1 Tuesday, 27 August 2013
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.33 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around the
7 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you and good morning, Your Honours. This
9 is case IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
11 The Chamber was informed that there was a preliminary matter but
12 very short if I understand well, so meanwhile perhaps we could already --
13 if it's about the replacement of a translation. Then could the witness
14 already be escorted into the courtroom.
15 Ms. Bibles, could I just try to anticipate on what you would like
16 to do, that is, to replace the translation which is now attached to
17 P01968 by an improved -- by a revised English translation which was
18 admitted in the Karadzic case?
19 MS. BIBLES: Yes, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE ORIE: And then the new 65 ter number for the translation
21 which replaces the old one would be ... ?
22 [The witness takes the stand]
23 [Prosecution counsel confer]
24 MS. BIBLES: Your Honour, we -- this English translation was not
25 on the 65 ter list --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes --
2 MS. BIBLES: -- so it will be a straight replacement.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Straight replacement. You have uploaded it into
5 [Prosecution counsel confer]
6 MS. BIBLES: Your Honour, it's being uploaded right now. It will
7 be available in about five minutes.
8 JUDGE ORIE: The Registrar is instructed to replace the existing
9 English translation of P01968 with the revised translation.
10 Mr. Lukic, if there would be any reason to re-visit the matter,
11 you have an opportunity to do so within the next 48 hours.
12 Good morning, Mr. Donia.
13 THE WITNESS: Good morning, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Not very polite to address other matters while you
15 enter the courtroom, but apologies for that.
16 Mr. Donia, I would like to remind you, as I ...
17 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
18 JUDGE ORIE: I would like to remind you, as I did before, that
19 you're still bound by the solemn declaration you've given at the
20 beginning of your testimony.
21 WITNESS: ROBERT DONIA [Resumed]
22 JUDGE ORIE: And Mr. Registrar informs me that you would like to
23 address the Chamber on a matter which arose yesterday.
24 THE WITNESS: Yes, I would, Your Honour. If you would be so kind
25 as to give me perhaps two or three minutes. This is in response to a
1 series of questions that you asked me at the very end of the session
2 which I feel I did not adequately answer. So I would like to try and
3 have another run at it by offering two considerations. Number one: I
4 think that your question kind of caught me in a position between two
5 worlds. As a historian, I feel that my obligation and work is intended
6 to observe, explicate, and in some sense analyse human behaviour rather
7 than to judge it. And the question that you -- first question that you
8 raised me -- in fact, Mr. Lukic asked, is really a question of the
9 judgement, namely, was the -- was the -- was fear justified on the part
10 of the Bosnian Serbs at this time.
11 The second consideration I would offer is that there really is, I
12 think, a kind of bifurcated answer to this question. It goes right to
13 the heart of the position that I outlined at the very beginning of my
14 testimony; namely, my view of ethnicity and identity, and specifically
15 the character of groupness, if any, that pertains to peoples, not just
16 the Serbs, but Croats, Muslims, and others. And as I think about this,
17 the Bosnian Serbs really -- the leaders at least lived in a world in
18 which they conceptualised the Serb people as a singular entity, as a
19 living, bounded, defined thing with substance and definition. And my
20 view with that is that's -- that would be something to be proven rather
21 than simply assumed. But I think if you believe that the Serb people
22 exists in this sense, that then naturally it has rights and those rights
23 can be respected or violated in this way of looking at things. And I
24 think the answer to the question is: If you believed that the Serb
25 people really is this bounded, firm, solid entity, then the Serb people
1 as such will experience fear and justifiable fear because it is the Serb
2 people's existence as this entity that is threatened.
3 On the other hand, if you look empirically at the behaviour of
4 individuals, including those leaders of the group at this time, I don't
5 see any evidence that they were experiencing or reflecting -- they
6 weren't engaging in any fearful behaviour. They were rather doing what
7 most political groups do when they are out-voted. They go back to the
8 drawing boards, they mobilise, they seek to get more voters and more
9 votes next time, they sharpen their arguments, and they take a different
10 tactical approach. So my answer to the question of whether individuals
11 who may identify with this broader collectivity, in fact, experience fear
12 at this time, I do not see evidence that they did.
13 Thank you, that's ...
14 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. That is a rather confusing line of
15 questions and answer about fear being justified. You could put the
16 question: Is fear for thunderstorms justified? There may be no real
17 answer to that. What you can do is you can analyse. First of all, you
18 can establish that someone experiences fear, that's one; second, you can
19 ask yourself whether there are objective reasons in the past or in the
20 present which would explain why people become fearful under certain
21 circumstances. I leave it to that, but I think from an analytical point
22 of view - and you have -- although you again talked about justified fear,
23 as the question was about justified fear, whereas an analytical approach
24 would seek explanations on the basis of experiences and that is
25 apparently what you added in the second part of your answer you gave
1 today. Is that well understood?
2 THE WITNESS: Yes, that's what I was trying to say, yes.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 Then, Mr. Lukic, let's move on.
5 Cross-examination by Mr. Lukic: [Continued]
6 Q. [Interpretation] Once again, good morning, Dr. Donia.
7 A. [Interpretation] Good morning.
8 Q. I am just going to add something to what you told us this
9 morning. You dealt with some excerpts here from the Assembly. Was there
10 a fear of genocide among the Serb people at the time?
11 A. [In English] You're asking me to assume that the Serb people
12 experience these feelings, and it's difficult for me to jump into that
13 world. I think that I could say that many Serbs have been persuaded to
14 fear a recurrence of genocide by the constant drum-beat of references to
15 historical genocide on the part of the leaders, intellectual and
16 political, of the Bosnian Serb movement.
17 Q. Already at that time the Serbs in Croatia had lost the status of
18 a people; right? They were proclaimed a national minority and in the
19 Constitution of the Republic of Croatia at that?
20 A. Again, that's a distinction in Yugoslav socialist nationality
21 theory, that this is kind of unrecognisable to most other people, most
22 people outside of Yugoslavia. But within the -- accepting the
23 definitions of those terms as they existed in socialist political
24 thought, Yugoslav socialist political thought, that's correct. They had
25 been, say, recharacterised from being a constituent people to being a
1 minority, which is in that Yugoslav system a demotion.
2 Q. Is it correct that Serbs or at least Serb politicians in
3 Bosnia-Herzegovina tried to avoid that descent, if you will, in terms of
4 status, that is to say to be demoted from the status of a people to a
5 status of a minority, and does that affect the rights that a certain
6 group of people enjoy in a certain state, first and foremost, in
7 Yugoslavia, the state that they lived in before that?
8 A. I sense two somewhat different questions here. Let me address
9 the first one first. I know of no effort that was made on the part of
10 other political forces, other political factions, in Bosnia to demote the
11 Serbs from the status of a constituent nation to a minority. I don't
12 believe that that was, at least not seriously, proposed by anyone. It
13 wasn't really a part of the political conversation. It may be that the
14 interpretation of Serb politicians was that these acts amounted to
15 ignoring the constituent status of the Serbs, but there was, to my
16 knowledge, no effort to ever demote them, as had happened in Croatia and
17 therefore no opposition to it.
18 Q. Is it correct that through out-voting, simple out-voting and the
19 loss of status by not being a constituent people anymore, would the
20 Serbs, in fact, become a minority?
21 A. No. I think, you know, out-voting happens every day in every
22 democratic system. Part of living in a democratic state is losing once
23 in a while, and the meaning of this term that the Serbs assigned to it
24 was I think part of this internal lexical convention that prevailed
25 within the Bosnian Serb movement that assigned to this notion of losing a
1 vote, a far greater, in fact, constitutional significance than it
2 actually had. And I don't think that losing a vote or even a lot of
3 votes necessarily translates into converting a people, a "narod," into a
5 Q. At the time the divisions in Bosnia were not democratic, they
6 went along ethnic lines; is that correct?
7 A. Well, there -- no, I don't think that's correct. They were
8 democratic in the sense that they were the result of voting and the
9 results of voting or they were a product of voting. The -- not only the
10 constitution but the way in which electoral districts were held --
11 elections were held gave some weight to the ethnicity of the voter as he
12 or she self-identified. But it certainly was still, in my view,
13 democratic and at different levels. The -- there were different rules
14 for the Presidency, different rules for the Assembly, and different rules
15 still for the voting in the particular -- in the 109 municipalities of
16 Bosnia. But they were all in the broad sense democratic.
17 Q. So your testimony today is that in Bosnia there weren't any
18 divisions along ethnic lines?
19 A. That's a very different question. I have not testified to that
20 whatsoever, no.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Next question, please, Mr. Lukic.
22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Could you please give me an answer. I don't see your answer.
24 Were there any divisions along ethnic lines?
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you said:
1 "So your testimony today is ..."
2 You're seeking confirmation of what you consider to be the
3 testimony of the witness today, and by saying "that's a very different
4 question. I have not testified to that whatsoever, no." It's a clear
5 "no" answer to your question. That is not what Mr. -- or the witness
6 says he testified to today, and you couldn't be surprised by that answer
7 if you have carefully listened to his testimony today.
8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I listened to the testimony of this
9 witness very carefully all the time --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, I'm not seeking any further comments from
11 you. I think I was clear enough and I already -- before you insisted on
12 an answer you had got already, I said - which I hardly ever say - "next
13 question, please, Mr. Lukic."
14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Mr. Donia, today in Bosnia-Herzegovina, in the Assembly and in
16 the Presidency, are the same systems in place, systems of protection for
17 the three peoples in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Muslim, Croat, and Serb
18 peoples, as was the case in the communist times, as you called them. Is
19 it correct that the Dayton Agreement and the Dayton constitution gives
20 the same guarantee and the same protection to each and every people,
21 through the institute of protecting vital national interest?
22 A. No. I would say they are similar, but not the same. The
23 protection is not as absolute in the Dayton constitution, if you will, as
24 it was in the -- in socialist provisions.
25 Q. Is it correct that this protection is now part of the Presidency
1 as well, not only in the Assembly, which had not been the case earlier?
2 A. You're drawing me into an area that I'm not terribly familiar
3 with. I'm just hesitant. It would be a speculative answer. I'm sorry,
4 I'd rather not answer it.
5 JUDGE ORIE: You're not invited to speculate. If you don't feel
6 comfortable to answer the question, please tell us and Mr. Lukic will
7 then put his next question.
8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. We're going to abandon this topic and I'm going to ask you this:
10 In your research, did you come across a statement made by
11 Mr. Alija Izetbegovic, who said that for him a united Bosnia-Herzegovina
12 is more important than peace and that he is prepared to sacrifice peace
13 for the sake of a single Bosnia-Herzegovina?
14 A. Yes. He made that statement in the context of a longer
15 proclamation in which he expressed his abhorrence of war and noted that
16 for him, as a very last resort, he would resort -- he would sacrifice
17 peace if it was guaranteed to assure a single Bosnia-Herzegovina. That
18 was in February of 1991 in the Assembly of the Bosnian parliament.
19 Q. In your view, what is the difference between the right to
20 secession of Croats and Muslims from Yugoslavia in relation to the right
21 of secession of the Serbs from Bosnia-Herzegovina? Are both justified or
22 is one justified and the other one unjustified? In that historical
23 context, how do you see that?
24 A. Well, that's a -- really a legal question that goes to the
25 interaction between the two constitutions, Bosnia-Herzegovina and
1 Yugoslavia, which in turn goes directly to the question whether it's
2 justified or not. And I just can't comment on a legal issue like that.
3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we see P2001 again. We need
4 page 22 in e-court in English and page 30 in B/C/S.
5 THE WITNESS: Which report is that now, Mr. Lukic?
6 MR. LUKIC: It's report on the Assembly of Republika Srpska. And
7 it's --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Would you refer to the item, Mr. Lukic.
