what, but there was at least the one part where he
1 said it was wrong, and then I presented him the -- the --
2 JUDGE ORIE: He has listened to it in his own language.
3 MR. IVETIC: And -- and -- but he hasn't been able to follow the
4 transcript because he can't follow the English transcript. He can only
5 listen to the B/C/S. He has no way of knowing how it's recorded on the
7 JUDGE ORIE: I see that point. We'll ...
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, the Chamber wondered where there was a
10 mistake. Was that a portion that you introduced or was it a portion that
11 the Prosecution had introduced?
12 MR. IVETIC: It's a portion of the Prosecution and I believe it
13 was at page 6816 of the Rule 92 ter transcript, the testimony, which
14 should be the -- I want to say it's the 12th page but I can't be certain.
15 It's the ninth page in e-court, I believe, sir, where we're
16 talking about the pathologist and he indicated that this text was either
17 wrong or had been misinterpreted because that was not what he had said.
18 I'm paraphrasing of course now.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Was that the post mortem area --
20 MR. IVETIC: Correct. Yes. The post mortems.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber will consider the objections and we'll
23 decide in due course.
24 Ms. Hasan, any other matter.
25 MS. HASAN: No, just in relation to that matter, as far as I can
1 recall, the witness did clarify that point about whether he was present
2 or not. And together -- his prior testimony obviously is going to go in
3 together with what he said over the last two days. I'm not sure, I don't
4 appreciate that there is any other reason why not to admit the
6 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber will consider the objection, together
7 with your submission at this moment.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: But it would be helpful if Mr. Ivetic could draw
9 our attention to a specific portion of today's transcript where the
10 witness referred to a mistake in the transcript of the earlier case.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, so as not to take more court time, I
13 could informally advise the parties via e-mail once I locate that -- what
14 the temporary and the permanent transcript reference is.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If would you send the e-mail to Chamber's
16 staff as well, then.
17 Any other matter, Ms. Hasan?
18 If not, I'd like to deliver the Chamber's ruling on the Defence
19 motion regarding response time for Rule 94 bis witness Reynaud Theunens.
20 The Chamber will now rule on the Defence motion to enlarge the
21 time to respond to the Prosecution's Rule 94 bis notice with regard to
22 Witness Theunens and that was a motion from the 7th of February.
23 The Prosecution's response was received on the 14th of February.
24 In its response, the Prosecution informed the Chamber that a
25 corrected version of the Theunens report has been uploaded under 65 ter
1 number 28612 which rectified the various mixed up pages and other errors
2 detected by the Chamber as outlined in its oral statement of the 24th of
3 January 2013 at transcript pages 7373 to 7374.
4 With regard to the Defence's request for an extension of time to
5 respond, the Prosecution opposes and submits that it would be assisted by
6 a response of the Defence, especially with regard to information
7 overlapping with accepted adjudicated facts that should be redacted and
8 possible challenges to the report itself.
9 Contrary to the Prosecution's submission, the Chamber is of the
10 view that it is the Prosecution's sole responsibility to properly
11 consider the Chamber's request of the 24th of January, 2013, which is to
12 redact any overlap with adjudicated facts and consider the relevance of
13 over 180 pages of the report. As requested, the Chamber expects the
14 Prosecution to make a new filing pursuant to Rule 94 bis of the Rules.
15 If the Prosecution feels that it could be assisted in this endeavour by
16 the Defence, the parties may consult between themselves without the
17 involvement of the chamber.
18 In light of the forgoing the Chamber grants the Defence motion
19 and allows the Defence 30 days from the date of the Prosecution's
20 re-filing of the Theunens report to file its response.
21 And this concludes the Chamber's ruling on this matter.
22 If there is nothing else at this moment, we adjourn for the day,
23 and we'll resume on Monday, the 18th of February, 2013, at 9.30 in the
24 morning, in this same courtroom, I.
25 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.15 p.m.,
1 to be reconvened on Monday, the 18th day of
2 February, 2013, at 9.30 a.m.