1 Tuesday, 3 February 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.16 p.m.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good afternoon to everybody in and around the
7 courtroom. Madam Registrar, will you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon,
9 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case number IT-04-81-T,
10 the Prosecutor versus Momcilo Perisic.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Could we have appearances
12 for the day, starting with the Prosecution, please.
13 MR. SAXON: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Dan Saxon for the
14 Prosecution, together with my colleagues Ms. Carmela Javier, Salvatore
15 Cannata, and Mr. Barney Thomas.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
17 And for the Defence.
18 MR. GUY-SMITH: Good afternoon to all. Milos Androvic, Tina
19 Drolec, Daniela Tasic, Novak Lukic, and I'm Gregor Guy-Smith appearing on
20 behalf of Mr. Perisic for the Defence.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Guy-Smith. Good
22 afternoon to you, Mr. Poje.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just to remind you that you are still bound by the
25 declaration that you made at the beginning of the testimony to tell the
1 truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
4 Mr. Guy-Smith.
5 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you, Your Honour.
6 WITNESS: JOZEF POJE [Resumed]
7 [Witness answered through interpreter]
8 Cross-examination by Mr. Guy-Smith: [Continued]
9 Q. Before you testified here yesterday, did you have an opportunity
10 to speak with the Prosecutor concerning the testimony you were about to
12 A. The last time I met with the Prosecutor was on Saturday.
13 Q. And when you met with him on Saturday, did you have the
14 opportunity to go over your report as well as your previous testimony in
15 the Martic case?
16 A. Yes. During this meeting, I reviewed the documents that I
17 prepared in the case of Mr. Martic.
18 Q. Did you have any discussions with the Prosecutor concerning
19 whether or not there was any further documentation that would be of
20 assistance to you with regard to some of the conclusions that you have
22 A. No. During this proofing session, we only worked with the
23 documents that I had already seen before and that we mentioned yesterday
24 here. So there were no new documents that I received from the
25 Prosecution in my preparation for this testimony.
1 Q. With regard to the information that you had received before, did
2 you at any time during the time that you were compiling your report come
3 across the conclusions of a gentleman by the name of Rade Raseta, chief
4 of security of the SVK Main Staff?
5 A. No, I did not. I did not see any document where Mr. Raseta's
6 name was mentioned.
7 Q. Were you aware of the fact during the time that you were
8 compiling your report that there had been a fact-finding commission on
9 the cause and manner of the fall of Western Slovenia - Slavonia, excuse
11 A. I only heard about that, but I did not really deal with that
13 Q. With regard to the task that you had in terms of your report, you
14 said something -- you said actually two things yesterday, and I want to
15 talk to you about one of them, which is you said -- and I'm referring the
16 Court and counsel to page 3074, lines 14 through lines 20. You were
17 asked the following question, which is:
18 "Now, would you be able to briefly talk the Court through the
19 methodology that you used to prepare the Martic report?"
20 And your response to that was:
21 "Concerning the main question in the report, the main issue,
22 which was who decided on the use of a multiple rocket-launcher Orkan, as
23 I already mentioned, I used literature mentioned earlier from which we
24 can see the following."
25 Now, my question to you, sir, is, when you said that, is it your
1 position as you sit here today that the main issue in the report that you
2 wrote in the Martic case was who decided on the use of the multiple
3 rocket-launcher, Orkan?
4 A. When I studied the literature and reviewed the documents that I
5 had at my disposal, from the documents one could see that throughout that
6 period Orkan was under the command --
7 Q. Sorry, that's not my question. My question is a very simple and
8 direct one. Was the main question in the report, the main issue, which
9 was who decided on the use of the multiple rocket-launcher, is your
10 position as you sit here today that that was the main question that you
11 were tasked to deal with in your report, sir?
12 A. The main question was the consequences of the shelling of Zagreb
13 That was one question, and the second question was, what establishment
14 did Orkan belong to? So that was the second question, and I had to give
15 a clear answer to those two questions.