9 MR. LUKIC: It's two pages less. It's page 20 in your --
10 JUDGE ORIE: I'm asking the items. They're numbered as items.
11 MR. LUKIC: It's 42, 37th Session on 10th of January, 1994. It's
12 the last paragraph on this page in English and it's on the middle of the
13 page in B/C/S.
14 Q. [Interpretation] We see here that President Karadzic already in
15 the beginning of 1994 mentions that the territory held by Serbs in
16 Bosnia-Herzegovina will possibly go down by 50 per cent. In your
17 research, what sources did you get to or what conclusion did you reach?
18 When did the international community decide that the division in Bosnia
19 should be 51 to 49 per cent, 51 per cent for the Muslims and Croats and
20 49 per cent for the Serbs?
21 A. If I may, just one moment, I believe the translation in English
22 came through that it was down by 50 per cent. I think that we all agree
23 it went down to 50 per cent in the territory of Bosnia. And this
24 occurred after the -- about the time that the Contact Group plan came
25 into play when the Bosnian government and -- it's actually was in the
1 debates and the Bosnian parliament found that there was strong opposition
2 to the Owen-Stoltenberg plan because it only gave about I think
3 30 per cent of the land to Muslims, to the -- to the Bosnian government
4 side. And so after that, the -- this percentage game that the
5 international community wanted to play resulted in the notion of
6 approximately slightly less than 50 per cent to go to the
7 Republika Srpska.
8 Q. On the basis of the documentation that you studied, would you
9 agree that after that period a time of constant pressure against the Serb
10 side started to agree to 49 per cent and that that is the time when the
11 international community openly sided with the Muslims and Croats in this
12 war in order to achieve that balance of 49/51 per cent?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Your view would not change even if you knew that representatives
15 of UNPROFOR confirmed this question of mine?
16 A. I would -- wanted to see that they had, in fact, confirmed it as
17 you asked it, and frankly it wouldn't change my opinion here. In view of
18 the big picture, I don't think the -- that change that you're talking
19 about really took place.
20 Q. Was the war in Bosnia actually a war for territories?
21 A. In part, yes.
22 Q. The other two peoples in BH, did they want to control as large a
23 part of the territory as possible too?
24 A. I think we've established that the Serbs did not want to control
25 as large a part of the territory as possible, that their goals were quite
1 specific, they were ambitious but not as large as possible. And I don't
2 believe that the objectives of the other two peoples were either. The --
3 it's questionable whether the Muslims as a people or the representatives
4 who claimed to be representatives of the Muslim people really had such
5 goals. They favoured a unitary Bosnia which didn't recognise these kinds
6 of distinctions. But certainly the Croats did not have that kind of
7 ambition, no.
8 Q. The Croats at the time, did they also aspire for a separate
10 A. Many of their leaders did, yes.
11 Q. Let's look at page 33 in e-court now of your report, that's the
12 English version, and page 44 in Serbian. It is number 72. It is
13 probably page 31 in your report itself. You're talking here about a
14 homogenous relocation of refugees. The person who has the same name as I
15 do, Mr. Lukic, says the following: We succeeded in carrying out the
16 homogenous relocation of refugees in the beginning of war. Which
17 refugees is he talking about here, the Serb refugees or the refugees from
18 another ethnic community? How do you understand this?
19 A. It's not clear. It could pertain to all -- refugees of all
20 groups or only to one or two. Just not clear in this passage what he is
21 referring to. I think he's referring to the broad process of relocating
22 refugees rather than -- he's very likely referring to the broad process
23 rather than anything specific to one group.
24 Q. Is it possible to conduct a homogenous relocation to somebody
25 else's territory and to put people from another area in one place in
1 another's territory? It seems obvious that here we are talking about
2 Serb refugees.
3 A. Well, the -- that question presupposes that you have fixed
4 boundaries and established areas. And I think if you assume that
5 context, then I think the answer to your question is: No, you can't do
6 that. However, he's speaking about the beginning of the war at a time
7 when boundaries either didn't exist or were being formed, that is,
8 boundaries between areas of control by the various factions, and in some
9 cases were very porous. So I don't know that that really helps us
10 clarify the likely referent here.
11 Q. You never talked to Mr. Lukic and you never asked him what he
12 meant by this?
13 A. No, I only actually have spoken with one Mr. Lukic and he's in
14 the courtroom.
15 Q. Okay. Let us briefly look at page 66 in English and 89 in the
16 B/C/S. It should be 64 and the item is 155. As we can see, at the
17 session of 24th March 1992 President Karadzic is saying the following:
18 The policemen have been forced out of the municipalities of Stari Grad,
19 Gorazde, and I think from Visegrad as well. "Milicioneri" means
20 "policemen," can we agree on that?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. What can you infer from this text? Who is throwing or forcing
23 out whom?
24 A. Well, it was of course Karadzic's position that the Bosnian
25 government police, police loyal to the unified MUP, were throwing out
1 Serbs. I think the reality on the ground, the evidence suggests, was
2 much more mixed. The first actual division of a police station that I
3 know of took place in Bosanska Krupa in early September of 1991, and in
4 that circumstance local SDS leaders actually led the Serb policemen out
5 of the station of the joint -- the unified MUP to another village nearby
6 and established a separate Serb police station. The situation in
7 Stari Grad and in -- and in Pale was complex and actually kind of
8 contested. The process seems to have been started on about the
9 2nd of March, 1992, at the time of the barricades when some of the
10 Serbian policemen from the Stari Grad station participated in the actual
11 manning of the barricades and thereafter ceased to come to work in the
12 Stari Grad station. So it's a mixed picture, I would say, in terms of
13 who initiated these things, although it clearly was Karadzic's position
14 here and he expressed it on many other occasions that all of this was
15 initiated by the government side and expelled Serb policemen.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, is this what you wanted to ask the
17 witness, the -- whether what Mr. Karadzic describes is what happened in
18 the municipalities he mentioned, whether that was the overall picture?
19 Is that what you wanted to -- because it was unclear to me whether that
20 was your question.
21 MR. LUKIC: I think it was overall picture at that time as well,
22 only here we have some concrete examples --
23 JUDGE ORIE: No, you ask, "What can you infer from this text?"
24 The text says our policemen are thrown out in the three municipalities he
25 mentioned, and then -- the question was: What can you infer from
1 this ... ? What you wanted to know whether that was representative for
2 what happened everywhere? Is that -- what was your question? I'm just
3 guessing about what you were asking the witness. I've heard his answer.
4 If that's what you wanted to ask him, then no problem; if it's not then I
5 would --
6 MR. LUKIC: I wanted to clarify first these three stations but I
7 don't think I got the answer I envisaged and I would like to pursue a bit
8 more on this issue.
9 JUDGE ORIE: You asked him who was thrown out. I think the
10 witness answered that in those three instances.
11 Karadzic referred to --
12 THE WITNESS: I really don't know the specific situation in
13 Gorazde in Visegrad, so I can only say the final result was that pure
14 Serb police force took over there, but I don't know how that happened. I
15 do in the case of Stari Grad, as I indicated, try to give you some feel
16 for those details.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then you gave a bit of an overall picture
18 being very mixed.
19 THE WITNESS: Yes.
20 JUDGE ORIE: If that's what you wanted to know, Mr. Lukic --
21 otherwise, try to focus your questions such a way that you get answers to
22 the questions you put.
23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. You say government forces or the forces loyal to the government,
25 are you primarily referring to Muslims when you say that and an
1 occasional Croat?
2 A. Well, it again depends on the period. At the very beginning of
3 the war from 1991 until sometime in, let's say, I think March of 1992,
4 there were, in fact, two very closely co-operating heads of MUP, I think
5 it was Delimustafic and a Serb whose name I can't remember right now. So
6 I mean, they worked very closely, I thought, to try to keep MUP unified
7 and of course in the long run failed. And after that period of time it
8 was indeed primarily Muslims who made up the MUP which organisationally
9 was the same one that had existed prior to 19 -- prior to April 1992, but
10 owing to the Serb withdrawal as ordered on May 30th -- or, I'm sorry,
11 March 30th was almost completely devoid of Serbs.
12 Q. This division is by no means a democratic one. It's a division
13 along ethnic lines.
14 A. You're -- the -- that's not a dichotomy. It was not democratic
15 in the sense that it was accomplished, at least in part, by force. And
16 it, in the end, produced a largely ethnic division between the police --
17 the MUP of the Republika Srpska on the one hand and the MUP or the police
18 of the government of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
19 Q. What was the role of General Mladic at these Assembly sessions?
20 Was he entitled to pass any decisions or to vote for anything or was he
21 merely allowed to make proposals?
22 A. In principle, he was a guest and didn't have a right to vote, for
23 that matter didn't even really have a right to formally make a proposal.
24 There was a lot of flexibility, particularly in the earlier sessions, of
25 the Assembly in which the guest came to number in the tens and often took
1 the liberty of making proposals and even voting. So it's not
2 inconceivable that he may have at some point actually engaged in those
3 activities, but I don't know that he ever did. He was, I think, an
4 influential voice, making suggestions, advocating policies, and engaging
5 in the discussions about those policies.
6 Q. On page 79 in e-court, paragraph 2, 107 and paragraph 1 in the
7 B/C/S - and I'm talking about your paper - it's item 185 under number 2,
8 or rather, the paragraph that begins with "secondly," we see that
9 General Mladic is seeking a state of war to be proclaimed. So we are
10 talking about the session held on the 12th of May, 1992. You would agree
11 that the state of war was not proclaimed and that this proposal of
12 General Mladic went unheeded?
13 A. Yes. Could I possibly implore the usher to refill my water. I
14 think the ushers have inadvertently engaged in the policy of separation
15 of the water and the glass.
16 Q. All of us are here pressurised by time and space. Doctor, I had
17 quite a few more questions but I promised the Chamber and you that I
18 would finish during the first session. I am sorry to have been a burden
19 to you, and at this point I have no further questions.
20 THE WITNESS: It's been no burden, Mr. Lukic. I thank you.
21 JUDGE ORIE: I establish, Mr. Lukic, that you finished even
22 before the end of the first session this morning.
23 Ms. Bibles, do you have any further questions for Mr. Donia?
24 MS. BIBLES: I do, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: How much time would they take approximately?
1 MS. BIBLES: No more than 15 minutes and perhaps considerably
2 less than that. I could -- I'll certainly get started before the break
3 and may finish by the break.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Let's get started. If you feel that at 10.30 you
5 would need no more than five minutes, please indicate so that we could
6 consider to take the break slightly later; but if it would be seven,
7 eight, or more minutes then we'll take the break anyhow.
8 MS. BIBLES: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 Re-examination by Ms. Bibles:
10 Q. First I want to go back to a matter that I need to clarify with
11 respect to P2001 relating to highlights 258 and 259. I believe you
12 corrected the date of the 20th Assembly, and I want to make sure that we
13 corrected that to -- to the accurate date. I believe we gave a date in
14 July. Could you give us an accurate date for the 20th Assembly relating
15 to those two highlights?
16 A. As I recall, it was the 16th and 17th of July, 1992.
17 Q. Is it possible that would have been the 14th and 15th of
18 September for the 20th Session? I'm sorry.
19 A. It certainly is my recollection. That is obviously not correct.
20 Q. To go -- turn full attention now to cross-examination. Last
21 Thursday you were asked questions relating to the transformation of the
22 JNA, and that would be the second section of your Sarajevo report. You
23 were asked some specifics about Kijevo and I'd like to go back to that
24 area. Can you tell us why you used the Kijevo battle in your report?
25 A. I used it for two reasons: Number one, General Mladic had a
1 very -- well, the leading role in the Serb forces in that battle; and,
2 number two, it is cited by General Mladic himself in Assembly sessions,
3 and also in this wonderful book of interviews that was done with him
4 during the war time by Jovan Janjic, as a seminal event in the evolution
5 of the conflict in both Croatia and Bosnia.
6 MS. BIBLES: Your Honours, if I could ask the Court Officer to
7 bring P2001, e-court in English page 78 and page 106 in B/C/S and looking
8 at highlight 184.
