1 Wednesday, 28 August 2013
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.31 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone. Mr. Registrar, would you
6 please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you and good morning, Your Honour. This is
8 case IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar. The Chamber was informed
10 that the Prosecution wished to raise a matter.
11 MS. HARBOUR: Yes, Your Honours. Your Honours, yesterday you
12 noted that Dr. Turkusic has been called as a fact witness but that his
13 factual knowledge and observations are intertwined with his technical
14 background and experience. And I've asked to address you this morning
15 before the witness is brought in to request that if the witness is going
16 to be asked to opine about incidents that he has no personal knowledge
17 of, that he be provided the relevant information to make his opinion
18 useful, either the investigation file or the conclusions of his fellow
19 KDZ colleagues.
20 Yesterday, at transcript page 15762, the Defence showed the
21 witness a photo of an impact in the side of a wall, represented to the
22 witness that this impact was caused by a mortar, and asked the witness's
23 opinion as to the direction of fire. This photo was from scheduled
24 incident G13 and, as the Defence knows, the documents accompanying that
25 photo indicate that the impact was caused by a rotating artillery
1 projectile and not a mortar. With nothing more than this photograph and
2 this false premise, the witness speculated for several pages about the
3 direction of fire that might be if a mortar had left that impact. We
4 submit that littering the transcript with this kind of speculation has no
5 probative value. If it is the Defence case that the underlying
6 investigation file is incorrect and that the impact was caused by a
7 mortar, the Defence should put that case to the witness pursuant to
8 Rule 90(H) and provide the witness with enough information to make an
9 informed opinion. And so I would just like to ask -- request an
10 instruction from the Chamber that for the remainder of this witness's
11 cross-examination, if the Defence wishes to elicit opinions that the
12 witness be provided with sufficient information on which to form them.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Harbour.
14 Mr. Lukic.
15 MR. LUKIC: We would be very happy to exclude any opinions, and
16 that's what we asked from this witness, and that's what we asked in our
17 motions. I don't see any necessity for the Prosecution to defend this
18 witness. We have the right to ask him. He should have noticed that it's
19 not a mortar shell. According to the traces and according to the expert
20 witnesses we employed, it is mortar shell. There was no any rotating
21 artillery projectile. And I can ask him now when he enters. I can go
22 back to that issue and ask him what he thinks: Was it mortar or was it
23 artillery projectile. We can clarify with him very easily and I will do
24 it immediately upon his arrival.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, what you said is not an answer to the
2 request of Ms. Harbour. Ms. Harbour asks that if you are eliciting
3 opinion evidence from the witness, then to provide him with all relevant
4 factual information. That's what she asks. And I would like to hear
5 your response to that request.
6 MR. LUKIC: I told you my response.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just to add to what Judge Orie has said,
9 Mr. Lukic, it is improper cross-examination to mislead a witness. Just
10 hold on. Let me finish. If it is your case that it is a mortar -- if
11 occasioned by a mortar, you put it to him that that is your case and ask
12 him whether he agrees with you. You don't tell him that it is caused by
13 a mortar and then --
14 MR. LUKIC: We will do it that way, then.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's fine. Thank you. And that's part of the
16 Prosecution's request, that if facts that are truthful to him and let him
17 opine on them, okay? But don't give him misleading facts.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Harbour?
19 MS. HARBOUR: With respect to this particular incident if it's
20 helpful in providing the witnesses the under-- with the underlying
21 information, the KDZ report for this incident is at Exhibit P495,
22 pages 10 and 11.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mladic as always is invited to remain seated.
24 [Defence counsel and Accused confer]
25 JUDGE ORIE: The request of Ms. Harbour is granted. So,
1 therefore, Mr. Lukic, you know what you'll have to put to the witness.
2 Any other preliminary matter? If not, let me just -- we'll ask
3 the witness to be escorted into the courtroom in a minute, not
4 immediately. I'll tell you when we are there because I first would like
5 to deal with another matter, a matter which is -- is also some urgency
6 because the Chamber understands that the Defence has filed a request to
7 enlarge time for filing a 94 bis response to the report of Ms. Tabeau.
8 Now, I had already something I would like to communicate with the
9 parties. Mr. Lukic, I will read a prepared statement. If your request
10 from this morning would interfere with that, we will then further
11 consider that, but I leave it so this is without having knowledge of the
12 content of your request which was filed this morning.
13 On the 21st of August, the Defence has filed a motion seeking to
14 enlarge the time for filing its notice of objection in relation to
15 Witness Ewa Tabeau on the basis that it has not yet received B/C/S
16 translations of all of the underlying documents. On the 23rd of August,
17 the Prosecution filed its response, accepting that it only submitted
18 documents to the CLSS for translation on the 21st of August which was an
19 error on the part of the Prosecution. However, it disputes the actual
20 number of documents requiring translation.
21 On the 25th of August, by informal communication, the Prosecution
22 advised the Chamber that while some of the relevant documentation will be
23 translated by the end of August, some of the documents will not be
24 translated until the 9th of September, that is the first day of the same
25 week in which the witness is due to testify.
1 On the 26th of August, by a formal addendum to its response, the
2 Prosecution informed the Chamber that Witness Tabeau is potentially
3 available to testify in the month of November. The Chamber instructs the
4 Prosecution to advise it in a formal filing when it has provided the
5 Defence with all of the necessary translations in B/C/S and further
6 decides that the Defence will have 30 days from the date it has received
7 the translations to file its notice of objection.
8 The Prosecution is instructed to schedule the witness's testimony
9 accordingly, which, from their filing of the 26th of August, would most
10 likely mean in the month of November.
11 Mr. Lukic, if your filing of today interferes with what the
12 Chamber had decided already, we would like to know so that we can pay
13 further attention to it. If it covers the matter because I do understand
14 it was a request to enlarge the time for filing a 94 bis response,
15 then --
16 MR. LUKIC: The ruling covers our --
17 JUDGE ORIE: The ruling covers it. Then we consider -- I hereby
18 declare then your -- this morning's request moot.
19 Then could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
20 [The witness takes the stand]
21 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Turkusic.
22 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
23 JUDGE ORIE: I'd like to remind you that you're still bound by
24 the solemn declaration that you've given at the beginning of your
25 testimony, that you'll speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but
1 the truth.
2 WITNESS: EMIR TURKUSIC [Resumed]
3 [Witness answered through interpreter]
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic will now continue his cross-examination.
5 Cross-examination by Mr. Lukic: [Continued]
6 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Turkusic.
7 A. [Interpretation] Good morning.
8 Q. I have been instructed this morning to clarify one issue with you
9 tackled yesterday, and for that we need P497. We need page 5 in the
10 document in the B/C/S and page 1 in the English. You would remember that
11 my main question regarding this issue whether the tail of the shell or
12 the mine was lower or above the top. However, the Prosecution is
13 insisting that I clarify with you whether you can offer an opinion as to
14 whether this is a mortar shell or an artillery shell.
15 MS. HARBOUR: Your Honours, if I may.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Harbour.
17 MS. HARBOUR: I'd like to object to this because again it calls
18 for speculation. The request was that the relevant information on which
19 to base an opinion be provided to the witness before eliciting an
21 MR. LUKIC: They have right to redirect. If they are not
22 satisfied they can clarify it themselves.
23 JUDGE ORIE: The ruling was that the request was granted, so
24 therefore you should put all the relevant information to the witness who
25 has no knowledge of this incident and then you can ask him questions.
1 MR. LUKIC: I think that an open question is a most proper one.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, Mr. Lukic --
3 MR. LUKIC: I don't know if that report is correct either.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, the fact that there is a report and what
5 the report says is something that should be brought to the attention of
6 the witness. The ruling is clear. Whether you consider another type of
7 questioning more appropriate is not relevant at this moment after the
8 ruling. Please proceed and put to the witness -- and --
9 MR. LUKIC: I don't have that document with me. I cannot put the
11 JUDGE ORIE: Then you can deal with the matter after the break
12 and you can find the relevant information. Most preferable would be if
13 you and Ms. Harbour would sit together and that Ms. Harbour tells you
14 what, in her opinion, should be put to the witness in relation to this
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And Ms. Harbour has provided you with a document
17 number. It's P495.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
20 Q. In that case, we are going to leave this subject aside for the
21 moment. Just a moment, please.
22 Yesterday, we spoke hypothetically a lot but I'm going to put a
23 very specific question now to you. You spoke about different surfaces,
24 the firmness, the hardness. This shell that landed at Markale on the
25 28th of August, 1995, under the angle not less than 60 degrees, not less
1 than 67 degrees, in this specific instance, would it have been embedded
2 into the asphalt had the charge, the propelling charge, been number 4 or
3 number 5 or number 6?
4 A. In my opinion, given the type of fuse, which is impact fuse,
5 which is activated immediately, it wouldn't have embedded into the
6 surface in any of the cases you listed.
7 Q. Very well. Thank you. In the professional literature that you
8 used, did you use the Berezanski formulae that precisely speak about the
9 penetration and piercing of different surfaces?
10 A. No, as far as I can remember.
11 Q. Do you have your statement in front of you?
12 A. Yes, I do.
13 Q. We need above paragraph 10, which reads determining direction and
14 angle of fire. I have a general question: When you conducted
15 investigations, did you determine the distance between the explosion from
16 the potential military targets?
17 A. At the location where the shell landed, according to my
18 knowledge, there was not a single potential military target or a brigade
19 HQ or any military fortification. That was the inner city, urban part of
20 the centre of the town.
21 Q. You are talking about Markale 2 now; is that right?
22 A. Yes, but the same applies to number 1, because the distance
23 between these two locations is about 50 metres.
24 Q. My question was general. Did you check, in general terms,
25 whether a shell fell in the vicinity of any military facility?
1 A. As a special police unit who had very specific tasks, did not
2 have either jurisdiction or the need to know the disposition of potential
3 military targets or HQs. Therefore, that was not the topic of our
4 consideration. On the other hand, we know for sure, as do others, that
5 this was the very centre of the city and the most frequented location in
6 terms of the concentration of population.
7 JUDGE ORIE: You told us that this was not part of your task.
8 I understood it to be that you limited yourself to the technical aspects.
9 You didn't consider the vicinity of military targets. Once you've
10 answered that question, there is no need to elaborate on other matters
11 which you may consider relevant but which, as far as we understand, was
12 not a specific part of your task. So would you refrain from that and
13 limit your answer to what has been asked.