16 Q. Okay. With regard to what you have just said, when you were
17 asked the question with regard to what your task was in the Martic case,
18 and I'm referring Court and counsel to page 5206, you responded as
20 "I would like --
21 And it's lines 6 through 18:
22 "I would like to say first and foremost the following; I'd like
23 to tell the Court this first: The subject of my expert report was not to
24 deal with military action from February when the directive was written up
25 until May. What my task and assignment was, that on the basis of the
1 information I was given I should calculate the dispersion pattern during
2 the shelling of Zagreb
3 or the deployment of the units themselves on either side, one or the
4 other side. That was not the task I was given or the assignment I was
5 given. I have read through all the documents, of course. I have all the
6 documents, but it was my task and my assignment that on the basis of the
7 information I had at my disposal to calculate the dispersion pattern
8 during the shelling of the 2nd and 3rd of May, 1995, to determine the
9 dispersion pattern and to see what area is covered by that military
11 Is that what you testified to at that time, sir?
12 A. Yes, that's what I said.
13 Q. Thank you. Now, with regard to the report that you have written
14 and has been the subject of some questions here - and I'm referring to
15 section 6.1 - I believe -- which is entitled, if I'm not mistaken:
16 "Who Ordered the Use of an M-87 Orkan VBR."
17 Is that the title of that section?
18 A. Yes: "Who Ordered the Use of an M-87 Orkan VBR."
19 Q. Do you think that the matters we discussed yesterday concerning
20 what have been decided as adjudicated facts by this Chamber that Mr.
21 Martic ordered the use of the M-87 Orkan would be of assistance with
22 regard to the conclusion that you drew in this part of your report?
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, beg your pardon.
24 MR. CANNATA: I'm sorry to interrupt, but I wonder whether we can
25 clarify whether the witness is familiar with the notion of adjudicated
1 facts, which has been referred to in the question of my learned friend at
2 line 20. I'm not aware -- I will check with the witness whether he
3 actually knows the notion of adjudicated fact by a Chamber, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: You want to check, or you say you will check?
5 MR. CANNATA: I will ask that this notion can be checked with the
6 witness, whether he knows what an adjudicated fact is.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do you understand the question, sir?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, I understand it.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: What is it?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was aware of the judgement
11 through the media, so there is no document that I could show and say that
12 I studied a particular document which speaks of Mr. Martic being the
13 person who had ordered the shelling of Zagreb. I did not have in my
14 possession such a document, no official document, and when I prepared my
15 report at that time, no one really knew that yet, okay?
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: But sorry, I'm not yet satisfied. I would like to
17 understand from you what you understand the term "adjudicated facts" to
18 mean. I hear what you say about the judgement, but I'm asking about
19 adjudicated facts. What do you understand that concept to mean?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] To be honest with you, I don't
21 really know what that is supposed to mean.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
23 Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith.
24 MR. GUY-SMITH:
25 Q. Let me rephrase. You have told us that you were aware of the
1 judgement in Martic; correct?
2 A. Yes, I read about it in a magazine; I saw a report on TV; I saw
3 it on the internet and so on; but I don't know any details.
4 Q. And if I understand your testimony, you were contacted after the
5 Martic judgement had been rendered to testify in these proceedings.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Cannata.
7 MR. CANNATA: Yes. Is the witness aware of when the judgement
8 has been rendered?
9 MR. GUY-SMITH: The date that the judgement is rendered is
10 irrelevant to the question just asked. The question is whether or not he
11 was contacted after the Martic judgement, meaning after he was aware of
12 the Martic judgement, but I'll rephrase if it's of assistance.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Please do.
14 MR. GUY-SMITH:
15 Q. After you read about the Martic judgement, were you contacted by
16 the Prosecution to testify in these proceedings; and by these
17 proceedings, I mean right here, right now, yesterday and today.
18 A. As I said yesterday, the Prosecution contacted me about 20 days
20 Q. Okay. Now, yesterday I put some questions to you about whether
21 or not you had particular information regarding Martic ordering the use
22 of the M-87 Orkan rockets. Do you remember me doing that?
23 A. Yes, I remember.
24 Q. And you told us that that was -- for the most part, that was not
25 information that you had at the time that you were drafting your report;
2 A. Yes, that's correct.
3 Q. My question to you is, had you had that information with regard
4 to section 6.1 who ordered the use of an M-87 Orkan VBR, which is the
5 subject matter of your report, would that information have been of
6 assistance to you in making a determination as to who ordered the use of
7 an M-87 Orkan VBR? Just that.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Cannata.