9 Q. In looking at highlight 184, is that one of the segments that you
10 were just relating to?
11 A. Yes, one of them, the first paragraph.
12 Q. Could you read -- and this is a segment. Could you review this
13 highlight or read this highlight very quickly for us?
14 A. I'll read in English:
15 "'The Knin'" --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please do it at such a speed of speech
17 that the interpreters can follow you.
18 THE WITNESS: I wonder if it would be useful to identify it in
19 B/C/S so the translators could use the actual B/C/S that General Mladic
20 used in the original.
21 MS. BIBLES: And perhaps, given the time, Your Honours, I would
22 bring attention to the first paragraph specifically of excerpt 184.
23 Q. And by way of question, who does General Mladic refer to in this
24 first paragraph in that excerpt?
25 A. He refers to Milan Martic who was the chief of police, he was the
1 minister of MUP, minister of internal affairs, of the break-away Serb
2 polity in Croatia, the Serb Republic of Krajina.
3 Q. And now I'd like to shift direction to a series of questions that
4 you were asked yesterday regarding the nature of the 16th Assembly and
5 the six strategic objectives. You were also asked whether you were aware
6 that Ratko Mladic came to Bosnia on the 9th of May, 1992. Do you recall
7 that line of questions?
8 A. Yes, I do.
9 Q. Are you aware of any information or evidence that Ratko Mladic
10 was involved in the discussions regarding the strategic objectives prior
11 to the 16th Assembly?
12 A. Yes. There is a reference in his diary to a meeting which he
13 attended I believe several days before the six strategic goals were laid
14 out by Karadzic on the 12th.
15 MS. BIBLES: Your Honours, if the Court Officer could bring
16 P00352, which is one of the Mladic notebooks, to our screens. I would
17 ask for e-court page 262 in English and e-court page 270 in B/C/S.
18 Q. We're looking now at -- it appears that we have both versions on
19 the screen now. Could you tell us what we're looking at here?
20 A. This is an enumeration of the, in this case, seven strategic
21 goals in which in the notebook General Mladic attributes these to
22 Mr. Krajisnik. The -- obviously the seven goals do not correspond
23 completely with the six goals that were laid out on the 12th, and in fact
24 the seventh one was the one that was not -- did not -- was not carried
25 forward to the final enunciation. But otherwise they are recognisably
1 those that were laid out on the 12th.
2 Q. And I believe you have reflected in your testify that he
3 attributes these to Mr. Krajisnik.
4 MS. BIBLES: If we could turn to the next page in e-court,
6 Q. I'll ask two questions: First, could you briefly tell us what
7 that seventh strategic objective was.
8 A. To establish links with the RSK, the Republic of Serbian Krajina,
9 that polity within the boundaries of Croatia that lay in Croatia and was
10 a break-away -- as I characterised, a break-away republic.
11 Q. Can you tell us based on your read of this page what other
12 individuals were present -- apparently present at this meeting?
13 A. Bozidar Vucurevic, who was a very prominent SDS leader in western
14 Herzegovina, and Mr. Karadzic, of course, was also present. That's I
15 think the only persons we can determine from this excerpt that were
17 MS. BIBLES: I'll ask if we could go back to the previous page.
18 Q. Could you tell us what the date of this meeting is.
19 A. This is dated the 7th of May, 1992.
20 Q. And just briefly, are you aware of whether or not there were
21 similar meetings relating to Bosnia on the 6th of May, 1992, reflected in
22 this notebook?
23 A. Yes, as I recall there was a meeting on the 6th which without
24 enumerating them also discussed the goals to be outlined for the
25 Republika Srpska.
1 MS. BIBLES: And, Your Honour, at this point I have no further
3 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Bibles.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, have the questions in re-direct triggered
6 the need for any further cross?
7 Then, Mr. Donia, this -- if Mr. Mladic would like to consult
8 then -- because Mr. Donia might be gone if we don't take the opportunity
10 [Defence counsel and accused confer]
11 MR. LUKIC: It seems that Mr. Mladic would have some questions
12 based on the re-direct.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Then I suggest the following: That you consult with
14 Mr. Mladic during the break and that you put any additional questions to
15 the witness after the break.
16 Ms. Bibles.
17 MS. BIBLES: Your Honour, perhaps before we go to break it would
18 be a good time, before Dr. Donia leaves, to move to admit the exhibits
19 P1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, they're all MFI'd.
21 Mr. Lukic.
22 MR. LUKIC: We will have the same objections we had before on
23 those reports.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll consider it over the break now having
25 heard the testimony of the witness, at least if I could say 99 per cent
1 of the testimony of the witness, and we'll then decide after the break.
2 Could the witness be escorted out of the courtroom. We need you
3 for a short while after the break, Mr. Donia.
4 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.
5 [The witness stands down]
6 JUDGE ORIE: We take a break and we'll resume at five minutes to
8 --- Recess taken at 10.35 a.m.
9 --- On resuming at 10.57 a.m.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
11 Mr. Lukic, no need to remind you of the limits of the areas to be
12 covered at the present stage of the examination of the witness.
13 MR. LUKIC: It's exactly in these limits.
14 [The witness takes the stand]
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you may proceed.
16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
17 Further cross-examination by Mr. Lukic:
18 Q. [Interpretation] Doctor, I've already said that we have no
19 further questions, but I'm coming back with a few. It won't be long.
20 We'll go into a bit of history now. Let's see whether you are familiar
21 with this. Do you know when the Independent State of Croatia was
22 established in 1941 what happened to the Serb population in the village
23 of -- the village of Kijevo?
24 A. I specifically -- for Kijevo, I do not know.
25 Q. I will put something to you. Fifty inhabitants of Kijevo in 1941
1 were invited to a meeting and they were all killed except for one who
2 managed to escape. You never came across this information? They were
3 killed by Ustasha formations.
4 A. I came across information that the town -- village of Kijevo had
5 been, in fact, the subject of these -- of attacks by the Ustasha and that
6 there were casualties, but I did not go into the specifics. I looked at
7 it only in the broader context of the Ustasha killings of Jews, Serbs,
8 Roma, and so on.
9 Q. At the time when things were happening in 1991 in Kijevo,
10 Mr. Mladic was not commander. He was Chief of Staff of the 9th Corps of
11 the JNA. Are you aware of that?
12 A. Yes, I'm -- acknowledge that, yes.
13 Q. Spiro Ninkovic was the commander. Are you aware of that?
14 A. Yes, you're -- you refreshed my memory that that was indeed the
16 Q. At the time, that is to say the time that we are talking about,
17 do you know that the barracks in Sinj, Zadar, Split had all been under a
18 blockade for six months already by then without water, electricity,
19 et cetera?
20 A. Well, I think I've written about in the report and acknowledged
21 in testimony that these blockades existed of various "kasarna" in
22 Croatia. I didn't go into the details about exactly which one were, how
23 long they were, and whether they were totally without water or
24 electricity. So I can't confirm that specifically, but there was no
25 question that a number of those "kasarna" were -- had been isolated and
1 that were under siege.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, I suggest that we -- that you first deal
3 with the questions and then consult with Mr. Mladic, that whatever
4 remains then can be added to your questions, because otherwise it will --
5 the further examination will be interrupted again and again. You have an
6 opportunity before Mr. Donia will be excused to consult.
7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Do you know that at that time General Perisic was commander of
9 the barracks in Zadar? Did you come across that information?
10 A. No, I don't recall coming across that information. I have no
11 reason to dispute it.
12 Q. All right. Did you come across information to the effect that in
13 the barracks that were under siege people who were killed in the barracks
14 had to be buried in the barracks themselves under floors?
15 A. No. As I say, I didn't really go much beyond the fact that they
16 were -- the sieges were established and that there were JNA troops in
18 Q. Now, as regards the incident in Kijevo itself, did you come
19 across information to the effect that a corpse, the corpse of
20 Zeljko Vranjes, was supposed to be taken through Kijevo? He was
21 returning home from Switzerland. He was arrested in Vinkovci, taken to
22 Sibenik, beaten for a few days there, until he was killed, and then he
23 was thrown on a dump in Sibenik and he was found there, picked up, and
24 driven through Kijevo in order to be buried in Civljani, his own village?
25 A. No.
1 Q. Did you know that at the time in Kijevo a police station had been
2 established whose komandir was Ante Bajan and that they prevented this
3 column from passing through, the people who were supposed to bury
4 Zeljko Vranjes?
5 A. Of these items that you've mentioned, I have written about and
6 can confirm that a police station was established by the Croatian MUP in
7 Kijevo and that it did engage in -- put up blockades, preventing passage
8 of persons and goods. The rest I do not have any knowledge of.
9 Q. Did you come across information to the effect that it was
10 precisely because of that that Milan Martic was called upon, or rather,
11 the police to resolve the problem with the Croatian MUP and that was the
12 reason why both the policemen and the military took part in this?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Did you come across information that precisely during those days
15 the commander of the barracks in Bjelovar was killed, Rajko Kovacevic, a
17 A. Again, I don't know the name. There were certainly -- certainly
18 casualties at that time in a low-level sniping and shooting that was
19 going on, but I don't know specifically the names of the individual
21 MR. LUKIC: Give me one second. I just have to consult with the
23 [Defence counsel and accused confer]
24 JUDGE ORIE: Low volume and I hear it even through my earphones.
25 Mr. Lukic.
1 MR. LUKIC: I have only one more question.
2 Q. [Interpretation] At that time, on the 19th of September, did you
3 know that a column had been attacked, a column that was withdrawing from
4 the Karlovac barracks? And the leader of the column had his throat slit
5 and all the soldiers were killed. That happened at Koranski Most, the
6 Korana bridge, on the 19th?
7 A. I can't confirm that, no.
8 Q. Thank you, Doctor. Thank you for your answers. This is indeed
9 the end of your examination now.
10 JUDGE ORIE: And I can confirm that, Mr. --
11 Low volume, only a very short consultation. I confirmed ...
12 [Defence counsel and accused confer]
13 MR. LUKIC: If I can ask for --
14 JUDGE ORIE: No, no more questions, Mr. Lukic. The last question
15 you put to the witness after having consulted with Mr. Mladic resulted in
16 an answer that the witness didn't know. So that can -- the lack of
17 knowledge of the witness cannot have triggered any need for further
18 questions. So we leave it to that.
19 Mr. Donia -- Mr. -- no, Mr. Mladic, we'll now first excuse
20 Mr. Donia before we continue.
21 Mr. Donia, I'd like to thank you very much for having come to
22 The Hague. You know the route by now I take it, and for having answered
23 all the questions that were put to you by the parties and by the Bench.
24 And you are excused. I wish you a safe return home.
25 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour. It's been an honour to be
1 before you.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, thank you. You may follow the usher.
3 [The witness withdrew]
4 JUDGE ORIE: Then the Chamber will decide on the admission of
5 P1999, P2000, P2001, and P2002. All four are admitted into evidence.
6 And, Mr. Lukic, the Chamber has also considered that during your
7 examination of the witness you have extensively used portions of that
8 evidence as well.
9 Ms. Bibles.
10 MS. BIBLES: Your Honours, there are four additional items or
11 exhibits that I would move to tender from the bar table.
12 JUDGE ORIE: In relation to this witness, that's -- one second.
13 Ms. Bibles, if we take them one by one the first one would
14 be ...?
15 MS. BIBLES: 03189.
16 JUDGE ORIE: 03189, is that on your -- 03189, speech by Karadzic
17 November 1991.
18 Any objections?
19 MR. LUKIC: No objection.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, the number would be ...?
21 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P2005.
22 JUDGE ORIE: P2005.
23 Next one, Ms. Bibles.
24 MS. BIBLES: 09900.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Army of Republika Srpska Main Staff operational
1 directive dated the 25th of June, 1993.
2 MR. LUKIC: No objection.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P2006, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Next one.