14 Mr. Lukic, please proceed.
15 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
16 Q. [Interpretation] Would you agree with me that there were over
17 2.000 legitimate military targets in Sarajevo? Were you aware of that?
18 A. No. Especially not according to the criteria that you believe
19 them to be military targets.
20 Q. According to you, would the HQ of the Main Staff of the ABH be a
21 military target?
22 A. Certainly, yes.
23 Q. We'll come to that. Let me ask you: How far is the Svjetlost
24 building from Markale and the point of impact of the shell? Which
25 building is right across it?
1 A. You are talking about the Svjetlost publishing house?
2 Q. Yes.
3 A. It's close by.
4 Q. Less than 50 metres; is that right?
5 A. Possibly. But no shell can harm it. Any shell cannot damage it.
6 Q. We'll get back to this. Let me just briefly go over paragraph 13
7 of your statement with you where you speak about the accuracy of mortars
8 as a type of weapon. You say that you're convinced that mortar fire is
9 one of the most precise activities pursued by means of use of artillery
11 A. That is correct.
12 Q. And you say that among those who studied mortars and who were in
13 the army and fired shells, they usually say that a mortar shell can hit a
14 chimney on a house should you wish to do so?
15 A. That is correct.
16 Q. Let me just show you the rules of mortar. I have found
17 82 millimetres, and that is 1D1205. The first page is rather dark and
18 therefore probably illegible. Since we do not have a translation yet,
19 it's still in progress, we are going only to use the table which says,
20 "Rule, 82 millimetre mortar"; is that correct?
21 A. Yes, it is.
22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We need page 10 of this document.
23 One before this one. We need the top table on the right-hand-side page.
24 Q. This table deals with the coverage of targets --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, there is no English translation.
1 MR. LUKIC: There is no English translation but I will read
2 everything that is said in this --
3 JUDGE ORIE: My problem is -- I'll try to find it. What you want
4 to read doesn't necessarily always provide the context at which, of
5 course, the Chamber will look as well. Please proceed.
6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
7 Q. The column of the left says that the degree of neutralisation of
8 the target, and it goes between 15 and 25 per cent and 50 per cent in all
9 three columns. On the right-hand side we see the degree of the shield
10 provided for the target and we have three categories there: Outside the
11 shield, incomplete shield, and complete shield. The number of average
12 targets outside the shield and the number of mines or shells; we have the
13 same information for incomplete shield, the number of targets and the
14 number of shells; and complete shield, we also have the number of average
15 targets and the number of shells. Outside the shield is a situation when
16 someone is, for example, standing in the middle of a football pitch?
17 A. Yes. And throughout the entire city of Sarajevo as well.
18 Q. Don't you think that Markale was the situation of complete shield
19 because that location was not visible from any point?
20 A. Yesterday I said --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, for the Chamber to understand this
22 testimony, we need first an explanation of what exactly the terms are
23 standing for. "Neutralisation," what does that mean? "Shield," what
24 does that mean? And then we can try to understand the tables.
25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Yes, but since we don't have a
1 translation, I was just intending to ask the witness whether he would
2 agree with me and whether they had this information available that say
3 that for neutralising a target --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, if you would introduce the terminology
5 you're using yourself, if you say I ask you about neutralisation, I use
6 the word neutralisation to mean the following, then you define what you
7 understand by neutralisation, and then you can ask questions. But then
8 at least the Chamber knows what the language you are using stands for.
9 Ms. Harbour you're on your feet.
10 MS. HARBOUR: Yes. In addition to the Chamber's concerns, I note
11 from the table of contents that this is found in a section -- please
12 excuse my pronunciation, but entitled "grupno gadzanje." And just a very
13 quick translation, that appears to mean "group ranges," so perhaps if the
14 Defence could also establish the context in which this section appears
15 before putting the questions to the witness.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's of course the reason why -- Mr. Mladic,
17 Mr. Mladic, would you remain seated and switch off the microphone.
18 [Defence counsel and Accused confer]
19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I'm going to read this out so that we
20 would know what is being discussed. Paragraph 426, on the left-hand side
21 of this page, could we please see that as well. This is what is written:
22 "Neutralisation fire makes it impossible to move to open fire and
23 to conduct other activities against enemy personnel and firing assets for
24 a certain amount of time while simultaneously inflicting losses upon
1 Then 427:
2 "The method of group targeting when neutralising enemy personnel
3 and firing assets depends on: The degree of neutralisation, the certain
4 amount of time that fire took for neutralisation, the type, importance,
5 degree of cover and the position of the target, the degree of persistence
6 of the target, and the requirements and needs of one's own infantry and
7 the time available."
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, what you just read underlines my concern.
9 Neutralisation is not about accuracy but neutralisation is apparently
10 about the effect of a shell fired under the circumstances given. These
11 are two distinct matters. Please proceed.
12 MR. LUKIC: They are connected as well.
13 JUDGE ORIE: You'll have to establish that, to what extent
14 accuracy of the firing and the effect, either in the open field, either
15 in an urban environment, troops being targeted, a specific matter being
16 targeted, what then exactly the connection is and what the relation is.
17 Of course, if you want to do that, there is no objection to that, but
18 that is what is required.
19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] 428.
20 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Mr. Lukic will have to
21 read considerably slower. This is highly complex subject matter that
22 does not readily lend itself to simultaneous interpretation. Thank you.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, would you please --
24 MR. LUKIC: I heard it.
25 JUDGE ORIE: You heard it. That's okay.
1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] "When one wishes to make it
2 impossible for the enemy to observe and to fire for a certain amount of
3 time, then a lower degree of neutralisation is applied, from 15 to
4 25 per cent. When greater losses are supposed to be inflicted upon the
5 enemy, in addition to preventing observation and firing, then a higher
6 degree of neutralisation is applied, from 26 to 35 per cent. If the
7 enemy exhibits a high degree of combat persistence, then the highest
8 degree of neutralisation is applied, from 40 to 50 per cent."
9 Now, the answer is in paragraph 429:
10 "The use of shells per average target after correction, given a
11 certain degree of neutralisation, as well as the number of average
12 targets that a mortar platoon may neutralise by using a combat kit of
13 ammunition is displayed in table 10."
14 I tried to move on to this table 10 immediately and to ask the
15 witness whether he would agree that the least amount spent would be
16 24 shells, if we want to stop the enemy for a certain period of time. So
17 that is the category between 15 and 25 per cent from the first sentence
18 of paragraph 428, and then all the way up to 216 shells if we wish to
19 have neutralisation of 40 to 50 per cent of the target.
20 Q. My question has to do with your statement: Did you find this in
21 a military textbook or a rule that a target can be destroyed with one
23 A. In the official rules for using any artillery piece, it does not
24 say that one shell can destroy a certain number if we are talking about
25 destroying the enemy. However, you put a few questions to me and I think
1 that I have the right to answer them. A counter-question now: Would you
2 agree, if you were driving a Mercedes that you should use instructions
3 for an Renault car?
4 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Now both speakers are
5 speaking, we don't understand either one.
6 JUDGE ORIE: You should not speak at the same time within limits
7 because I think it was a rhetoric question rather than a real question
8 for you to answer, Mr. Lukic. The witness may use that but if you would
9 have said that if you use the non-applicable manuals, because that was
10 what you hinted at, if I understood you well, then that doesn't work. Is
11 that what you meant to say by referring to the Mercedes and the Renault?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is what I meant. Mr. Lukic is
13 showing us tables and instructions for an 82-millimetre mortar whereas
14 the shell that fell in Markale is 120-millimetres. These are two types
15 of artillery pieces and they have different tables. As for the previous
16 paragraphs that he quoted, it is clear that a legitimate military target,
17 or, rather, enemy personnel, it was the population that was considered to
18 be that, that was the character of the war in Sarajevo. Namely, they
19 considered the entire population to be enemy personnel. So the Defence
20 lawyer leads us to this conclusion as he quoted these previous paragraphs
21 because it strictly says enemy personnel. So then that turned out to be
22 the population. So that would be the character of the war in Sarajevo.
23 As for persistence that is referred to here in one of these paragraphs,
24 when the enemy displays persistence, this is the persistence of the
25 population of Sarajevo to survive and to defend themselves. That's
2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Would you answer my question now?
4 A. The previous question that you put? Whether one can target a --
5 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Both speakers are speaking
6 at the same time again.
7 MR. LUKIC: This previous has nothing to do with my question.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, could you perhaps phrase again precisely,
9 concisely, clearly, the question you wish the witness to answer at this
11 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
12 Q. [Interpretation] Did you come across rules for a 120-millimetre
13 mortar, an 82-millimetre mortar and a 60-millimetre mortar that prescribe
14 that a target can be destroyed by using a single shell?
15 A. The question is what a target is and what destruction is.
16 Q. Have you come across any rules? Tell me. In such and such a
17 rule it says that a single shell can destroy a target. I will accept
19 A. Not in a single manual does it say a large concentration of
20 people in a marketplace is a target. So I cannot answer that. However,
21 you are trying to stop me from answering the first question that was put.
22 Q. That was my first question.
23 A. The first question was: How can a mortar fire at a target that
24 is covered or shielded and that cannot be seen? Can I answer? That's
25 what you asked me.
1 Q. Go ahead. No, I actually asked you whether you found rules
2 speaking of shielded targets, and in your view how many shells are
3 required for destroying a shielded target?
4 A. In all armies of the world it's obvious that howitzers are firing
5 at targets they cannot see.
6 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We could not hear
7 Mr. Lukic.
8 JUDGE ORIE: If you continue this way, I have to serve as a
9 traffic agent; that is, you may speak now, you may speak now. I give you
10 a last opportunity to do it for yourselves.
11 Mr. Lukic, I always asked -- I asked to be -- to explain to us
12 what the meaning of the language is. "Shielded target," could you, when
13 you use that expression, could you tell us exactly what you mean by it?
14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] A protected target is a target that
15 cannot be seen.
16 JUDGE ORIE: That's, yes, shielding could -- but you say it's --
17 cannot be seen. Now, let's try to understand your question and let's see
18 whether we can get an answer to that.