9 MR. CANNATA: Your Honours, this question has already been asked
10 yesterday. It's one question that has already been asked yesterday. The
11 witness already gave his answer to the same question.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can you give us a reference, please, Mr. Cannata.
13 MR. CANNATA: Yes, if I have a minute to go through the
14 transcript, Your Honour. Page 3093, and the exchange is at lines between
15 20 to 25.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Guy-Smith.
17 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes, I'm reading it. That deals with a different
18 issue. That deals with -- the question is, would that change your
19 analysis at all, sir, and my question here is, would it have been of
20 assistance to you, which is a different question.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: And what was the question yesterday?
22 MR. GUY-SMITH: The question yesterday was:
23 "With regard to the question or the issue of command and control,
24 had you been supplied with the information that Milan Martic in his
25 capacity as president of Republika Srpska Krajina and supreme commander
1 of the SVK ordered the shelling of Zagreb, would that change your
2 analysis at all, sir, with regard to the issue of command and control?"
3 My question today is, with regard to the issue of the section
4 entitled under 6.1, "Who Ordered the Use of an M-87 Orkan VBR," whether
5 or not the information that Milan Martic had ordered the use of this
6 particular device would have been assistance to him with regard to his
7 analysis in this particular section, that being who ordered, not a
8 question of command or control, but a question of who made the order.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Objection overruled.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Had I known earlier that Mr. Martic
11 had ordered the use of Orkan, I would have put it into my report, but
12 since I did not have that information that Mr. Martic had issued that
13 order, I only used the documents that I had at my disposal, such as the
14 directive, orders for reporting, the increasing of combat readiness,
15 where it is explicitly stated that the tasks will be assigned to an organ
16 by the commander of the Main Staff or Colonel Dilas, and that is what I
17 put in my report.
18 MR. GUY-SMITH: I understand your answer, I understand why you
19 did what you did, and I thank you for your candour, and I have no further
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
22 Any re-examination, Mr. Cannata?
23 MR. CANNATA: Yes, Your Honour. One small matter, please.
24 Re-examination by Mr. Cannata:
25 Q. Sir, good afternoon.
1 A. Good afternoon.
2 Q. I have one question for you this afternoon.
3 Now, even if the shelling at Zagreb was aiming at military
4 targets, even assuming that, would the Orkan rockets be suitable for
5 firing on targets in a populated area such as Zagreb?
6 A. Because of blatant errors in the preparation of the initial
7 elements, even if the preparation of the initial elements was complete,
8 because of the great impact dispersion, I think that it was not normal to
9 choose this weapon Orkan as the weapon to shell military targets in
11 I calculated the impact dispersion of Orkan, and my calculation
12 was that it would have been 40 to 45 kilometres, and 1.278 times 1.384
13 metres, about 1.3 square kilometres, in other words. This means that a
14 part of these rockets would fall or land on targets that are not military
15 targets. They would land in the city itself, and, again, I want to say
16 that if the -- there was the intention to shell Zagreb, the right weapon
17 had not been selected.
18 MR. CANNATA: Thank you very much, sir. I have no further
19 questions, Your Honour. At this stage, I will tender Mr. Poje's report
20 into evidence, which is 65 ter 4892. Thank you.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith.
22 MR. GUY-SMITH: The Defence has no objection to the introduction
23 of Mr. Poje's report exclusive of issues concerning command and control
24 and exclusive of issues of who ordered -- section 6.1, who ordered the
25 firing of the M-87 Orkan for, if no other reason, the very simple reason
1 that the gentleman has told us that had he had that information, he would
2 have included it in his report, and it would have been the basis for his
3 conclusion with regard to a relatively important issue concerning
4 command, control, as well as the actual ordering of this particular
5 device. So with regard to this particular issue and another, we object
6 to the introduction of the report.
7 We are mindful of the Chamber's ruling in this regard as to what
8 weight it will attribute to this particular area, and if the Chamber is
9 inclined to have the report come in in its entirety so as not to hack it
10 up, then we would encourage the Chamber to give these conclusions, once
11 again with regard to the issue of command and control, no weight
12 whatsoever, but that's obviously an argument for another day.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Indeed. I don't understand why this argument is
14 coming up at this time. The report, then, is admitted into evidence.