6 MS. BIBLES: 17523.
7 JUDGE ORIE: VRS Main Staff addition to directive number 4 dated
8 22nd of December.
9 MR. LUKIC: No objections.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
11 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P2007, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE ORIE: And that last one, Ms. Bibles?
13 MS. BIBLES: 09638.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Speech of Major-General Dragomir Milosevic, ceremony
15 of presenting war flags.
16 MR. LUKIC: No objections, no.
17 JUDGE ORIE: No objections.
18 Mr. Registrar.
19 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P2008, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE ORIE: P2005 through P2008, all four are admitted. There's
21 no need to have them under seal, I take it.
22 MS. BIBLES: One final matter, Your Honour. Mr. Lukic -- I would
23 like to have an opportunity to speak with Mr. Lukic about sections of the
24 assembly minutes which have been described in the testimony today, where
25 perhaps we need more of the assembly session than the excerpts that were
1 presented. I would suggest that one we have an opportunity to discuss
2 these in a little more depth that we would then present them to the
3 Trial Chamber either in writing or we could return.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if both parties would agree on adding excerpts
5 beyond what is presented by Mr. Donia, then of course the Chamber will
6 hear of that and will likely follow such a suggestion.
7 Nothing else, Ms. Bibles?
8 MS. BIBLES: May I be excused, Your Honour?
9 JUDGE ORIE: You are excused.
10 For the next witness, no protective measures. Will it be you,
11 Ms. Harbour, who will examine the witness?
12 MS HARBOUR: Yes, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Are there any matters we have to pay attention to
14 before he enters the courtroom? I don't think so. Then could the
15 witness be escorted into the courtroom. And that will be Mr. Turkusic.
16 [The witness entered court]
17 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Turkusic.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Morning.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Before you give evidence, the Rules require that you
20 make a solemn declaration. The text is now handed out to you. May I
21 invite you to make that solemn declaration.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
23 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
24 WITNESS: EMIR TURKUSIC
25 [Witness answered through interpreter]
1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please be seated.
2 Mr. Turkusic, you'll first be examined by Ms. Harbour. Ms.
3 Harbour is counsel for the Prosecution and you'll find her to your right.
4 You may proceed, Ms. Harbour.
5 MS. HARBOUR: Thank you, Your Honour.
6 Examination by Ms. Harbour:
7 Q. Could you please state your full name for the record.
8 A. Emir Turkusic.
9 Q. You previously testified in the trials of Dragomir Milosevic,
10 Momcilo Perisic, and Radovan Karadzic; is that correct?
11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. And you've also given several statements to the
13 Office of the Prosecutor of this Tribunal; is that correct?
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. You've had an opportunity to review an amalgamated statement
16 containing relevant information from your prior testimonies and
17 statements; is that right?
18 A. That's correct.
19 MS. HARBOUR: Could I ask that 65 ter number 30183, which is a
20 statement dated 19 July 2013 be placed on the monitor.
21 Q. Dr. Turkusic, do you recognise the document that is on the
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And what is this document?
25 A. This document is the amalgamated statement that I recently
2 Q. And the signature at the bottom of the page, do you recognise the
4 A. Yes, that is my signature.
5 MS. HARBOUR: And if we could please go to the last page of the
7 Q. Do you recognise the signature on this page?
8 A. I do.
9 Q. Did you have an opportunity prior to testifying today to review
10 this statement in your own language?
11 A. Yes, I read it in its entirety, in detail.
12 Q. You identified several corrections that need to be made to this
13 document, and I'm going to go through those with you now. At
14 paragraph 17 of the statement it currently states:
15 "Both errors lead to a delay in impulse after firing ..."
16 This should instead read:
17 "Both errors lead to a change in impulse after firing ..."
18 Is that correct?
19 A. That's right.
20 Q. At paragraph 36 in your comment related to the first document,
21 the B/C/S original of this statement states that "the projectile
22 originated from the south-west." This should be changed to "south-east";
23 is that correct?
24 A. That's correct.
25 Q. In paragraph 47 it refers to a number KV9405. This should
1 instead refer to KV9404; is that correct?
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. In paragraph 50 the reference to "south-west" should be changed
4 to "south-east"; is that correct?
5 A. That's correct.
6 Q. In paragraph 65 halfway through the paragraph is a sentence that
8 "And then you have alpha degree and that is on what our
9 calculation is based."
10 And you would like to clarify that this sentence should instead
12 "And then you can calculate the alpha angle."
13 Is that correct?
14 A. That's correct, precisely.
15 Q. And for the final correction that you identified, if we could go
16 to paragraph 117, in your comment related to 65 ter 15718 you refer to
17 the signatures of yourself and Nedim Bosnic. This should refer to
18 initials and not to signatures; is that correct?
19 A. That's right.
20 JUDGE ORIE: In the report I have it says already "initials." So
21 I'm talking about -- let me just have a look. Paragraph 117, last item:
22 "This is my report and I recognise my initials and those ..."
23 That's what I have in my hard copy. Then apparently there are
24 two versions.
25 MS. HARBOUR: Your Honours.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 MS. HARBOUR: I believe I can clarify the issue. In the original
3 92 ter filing we attached a provisional translation which was
4 subsequently revised. In the revision process, since it had to be
5 consistent with the original Bosnian statement, the word "signature" was
6 changed to "initials," and now the witness would like to correct that to
7 reflect that it should indeed be "initials." And the revised translation
8 was distributed about a little over a week ago, I believe.
9 JUDGE ORIE: And that revised version was attached to the 92 ter
11 MS. HARBOUR: The version attached to the 92 ter motion was the
12 unrevised translation, and in the meantime as of approximately a week and
13 a half ago the revised version has become available.
14 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
15 JUDGE ORIE: We will sort this out and -- Ms. Harbour. Because
16 what I was provided with is a version which contains already all this, so
17 we'll check carefully what was attached to the 92 ter motion. Perhaps I
18 received already a more recent one, but it's clear at least what the
19 testimony of the witness is in this respect.
20 Please proceed.
21 MS. HARBOUR:
22 Q. Dr. Turkusic, with these changes if you were asked the same
23 questions today that you were asked in preparation for this statement
24 would you give the same answers in substance?
25 A. Yes, I would.
1 Q. Now that you have taken the solemn declaration, do you affirm the
2 accuracy of the truthfulness of this statement?
3 A. Precisely so. I confirm.
4 MS. HARBOUR: Your Honours, at this time I would like to tender
5 65 ter 30183, which is this amalgamated statement.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.
7 MR. LUKIC: We have the same objections we had in our motion
8 filed on the 9th of August, 2013.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Could you just remind me exactly what the basis of
10 the objections ...
11 MR. LUKIC: I don't have that motion with me since I have only
12 documents from Dr. Donia with me. I'll have it in a couple minutes
13 probably, but I know that we mainly objected to the expert nature of the
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE ORIE: The document will be MFI'd. Under what number,
17 Mr. --
18 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter 30183 will be MFI P2009, Your Honours.
19 JUDGE ORIE: And keeps that status for the time being.
20 Ms. Harbour.
21 MS. HARBOUR: Your Honours, there are 37 associated exhibits for
22 this statement which have not yet been admitted into evidence.
23 Ms. Stewart has supplied the Chamber and the Registry and the parties
24 with this list via e-mail. Thirty-three of these documents have never
25 been assigned exhibit numbers and four have been marked not admitted and
1 we would tender all of those 37 exhibits pursuant to Rule 92 ter as
2 inseparable and indispensable parts of the 92 ter statement.
3 JUDGE ORIE: I suggest that at this very moment that
4 Mr. Registrar, having received the list, will provisionally assign
5 numbers and that we will then decide at the end of the examination of the
6 witness about admission.
7 MS. HARBOUR: Your Honours, if there's any question about whether
8 any of these exhibits are inseparable and indispensable to the witness's
9 statement, I would request to be informed at this stage, while the
10 witness is still on the stand, so that I can address and tender the
11 documents through the witness rather than leaving them to a separate
12 mechanism of tendering at a later stage. And although I've planned only
13 a small number of questions for the witness, I would use additional time
14 as necessary to ensure that each of these associated exhibits are
15 admitted into evidence. And in the alternative, we would request the
16 Chamber to admit these documents pursuant to Rule 89(C), as the witness
17 statement provides information establishing both relevance and
18 authenticity for each document.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, a specific question, not admission in
20 general, but whether you consider them inseparable and indispensable to
21 the witness's statement. On the basis of the assumption, of course, that
22 the statement would be admitted into evidence.
23 MR. LUKIC: I have to admit I'm looking at that door to get those
24 documents. If we can just postpone this after the break. I don't have
25 documents with me. I really cannot answer at this moment.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Harbour, I suggest that you start your
2 examination-in-chief and that we'll then hear from Mr. Lukic whether
3 there's any dispute about the inseparability and indispensability of
4 these documents.
5 MS. HARBOUR: Okay.
6 I would now like to read a public summary of the 92 ter evidence
7 of this witness and I've explained the purpose of this summary to the
9 Dr. Turkusic was a member of the counter-sabotage protection unit
10 of the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Bosnia and
11 Herzegovina, which was known as the KDZ, in 1994 and 1995. The witness
12 and his team conducted numerous ballistic investigations into shelling
13 incidents in Sarajevo. He provides evidence of the KDZ's role in
14 shelling investigations, the method of determining the direction of fire
15 of a mortar round, the accuracy of mortars, and the nature of modified
16 air-bombs. He discusses in detail investigative documentation relating
17 to many shelling incidents. His team was responsible for determining the
18 type of projectile that was used in these incidents. He was involved in
19 analysing the craters caused by mortar impacts and was also involved in
20 identifying and analysing projectile fragments gathered at various crime
21 scenes. The witness can attest to the significance of markings found on
22 some of these fragments, most notably the markings found on mortar
23 stabiliser fins which revealed that they were manufactured in
24 Krusik Valjevo in Serbia and the year and the month.
25 Dr. Turkusic testifies in particular about the Markale II
1 shelling incident on the 28th of August, 1995, in which a 120-millimetre
2 mortar shell detonated outside the entrance to the city market. This is
3 scheduled incident G18.
4 Dr. Turkusic describes the atmosphere of panic and fear at the
5 incident site. He notes the stabiliser of the projectile bore markings
6 which indicated that it was manufactured in Valjevo, Serbia, in
7 July 1993. He explains that the 120-millimetre mortar round is an
8 anti-personnel projectile, designed to destroy manpower. It sprays its
9 shrapnel in a horizontal fashion close to the ground. Dr. Turkusic
10 discusses the minimal possible angle of descent and the direction of fire
11 of the projectile. He also provides evidence about four other shelling
12 incidents impacting close to the city market around the same time as the
13 Markale II shelling, using mortars bearing the same Krusik Valjevo
15 And this concludes the public summary.
16 Your Honours, I now have a few questions for this witness and in
17 addition if there is dispute about the inseparability and
18 indispensability of the documents, I will go through any documents that
19 may not be admitted as associated exhibits.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we'll hear from Mr. Lukic later. So if it
21 would be possible to -- do you have any questions which are not affected
22 by our judgement on inseparability and --
23 MS. HARBOUR: Yes, I have a few. So I will go through those now
24 and then we can determine how to proceed.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Let's start with that, yes.
1 MS. HARBOUR: Could we please have 65 ter 19301A on the screen.
2 Q. Dr. Turkusic, in your statement you comment on many documents,
3 most of which refer to a series of letters and numbers, MK M74. The
4 document on the screen is one of these. This document is discussed at
5 paragraph 114 of your statement. You state that this is a standard CSB
6 report, reporting that four 120-millimetre rounds fell on the
7 28th of August, 1995, all bearing the marking KB9307, MK M74. And I
8 would like to ask you, during the investigation where would you see the
9 MK M74 markings?
10 A. These markings are embossed in the propelling part of the shell
11 near the stabiliser or in the inside near the main charge and near the
12 trigger. So they're virtually embossed. That's a method of applying
13 these markings, which indicate the type of projectile and the month and
14 year of the manufacture. They also carried information. KV in Cyrillic,
15 it's KB, and I think that that means Krusik Valjevo factory.