19 Mr. Lukic is interested to know whether you found anywhere a
20 manual or -- which would express that firing one single mortar shell
21 would be sufficient to hit a defined target. I'm not yet at this moment
22 saying what target. Let's make the target, Mr. Lukic, a building. Is
23 that -- because we know that military targets can also be troops where
24 the size, of course, is maybe quite different. Let's make it a building
25 of 10 by 10 metres. Is that -- okay. Did you find anywhere that one
1 mortar shell would be sufficient to hit a target, and we take for a
2 target a building of 10 by 10 metres. Did you find anything of the kind?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is impossible to find something
4 like that written somewhere but that is not to say that it is altogether
5 impossible. It is absolutely possible because complete instructions --
6 JUDGE ORIE: We take it one by one. So that is found nowhere.
7 And what you say is you wouldn't -- that would be not something you would
8 expect to be described. Could I ask you, then, a question: What, under
9 normal circumstances, how many shells you would need to hit such a
10 building, that means firing one shell, adjust after having observed
11 whether or not it hit the target, what would be, on average, the number
12 of shells you would need at medium range to hit such a target?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In an unknown area, it follows the
14 procedure that you described, Your Honour, roughly. However, in an area
15 that has been well known for four or five years, where all had been
16 mapped up to a centimetre, where the location of each garage, each
17 building, each street is very well known, the co-ordinates are there,
18 including one of the most important things, and that is to say the
19 difference in altitude from the location where the mortar is and where
20 the target is. The vertical difference in altitude is very important for
21 targeting. It is possible to use a single shell and to hit a target
22 without any problem whatsoever. However, the first question that
23 I haven't managed to answer yet is the key question, the one that was put
24 by Mr. Lukic.
25 JUDGE ORIE: We will take it one by one. You say it depends on
1 the knowledge, accurate knowledge, of the area where the target is found,
2 whether you will be successful with your first shell fired. Is that
3 correctly understood?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Since according to estimates of
5 international military observers over a million shells fell on Sarajevo,
6 there was a vast degree of experience.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, we are still in the hypothetical. You
8 would agree, at least I understand your testimony to be, that it is a
9 decisive -- it's a very important factor with what precision you have the
10 co-ordinates of targets, et cetera. Is that for the first --
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The most important of all.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Are there other factors which would make, or
13 at least create a risk that you would not hit the target with your first
14 shell, such as, and the Chamber has heard about atmospheric
15 circumstances, for example, temperature. Would that -- would that --
16 could that cause to miss the target because they are unknown and not
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There is another factor that was
19 certainly well known in this factor and that is the difference in
20 altitude above sea level.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Instead of saying that there are other factors,
22 I asked you whether this would be one factor, atmospheric circumstances.
23 Is it a factor?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, wind, for instance.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Wind, for instance. Now, you said altitude above
1 sea level. Would you consider that to be --
2 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We did not hear the
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The difference in altitude between
5 the firing position and the location of descent because a mortar can fire
6 at a higher altitude and a lower altitude, and this is such a case.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, the parabola of flight can
9 have one side that is shorter or longer. On a horizontal plane, both
10 sides of the parabola, if we look at the trajectory of the shell, are the
11 same. If a shell falls at a location that is at an altitude above sea
12 level that is lower than that of where it was fired, then it is longer
13 and then if the target is higher, then it is shorter, and according to
14 the tables, that is taken into account as well.
15 JUDGE ORIE: That, I think you are now returning to known and
16 fixed circumstances. Altitude doesn't change. The altitude of the
17 target remains the same. Could we now go back to Mr. Lukic's question.
18 Mr. Lukic, you wanted to know, and that's where it all started, the
19 accuracy of the firing of mortars. The witness has explained to us that
20 there are known circumstances, for example, co-ordinates sometimes known
21 of a target, a target could be a lot of things, buildings, could be
22 troops, could be a vehicle, could be -- and there are factors which are
23 varying, such as atmospheric circumstances. Could be temperature, could
24 be wind. So that's where we are at this moment. Please proceed and try
25 to keep matters clear and straight. And I add to this that the tables
1 that you were using were not about accuracy. If a shell lands somewhere,
2 it may have a certain effect within a certain distance, and if you want
3 to neutralise vehicles, persons, et cetera, you may need, depending on
4 the target, more or less shells to do that, which is not the same as
5 where the first shell should necessarily land.
6 Please proceed.
7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Now, subtitle C, paragraph 17 of your statement, we can have it
9 maybe on our screens.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It's P2009.
11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. I'm not going to read it. Here you speak about modified
13 air-bombs and you say that they are relatively precise if they are
14 dropped from an aircraft. I would like to ask you this: According to
15 you, is an air-bomb more precise if it is dropped from an aircraft than
16 the one that was launched by the use of a rocket engines on the ground?
17 A. I have to remind you that you didn't allow me to give you an
18 answer to your first question with regard to the accuracy from the
19 previous exchange of questions and answers.
20 Q. Could you please just answer what I'm asking you now. And as for
21 that, we shall see with the Prosecution if they want to pursue this
22 matter or maybe I'll get back to it.
23 A. Now, as for your question that you put to me just now, I'm
24 claiming the following: During one flight, an aircraft can drop an
25 air-bomb and destroy a bridge. In another instance, my submission is
1 that three modified air-bombs that we are talking about here, fired in
2 sequence, a couple of minutes apart, will not hit the same place. The
3 difference between the places where they land would be between 50 and
4 200 metres.
5 Q. In your view, whenever an aircraft drops a bomb, it will always
6 fall at the same place?
7 A. If the pilot is an experienced one, then it will.
8 Q. So we had no use to develop rocket systems, we could have used --
9 air-bombs are always to target the same targets?
10 A. No. You couldn't have done that because there was a no-fly zone
12 MR. LUKIC: It's time for the break, I think.
13 JUDGE ORIE: It's time for the break. Could I urge you to always
14 again be very precise in your language. We are talking about air-bombs
15 dropped from planes. We are talking about air-bombs, modified air-bombs,
16 fired by -- from the ground. Could we always be very precise because to
17 say a pilot who is experienced could fire from the same place, one of the
18 problems is that aeroplanes usually don't stay in the same place. They
19 move. So, therefore, the whole comparison between the two, I did
20 understand your second part of your question to be that if you use a
21 modified air-bomb fired from the ground, that if you do not change the --
22 any direction or angle or whatever, you just fire three times from that
23 same position, with the same -- same circumstances, that there would be a
24 variation in where those air-bombs would land. Is that what you intended
25 to tell us?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's what I'm trying to say, and
2 there will definitely be deviations in these three situations where we
3 have the firing under the same circumstances and conditions.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. May I urge you all to be precise and focused.
5 We take a break, but we'll first have the witness be escorted out
6 of the courtroom.
7 [The witness stands down]
8 JUDGE ORIE: We take a break and we resume at five minutes to
10 --- Recess taken at 10.34 a.m.
11 --- On resuming at 10.59 a.m.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
13 [The witness takes the stand]
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you may proceed, and Mr. Mladic is
15 invited to lower the volume of his voice.
17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
18 Q. I'm going to go back to a question, and then we'll move to the
19 specific incidents starting from Simon Bolivar school. Judge Orie was
20 right when he observed that my question was not precise enough when
21 I asked you if it is possible for an aircraft to hit the same place with
22 several projectiles because the plane is on the move.
23 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat the answer? It
24 was overlapping.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wouldn't agree with you in terms
1 of precision of firing from an aircraft. An aircraft is on the move and
2 it -- exercising hitting the same target.
3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. I appreciate that you don't agree but I needed to ask you this
5 question. So in your view in a number of flights an aircraft can drop an
6 air-bomb or a bomb on one and the same location?
7 A. If you want to speak about accuracy and precision, which are
8 similar but different notions, we can discuss that as well.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you used it as an introduction to your
10 question. Perhaps you would pursue the question you would like to ask
11 the witness.
12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. So, according to you, is an aircraft dropping bombs in several
14 flights engaging the same target, is it more precise than air-bombs
15 launched from a launching pad and propelled by rockets?
16 A. Absolutely yes.
17 Q. Very well. Thank you. I said that we are now going to move to
18 specific incidents. Let's first talk about the Simon Bolivar school.
19 These are paragraphs 24 through 27 of your statement. You took part in
20 the investigation; is that correct?
21 A. Correct.
22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we please have 1D1200 on our
24 Q. I will first kindly ask you to mark certain things on this photo.
25 Can you please mark with number 1, the elementary school Simon Bolivar,
1 and with number 2, the gym?
2 A. First of all, this is the school looking after it's being rebuilt
3 because it was completely destroyed at the very beginning of the war.
4 This sign to the left, the green one, with the inscription Tus is the
5 supermarket that has built several shops in Sarajevo in the last few
6 years. So this is how this school looks today. From the angle that the
7 photo was taken I'm trying to establish where -- no, I cannot see the gym
8 from this angle unless this is the one in the foreground, the biggest
9 part of the facility.
10 Q. Yes. That's right.
11 A. However, the incident happened opposite the gym, inside the
12 school. If you would like me to mark it, then this would be
13 approximately here.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Were you now marking the gym or were you marking the
15 location where the school was?
16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Are you marking the point of impact?
18 A. If this is the entire school where this bigger white facility is
19 a gym, which is an integral part of the school, the rest of the building
20 is where the classrooms are so what I marked is the side of the gym that
21 is not visible from this point, so there was an open area there where the
22 incident that we are discussing took place.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Lukic, Mr. Lukic, so that we can follow your
24 examination, can we just get the witness to do what you asked him to do.
25 Can you put the 1 on the school and can he put the 2 on the gym, if he
2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Please, you heard His Honour Judge Moloto, can you please mark
4 the school with number 1 and the gym with number 2?
5 A. However, number 1 encompasses both the left and right side, but
6 the gym itself is marked with the number 2.
7 Q. In that case, did the explosive device hit the gym or this open
8 area, or was it on the wall of the gym?
9 A. If we are talking about this incident, there are very detailed
10 photographs and sketches from previous analyses. Therefore, this picture
11 is almost rendered unusable for discussing this incident from this very
12 point of view.
13 Q. We chose this photograph in order to ask you if it is possible
14 for you to determine the approximate direction towards the barracks in
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Witness, the question was very simple. Did the
17 explosive device hit the gym or this open area? Or was it on the wall of
18 the gym? That has nothing to do with the photograph in front of you.