15 May it please be given an exhibit number.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P497.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. Any questions, Judge?
18 Thank you very much, Mr. Poje. That brings us to the end of your
19 testimony. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for taking
20 the time to testify at the Tribunal. You are now excused. You may stand
21 down. Please travel well back home.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
23 [The witness withdrew]
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Cannata.
25 MR. CANNATA: Your Honours, Mr. Thomas will take the next
1 witness, and if I may be excused.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: You are excused.
3 MR. CANNATA: Thank you.
4 MR. THOMAS: Thank you, Your Honours. The Prosecution calls Mr.
5 Turkovic, please.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
7 MR. THOMAS: I should indicate, Your Honours, that Mr. Turkovic
8 is a 92 ter witness.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
10 [The witness entered court]
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good afternoon, sir.
12 THE WITNESS: Good afternoon.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: May you please make the declaration.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
15 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
16 WITNESS: VEKAZ TURKOVIC
17 [Witness answered through interpreter]
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. You may be seated.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Thomas, is there a statement by Mr. Turkovic?
21 MR. THOMAS: There are two transcripts from his testimony in the
22 Dragomir Milosevic case, sir. There is reference in those transcripts to
23 previous statements, but it's not intended to tender those as part of his
24 92 ter package. There are some minor issues of clarification that I can
25 raise with him which would remove the need for those statements to also
1 be admitted into evidence, sir.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: I just wanted to know whether we have them or not.
3 That's all. Thank you so much. You may proceed, Mr. Thomas.
4 MR. THOMAS: Thank you, sir.
5 Examination by Mr. Thomas:
6 Q. Mr. Turkovic, can you start, please, with your full name and your
7 date of birth?
8 A. My name is Vekaz Turkovic. I was born on the 24th of November,
9 1972, in Sarajevo
10 Q. And what is your current occupation?
11 A. I'm a computer programmer.
12 Q. And during the war in Bosnia
13 technician with the Sarajevo Security Services Centre, the CSB?
14 A. Yes, that's right.
15 Q. And related to your time as a crime technician and your duties as
16 a crime technician, did you testify in the case here against Dragomir
18 A. That's correct.
19 MR. THOMAS: Your Honours, could we please have 65 ter 09398 on
20 the screen, please.
21 Q. Mr. Turkovic, if you look at the top of that document we can see
22 that it is dated the 25th of April, 2007, and if we could go to --
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Thank you.
25 MR. THOMAS: And if we could go to the next page, please, Mr.
2 Q. And do you recognise that as the commencement of your testimony
3 given in the Dragomir Milosevic case?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Did you have the opportunity yesterday to review this transcript
6 of your testimony on the 25th of April, 2007?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Is the transcript true and correct?
9 A. It is.
10 Q. And if you were asked the same questions today, would your
11 answers be the same?
12 A. Yes.
13 MR. THOMAS: Thank you. Your Honours, if that could please be
14 tendered as a Prosecution exhibit.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: It is admitted. May it please be given an exhibit
17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P498.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
19 MR. THOMAS: Thank you, Your Honours. Thank you, Madam
20 Registrar. Could we please have 65 ter 09399 on the screen, please.
21 Thank you.
22 Q. Mr. Turkovic, again, we can see that it is dated the 28th of
23 April, 2007.
24 MR. THOMAS: Madam Registrar, if we could -- Mr. Usher, I'm
25 sorry, if we could please have the next page.
1 Q. Again, sir, do you recognise that as the continuation of your
2 testimony on the 26th of April, 2007?
3 A. I do.
4 Q. Did you have the opportunity yesterday to review the contents of
5 this transcript?
6 A. Yes, I did.
7 Q. And is it true and correct?
8 A. Yes, it is.
9 Q. And if you were asked the same questions again today, would your
10 answers be the same?
11 A. Yes, they would.
12 MR. THOMAS: Thank you, Your Honours. Again, if this could
13 please be tendered as a Prosecution exhibit.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: It is so admitted. May it please be given an
15 exhibit number.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P499.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
18 MR. THOMAS: Thank you, Your Honours. Thank you, Madam
19 Registrar. There are three associated exhibits, Your Honour. If they
20 could please also be tendered at this stage. The first is 65 ter 01405,
21 which is referred to in the transcript as Prosecution Exhibit P00603.