16 MS. HARBOUR: Could I tender this document into evidence?
17 MR. LUKIC: I don't see the witness on the document. Has he any
18 role in composing the document?
19 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Bibles [sic], would you like to ask the witness
20 or would you just -- Ms. Harbour, yes, I apologise.
21 The witness recognises as a typical example of which might be a
22 basis for admission. I leave it to you, Ms. Harbour, whether you would
23 like to --
24 MS. HARBOUR: Yes, Your Honour. Perhaps I will go through the
25 next document which shows the witness's role in this particular incident
1 and then I'll tender them both together.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so.
3 MS. HARBOUR: If we could please have 65 ter 15722A, page 1 in
4 the English and in the B/C/S. Actually, could we move to page 2 in both
5 languages, please.
6 Q. Dr. Turkusic, this document in front of you contains two KDZ
7 reports analysing projectiles from the 28th of August, 1995, shellings
8 that we've just saw discussed in the last document and you comment on
9 these reports at paragraphs 115 and 116 of your statement. The second
10 paragraph here indicates that the explosion was in
11 Branilaca Sarajeva Street, the business premises of UPI. Do you know how
12 far these business premises or this building was from the Markale II
13 explosion site?
14 A. Well, I guess it would be around 200 metres, that is, to the
15 south from Markale II close to the Miljacka river that flows towards
16 south. So I would estimate the distance to be approximately 200 metres.
17 MS. HARBOUR: If we could please turn to page 4 of this -- I
18 believe page 4 of this document.
19 Q. Dr. Turkusic, do you see -- can you tell from this page whether
20 you had any involvement in this investigation?
21 A. Yes, because we operated as a team. There were a lot of objects
22 that we analysed simultaneously and it would happen that a case would be
23 dealt with -- by one person and then finished by another person. I think
24 that that is why my name is stated here and I think that we have also
25 the --
1 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please slow down. Thank you.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, could I ask you to slow down so that the
3 interpreters can follow you. Could you resume from where you said:
4 "I think that that is why my name is stated here" and you thought
5 that you "have also the ..."
6 Could you resume from there.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, my name is typewritten here
8 because I drafted the document. The signature is of Ekrem Suljevic, I
9 think, a member of our team because we all worked together, prepared the
10 document, and co-operated. To the right is the signature of --
11 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters didn't hear the name --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Could you --
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- who co-ordinated our work and
14 you have his signature and a stamp, whereby the document became official.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Could you repeat the name of the person who signed.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe this is Ekrem Suljevic's
18 MS. HARBOUR: I think the name that the interpreters didn't get
19 was the other signature.
20 Q. What is the other signature on the page, to the right?
21 A. To the right is the signature of chief of the department,
22 Mirza Jamakovic, whose signature and stamp made the document final and
23 confirmed it as such.
24 MS. HARBOUR: And if we could now turn to page 5 of this
1 Q. This is a second KDZ report for a second shell as part of the
2 same incidents of four shells hitting on the 28th of August, 1995. And
3 we can see from the second paragraph that the shell hit the BKC building
4 which is on the same street, the Branilaca Sarajeva Street. How far was
5 this from the Markale site?
6 A. Approximately the same distance as the previous one you asked me
7 about, a couple hundred metres.
8 MS. HARBOUR: And if we could just go to the last page of this
10 Q. Again, I'd like you to take a look and see if you can determine
11 whether you had any involvement in this investigation.
12 A. That is correct. As in the previous instance, my name is
13 typewritten, which confirms that I practically wrote this document,
14 entered the established facts, and due to some reason, probably my
15 absence at the moment, it was signed also by Ekrem Suljevic and the
16 authenticity and accuracy of the document was confirmed by
17 Mirza Jamakovic, the chief of the department.
18 MS. HARBOUR: Your Honours, I'd like to tender now both of these
19 documents that we discussed. This one is 65 ter 15722A and the prior one
20 was 65 ter 19301A.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.
22 MR. LUKIC: Now we don't have objections.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
24 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter number 19301A will be Exhibit P2010 and
25 65 ter 15722A will be Exhibit P2011, Your Honours.
1 JUDGE ORIE: P2010 and P2011 are admitted into evidence.
2 MS. HARBOUR: Could we please have 65 ter 29162 and the last page
3 in both the B/C/S and the English.
4 Q. And, Dr. Turkusic, what we're calling up is a report of a
5 shelling on the 19th of July, 1995, where the stabiliser contained the
6 marking KB9504 and this is discussed in paragraph 52 of your statement.
7 Now, in the penultimate paragraph you can see a reference to the UTU M62
8 fuse. Could you explain for the Chamber what is the UTU M62 fuse?
9 A. The report was compiled by Ekrem Suljevic who was a member of our
10 unit and he signed it. My comment about the fact that it was an UTU fuse
11 was based on the conclusion of my colleague in view of the type of the
12 shell and the effect of its exploding immediately and causing an
13 undelayed explosion, that the fuse was mounted at the top of the shell,
14 shape-charged shell.
15 Q. So if you could just -- I'm not sure that that's completely
16 clear. If you could just tell us what is a UTU M62 fuse?
17 A. It's a fuse which is placed at the top of the shell and it is
18 adjustable so that it causes instantaneous explosion at the slightest
19 touch. It can also be adjusted so that it has a delayed effect by
20 programming a relative unknown period of delay of explosion of the shell
21 to allow it for the shell to penetrate the surface. So that is the
22 delayed fuse which are activated when you want to destroy some
23 fortifications or penetrate through an obstacle as opposed to the fuse
24 which is activated immediately on impact and which are always used to
25 destroy manpower because the explosion takes place immediately upon
1 contact with the surface.
2 Q. During an investigation, how would you be able to tell if a -- an
3 immediate contact fuse was used?
4 A. According to the traces on the hard surface, if the surface was a
5 hard one, its main explosive effect and the dispersion of shrapnel
6 happened at the point of impact with the surface, and the effects are
7 recognisable by the fact that in three-dimensional geometry of space the
8 place of explosion can be recognisable and an indisputable conclusion can
9 be reached that the explosion took place immediately at the moment of
10 contact with the surface.
11 Q. And how would you be able to tell in an investigation if a
12 delayed fuse was used instead?
13 A. So if the effect of the explosion is such that it causes a
14 penetration of the location or an obstacle that one wishes to destroy, we
15 can see an in-depth effect of explosion resulting in destruction of an
16 embankment or any other obstacle and its devastating effect deep under
17 the place of explosion.
18 Q. And would it be possible for a contact -- an immediate contact
19 fuse to embed in the ground?
20 A. The body of the shell fuse is made of aluminum. It is a very
21 light and soft metal. At impacting hard surface, it become completely
22 deformed and only small pieces of it can be found. So in the proximity
23 of the centre of explosion it is very soft and usually become completely
24 destroyed; however, it is possible sometimes to find some pieces
25 depending on the explosion and depending on the surface on which the
1 shell fell.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Harbour, could I ask clarification of one of the
3 previous answers, whether I understood it well or not.
4 I read from one of your answers, and it is about a delayed fuse.
5 You said:
6 "We can see an in-depth effect of explosion resulting in
7 destruction of an embankment or any other obstacle and its devastating
8 effect deep under the place of explosion."
9 Did you intend to say effect deep under the place of explosion or
10 devastating effect deep under the place of impact?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think that it is
12 essentially the same because there are many possible obstacles in view of
13 their mechanical qualities. However, as you said, from the moment, or
14 rather, the point of impact with the obstacle, one does recognise this
15 in-depth destructive effect. It is that kind of fuse. However, if the
16 contact with the surface happened instantaneously, then in depth in the
17 soil there is no such trace. It is a well-known thing that instantaneous
18 shells, when they fall into tree-tops, they are activated immediately
19 when they impact the tree-top. It does -- there is no in-depth effect.
20 It disperses within the tree-top.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for this clarification.
22 Ms. Harbour, I'm looking at the clock. Perhaps it is time for a
24 MS. HARBOUR: Yes, Your Honour. That's fine.
25 JUDGE ORIE: If Mr. -- first of all, let's ask the usher to
1 escort the witness out of the courtroom.
2 [The witness stands down]
3 JUDGE ORIE: In order to prepare for any decision and any further
4 submissions on admission of the associated exhibits, Ms. Harbour, have
5 you given the full list of the documents you want to tender in this
6 context so that Mr. Registrar can already provisional prepare a list with
8 MS. HARBOUR: Yes. Ms. Stewart circulated the list yesterday via
9 e-mail, and all of the documents for which there's no exhibit number
10 listed are the ones we're tendering which haven't yet been marked. And
11 then there are four at the end of the list which have an exhibit number
12 listed which have been marked "not admitted."
13 JUDGE ORIE: That's because it was announced that they would be
14 introduced through a later witness.
15 MS. HARBOUR: It's because they were found not to be inseparable
16 and indispensable from a prior witness's testimony.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 Mr. Registrar, do you have sufficient information to prepare?
19 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
20 JUDGE ORIE: The representative of the Registry may need further
21 contact with you, Ms. Harbour, during the break.
22 We take a break and we'll resume at 20 minutes past midday.
23 --- Recess taken at 11.59 a.m.
24 --- On resuming at 12.27 p.m.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Before the witness will re-enter the courtroom,
1 Mr. Lukic, inseparable and indispensable on any of these documents?
2 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, we addressed extra documents tendered
3 through this witness and I will just maintain our objections from our
5 JUDGE ORIE: You -- I mean there are a few issues. I think we --
6 some of them were added to the 65 ter list, if my memory serves me well.
7 Then we have the issue of the witness statement where the issue of expert
8 knowledge or expert skills applies, that's the second issue. And then
9 the third one is whether these documents are inseparable and
10 indispensable part of the statement of the witness. I was -- you
11 referred to your submissions, but I make three partition on these issues,
12 Mr. Lukic.
13 MR. LUKIC: We feel that it's introducing the documents through
14 the backdoor, so I cannot agree with that. And I would just maintain the
15 objections we had in our motion.
16 MS. HARBOUR: Can I respond, Your Honours?
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 MS. HARBOUR: In the Defence's response they didn't actually
19 address the issue of whether the documents are inseparable and
20 indispensable; they simply noted that they were in excess of the
21 guidance. And we also recognised that and in our initial motion made
22 arguments as to why an exception from the guidance is warranted in this
23 case to show because the documents are necessary to meet our burden of
24 proof, show a pattern of terror attacks from the same mortar batches
25 which originated from Serbia. And the documents that we presented
1 through this witness are all documents that he's able to and has
2 authenticated and provided relevant information about in his statement
3 which is why we submit that in addition to an exception to the guidance
4 being warranted, they are also inseparable and indispensable and meet the
5 92 ter standard.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, I split it up into three issues because
7 the first we have to deal with at this moment is whether they are
8 inseparable and indispensable in relation to the statement as -- I asked
9 for it because it was not my memory that you had dealt with that
10 specifically. Are you able to tell us whether, apart from -- whether you
11 have other objections, whether you consider those documents not to be
12 inseparable and indispensable for the understanding of the statement if
13 that would be admitted?
14 MR. LUKIC: I don't understand how it comes that it is introduced
15 13 new documents if it's indispensable -- it's not separable from the
16 statement --
17 JUDGE ORIE: I think we -- that's another question --
18 MR. LUKIC: But it comes to the same question. How come that
19 they disclosed it -- I actually know now when we got 92 ter statement
20 from this witness in February 2012.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Harbour, any --
22 MS. HARBOUR: Yes, Your Honours. Actually, this is a new
23 statement that we had to take from the witness pursuant to the Chamber's
24 instructions, and we included all of the documents that are listed as
25 associated exhibits as part of this statement and ensured that the
1 witness addressed sufficiently both the relevance and authenticity of the
2 documents, which does render them inseparable and indispensable from this
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.