19 Could you answer that simple question?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I could. And if necessary, I
21 can use this same picture and draw the trajectory of the shell.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Just answer the question Mr. Lukic has put to
23 you, which I repeated.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So the shell hit the wall of the
25 gym at the place where there was an opening which was not a window at the
1 time. I'm going to mark this place here but from the other side.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: No, you were not asked to mark anything. It was
3 a question and you've answered the question. I think now Mr. Lukic will
4 put the next question. Listen to the questions.
5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
6 Q. So the next thing I asked you to do was to mark in this
7 photograph, if possible, the approximate trajectory towards Nedzarici
9 A. Just a moment. Let me try to orient myself. It is roughly this
10 direction that would be the Nedzarici barracks.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, to mark on a two-dimensional photograph a
12 direction is pretty difficult - you'll understand that - because this
13 photograph doesn't give any depth. So therefore it's not a very good
14 instrument. If you have a better one, please use it. If not, be aware
15 that it's not of great assistance.
16 MR. LUKIC: I do have a better one. I just kindly ask for this
17 document to be saved.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It will of saved and you want to tender it.
19 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
20 JUDGE ORIE: No objections I take it, Ms. Harbour.
21 MS. HARBOUR: No objections.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, the photograph marked by the witness
23 will receive number ...?
24 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D345, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE ORIE: D345 is admitted into evidence.
1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Could we now have
2 1D12001 in e-court, please.
3 Q. This photograph was supposed to -- or, rather, that photograph
4 was supposed to have the same angle as this one from Google Earth. Can
5 you find the Simon Bolivar school on this photograph?
6 A. Perhaps with a bit of zooming in, I could find it. In the corner
7 here it should be the airport on the left.
8 Q. Three white lines, as far as I can see, that's where it's marked?
9 In the middle, in the lower part? If you can. If you cannot --
10 A. Could you zoom in a bit more, please?
11 MR. LUKIC: We have to go one -- I need something else. One up.
12 One level up, if you want.
13 JUDGE ORIE: One level of zooming, zoom out one level, yes.
14 MR. LUKIC: Up, up, in. Move to the right, please -- no, no, the
15 other way. We have to zoom out.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Whatever, I'm not sure where the
17 school is in this image. I cannot confirm that with any certainty, and
18 that can only lead to further mistakes as we continue this discussion.
19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. All right. I asked if you could. If you cannot, no problem.
21 Thank you.
22 A. You're welcome.
23 MR. LUKIC: Now we'll need another document. It's 1D1222.
24 Q. [Interpretation] This encircled building, is that the brigade
25 command, the command of the Dobrinja Brigade?
1 A. This is also a new photograph. This part above the marked
2 building is the new shopping centre, Mercator, and I would kindly ask to
3 see the details in the lower right-hand corner, please.
4 Q. The photograph is the way it is. We cannot expand it any. If
5 you can recognise it, you can. If you cannot, that's fine.
6 A. Since the buildings are all the same, the architecture is all the
7 same, you cannot really recognise it. However, if this is the market,
8 the shopping centre and the market together, then this would not be the
9 command building. The command building was to the left. I assume this
10 building that we can see on the very left, and we only see its beginning,
11 if you will, the yellow facade, this and further up.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Without being asked -- would you please refrain from
13 marking if you're not asked to mark, but the witness marked the building
14 which he thinks. He did it in blue and it's at the very left edge
15 approximately one-third from the bottom in this photograph.
16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. This bit, not with a flat roof but with an entrance that is
18 covered, what kind of facility is that?
19 A. Sorry, what was your question? What is what building?
20 Q. This building, this edifice with windows on the roof.
21 A. You mean the one that I marked?
22 Q. No.
23 JUDGE ORIE: I think I understand. There is a construction in
24 the very middle of this photograph with an entrance which is covered a
25 few metres. I think Mr. Lukic would like you to tell us what that
1 building is. It's the building with a white facade, with quite a number
2 of windows in it and three, what seems to be, light openings or -- on the
3 roof of that building.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] that could be that school. Given
5 this east-west orientation, as far as I can see, the north is on the top
6 of this page, and if we see the position of the gym on the far left, that
7 could be that school. I'm not sure. I'm not sure.
8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Could you please place number 1 by the building that you think is
10 the command building?
11 A. However, with this level of zooming, I am not sure of that
13 JUDGE ORIE: You marked in blue a building you said you thought,
14 although you're not sure, to be the headquarters. Could you add a "1" to
15 where you marked that?
16 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. This other building with the windows on the roof and you say that
19 maybe that is the Simon Bolivar school, could you place number 2 there.
20 A. [Marks].
21 Q. Thank you.
22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can this please be admitted into
23 evidence and preserved as such?
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar?
25 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit D346, Your Honours.
1 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. When speaking of the incident that has to do with the
4 Simon Bolivar school, is it correct that before the incident the water
5 supply had stopped?
6 A. Before the incident? Throughout the war, Sarajevo was without
7 water 90 per cent of the time, and my hands know that full well because
8 from the water pump in Dobrinja I used to carry water home in jerrycans
9 and all the inhabitants know that, and --
10 JUDGE ORIE: I'll focus you to the question. The question, and
11 I'll slightly rephrase it, Mr. Lukic, whether prior to the incident,
12 whether the water supply was interrupted. And if you know, tell us. If
13 you don't know, or if you only have general knowledge about water
14 situations, tell us that you don't have precise information.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The only imprecision is what does
16 "prior" mean? Half an hour before the incident or seven days before the
17 incident or --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, could you give a time frame for when the
19 water was -- supply had stopped?
20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] The only thing that matters to me was
21 that before that there was no water, and now the next question is
22 supposed to clarify why. The population was explained -- was told that a
23 water pump would be erected and that water would be distributed and --
24 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters did not hear the end of
25 Mr. Lukic's statement.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Well, Mr. Lukic, you were not fully understood until
2 the very end. So your question really was whether there was no water
3 supply at the time of the incident.
4 MR. LUKIC: Before that, before that. At the time of the
5 incident it was distribution of water actually in progress.
6 JUDGE ORIE: It's totally unclear to me. You asked whether the
7 water supply had stopped. Did you mean the water supply through the
8 usual pipes, et cetera? Or would you mean other water supply? And if
9 you asked whether it stopped, then you're asking for a change. That is,
10 there is water, now there is no water anymore. If you don't give a time
11 frame, it could have been 1989, it could have been whatever. So
12 therefore, the witness, if he wishes to answer the question, asks what
13 time frame before the incident? And then you said that's irrelevant.
14 Therefore you were just asking whether there was a water supply
15 immediately prior to the incident. Is that what you want to ask?
16 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Do you know whether there was immediately prior to
18 the incident, whether there was water supply or whether there was no
19 water supply?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: I would like to know, Mr. Lukic, water supply to
23 what? To the whole suburb or to the school?
24 MR. LUKIC: It was announced, as I understood it, that water
25 distribution would be for the population of Dobrinja. But the witness
1 can confirm or deny it.
2 Q. [Interpretation] Have you heard the question? Is it correct that
3 a day earlier, it had been announced that on the following day, water
4 would be distributed in that place?
5 A. I did not hear that. At the time I lived in Dobrinja and I know
6 that very rarely we had water coming out of faucets and there were water
7 pumps where one had to pump water out of the soil by hand.
8 Q. All right.
9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Let us look at 65 ter, Prosecution
10 number, 10407. In e-court, we need the English version of this document,
11 page 34. That's the page we need in English. No, I beg your pardon. In
12 English, page 39, and in B/C/S, 34.
13 Q. We see here that Mrs. Azra Sisic on the 30th of June, 1995, gave
14 a statement, and down there it says, "Statement:"
15 "As for quite a while there has been no water in Sarajevo.
16 Civilian protection officials organised the distribution of water in the
17 Simon Bolivar school. On the 18th of June, 1995, at about 1000 hours
18 I went to the mentioned school to get some drinking water."
19 So you did not know that the civilian protection organised the
20 distribution of water on the 18th of June?
21 A. I did not know.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Harbour, is there dispute about distribution of
23 water in the school on that very date and it being announced?
24 MS. HARBOUR: Your Honours, we just would stand by whatever is in
25 the reports. There is no dispute that that's stated in the reports,
1 Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: And it's not contested as an untruthful statement
3 given by this person?
4 MS. HARBOUR: No, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Therefore, Mr. Lukic, you have your facts there
6 provided by the Prosecution and the witness who was focusing on technical
7 matters may not have known about it.
8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Did you know that a water pump had been placed there on the day
10 of the incident and that the pumping of water started around 11.00?
11 A. I don't know when the water pump was placed there.
12 Q. All right. Do you know that in this incident, the citizens of
13 Dobrinja had been warned immediately before the incident that there was a
14 danger of shelling?
15 A. No. Who would have issued such a warning?
16 Q. The police?
17 A. No.
18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we now have a look at
19 65 ter 10407, the Prosecution document.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Not the same one on the screen already? That's
21 what you asked for a few minutes ago.
22 MR. LUKIC: Give me a second, maybe. It is the same, I'm sorry.
23 We need English version, page 41, and B/C/S version, page 37.
24 Q. [Interpretation] Here, Mr. Muharem Mistric on the
25 1st of July, 1995, gave a statement where he said that as the civilian
1 protection commissioner had received a written order, that every day he
2 should install a pump at 6.00 in the morning by the Simon Bolivar school
3 and to monitor the distribution of water: Due to the fact that the
4 Dobrinja neighbourhood was often shelling, I did not want to install the
5 pump but the residents brought their jerrycans and left them within the
6 school compound. Then he goes on to say that he informed Mediha Citak,
7 the MP commissioner, who issued a written order to him to start the
8 pumping on distribution of water on the 18th of June, 1995. He also says
9 that at around 10.00 on that day he arrived at the school with the
10 intention of installing the pump. However, as there was a great crowd,
11 he did not want to proceed with the distribution without the presence of
12 police. And he consequently informed the MP commissioner so that at
13 11.00, three policemen arrived.
14 A. What you are reading, I'm sorry, can you please tell me where is
15 it? At the beginning of the statement, in the middle or where?
16 Q. I'm reading from the beginning. And now, in 12th line, have you
17 found it, towards the end? A 1. One of them told me that the pump was
18 not safe and he ordered that the people waiting for water be removed into
19 a safe premises. So that only two persons could have access to the pump,
20 one to pump the water and the other one to prepare the jerrycans.
21 Did you know that there were policemen present at the location
22 and what their role was?