22 That's the exhibit number in the Dragomir Milosevic case. I'm sorry,
23 Your Honour. Do we need the other two exhibits at this stage, or does
24 that need to be given an exhibit number before I move on to the other
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is this the exhibit? You haven't asked about any
2 exhibit to be given exhibit numbers.
3 MR. THOMAS: First, there are three exhibits referred to within
4 the transcript, but this --
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sure. I'm waiting for it to come on the screen.
6 Were you not calling it?
7 MR. THOMAS: The first is 65 ter 01405.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Right. So we're waiting for that --
9 MR. THOMAS: On the screen.
10 Q. Mr. Turkovic, do you recognise that as the official report of the
11 incident that you referred to in your testimony that we have just
12 reviewed, the air-bomb incident of 1 July, 1995?
13 MR. THOMAS: Sorry, we might need the next page of the B/C/S,
14 please, Your Honours. Thank you.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I recognise it.
16 MR. THOMAS: Thank you, Your Honours. This is the exhibit
17 referred to in the transcripts as Exhibit P00603, and if that could
18 please be tendered in this case as a Prosecution exhibit.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: 65 ter 01405 is admitted. May it please be given
20 an exhibit number.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P500.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
23 MR. THOMAS: Thank you, Your Honour. Thank you, Madam Registrar.
24 The next exhibit please, 65 ter number 03307.
25 Q. Mr. Turkovic, do you recognise this as the forensic investigation
1 report related to the same incident?
2 A. Yes.
3 MR. THOMAS: Thank you, Your Honours. If this -- sorry, this is
4 the exhibit referred to as P00604 in the Dragomir Milosevic testimony.
5 If this could also be tendered as an exhibit in this case.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: It is admitted. May it please be given an exhibit
8 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P501.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
10 MR. THOMAS: Thank you, Your Honours. Madam Registrar, could we
11 please have Exhibit 65 ter number 01383 on the screen, please. Sorry,
12 01383B on the screen, please, and if we could scroll through, please, to
13 the next page.
14 Q. Mr. Turkovic, do you recognise these as the photographs you took
15 in relation to this incident?
16 A. Yes.
17 MR. THOMAS: Your Honour, these photographs are referred to as
18 Exhibit P00605 in the Dragomir Milosevic testimony. Page 4 of this
19 exhibit has already been tendered in this case as a Prosecution exhibit,
20 so if we could please tender pages 1 to 3 and 5 as a Prosecution exhibit
21 in this case, please.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: They are so admitted. May they please be given an
23 exhibit number.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P502.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Yes, Mr. Thomas.
1 MR. THOMAS: Thank you, Your Honours. I have a very brief
2 summary of the testimony contained in the admitted transcripts and
3 exhibit, so if I could read that at this stage.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may.
5 MR. THOMAS: Thank you.
6 During the war in Bosnia
7 technician for the Security Services Centre or CSB in Sarajevo
8 of responsibility included Hrasnica, Butmir, Sokolvici Kolonija, and the
9 Igman road. Mr. Turkovic's duties included examining crime scenes and
10 collecting physical evidence. Around 80 per cent of the crime scenes he
11 examined were caused by shelling, sniping, or other wartime activity.
12 Mr. Turkovic investigated the scene of an air-bomb incident which
13 occurred in Bunicki Potok Street, Hrasnica, on 1 July, 1995, and this,
14 Your Honours, is scheduled incident A8. Thirteen people were injured in
15 the incident, two of them seriously. Mr. Turkovic determined that the
16 air-bomb struck one building before ricochetting and exploding on Bunicki
17 Potok Street
18 of Ilidza.
19 And finally, Your Honours, I have just have a few questions by
20 way of clarification and addition relevant to the materials that
21 constitute the 92 ter package.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes.
23 MR. THOMAS: Thank you.
24 Q. Mr. Turkovic, firstly, I want to expand a little bit on your
25 background, as it is relevant to your work as an investigator. Were you
1 living in Sarajevo
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. After war broke out, did you join the military police?