5 MR. LUKIC: I cannot agree. I will leave it to Your Honours.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber unanimously has decided to admit the
9 documents, all of them, into evidence. Let's go through them -- there
10 are so many. Mr. Registrar will -- has provisionally assign numbers
11 which run from P2013 up to P2042. He will distribute that list. They're
12 all admitted into evidence. We still have the four documents which
13 are -- to which numbers were already assigned, that is, P1102, 1103,
14 1107, and 1108. Those were marked not admitted.
15 Mr. Lukic, any specific submissions from those four?
16 MR. LUKIC: I cannot even follow the numbers you are giving --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Well these --
18 MR. LUKIC: I don't have it on this list. Oh, yeah, I have it at
19 the end [overlapping speakers] --
20 JUDGE ORIE: At the very end. The last four BiH report on
21 shelling, that's the first one, 21st of June; the second one, expert
22 analysis --
23 MR. LUKIC: You see, expert analysis, we exactly objected to
24 expert analysis by a fact witness. And we have objections to previously
25 admitted documents also as being expert -- expert opinions and expert
1 findings. So that's why we objected. And I don't know whether you
2 decided to admit those documents previously only based on that they are
3 part of the statement or you decided that they are not expert opinions
4 and expertise.
5 JUDGE ORIE: I think they were not admitted because they were not
6 an inseparable and indispensable part of the statement which was then
8 MS. HARBOUR: These actually were marked not admitted in the
9 context of a different witness similarly situated. Precisely Your Honour
10 considered they were not inseparable and indispensable to his statement.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 Any further specific observations as to the inseparability and
13 inseparability of these documents in relation to the statement of the
14 present witness?
15 MR. LUKIC: Nothing further.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Nothing further.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE ORIE: P1102 up to -- P1103, P1107, and P1108 are admitted
19 into evidence.
20 I think we have dealt with the issues you needed before we would
21 continue, but I have one other unrelated item on my agenda, that is, a
22 memorandum of the Prosecution concerning the 30th of August dead-line for
23 filing 92 bis and 92 quater motions. The Prosecution, I think, is
24 seeking leave to file two additional motions after the dead-line. Is
25 that well understood, Mr. --
1 MR. GROOME: That's correct, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Do you -- could you give us an indication as you
3 would still intend to file them, well, before Christmas or before --
4 MR. GROOME: Well, the first one is a Srebrenica bar table
5 motion, Your Honour. And the Prosecution intends, according to the
6 Chamber's guidance, to attempt to tender many of the documents relevant
7 to the Srebrenica portion of the case through Mr. Rick Butler who appears
8 next week. Depending on how that goes the Prosecution would be preparing
9 a bar table motion within about two weeks after that for the documents.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yeah.
11 MR. GROOME: The other bar table motion that was referred to is a
12 rather small one, but it involves documents that don't fall into the
13 clear categories that we have been creating for the other bar table
14 motions and we expect that that will be done at some time closer to the
15 end of the case. We expect to rest our case towards the middle of
16 November, so in any event nothing will happen before Christmas.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 Mr. Lukic, any --
19 MR. LUKIC: We don't have objections.
20 JUDGE ORIE: You don't have objections.
21 Under those circumstances, the Chamber grants the request and
22 expects of course the bar table motion related to Mr. Butler somewhere in
23 the second half of September.
24 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: We then can move on, I think.
1 Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
2 [The witness takes the stand]
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Turkusic, Ms. Harbour will now continue her
5 MS. HARBOUR: Your Honour, before the break we were discussing
6 65 ter 29162 and I would just like to now make sure that that is offered
7 into evidence.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Any objections, Mr. Lukic? I have to check what it
9 was exactly. Ms. Harbour -- it's still on the screen.
10 MS. HARBOUR: And it is authenticated and discussed by the
11 witness at paragraph 52 of his statement.
12 JUDGE ORIE: And it's not yet part of the list prepared by --
13 it's not.
14 Mr. Lukic.
15 MR. LUKIC: I don't know then which list I have because it is on
16 my list.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and it's the most recent list and you'll
18 receive a copy of it. Mr. Registrar will prepare for that, but this one
19 is not on the list prepared by Mr. Registrar.
20 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
21 JUDGE ORIE: It turns out that I made a mistake and perhaps
22 Ms. Bibles -- Ms. Harbour, I apologise. Apparently this one is still on
23 the list and therefore is admitted already then.
24 MS. HARBOUR: Thank you for the clarification.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
1 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter number 29162 will be Exhibit P2012.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and appears on the list and is part of those
3 who are admitted.
4 MS. HARBOUR:
5 Q. Dr. Turkusic, I have only one more question for you. While you
6 were present on the ground to investigate the Markale II shelling
7 incident, did you make any observations about the hardness of the ground
8 where the shell impacted?
9 A. The shell fell on the road, that is, firm asphalt surface which
10 is customary in urban areas. At the point of impact - and that always
11 happens when a shell falls on a hard surface - there was a clear rose
12 pattern with shrapnel traces and a symmetry that could be used
13 excellently for determining the angle of descent, the azimuth, and also
14 the angle of descent of the shell itself. So that is what I have to say
15 about the surface.
16 Q. In particular, was -- would there be anything to distinguish the
17 shell -- the area where this shell landed from, for example, a pedestrian
19 A. Well, places that we could call pedestrian paths are surfaces
20 that are softer and a shell usually leaves a deeper trace or impact or,
21 like in Markale I, the stabiliser that is part of the shell and it is a
22 passive body during the explosion. It was speeded up by the vacuum that
23 occurs because of the explosion and it impacted the ground even asphalt
24 because it is softer, it is meant for pedestrians.
25 MS. HARBOUR: Your Honours, I have no further questions for this
2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Harbour.
3 I'm afraid that I did not fully understand the last answer.
4 Could you -- neither did I fully understand the question to be quite
5 honest. Let's look at both.
6 Witness, you said where the shell landed was firm asphalt
7 surface. The -- a pedestrian path is usually composed of what?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understood the question to be to
9 describe the difference between a shell falling on a very firm surface or
10 if it were to fall on a surface which is actually a pedestrian path. It
11 is a well-known thing that in -- well, that's it, isn't it?
12 JUDGE ORIE: I was trying to split up various questions because
13 if you compare the two it's always good to know where we know what is the
14 composition of the surface where the shell landed. You said it was firm
15 asphalt. We do not know, however, although you qualified it as softer,
16 what is usually the composition of a pedestrian path.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is a question of pure physics,
18 actually. We can have two surfaces that are of the same firmness -- I
19 beg your pardon, equally hard. However, one can be solid and
20 impenetrable and another one can be less hard and penetrable, although
21 their surfaces are equally hard. So that is the basic difference between
22 very hard and firm surfaces on which there is heavy traffic, where
23 automobiles move, and so on. And also, there can be others that can have
24 a firm surface but are otherwise not that hard because they are meant for
25 pedestrians. If a shell were to fall on both surfaces, although both of
1 them are the same on the surface, they are equally hard, there's going to
2 be an elastic impact and perhaps the fuse is going to bounce off. And in
3 another case there can be this plastic clash or impact, as we say in
4 physics. And then the stabiliser of the shell can pierce the surface
5 where the shell fell. It is a well-known thing that the stabiliser of
6 the shell, due to the explosion that occurred underneath it, where there
7 was a vacuum, it can be accelerated additionally and it can impact the
8 surface. Now there are two possibilities: If the surface is very firm,
9 like in this case, then it bounces off; then there is this other
10 possibility, that the surface is not hard enough and then the stabiliser
11 literally sticks into it.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you're talking about a vacuum due to the
13 explosion underneath the stabiliser element of the explosion. Would the
14 explosion only create a vacuum or would it also create a back-throwing
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Ultra-fast explosions, like those
17 of TNT, happen very -- within a very short span of time. And then there
18 is an expansion, three-dimensional, pushing the parts of the shell that
19 is bursting at that point in time. That is the moment when in the centre
20 of the explosion, due to this effect of expansion, there is high vacuum.
21 This high vacuum, of course, we're talking about only parts of seconds,
22 it literally speeds up the stabiliser that is moving towards this vacuum.
23 So it is accelerated additionally. As for the other effects on the
24 surface, I've already described that. If you wish, I can make an analogy
25 which would explain these two phenomena.
1 JUDGE ORIE: If you can easily explain it for us, you are invited
2 to do so. Whether we are --
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very simply --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Whether we are sufficient understanding to follow it
5 is a matter still to be seen. Yes. Please --
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You will, certainly. If you take a
7 steel of same quality, you make a sheet 1 millimetre thick and a piece of
8 sheet 10 millimetres thick and you take these two sheets that have equal
9 firmness because we have the same steel, we fire from a handgun. The
10 thin sheet can be pierced by the bullet and the thicker one cannot. So
11 this is the analogy identical to the fall of a shell on a surface that is
12 of equal firmness but different hardness.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I understand that. If it's only a thin layer,
14 it may go through, whereas if it's a thick layer of the same material --
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is correct.
16 JUDGE ORIE: -- it may stop. Now, that does not yet answer my
17 last question which was about the vacuum. You said the explosion itself
18 would create a vacuum and therefore would speed up the stabiliser fin in
19 its trajectory towards the centre of the explosion. Is that what you
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Now, apart from creating a vacuum at the centre of
23 the explosion, would in the immediate vicinity of the explosion within
24 centimetres, decimetres, would it also create a force away from the
25 vacuum and throwing everything away from the centre of the explosion due
1 to that explosion itself?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It has to do with the sequence of
3 events. At the point of detonation, the area expands because that is how
4 explosives operate, this sudden expansion tears the shell into small
5 pieces and throws it away from the point of impact. Shortly afterwards
6 the consequence is the vacuum by expanding the mass from this point
7 outwards and this is where the pressure occurs. Since simultaneously the
8 tail fin of the shell which is rather massive and has its inertia and
9 speed, it is moving towards the centre where the vacuum is, it gains
10 additional speed. As a result, the tail fin impacts on the surface at a
11 slightly higher speed than the speed of the shell itself.
12 JUDGE ORIE: And it is not thrown away as a first -- as a first
13 effect of the explosion, like the shrapnel pieces?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is sucked in because the
15 shrapnel have already left the location. They were pushed away by the
16 explosion and they have already gone away from the place where the vacuum
17 is created, while the tail fin, due to the fact that it's still being on
18 the move, comes under the influence of the vacuum.
19 JUDGE ORIE: And the tail fin initially is not subject to the
20 same force which pushes back the pieces of shrapnel. It is also on the
21 outside part of the explosive body of the -- body of the shell, is it not
22 subject to such a force throwing it and if it is in certain speed perhaps
23 reducing the speed of the tail fin due to this explosive effect?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The tail fin of the shell, a
25 stabiliser which is a pipe-shaped part, it has fins at its end which are
1 physically attached to it and they create a physical body. Both the pipe
2 and the fins make a stabiliser which is a mechanical part and that is a
3 passive part of the shell. Its role is only during the firing and the
4 trajectory of the shell. When it comes to the explosion, the entire
5 stabiliser has no active role in the impact of the shell. It has no
6 intended role.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
8 Mr. Lukic, are you ready to cross-examine the witness?
9 MR. LUKIC: Yes, I am, Your Honour. I don't know if the
10 Prosecution received a list of our documents for the cross-examination.
11 I was on line with our Case Manager and I don't know if the complete list
12 was sent or not.
13 MS. HARBOUR: We haven't received the list.
14 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that you will receive it very soon.
15 MR. LUKIC: Hopefully.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Otherwise you're invited to make a hard copy
17 and provide it to Ms. Harbour. Please proceed.
18 Cross-examination by Mr. Lukic:
19 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Turkusic, good afternoon.