23 A. No, not at all. This is the first time I see it. All I know is
24 the technical aspects of the incidents, the azimuth and the rest of it.
25 The way you are putting questions to me indicates that it was the fault
1 of the residents who happened to be there where the bomb was going to be
2 launched. How did they have the right to go there?
3 JUDGE ORIE: You're not supposed to comment on the questions put
4 by Mr. Lukic. Just answer them. That's good enough.
5 Mr. Lukic, were you seeking confirmation of those facts described
6 in that statement?
7 MR. LUKIC: I'm just asking the witness if he knows the facts.
8 Now he says he does not know any facts prior to his investigation, and I
9 will now move on.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, so it's the knowledge of the witness you're
11 interested in at this moment. Apparently he focused purely on his
12 investigative task.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please help me, Mr. Lukic. You put the question:
15 "Did you know that there were policemen presents at the location
16 and what their role was?"
17 And to that he answered:
18 "No, no at all."
19 MR. LUKIC: And then later on --
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Only around the -- in relation to the question of
21 the presence of the policemen.
22 MR. LUKIC: But then the witness said, "All I know is the
23 technical aspects ..."
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You asked only about the policemen.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Did you know that the civilian protection had organised the
3 distribution of water?
4 A. By virtue of its function, the civilian protection was always
5 involved in the distribution of humanitarian aid, and the water falls
6 into that category.
7 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers please -- do not overlap.
8 A. [No interpretation]
9 JUDGE ORIE: The witness has told us that distribution of water,
10 he considered that to be humanitarian aid. Do you have any specific
11 knowledge about the distribution of water at that point in time, at that
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At that time, and in that place,
14 there was nothing special about distribution of water because there were
15 several such places in Dobrinja, the civilian protection was there just
16 to maintain order.
17 JUDGE ORIE: The simple answer, then, is no.
18 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
20 Q. In your work, did you obtain information that in all incidents
21 that happened in Dobrinja, the residents had been warned immediately
22 prior to the incident that there was danger of shelling? And I will tell
23 you which specific incidents I have in mind: In June of 1993, a football
24 game; 12th of July, 1994, the queue for water at Spasenija Cana Babovic;
25 4th February 1994, distribution of humanitarian aid. Each and every time
1 the police would come and warn the people, and an explosion took place
2 immediately after that. Did you ever come across this information in
3 your work?
4 A. This is the first time that I hear something like that, from you.
5 I had never heard it before.
6 Q. Very well. You said that you are acquainted only with technical
7 aspects, so let's speak about them. In relation to this incident, you
8 established that the azimuth of the flights, in-flight of the shell
9 was --
10 THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. Lukic please repeat the degree.
11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] 320 degrees, the angle.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Which paragraph are you referring
13 to? Which number?
14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. In the documents, can this be found, but if you can't remember
16 right now, we can go through your documents as well. Can we therefore
17 have Exhibit P2017, which is a Prosecution exhibit admitted yesterday?
18 And we'll look at it in e-court. First you'll see what kind of document
19 this is.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Harbour.
21 MS. HARBOUR: Just since it looks like we are moving on from the
22 last document can I ask that it be tendered into evidence since the
23 witness has discussed it extensively?
24 JUDGE ORIE: You mean the exhibit with the statements of the
1 MS. HARBOUR: Yes, 65 ter I believe it was 10407.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.
3 MR. LUKIC: [Microphone not activated]
4 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] The witness said he has no knowledge.
6 I don't know if I can tender that.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, at the same time we discussed whether this was
8 accepted by the Prosecution, the truthfulness of the statement, at least
9 not in dispute that there were false statements. I think it is a
10 document which might help us for other reasons as well, because it also
11 gives further technical details about statements, but I also saw, for
12 example, a -- seems to be useful information in the document. Any
13 problem in --
14 MR. LUKIC: Would that be under a P number? I don't want to
15 steal documents from them.
16 MS. HARBOUR: We have no objection either way, Your Honours.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then, Mr. Registrar, could you assign a P
18 number to the document we just looked at.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. 65 ter number 10407 will be
20 Exhibit P2043.
21 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Do you recognise this document that you see in front of you and
24 does it deal with the Simon Bolivar school?
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Lukic, we still have the old document, at
1 least on my screen. I still have the document that has just been
2 admitted. Okay. My apologies.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It seems to be P2017.
4 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: My apologies.
6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. So do you recognise this document, Mr. Turkusic?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Among the individuals taking part in the investigation, there is
10 your name as well; is that correct?
11 A. Yes, it is under number 5. And also there is a person from the
12 KDZ under number 6, which was my organisation.
13 Q. All right.
14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at page 7 in this
15 Prosecution document. I think it's page 7 in both versions.
16 Q. Can you determine the azimuth that is plotted in the sketch?
17 A. On the document on the right, where it says 320, and if it is
18 north-south, it corresponds with the diagonal line that you see across
19 the sketch, and that's the azimuth.
20 Q. Very well.
21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Let us now look at 1D1199.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You said 1D1119; correct?
23 MR. LUKIC: 1199.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I misunderstood.
25 MR. LUKIC: Maybe I misspoke but we have the correct document on
1 the screen.
2 Q. [Interpretation] I don't know why it's only in the B/C/S.
3 Perhaps there is no translation. It should have been in the system. I'm
4 going to read it quickly. This is a photo file. The shelling of the
5 water pump, Simon Bolivar elementary school, 18th of June, 1995. Let's
6 look at the next page. Do you recognise this document?
7 A. This is not a document that I worked on or anyone else from my
8 unit because of the heading, but it looks authentic.
9 JUDGE ORIE: You were asked whether you recognise it. Do
10 I understand that you recognise the format? Have you seen it before?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I am familiar with this.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. So you recognise it.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think so, as far as I can
15 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Now we need page 4.
17 Q. By looking at these photographs, can you recognise whether this
18 is consistent with the place of impact?
19 A. Yes, that's correct.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, could you please slowly read for us what
21 the text is because we have no English translation. First, for the
22 photograph on the top.
23 MR. LUKIC: It's under 3. It says -- should I read in B/C/S so I
24 get correct English translation, Your Honour?
25 JUDGE ORIE: One second, please. No. Let me see. I'm perhaps
1 lost. I'm looking at the original. One second. There is no English
2 translation so what we would like you to do is to --
3 MR. LUKIC: Read B/C/S.
4 JUDGE ORIE: -- read B/C/S slowly so that we have at least some
5 idea about what it is.
6 MR. LUKIC: Number 3:
7 [Interpretation] "Number 3, the same, like the previous
8 photograph, just photographed from a different direction. The arrow
9 marks the place on the wall where the projectile impacted and exploded."
10 [In English] If we can move up so I can see the next one.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and the arrow apparently in this picture points
12 at what seems to be the upper part of a wall, where there is some damage
13 on the top. Yes. And what does the --
14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] "Number 4. Number 2 and the arrow
15 mark the place on the wall where the projectile impacted and exploded."
16 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Now I would need the end of page 2 in
18 both versions and we'll have to move on to the third page. Then we need
19 the next page. I do apologise. [In English] I need the previous
20 document, P2017. My apologies.
21 [Interpretation] Actually, no. The page is 2 and we need the
22 third paragraph in the B/C/S, and also in the English version, we need
23 this third paragraph on the same page where it says:
24 "Precise measurements based on the characteristic traces caused
25 by the blast of the shell on the concrete wall established that the shell
1 had been fired from the north-westerly direction which corresponds to the
2 aggressor's positions in the Nedzarici barracks."
3 Now, on the basis of these precise measurements, a sketch was
4 made, and we need -- now I just have the 65 ter number. That is this
5 document that we've already admitted under a P number. 65 ter 10407 is
6 the number. 65 ter. So we will get --
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is now P2043.
8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. In this document, we will
9 need page 6.
10 Q. Can you mark on this sketch the direction from which the shell
11 arrived, and then could you mark north.
12 A. I cannot at this moment because I find the details of the sketch
13 to be unclear. I did not draw this, and I'm trying to decipher what
14 means what. However, if, on the right-hand side, towards the bottom,
15 this unusual arrow, a bit deformed, shows the point of impact on the
16 wall, and the left-hand arrow on the left, with an S, shows the north,
17 and this slight deviation could be it because it does differ from pure
18 north. It is north-west. So I can only confirm that if S was "sjever,"
19 "north," then this is in correlation with this other arrow on the right
20 that shows the deviation from the north which is an azimuth of a bit less
21 than 360 but it is not pure west. So it is north/north-west. Is that
22 what you're asking me to do because we have speculation here on the
23 assumption that this S is north, "sjever," then that would be it.
24 However, since I did not work on this sketch or image, it is something
25 that relativises my answer.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you, you said north of north-west, which
2 I would expect to be closer to north than to west. Is that what you
3 intended to say? Because if we would draw an angle between -- if we
4 could find an angle between the two arrows, wouldn't that be closer to
5 north than to west?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, you see 180 is south, 280 is
7 pure west, and between 260 and 360 is the west. Now, whether that angle
8 has what I explained just now, this could correspond to an azimuth of
9 320, or in more precise terms, it is better to give the azimuth actually
10 in degrees rather than descriptively. It could correspond to a
11 320-degree azimuth. However, since I did not draw this sketch and I did
12 not adjust the angles on the sketch to correspond to the situation on the
13 ground, any comment of mine with regard to this image would be
15 JUDGE ORIE: May I take it that pure west for you would be
16 270 degrees?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. I think it's time for a break,
19 Mr. Lukic. We would first like the witness to be escorted out of the
21 [The witness stands down]
22 JUDGE ORIE: We take a break and we resume at 20 minutes past
24 --- Recess taken at 12.01 p.m.
25 --- On resuming at 12.22 p.m.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
2 [The witness takes the stand]
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you may proceed.
4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
5 Q. Now I'd like to show you a photograph. Actually it is a map.
6 1D1203. That's what we need.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Harbour.
8 MS. HARBOUR: Yes. Could I just get some information on who
9 created this map and what it purports to be, and the date of the map, of
10 course. Thank you.
11 MR. LUKIC: I'm not obviously swift enough. It was my intention.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Well, Ms. Harbour will patiently wait for your
13 explanation, I'm certain.
14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. On this map, we drew this line marked with number 1, and at the
16 top of the map, we marked the north with the letter N. Would you agree
17 that on this sketch -- or no, this map, this image, of Sarajevo, this
18 line number 1 was placed in such a way that the wall that was hit by the
19 shell corresponds or coincides with line number 1?