4 A. I did.
5 Q. And during your time in the military police, did you receive you
6 any training, or did you acquire any experience in investigation?
7 A. Yes. I was trained as a crime scene technician, and the training
8 lasted for six months. I think it was completed in 1993.
9 Q. Just in general terms, can you explain to Their Honours what that
10 training consisted of?
11 A. Well, the training consisted in training crime scene technicians
12 how to gather, secure, and transport all evidence from crime scenes as a
13 result of different types of crimes that were committed there.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry. I'm sorry. I don't understand that
15 answer. "... training consisted in training crime scene technicians how
16 to gather, secure, and" -- oh, I beg your pardon. Thank you.
17 MR. THOMAS:
18 Q. At what stage did you join the civilian police, the CSB?
19 A. To tell you the truth, I don't remember the date. I can explain
20 the circumstances, but I truly don't remember the date.
21 Q. At the time you investigated this air-bomb incident in Hrasnica,
22 had you commenced your work with the CSB?
23 A. Yes, I had.
24 Q. Do you know or can you give us your best indication of how long
25 you think you had been with the CSB
2 A. For a year or two, according to my recollection, but I don't
3 remember exactly.
4 Q. Now, what methodology would you adopt when you would arrive to
5 investigate the scene of a shelling such as occurred on 1 July 1995?
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is that still background?
7 MR. THOMAS: It is still background, but it's obviously now
8 becoming linked to the 1 July incident, Your Honour. So he has tendered
9 a report relating to 1 July, and I just want him to clarify what steps he
10 took to reach the conclusions that appear in that report.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: And that was not covered in the Milosevic case?
12 MR. THOMAS: No, Your Honour, because they tendered the
13 statement, and it's referred to in the statement.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may proceed.
15 MR. THOMAS: Thank you, sir.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Is it my turn? Well, mostly when
17 it came to shelling we would immediately proceed with the investigating
18 the crater itself. Most often they hit the ground with shells, so we
19 would analyse craters, and typically we would determine the types of
20 weapons. Normally, there were mostly two types of shells that hit
22 apologise. Depending on the weapon that launched them, the shells would
23 either rotate as they flew and thus maintain their trajectory and at the
24 end produce a very typical crater that we would call a rose. That was
25 one type of shell. And then there was a different type of shell that
1 didn't rotate but had stabilising wings that would stabilize it during
2 the flight. I apologise.
3 Those are two main categories of shells that landed on Sarajevo
4 So that was the first item we would determine. Following that, based on
5 the position of the crater and the centre of it, the rose that was
6 produced as a result of the explosion and various shrapnel, based on
7 that, we would establish approximately the direction, the direction from
8 which the shell had arrived.
9 Q. Now, you've mentioned a rose. Can you explain to us what that
11 A. A crater normally had a rose-like appearance. It was similar to
12 a rose, even though it sounds bizarre, but that's how it looked. So
13 there was a centre of the crater, and then around the crater, since
14 normally shells arrived at an angle, there would be damage produced by
15 shrapnel behind the crater, and that was in the flower-like shape that we
16 called a rose. I can give more details if necessary.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let's get clarification. Does the bomb that has a
18 stabilizer and that doesn't rotate, does it also make a rose?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, of course. Since all shells
20 come at an angle, most shrapnel land behind crater, and in that case the
21 crater is of a different shape. Normally, it's shaped as a letter V, and
22 it's opposite from the direction in which the shell had arrived. The
23 rotating shells produced smaller roses due to the rotation of the shell.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Thomas.
25 MR. THOMAS:
1 Q. Was this the same methodology you applied in your investigation
2 of the 1 July 1995
3 A. Based on the experience and based on that methodology, yes, but
4 in this case there was no crater, at least not in the final location
5 where the explosion occurred, so we had to do it a bit differently.
6 Q. So can you explain to us what you did differently?
7 A. To tell you the truth, there was very little that was different
8 except that there was no crater. We came across rocket mortars that were
9 under the ground. We tried to find a bomb, but there was no crater, and
10 it seemed as though the bomb had not exploded there. We thought that the
11 unexploded bomb landed in that yard and that there was another one that
12 landed on the house. So we continued digging and failed to find a bomb,
13 even though we dug several metres into the ground. So we concluded that
14 it was that bomb that landed there and that it ricochetted and ended up
15 on the house where it actually exploded.