20 A. Good afternoon.
21 Q. On behalf of the Defence of General Mladic, I'm going to put some
22 questions to you. My first question is this: When we discussed some
23 issues without you, I would like to know whether you have been called
24 here as an expert witness or as a fact witness.
25 A. Well, I believe I was called to appear as a witness.
1 Q. In your testimony, are you presenting things that are not
2 personally known to you but come from second-hand sources?
3 A. If I'm doing that, I always emphasise that. If I'm not familiar
4 with something myself, I will say so. If there is something that I'm not
5 certain about, something in our reports, I will always say "most
6 probably" or "most likely."
7 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel kindly speak into the microphone.
8 Thank you very much.
9 MR. LUKIC: I'm trying.
10 Q. [Interpretation] The documents that you have - and you know which
11 documents I'm talking about - include the documents that you yourself did
12 not create?
13 A. That is correct. However, creating documents is a relative
14 notion. We operated as a team --
15 Q. Just a moment, please. I am talking about documents primarily
16 issued by the SUP, by public security stations, and that sort of
17 documents that you did not take part in any way whatsoever or your
18 colleagues from the KDZ.
19 A. Yes, that is correct. And these documents have been attached.
20 Q. You explained today the occurrence of vacuum. Now I'm going to
21 take a slightly reverse approach. I'm going to ask you about the charge.
22 Does it have any effect on the fact whether the stabiliser will become
23 embedded into the surface or not?
24 A. Standard charge of the shells is TNT which is initiated by fuse
25 with the booster accentuated explosion and I think that this is a
1 standard charge that is applicable throughout the world since the
2 Second World War. My direct answer to your question would be: It has no
4 Q. I don't want this to remain unclear. Maybe I did not phrase my
5 question properly. What I meant was whether the shell has primary and
6 secondary and --
7 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers please pause between
8 questions and answers.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you to make a pause between question and
10 answer. And could I also invite you, when you're talking about the
11 charge, you most likely are talking about the explosive charge and we
12 have two charges. I think the one is the explosives within the body of
13 the shell and the other is the charge -- the propelling charge for the
14 shell. Could we always try to make -- if you would agree that we have
15 these two different charges, always to clearly express which charge you
16 are referring to, either in question or in the answer.
17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
18 Q. In accordance with the Judge's instructions, I'm going to ask you
19 about the propelling charge. Does it have any effect on the stabiliser
20 being embedded into the surface?
21 A. Yes, it does. If the angle of firing, which is a little below
22 90, if it is activated in such a manner that the charge is being
23 intensified due to a longer range, the shell will reach a higher
24 elevation due to its trajectory. From such elevation, the shell will
25 continue to flow towards the ground under the influence of gravity. If
1 it falls from a higher height, its acceleration becomes higher. The sum
2 of all these accelerations, the speed of the stabiliser additionally
3 increased by the vacuum would create a stronger effect by its being
4 embedded into the surface regardless of what kind of surface we are
5 talking about and we mentioned various examples of that.
6 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters from the French booth are
7 kindly asking that the -- that both persons slow down. Thank you.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The interpreters are again asking us not only
9 to make a pause between question and answer, but also to slow down your
10 speed of speech.
11 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. You will notice that I am making a pause after your answer,
14 waiting for interpretation. It's not that I am being rude, but this is
15 the procedure and I am sure that you are familiar with it.
16 You answered in a specific way, but I'm going to ask you this:
17 If we take that the angle of the mortar is 50 degrees, the mortar barrel,
18 and we fire a shell with the first charge and the sixth charge, is the
19 angle of the shell going to be different in that case?
20 A. The angle of firing ...
21 Q. You may proceed.
22 A. Since this is a parabola of slanted round, the angle of firing
23 will be the same in both cases. There is some minor difference in the
24 descent angle as well, taking into consideration all the relevant
25 factors, like the height, wind, et cetera.
1 Q. Under such circumstances, if we have identical angles and when
2 there is no increase of the descent angle, will the charge have any
3 influence? The propelling charge, will it have any influence on whether
4 the tail fin is going to be embedded in the surface or not?
5 A. In my view, it would have relatively little influence.
6 Q. Very well. Thank you.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, could I ask for a clarification. If the
8 propelling charge is considerably higher, let's say 6 instead of 1, you
9 said if the angle of fire is still the same, 50 degrees, would the speed
10 of the projectile be considerably higher upon firing if you would use 6
11 instead of 1?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it would. The higher the
13 charge, the propelling force marked by G which is the multiplication of
14 the earth's gravity, if you have more charges you have more acceleration.
15 The shell will fly out of the barrel at an increased speed consistent
16 with an increased level of charge.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Would this have a result on the speed of
18 impact of that shell? Would it also -- would it also arrive at the point
19 of impact with an increased speed compared to a shell with only one
20 propelling charge -- a propelling charge of 1?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Since with higher charge the shell
22 will reach a higher vertical elevation, then during free fall it will
23 travel towards the ground for a longer time and it will be subjected to
24 the gravity of a higher level and consequently would reach the ground at
25 a higher speed.
1 JUDGE ORIE: And would have -- would that have an impact on that
2 depth, if at all, from which the tail fin would embed in the ground?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it would in terms that the
4 stabiliser would travel at a higher speed, but it all depends on the
5 surface that it is landing upon. If you have extremely solid surface, it
6 will have no impact or influence whatsoever.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but if the surface would be the same for a
8 propelling charge of 1 compared to a propelling charge of 6, it would
9 have an impact on the speed of arrival at impact and would have an effect
10 on how the shell would embed in the ground if the surface again is the
11 same in this comparison. Would you agree to that?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I understood you correctly, if
13 we have an extremely hard surface which is practically inpenetrable for
14 the tail fin, as was the case in Markale II where we had an asphalt
15 surface, the speed of the fall of the shell and the possible embedding of
16 the tail fin into the surface would end up in this way: The stabiliser
17 would at any rate bounce off the surface in an elastic way.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I was not referring to any specific example.
19 I was just referring to the theoretical aspects of the speed of firing of
20 the projectile and the speed of arrival upon impact of the projectile.
21 But Mr. Lukic will now put further questions to you.
22 Mr. Lukic, as a result of the answers I received on my previous
23 questions, could we always also clearly distinguish between what happens
24 in a specific situation and what happens in general. Because I
25 understood the answers of the witness that with such a hard surface that
1 the speed might not be of great influence on embedding, but perhaps with
2 a different surface it might have such an impact. So we always have to
3 clearly distinguish between a specific situation and between questions
4 which are put in general terms.
5 Please proceed.
6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
7 Q. Let us just deal with this then. Is it correct that in your view
8 this would not be influenced in any way if the surface is susceptible to
9 the tail fin falling into it, that is to say that the charge would not
10 affect that in any way?
11 A. If the surface is a thin layer of asphalt relatively soft or if
12 it's a patch of grass, then if the shell were to arrive at a higher speed
13 it would embed itself into the surface.
14 Q. When you say "higher speed," do you mean a bigger angle of
15 descent or a higher charge?
16 A. I mean a higher charge and that directly has to do with the speed
17 of descent.
18 Q. All right.
19 JUDGE ORIE: I have to insist on a clear use of the language.
20 "Speed" is not the same as "angle of descent." "Speed" is not the same
21 as "a higher charge." They may all be related, but the speed is the
22 result of the charge, the propelling charge, used and the angle of fire
23 which is related to an angle of descent. Would you agree with that,
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, precisely.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So therefore let's try to use the words as
2 precise as possible, not mixing up different concepts.
3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. It seems that I didn't quite understand something here. Does the
5 charge have anything to do with the angle of descent and the angle of
6 firing -- well, that's clear. Does the charge have anything to do with
7 the angle of descent, that is to say, the angle at which the shell hits
8 the surface?
9 A. The firing of a shell, a mortar shell, substantially differs from
10 a projectile fired from a rifle or a cannon. It's rather similar to a
11 howitzer, though. The shell is fired up into the air and it falls at a
12 relatively large angle. Ballistics relates this directly to gravity.
13 During the flight of ascent of the shell and also as the shell descends
14 from the maximum highest point as it moves towards the ground. So the
15 launching charge is bigger and then there will be a greater height
16 involved and then practically at the same angle of firing the shell will
17 fall on the ground. If we were to draw the trajectory of different
18 charges, we would have a group of curves that have the same points where
19 they start and end, but the height is different.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you one question in this respect. If I
21 fire a projectile with the same angle of firing that is -- well, let's
22 say, 60 degrees, is it your testimony that the projectile would travel
23 just as far if fired with one propelling charge compared to how far it
24 would travel - I'm not talking about altitude - how far it would travel
25 with six propelling charges? Is that your testimony?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
2 JUDGE ORIE: You said:
3 "... the same points where they start and end ..."
4 But for different charges at the same angle of fire they would
5 not end -- they would not end at the same place. Would you agree with
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I beg your pardon. Slip of the
8 tongue. With a completely identical firing angle, we would have
9 different ranges with all of these trajectories. A higher charge would
10 cause a parabola that would exceed the previous ones in terms of distance
11 and in terms of height.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, thank you.
13 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic, unless you think it would be time for
14 a break.
15 MR. LUKIC: Maybe we have couple of more minutes, but maybe it
16 would be wise to be able to provide the Prosecution with the list.
17 Obviously they haven't received it yet. We have --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we could take the break now, as you wish. I
19 think we are one hour on our way since the previous break, so that is --
20 MR. LUKIC: For us it's an excellent time for the break.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Then we would ask the usher to escort the witness
22 out of the courtroom.
23 [The witness stands down]
24 JUDGE ORIE: And we'll take a break and we'll resume at
25 20 minutes to 2.00.
1 --- Recess taken at 1.20 p.m.
2 --- On resuming at 1.40 p.m.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
4 Mr. Lukic, the Defence has expressed some concerns about the
5 expert type of evidence this witness gives. At the same time, you are
6 further exploring not only the evidence of matters the witness observed
7 himself but also in this expert field.
8 [The witness takes the stand]
9 MR. LUKIC: Challenging the knowledge of the witness and
10 obviously it's very poor in this field.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I'm not expressing any view on that yet.
12 That's your judgement on poverty or not. At the same time, of course the
13 witness testifies here, it's evidence, so whether -- and I'm not in any
14 way -- and we discussed it during the break among the Judges, I'm not
15 stopping you in any way of asking these questions which are related to
16 the statement, but at the same time the Chamber considers the value of
17 this witness primarily to be found in matters he observed himself and
18 investigated himself. Of course it's perhaps impossible to separate it
19 from his experience and his skills. But a focus on that might assist the
20 Chamber very much.
21 Please proceed.
22 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour. I will go through the
23 witness statement and I will start right now.
24 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Turkusic, you are a doctor of chemical
1 A. A doctor of chemistry, doctor of science in chemistry.
2 Q. During the war -- actually, what kind of training did you have
3 before the war and during the war?
4 A. An engineer. I was an engineer of chemical technology.
5 Q. An engineer. That's why I was wondering about this. Actually, I
6 don't know if you have your statement with you. Would it be helpful if
7 you had your statement before you in B/C/S?
8 A. Yes.
9 MS. HARBOUR: I can provide that, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Immediately on the second page, that is Roman numeral II,
13 1992-1994, you said that you joined the 1st Dobrinja Brigade. At that
14 time you lived in Dobrinja as well; right?
15 A. That's right.
16 Q. Who was commander of that brigade?
17 A. Ismet --
18 Q. Was it Ismet Hadzic?
19 A. That's right.
20 Q. How many APC's did the Dobrinja Brigade have?
21 A. I don't know about that, maybe one.
22 Q. You don't know about more than one?
23 A. No.
24 Q. From the Dobrinja Brigade you moved to the centre for specific
1 A. That's right.
2 Q. The centre for that production, military production, was at the
3 faculty of science and -- the mechanical faculty; is that right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. At the centre for military production, you worked on the
6 manufacturing of hand-grenades and tromblones; is that correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Where did you manufacture shells for rifle grenades?