20 Your answer was not recorded.
21 A. I would not agree.
22 Q. Would you then draw a line on this map that would, in your view,
23 correspond to this direction and for it to be parallel with the wall that
24 was hit by the shell?
25 A. I don't understand. What should be parallel?
1 Q. Parallel with the wall.
2 A. How do you suggest that?
3 Q. No. The wall would be parallel to this line. The wall should be
4 parallel to this line.
5 A. Do you want me -- do you want me to try to draw the wall on this
6 map, its orientation as it is in nature?
7 Q. Yes, yes.
8 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We cannot hear Mr. Lukic
9 at all.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Lukic, what you apparently want to ask the
11 witness is whether the line drawn on this map is parallel to the wall
12 that was hit so that we know more or less the direction from one end to
13 the wall to the other end of the wall, what that direction was. Can you
14 confirm that, Witness, that it is parallel?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I could if I were to do a bit of
16 drawing on this map to help myself in terms of azimuth, east-west, and so
18 JUDGE ORIE: I don't know what you want to draw on the map.
19 MR. LUKIC: North is already on the map.
20 JUDGE ORIE: North is there already.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Did I understand correctly, Mr. Lukic, that this
22 line north is drawn by you?
23 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is it possible to get north as indicated by the
25 person who did the map rather than a line drawn by you?
1 MR. LUKIC: Not in this size. It's at the end of the map.
2 JUDGE ORIE: But the simple question is, Mr. Lukic, whether the
3 witness can confirm that the -- from the beginning until the end of a
4 straight wall, whether, if you would put a compass there, that it would
5 indicate that it was going from 207, the lower part, 207 degrees or was
6 it 217? I don't have it. 207 to 207 minus 180? Because that's the
7 direction. Two points define the direction. And on the compass you say
8 this is on the compass a line between 207 and 27 degrees? That's the
9 simple question, isn't it?
10 MR. LUKIC: I don't know if this 207, what does that mean? I'm
11 just interested in this line.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Who put the 207 in it?
13 MR. LUKIC: I don't know who put the 207.
14 JUDGE ORIE: The 207 -- so you drew the line?
15 MR. LUKIC: I didn't draw it. Must be some meaning but unknown
16 to me.
17 JUDGE ORIE: The most likely meaning would be, if you look at
18 north, west, south, east, I would not be surprised if the direction
19 downwards at the compass would be 207 degrees.
20 MR. LUKIC: Now I understand it, yes. Probably it's where the
21 number 1 is.
22 JUDGE ORIE: But the witness has not drawn it. We don't need an
23 expert or a witness for that, we just need a compass for that.
24 MR. LUKIC: If he can orientate himself and see if it's this
25 line, red line, through the middle of this picture is parallel to the
1 wall, as you said from one side to another side, hit by the grenade.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The direction of the wall, would that be
3 parallel, or even exactly the same, as the line drawn under number 1?
4 That was the question. Can you answer it?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] However, with the proviso that we
6 are looking at a map whose provenance I don't know and Mr. Lukic doesn't
7 know either so we are basing all of this on speculation, on the
8 assumption that N is really north. Then the line is roughly here, the
9 one that I drew, west. Now, the -- the shell would arrive -- well, let
10 me mark it with a D. Roughly. And then in that case, this line marked
11 number 1 could be a line in space that is this azimuth 207 given all
12 these assumptions, if, if, if, maybe it's this way.
13 JUDGE ORIE: You're not answering the question unfortunately.
14 First of all, you're marking without being invited to do so. Would you
15 please refrain from doing that.
16 Second, Mr. Lukic, I did not understand that where the 207 is
17 written, that that is the position where a shell impacted or is it, in
18 your question? I thought it was somewhere in Dobrinja.
19 MR. LUKIC: I thought it's down there where it says Dobrinja.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So therefore, the marking is totally
21 misplaced, Witness. Could it be erased?
22 MS. HARBOUR: Your Honours if I may.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 MS. HARBOUR: I think it's clear from Your Honour's questioning
25 and from the witness's response and the witness's subsequent marking that
1 the markings on this map are confusing. There is no foundation for them.
2 Even Mr. Lukic doesn't know where they originated. I'm wondering if
3 there isn't a better map perhaps one in the investigative file that can
4 be used.
5 JUDGE ORIE: It's not about the maps. I mean, it is about the
6 wall. I mean, if you know where the wall is and how it is -- what its
7 place is in the building, then it's easy to project that on a map. There
8 is nothing wrong with the map apart from whether it's a nowadays map or
9 whether it's a map from --
10 MR. LUKIC: I'm sorry for interrupting, Your Honour. One
11 clarification. My colleague Stojanovic just informed me that this map is
12 received from the OTP. It's from their collection. Only we used it.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And you added --
14 MR. LUKIC: Probably it's enlarged.
15 JUDGE ORIE: But you did put a line, 1, on it.
16 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
17 JUDGE ORIE: The map simply is a map of Sarajevo. Let's not make
18 any fuss about that.
19 MR. LUKIC: And it is oriented that north is on the top.
20 JUDGE ORIE: I've seen many maps of Sarajevo and whether it's
21 exactly or not is a different matter but at least the upper part is what
22 I've seen many, many times as being depicted as the north. So let's
23 forget about the map. The problem is the wall. We need precise
24 information about the school and about the wall in order to be able to
25 project that on a map.
1 Therefore, if in any of the reports we find a precise location of
2 the wall, then we could see whether, if projected on a map where north is
3 known, whether that would result in the line Mr. Lukic has drawn.
4 That is the exercise I think we have to do if we want to move
6 Mr. Lukic, anywhere in the report, anything known about how
7 exactly the wall was situated? Because that's what we need, isn't it?
8 MR. LUKIC: That's why we started with that picture first.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Let's --
10 MR. LUKIC: And then we moved also to wider area from
11 Google Earth, but the witness wasn't able to orientate himself on that
12 Google Earth map.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 MR. LUKIC: Then we are trying now with the Sarajevo map.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but the problem is that the wall is not visible
16 on this map, and that is what we need. And if I would want to establish
17 that, I would choose Google Earth. I would zoom in until the very, very
18 detail of the building. Then we would have to establish whether the
19 building, which existed at that time, is similar to the building at this
20 moment, as far as directions are concerned. Then we would have to find
21 exactly the wall we are talking about. And we would then need to know
22 whether that is sufficiently defined to establish what the direction of
23 the line of that wall is. That's what is needed.
24 MR. LUKIC: Can we try, then, that exercise with 1D1201?
25 JUDGE ORIE: I'm happy whatever way you want to access it.
1 MS. HARBOUR: If Mr. Lukic is open to this suggestion? In the
2 investigative file which is now in evidence, although I don't recall the
3 P number, it's 65 ter 10407, on page 2 of the B/C/S version there is a
4 map and there are clear structures indicated whereby the witness may be
5 able to --
6 MR. LUKIC: It's a drawing or a map?
7 MS. HARBOUR: It's a map. There is a drawing on top of it but
8 the witness may be able to indicate or confirm as you've asked him to do
9 with the other one if that is the direction the wall was facing. And
10 Ms. Stewart has informed me that this is Exhibit P2043.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 MR. LUKIC: I don't have those numbers. Which number was it
13 before, 65 ter number.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: 10407.
15 MR. LUKIC: 1046 --
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: 07 -- 407.
17 MR. LUKIC: 7.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: 10407.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can I use the time to put one question to the
20 witness. Do you recognise on this map in front of you where the school
21 we are talking about is situated?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe that at any rate this is
23 not the place where we have this deflection of the red line.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This was not my question. Do you know where the
25 school we are talking about is situated on this map?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm trying. I believe it's in the
2 area a little beneath the middle of the map where you see the word
3 "Dobrinja," so where Dobrinja is written, so somewhere in that area.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Could we zoom in on that part.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And then my next question: Have you any idea how
7 that school with the wall we are talking about, the wall where the -- of
8 impact, would be situated in relation to the red line? If not, let me
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe that the orientation of
11 this red line could be parallel with the wall that was hit. Or, rather,
12 that they are positioned along the same line or direction.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. Perhaps that helps you.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let me also ask a question before -- it's going to
15 be directed unfortunately to you, Mr. Lukic, because you know more about
16 this red line. What does this red line represent?
17 MR. LUKIC: Simply to show us, because we'll have to deal with
18 this direction, the direction of the wall in the space on the map. It's
19 not possible to deal with it --
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm afraid I don't understand what you say when
21 you say "direction of the wall in space."
22 MR. LUKIC: Position --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Could I try to assist? If you have a wall, a wall
24 has a certain length.
25 MR. LUKIC: If you extend those dots.
1 JUDGE ORIE: And has hardly any volume apart from that. If you
2 extend the line from the beginning to the end of the wall known, that is
3 what you wanted to depict on this photograph, I take it?
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: And I don't understand. Then I'm lost. If this
5 is what is depicting the length of the wall, I would imagine the wall to
6 be inside here.
7 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
8 JUDGE ORIE: If this is a wall, looking on a wall, the only thing
9 you did is to take the beginning and the end of the wall and draw a long
10 line so as to know how that wall is facing what direction because that
11 seems to be what your exercise is about. So that we know the position of
12 the wall on 360-degrees compass map. Is that what you intended to do?
13 MR. LUKIC: It's just easier for us to see on the map because
14 wall is too small for us to follow. This way we have the line.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: In my view, the problem is resolved with the last
17 answer of this witness.
18 MR. LUKIC: Yes, I think I can continue. Thank you.
19 JUDGE ORIE: You can. Perhaps I have one. Witness, you have --
20 you lived in Dobrinja, I think you told us.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.
22 JUDGE ORIE: If we further zoom in on this map, a little bit
23 further even, you see S diacritic K, and a red rectangle, a very small
24 one, next to what seems to be an envelope. Do you have any
25 recollection --
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can see that.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Do you have any recollection on whether a school
3 would be situated there?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is possible, if you look at the
5 street below, the yellow one, and the one above the school which is
6 rather a pedestrian path, I think that it's realistic to assume that this
7 is the position of the school in Dobrinja.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
10 Q. We needed this line for the next map. We are going to make a
11 proposition for you, a proper one.
12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we now have 1D1204. [In English]
13 Nothing is drawn on this one, but only I would offer the first one, 1203,
14 into evidence, 1D1203.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Harbour.
16 MS. HARBOUR: Your Honours it still hasn't -- there still hasn't
17 been a foundation established for all the markings on the map. And
18 what's most concerning to me is this number 207. We don't know where it
19 came from.
20 JUDGE ORIE: But give me one second during the next break and
21 I'll be able on the basis of this map, if printed out for me, to confirm
22 whether it's the line is 207, yes or no, on a 360-degree scale. So
23 therefore, if it's anything else, I'll let you know. The concern is not
24 a serious one at this moment. And --
25 MS. HARBOUR: I guess the additional point is that while it may
1 be possible to confirm this over the break with your compass, we don't
2 know what the relevance is of that number. Mr. Lukic hasn't indicated
3 how that's important or what his case is involving that number.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic has asked the witness whether the -- let's
5 use again the word "direction of the wall" but the orientation of the
6 wall was in accordance with the red line. The witness confirmed that.
7 And therefore, it's -- if it's 207, then the wall is 207, at least that
8 is what the witness tells us at this moment. Whether reliable or not is
9 still to be further to be seen, but that's the relevance. There is no
10 doubt about that, I would say.
11 MS. HARBOUR: I'm sorry, Your Honours, if it's clear to you what
12 the relevance is of the angle of the wall, it's not clear to the
14 JUDGE ORIE: The relevance of the angle of the wall will play a
15 role in further, I take it, exploring the damage on the wall and the
16 possible impact on the wall so as to establish what may be the origin of
17 fire. That's the relevance.
18 MS. HARBOUR: I defer to Your Honours.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and of course in re-examination you can
20 challenge all of it, that it's 207, that it's the orientation of the
21 wall, whatever, but let's first allow Mr. Lukic to further develop his
22 line of questioning. And you wanted it to be admitted to Mr. Registrar?
23 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Objections are overruled.
25 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. 65 ter number 1D1203 will be
1 Exhibit D347.
2 JUDGE ORIE: D347 is admitted into evidence.
3 MR. LUKIC: I have one strange question for the Registrar. 347
4 has one or two pages?
5 THE REGISTRAR: Mr. Lukic, it's a one-page map.
6 MR. LUKIC: Okay.
7 [Defence counsel confer]
8 MR. LUKIC: I have wanted to show another map, but I cannot
9 locate it right now. I will proceed with this statement, and it seems
10 that it is redacted. I don't know if we should go to private session or
12 JUDGE ORIE: I don't know what it is, I don't know why it is
13 redacted, so therefore I have to rely on you, Mr. Lukic.
14 Ms. Harbour.
15 MS. HARBOUR: I would suggest that we go into private session to
16 discuss this.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, then we move into private session.
18 [Private session]
11 Pages 15822-15823 redacted. Private session.
8 [Open session]
9 THE REGISTRAR: We are now in open session, Your Honours.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
11 Mr. Lukic.
12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
13 Q. Did you know that UNPROFOR also came to the scene of this
14 incident at the time?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Were you aware of their conclusions?
17 A. On some occasion during some previous testimony and leafing
18 through certain documents, I don't know exactly when, yes, I heard about
19 the conclusion regarding the direction, and I absolutely cannot accept
20 that because of imprecision.
21 Q. Is it correct that, actually, you marked the direction of the
22 north, one that significantly differs from the sketches on the scene?
23 A. I don't find your question clear at all. What kind of sketches
24 are you talking about? Show them to me.
25 Q. In your work, did you mark the north?
1 A. Of course. Everything that I did and that my colleagues did in
2 the unit that I was in, this orientation, south-north, generally speaking
3 we would always mark that, but when we would write the azimuth, then one
4 would know that is the most precise way of marking orientation.
5 Q. Would you agree that in actual fact you determined the direction
6 at 270 degrees but that you marked it as 320?
7 A. Please, could I have the original document? Fifteen or 20 years
8 have elapsed, whatever. I cannot keep all these figures in my head.
9 Could I please have my report? Could it please be displayed on the
10 screen, in order to refresh my memory?
11 Q. I would need a break to locate that exactly in your report.
12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] But now briefly, 1D1199, could we
13 take a look at that briefly. In this document, we need page 5. One page
14 ahead, please, page 6. Obviously, something went awry with e-court.
15 Could we see page 4? [In English] I'm sorry, but I will have to ask for
16 early break. Something -- sorry, I will have to ask for early break.
17 Something went wrong with my numbers and e-court so I have to sort it
19 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Lukic, you'll get an early break. But
20 first could we ask the witness to be escorted out of the courtroom.
21 [The witness stands down]
22 JUDGE ORIE: We take that break. I have, however, one question.
23 It's in cross-examination, it turned out that there are more reports or
24 sketches or photographs of the incident. Would it be possible to have a
25 full account of every contemporaneous report that was written
1 specifically on this incident so that we are not missing any of it, that
2 we know what material does exist?
3 MS. HARBOUR: Yes, Your Honours. I believe that the file that
4 was introduced, which was 65 ter 10407, includes all of the sketches and
5 reports but does not include the photographs. But I will double check
6 that and I will make sure that if it doesn't, that I assemble a document
7 that does and we can, if Mr. Lukic agrees, just submit that entire file
8 rather than what's currently in e-court.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Lukic, you read from a document which was
10 not in English, and you read the subtitles to photographs. You read the
11 titles of photograph 3 and photograph 4, if you remember. Now,
12 photograph 3, I think, starts with referring to photograph 2. When
13 looking at that material, I had great difficulties in finding on
14 photograph 2 exactly what was depicted in more detail in photograph 3.
15 Photograph 3 and 4 have arrows, light blue arrows, which point at what
16 should need our attention. I didn't find similar arrows on 2 but I may
17 have missed them because they are very flawed. Could the parties in one
18 way or another reach an agreement on what of photograph 2 is detailed in
19 photographs 3 and 4 and then inform the Chamber?
20 MS. HARBOUR: I would be happy to meet with Mr. Lukic about this,
21 Your Honours.
22 MR. LUKIC: Not during this break.
23 JUDGE ORIE: No, no. Because you have other difficulties. We
24 are not done with this witness today anyhow. You have the whole
25 afternoon and sunny evening to further study photographs 2, 3 and 4.
1 We take a break and resume at 1.30.
2 --- Recess taken at 1.08 p.m.
3 --- On resuming at 1.32 p.m.
4 JUDGE ORIE: The witness will be escorted into the courtroom.
5 Mr. Lukic, I hope that you have resolved some of your problems.
6 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour, with the help of our Case Manager.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 [The witness takes the stand]
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you may proceed.
10 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
11 Q. You asked me to show you the sketch that you drew. I said you
12 but in actual fact I meant the service. So you're going to tell me if
13 you didn't draw it personally.
14 A. All right.
15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] P2017 is what we need. We need
16 page 7 in this document. Actually, do I apologise. Perhaps we should
17 move page by page because this consists of several documents actually.
18 So let us start with the first page and let us leaf through the
19 pages one by one so that the witness could see and could tell us which
20 document is his. So page 2 now, please. Page 3. Page 4.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think it would be better if you asked if he has
22 prepared this document because we are now moving to the next document.
23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. This first document, before the one we see now, did you prepare
25 that or somebody else?
1 A. The first one that you showed me, as you were leafing through the
2 pages one by one, it said centre of security services, CSB, where I was
3 an associate member of the team but others compiled this document.
4 However, I did work on its elaboration.
5 Q. Thank you. I think that this also answers the Judge's question.
6 Now let us move on to the next page. This document is from your
7 service; right?
8 A. Yes. We can see from the top of the page that it is.
9 Q. [In English] Can we move on to the next page, please.
10 A. My signature is here.
11 Q. [Interpretation] Very well. Next page now. [In English] Can we
12 go to the next page? [Interpretation] Now we see a document that says
13 the shelling of Sarajevo. Now it, I don't know --
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before you go to that document, I didn't see the
15 end of the document in the English version of the previous document.
16 MR. LUKIC: Okay.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: I saw the one in B/C/S where the signature is but
18 I didn't see -- that's better.
19 MR. LUKIC: That's the last page, actually second page of that
20 KDZ in English.
21 JUDGE ORIE: If you're so precise, it's the third page. The last
22 one is the third page in English. There are two pages in B/C/S.
23 MR. LUKIC: Thank you. In B/C/S, sorry, yes. Thank you.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Thank you so much.
1 MR. LUKIC: Thank you. Can we move on now to the next page.
2 [Microphone not activated] Sorry, I didn't turn on my microphone.
3 Q. [Interpretation] This document, was it compiled by the CSB or
4 your service, KDZ?
5 A. Since I cannot see on the top of the page who compiled it, it's
6 probably contained in the signature, but I think it was the KDZ in terms
7 of the format because the azimuth was 320, like in the previous document
8 that you showed us.
9 Q. We need the next page now, please. On this sketch -- actually,
10 what does this represent? How many degrees, this straight line?
11 A. Since I assume that there is a northerly orientation, that would
12 be the azimuth, 320 degrees. So there are 60 missing to 380 so that
13 would precisely be it.
14 Q. I was listening to the English interpretation. I don't know if
15 you said this, 320, so we need 60 to 380.
16 A. Yes. Exact north.
17 Q. You probably misspoke.
18 A. Yes, I probably did. I'm a bit tired. So it's 40 degree to
19 reach the exact north. Thank you. Thank you for correcting me.
20 Q. Bearing in mind this wall which is damaged and the calculation of
21 the degree of the shell impact, would you agree that the direction
22 established should be between 270 and 300 degrees, roughly speaking?
23 A. Well, no, because it suggests this ambiguity and uncertainty,
24 when you quoted someone from UNPROFOR who described this direction in
25 very ambiguous terms, by just relying on the cardinal points, and this is
1 something that a lay person would do.
2 Q. All right.
3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we now have 1D1231. I have to
4 admit that we uploaded this during the break, which is actually a
5 continuation of the previous map, but due to my error, I failed to give
6 it to our Case Manager to upload it into the system in time.
7 However, frankly speaking, I don't understand what is depicted
8 here by our experts, and therefore I cannot put any questions relating to
9 this photograph and I'm not going to seek this document to be admitted
10 into evidence.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Since we most likely will not conclude today, you
12 might seek further advice.