9 A. Rifle grenades, regardless of whether they are purely explosive
10 or shape-charged, we manufactured them at the faculty of mechanical
11 engineering. That's the building right next door. The parts that were
12 manufactured there were assembled into a final product.
13 Q. At the centre for military production you worked with
14 Mr. Berko Zecevic; is that right?
15 A. Yes, that's right. He was at the centre, too.
16 Q. He was head of the centre, wasn't he?
17 A. It was Faik, Faik Kulovac or Kulovic.
18 Q. Mr. Zecevic was one of the senior personnel there; right?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Within this centre you also manufactured chemical rifle grenades;
22 A. I'm not aware of that.
23 Q. All right. Now we're going to try to refresh your memory a bit
24 and I'm going to show you 1D1198 in e-court.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Before we move to that document, could the witness
1 explain to the Chamber what "shape-charged" exactly means? We just don't
2 know. You used the expression. He said:
3 "... regardless of whether they are purely explosive or
4 shape-charged ..."
5 What -- could you explain what do you mean by "shape-charged"?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Let me first answer to the first
7 part of your question concerning shaped charge. These shells are fired
8 from a rifle. So you have a bullet in the rifle without the bullet
9 itself, there's only gunpowder. After triggering the pressure created by
10 the powder, there is a grenade which is attached to the top of the barrel
11 and that is how it is launched. Generally speaking, this is a rifle
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: I have a question --
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Now, according to the structure it
15 can be a hand-grenade, a fragmentation grenade that produces an identical
16 effect, or its structure can be such that upon impact it has a piercing
17 effect to an obstacle or an armour. Due to the low level of charge in
18 both cases these grenades are of relatively low strength and are actually
19 used only in infantry battles.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: I have a question, please. At page 69, line 22,
22 you are interpreted as having said the following:
23 "So you have a bullet in the rifle without the bullet itself ..."
24 I don't understand that. How do you have a bullet without the
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was clear. If you imagine a
2 rifle bullet and you take the lead ball out of it and you press the top
3 you have only the gunpowder charge inside the bullet; however, this
4 gunpowder charge during firing creates pressure that will eject the
5 grenade from the top of the rifle and the rifle grenade is shaped in such
6 a way that it has a tail fin similar to that of a mortar shell in order
7 to fly through the air, it has a very small range and very small power of
9 JUDGE ORIE: Where you said a bullet without a bullet, could you
10 also express it as a cartridge without a bullet mounted on it?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Without the ball. Practically,
12 that makes it a manoeuvre ammunition by the way it looks, by the way it
13 is constructed, et cetera.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We don't have a translation of this
16 document, at least we were unable to locate it, so I'm going to use it to
17 a limited extent and I'm going to ask the witness to read for us what
18 this is about.
19 Q. Can you please read the date in the incoming stamp, who the
20 recipient is, and what kind of document this is. Who is the sender?
21 A. Army of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Main Staff of the
22 armed forces, the centre for special-purpose production,
23 1st of September, 1992. The date of the document itself is the date much
24 before I joined the unit. The total number of copies, three. The title
25 is: The production of war assets in war conditions certain aspects of
1 unhindered production, September 1992, which is two years before I joined
2 the unit.
3 Q. When did you join the centre for special-purpose production?
4 A. If I remember correctly, 1994.
5 Q. We know that this centre was disbanded in December 1994 -- 1992.
6 A. Oh, I'm sorry. I think I joined the KDZ in 1994. I spent a
7 relatively short time working at the centre in September 1992 -- I don't
8 have that date in my memory. I don't think it's correct.
9 Q. All right. Let us look now at the next page. You can see here
10 the list of -- it says in its operations so far, the centre of
11 special-purpose production produced the following war assets, second
12 bullet point: Chemical rifle grenades.
13 A. What is your question?
14 Q. Does this remind you that during your work there, chemical rifle
15 grenades were indeed manufactured and do you know what their charge was?
16 A. I was not involved in their production and I don't know anything
17 about their charges.
18 Q. There's also special rifle grenade ammunition produced.
19 A. What are you referring to?
20 Q. Five -- fifth bullet point which says special rifle grenade
22 A. All right. What is your question?
23 Q. Would you agree that your description that for the firing of
24 rifle grenades manoeuvre ammunition was being used is incorrect, that
25 there is also a detonator cap in the special rifle grenade ammunition?
1 A. No. It is a well-known fact that during war games, bullets
2 without balls are being used which only have a noisy effect of firing.
3 The weight in grams of gunpowder in these cartridges is irrelevant.
4 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please slow down.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please slow down. We --
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So the difference between the
7 manoeuvre ammunition and the rifle grenade ammunition basically is this:
8 The manoeuvre ammunition doesn't have the weight of gunpowder as a
9 relevant factor, whereas in special rifle grenade ammunition it is very
10 important how many grams of gunpowder are in every cartridge. It is by
11 precision weighing and re-combining the gunpowder in manoeuvre ammunition
12 and re-filling it with gunpowder one can get a standard rifle grenade and
13 that is what is called special rifle grenade.
14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Was some special type of gunpowder used?
16 A. There is no special type of gunpowder. You have gunpowder for
17 rocket motors in the form of sticks. There are gunpowder for firing, but
18 the differences between guns and mortars are only slight. The grains are
19 a bit higher and nitrocycline nitrocyloid [as interpreted] gunpowder is a
20 newer one as opposed to the old smoke gunpowder which has completely been
21 made redundant.
22 Q. Thank you. Let us now look at page 3 of this document. This is
23 this portion which contains signature. Does this refresh your memory
24 that the chief of the centre was Mr. Berko Zecevic?
25 A. The chief of the centre for research and development.
1 Q. So this chief of CNP is not enough?
2 A. Well, research and development is a subarea.
3 Q. Do you recognise Mr. Zecevic's signature?
4 A. It seems to be his signature, but I haven't seen it in practice
5 too often in order to be able to recognise it.
6 Q. In order for us to establish the time-line, would you agree that
7 you moved to the KDZ from this centre?
8 A. Yes, that is correct.
9 Q. Did any of your colleagues from this centre went to work for the
11 A. One of my colleagues went to the CSB KDZ in Sarajevo and I think
12 I was the only one who joined the KDZ of the MUP.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mladic, no speaking aloud. If you want to
14 consult with counsel, brief consultations at low volume are allowed,
15 nothing else.
16 [Defence counsel and accused confer]
17 JUDGE ORIE: Low volume, Mr. Mladic.
18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. After you went to the KDZ, did you continue your co-operation
20 with Mr. Zecevic?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Did you invite him to attend the investigation after the
23 Markale I incident in February of 1994?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Now I'd like to move to paragraph 9 of your statement, where you
1 say that you never encountered a situation, that's the last sentence in
2 this paragraph, that you absolutely never encountered any credible
3 information that would lead to a conclusion that the Bosnian government
4 forces were deliberately targeting civilians in Sarajevo. Are you
5 familiar with the evidence given by Mr. Herenda who said and described
6 some specific situations when upon orders of his superiors he fired at
7 the Sarajevo population inside the territory controlled by the ABH?
8 A. I have never heard such a statement. In case it is completely
9 true, it does not in any case refute the last sentence of my paragraph 9.
10 Q. Did you obtain information that on the 9th of November, 1993,
11 from the territory controlled by the ABH two shells were fired at
12 ZAVNOBIH building when four boys and a teacher were --
13 THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. Lukic please repeat whether they were
14 killed or wounded.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you're invited to --
16 MR. LUKIC: Yeah.
17 Q. [Interpretation] I have to repeat my question --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, the last part. Four boys and a teacher
19 were wounded or killed?
20 MR. LUKIC: Killed.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Killed.
22 Could you answer the question?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This assertion presented in the
24 form of a question is something that I am hearing for the first time and
25 I personally believe that this is only part of a propaganda campaign that
1 goes always hand in hand with a war by twisting the facts and this is
2 also a form of ammunition that is used in any war.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, you would have answered the question by
4 saying that you hear for the first time from this. If you do not know
5 anything else, you could not possibly express any opinion about whether
6 it's propaganda or not. These general opinions are not assisting the
8 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Let us now look at Exhibit P497. That's a Prosecution exhibit.
11 We need page 5 in B/C/S and page 1 in English because along with photo
12 number 5 we only have the text in English. In your opinion, where did
13 this mortar shell come from?
14 JUDGE ORIE: The exhibit not to be shown to the public because
15 it's under seal.
16 MR. LUKIC: Sorry.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
18 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
19 Q. [Interpretation] From up or down? And let me tell you this, the
20 street is -- just a moment, Safeta Hadzica 102. So this is area that is
21 under the control of the BH army.
22 A. The question remains as you had put it. First of all, why do you
23 claim that this is a mortar shell?
24 Q. If you disagree, do correct me.
25 A. I don't know what kind of shell this is.
1 Q. Irrespective of type, can you tell us whether this shell hit that
2 wall in this case in such a way that the back part of the shell was
3 underneath the shell or --
4 A. Underneath judging by the picture.
5 Q. Thank you. We just have a little bit time left. Now I'd like to
6 ask you the following: When you carried out investigations -- well,
7 first of all, did you often go to the scene itself?
8 A. As far as war conditions allowed and since no such investigations
9 were carried out in previous wars, this was the case relatively often.
10 Q. Did you personally go out on to the scene or your colleagues --
11 actually, my question was whether you spent more time on the ground or in
12 the lab?
13 A. I cannot tell. I cannot assess that. Given the war dynamic, I
14 was everywhere, I and my colleagues, and different teams were
15 established, different combinations. Reports were started and finished,
16 but at any rate we worked as a team consisting of a variety of experts.
17 So we checked each other, supplemented each other's information, and
18 tried to leave a report, an analysis, that would be as faithful as
19 possible with regard to anything that we dealt with.
20 Q. Thank you. This is the end of our working day.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Well, could I ask one question. I think I
22 understood the testimony, but just to be sure about that. When we looked
23 at this picture Mr. Lukic asked you whether the back part of the shell
24 was underneath the shell. I think you said underneath judging by the
25 picture. Did you mean to say from what you see on this picture that the
1 tail end of the shell must have been lower than the point where the shell
2 impacted on the wall? Is that how I have to understand your answer?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely. However, I have this
4 reservation in terms of this being a picture of an incident that I'm not
5 aware of. However, judging by what we see in the picture, the shell
6 would have come from down conditionally speaking. Although it is
7 possible that such traces can be left. In many cases there are
8 ricochets, so different projectiles leave different traces, but judging
9 by this picture that's what it seems to be like.
10 JUDGE ORIE: So that it would have hit the wall in an upward
11 direction. Is that ...
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] With the tail turned down, yes.
13 Now, in the meantime, whether there was a ricochet or not, it amounts to
14 speculation as far as I'm concerned. I could only speculate now. I
15 really don't know.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
17 We adjourn for the day and would like to see you back tomorrow
18 morning at 9.30. Meanwhile, I instruct you that you should not speak or
19 communicate with whomever about your testimony, whether that is testimony
20 you've given today or whether that is testimony still to be given in the
21 days following. If you've understood this well, you may follow the
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand. Thank you.
24 [The witness stands down]
25 JUDGE ORIE: We adjourn for the day and ...
1 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar informs me that the translation -- the
3 new translation, I think it was for the Republika Srpska Main Staff
4 order, strictly confidential dated the 19th of November, that's P1968,
5 has meanwhile been attached.
6 We adjourn for the day and we will resume tomorrow -- Mr. Lukic,
7 you don't want to resume tomorrow? No that's --
8 MR. LUKIC: [Microphone not activated]
9 JUDGE ORIE: We resume tomorrow, Wednesday, the 28th of August,
10 at 9.30 in the morning in this same courtroom, III.
11 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.18 p.m.,
12 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 28th day of
13 August, 2013, at 9.30 a.m.