13 MR. LUKIC: Yes, I might.
14 JUDGE ORIE: This afternoon.
15 MR. LUKIC: I will try to do that. I just wanted to inform the
16 Prosecution that now it's in the system, and Mr. Turkusic to try to see
17 what it depicts, and we will continue based on this photo tomorrow, if
18 I understand even in the afternoon what it is about. But at least
19 I was -- before the break when I asked -- before the break asked for the
20 correct page only, I was shown only the top part, and the picture I was
21 asking for was in the bottom part of the picture so I need again 1D1199.
22 And I need page 5, lower part.
23 Q. [Interpretation] This is part of the photo file relating to the
24 Simon Bolivar school, and you did the same in other cases where you cited
25 a series of shells, actually, their serial numbers and to which batch
1 they belonged.
2 A. Is that a question?
3 Q. Can this photograph show -- did you pay attention and was it
4 possible to see the serial number when you were photographing the
6 A. I believe that my colleagues from the KDZ shot a series of
7 photographs and I believe that among those photographs there is one
8 showing the serial number, and such photograph must be recorded in the
10 Q. I tried on the screen at least to enlarge it and I failed to find
11 it but it wasn't you who took this photograph. I'm not going to ask you
12 anything further.
13 A. Obviously the purpose of this photograph was not to detect the
14 serial number but, rather, to depict the tail-fin of the shell.
15 Q. Very well. As we told you, we are going to go back to the map of
16 Sarajevo with some markings. Can we now move to paragraphs 28 and 29 of
17 your statement? It deals with the shelling of Titova Street of
18 9 April 1995. You said in paragraph 28 that you didn't remember that
19 incident but it was a typical one for the reports that I prepared on the
20 consequences of shelling.
21 My question is: Is it possible that you did not take part in
22 this investigation but that someone put your name or maybe even signed
23 your name?
24 A. That never happened, because we had such a plethora of trace
25 evidence so that we relied only on those that we can be sure of. If you
1 have initials and somebody else signing it, that happened only that
2 someone prepares a report but is absent the following day, then a
3 colleague would sign on his behalf, but that was all done with the
4 knowledge of the chief of the department, and by signing this on
5 somebody's behalf, it's been authenticated. Otherwise, it never happened
6 that somebody else would prepare a report and have it signed by somebody
7 who is not familiar with the details contained in it.
8 Q. Next paragraphs 30 and 31, we are going to speed up the process.
9 It's the shelling of Safeta Zajke, shelling of 24th May 1995. That was a
10 time when the BH Army was attempting to break the circle around Sarajevo
11 by launching an offensive. This is what the evidence we have in this
12 case shows.
13 A. I wouldn't agree with that. We have been trying the whole time
14 to break the circle around the city, probably the strongest one in the
15 history, and that is what we did on this occasion as well.
16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Now we need 1D1225 in e-court. Can
17 we zoom in. That's good.
18 Q. Can you mark the position of the location on Safeta Zajke Street
19 number 43?
20 A. I cannot find Safeta Zajke Street, but this is the location,
21 Alipasin Most in Novi Grad municipality.
22 Q. I have it marked at the end of the street called
23 Esada Midzica Street. Would that be consistent?
24 A. Help me a bit more and tell me where is it in the map?
25 Q. It's this industrial area above the railway tracks called
1 Boljakov Potok. And under that you have Tvornica Zice, which is a wire
3 A. Yes. That's that part of the town.
4 Q. So can you put number 1 at the bottom of Esada Midzica Street, if
5 it is consistent more or less with the position of Safeta Zajke
6 number 43.
7 A. If I'm going to mark something, I need to be really sure about
8 that, and from memory, I cannot confirm that this is Safeta Zajke Street.
9 I haven't checked any maps recently, so I can do it only on the basis of
10 your suggestion. All I can say is that this is the relevant area.
11 Q. All right. We can see the RMK wire factory in the vicinity, and
12 to the left of the factory we can see Energoinvest. This is a reinforced
13 iron factory, in fact, Energoinvest?
14 A. Yes. Iron cast factory.
15 Q. Would you agree that during the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, these
16 two locations were used to manufacture weapons?
17 A. It is possible, but I don't have such information.
18 Q. Very well.
19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Let us just briefly look at 1D1207.
20 [In English] I'm sorry, can we admit unmarked part of this city, since
21 the gentleman was talking about the area and we discussed some factories
22 in this map?
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before we do that, Mr. Lukic, can I just confirm,
24 did you say Esada Midzica is the same now as Safeta Zajke?
25 MR. LUKIC: What I have, I have circle at the end of
1 Esada Midzica and it joins with this horizontal road.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: And what is that horizontal road because the
3 heading here is "shelling of Safeta Zajke Street"? And we haven't seen
4 it. The witness said he couldn't see that street here and I haven't seen
5 it myself.
6 MR. LUKIC: Just need a map because he confirmed that that's the
7 area. I'm not familiar with that part of the city, trust me, and
8 probably we will have to clarify it in the future but now I don't know
9 whether it's the new or old name for the street.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Seems to be typical, something to be agreed upon by
11 the parties. You look at the old map, you look at the new map, and then
12 agree on it.
13 MR. LUKIC: I agree.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Another subject for the short meeting with
15 Mr. Lukic, Ms. Harbour.
16 MS. HARBOUR: That's an acceptable avenue.
17 MR. LUKIC: Can we MFI this, then, map?
18 JUDGE ORIE: Seems to be no problem, Ms. Harbour, is there?
19 MS. HARBOUR: No, no problem with MFI'ing. And when we have our
20 discussion perhaps you could also provide the date or any other relevant
21 information about the map. Thank you.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE ORIE: The map will be -- yes, the Chamber is inclined to
24 admit it into evidence. We have a lot of maps without any further
25 markings, and then we have a basis for your later agreement that the
1 parties agree that what on this map in evidence is called street so and
2 so bears the name now -- no, what -- what used to have that name, I do
3 not know whether it's an old map or a new map, and then to agree on that
4 and then the map is the basis in evidence for any further agreement.
5 Until now it's just a map. Yes. Then Mr. Registrar, this --
6 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. 65 ter number 1D1225 will be
7 Exhibit D348.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: 1D1207?
9 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. After confirmation of the numbers, D348 is
11 admitted into evidence and the parties are invited to use this as a basis
12 for any agreement on the location of the shelling incident.
13 Please proceed.
14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. First I'd like to show
15 1D1206. In this document, we need the second page, the penultimate
16 paragraph, which says, "Military industry." Among other things, we see
17 the wire factory mentioned here, that unknown types and make of shells
18 and grenades are being charged on the premises.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do we not have an English translation?
20 MR. LUKIC: Not yet. We do not.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Then you could please be a bit more precise where
22 we can see what you have just said and perhaps read that line into the
24 MR. LUKIC: Subtitle I will start from there, and I'll read:
25 [Interpretation] "Military industry," first bullet point:
1 "'Piva,' shell charges for mortar 82 and 60 millimetres."
2 Second bullet point:
3 "'Vaso Miskin Crni.' Production of mine bodies for mortars of 82
4 and 60 millimetres. Different types of hand grenades and for rifle
5 grenades and infantry ammunition."
6 And the third bullet point, the one that I pointed out to the
8 "'Astra,' 'factory,' 'ZICE,' and the tobacco factory, charges for
9 different types of mines and shells and grenades."
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, could you tell us where the document
11 comes from? To be short, what is it?
12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] It says here that this is an
13 intelligence document of the Army of Republika Srpska.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: What's the witness expected to do with this?
16 JUDGE ORIE: Too many microphones must be open. I'll switch mine
17 off again.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. What is the witness supposed to do
19 with this?
20 MR. LUKIC: Yes, now I cannot turn on mine. Sorry. Thank you.
21 He's supposed to confirm whether it is the same factory.
22 Q. [Interpretation] How many wire factories were there in Sarajevo,
23 Tvornica Zice, is that the same one that we saw on the map the other time
24 when we were talking about that? Could you confirm that, Mr. Turkusic,
25 that what is meant here is precisely the wire factory that we saw earlier
2 A. When you use this expression, Tvornica Zice, the wire factory,
3 there was only one in Sarajevo. However, at the end of the document it
4 says that the information is suspicious and that it needs to be checked.
5 At the very end of this page that I see --
6 Q. As far as I can read this document, this pertains to the heading
7 above that that speaks about military prisons. That they are in the
8 former JNA barracks, Viktor Bubanj, and the central prison for Serbs, the
9 silo in Tarcin?
10 A. The document starts by defining certain Muslim forces in Sarajevo
11 that I had never heard of and I spent the entire war in Sarajevo.
12 Q. All right. Thank you.
13 JUDGE ORIE: You want it to be marked for identification,
14 Mr. Lukic?
15 MR. LUKIC: Yes, please.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, because there is no translation so therefore we
17 cannot possibly admit it at this moment. No objection against it being
19 Mr. Registrar.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. 65 ter number 1D1206 will be
21 MFI D349.
22 JUDGE ORIE: And keeps that status for the time being.
23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Now I'd like to ask for 1D1207 in
24 e-court, please. I'd like to move into private session, briefly, please.
25 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
1 [Private session]
20 [Open session]
21 THE REGISTRAR: We are now in open session, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
23 MR. LUKIC: Should be "122 millimetres." It's in the transcript.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: But on the transcript it says "22."
25 MR. LUKIC: Thank you. Thank you. It's the end of our day. I'm
1 afraid that we will have to continue tomorrow.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we are about to adjourn for the day,
3 Mr. Turkusic, and we would like to see you back tomorrow morning. And
4 I again instruct you that you should not speak or communicate in whatever
5 way with whomever about your testimony. We would like to see you back at
6 9.30 in the morning in this same courtroom, III. You may now follow the
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
9 [The witness stands down]
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, I hardly dare to ask. Are you on track
11 as far as time is concerned?
12 MR. LUKIC: I hardly dare to respond. I'm not.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you at least try to be as organised as
14 possible, and to focus directly and not deal with matters which are
15 easily agreed upon, I take it, and that is not only names of streets but
16 what is in a report or -- apart from whether it's true or not but there
17 is a lot of things I think that can be dealt with in a more efficient way
18 and you are invited to consider that overnight. We adjourn for the day
19 and we will resume tomorrow, Thursday, the 29th of August at 9.30 in the
20 morning, in this same courtroom, III.
21 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.16 p.m.,
22 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 29th day of
23 August, 2013, at 9.30 a.m.