16 Q. In your report, you are able to identify a source of fire. From
17 what are you able to identify a source of fire?
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith. I can't hear you.
19 MR. GUY-SMITH: Never mind. I'll let it go.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Thomas.
21 MR. THOMAS:
22 Q. Mr. Turkovic?
23 A. Based on two ricochets -- we assumed those were ricochets, so
24 based on those two ricochets we were able to establish the trajectory of
25 the bomb, and it indicated approximately the source from which it was
1 launched and the final location where it exploded.
2 MR. THOMAS: If we could please have, Your Honours, Exhibit P500
3 on the screen, please.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
5 MR. THOMAS: And the pages I'm looking for are page 3 in both the
6 English and B/C/S versions, the second to last paragraph in the English
7 version and the final paragraph in the B/C/S version. Thank you, Mr.
9 Q. Mr. Turkovic, in the report that we have on the screen, in the
10 third line down of the English version, there is the finding that:
11 "... the projectile had been fired from the aggressor's positions
12 in the north, the surrounding area of Ilidza."
13 I just want to ask you, please, who held those positions? Who is
14 the aggressor in that context?
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Where are you reading, sir, on this page?
16 MR. THOMAS: I'm sorry, Your Honour. It's the second-to-last
17 paragraph. It's the sentence that begins:
18 "After the arrival at the site ..."
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
20 MR. THOMAS:
21 Q. Mr. Turkovic, you can see there that the finding is that the
22 projectile had been fired from the aggressor's positions in the north,
23 the surrounding area of Ilidza. My question is, who was the aggressor?
24 Who held those areas? Who are you referring to?
25 A. That area was under the control of the Army of Republika Srpska
1 as they were called at the time.
2 Q. Thank you.
3 A. You're welcome.
4 Q. Finally, you've mentioned in your transcript and in these
5 documents certain areas and locations. So that the Trial Chamber when
6 they later consider this material can visualize where you're talking
7 about, I want to just refer you to a map and point out some of these
8 locations, please.
9 MR. THOMAS: Your Honours, if we could please have Exhibit P439
10 on the screen, which is map 8 in the Court binder, Your Honours.
11 Q. Mr. Turkovic, it's a little bit difficult to see, but you would
12 recognise that as a map of Sarajevo
13 A. Yes, yes.
14 MR. THOMAS: If we could have the bottom left-hand quarter
15 enlarged, please, and if we could scroll down a little bit, please, Mr.
16 Usher. Down, please. Thank you. That's fine.
17 Q. First of all, we've spoken of Hrasnica. Do you see Hrasnica on
18 that map?
19 A. Yes, roughly in this area here.
20 MR. THOMAS: I'm going to ask Mr. Usher to give you an electronic
21 pen so that you can mark the screen for us there.
22 THE WITNESS: [In English] Thank you.
23 MR. THOMAS:
24 Q. And if you could mark that with the number 1, please.
25 A. [Marks]
1 Q. You then spoke of Ilidza being your findings as to source of
2 fire. Could you please mark Ilidza on the map?
3 A. [Marks]
4 Q. And if you could mark that with the number 2, please.
5 A. [Marks]
6 MR. THOMAS: And, Your Honours, if that map could please be
7 tendered as an exhibit.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before it is, I would like to know what is the
9 target, if he can show us the target that was hit.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Number 1.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Number 1 is the target?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. The map is admitted into
14 evidence. May it please be given an exhibit number.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P 503.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry. It is 439, isn't it -- oh, yes. 503,
18 MR. THOMAS: Thank you, Your Honour. Thank you, Madam Registrar.
19 And finally, if we could have Exhibit P439 on the screen, please.
20 Q. You mention other areas of responsibility in your transcript. I
21 just want to record those for completion on the map, please. The first
22 was Butmir. Do we see Butmir on the map?
23 A. Yes, approximately.
24 Q. Could you mark that for us, please.
25 A. [Marks]
1 Q. Thank you. Again, if you could put the number 1 next to that
3 A. [Marks]
4 Q. And the second area with which you were concerned in your area of
5 responsibility was Sokolvici Kolonija. Do we see that area on the map?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Could with you mark that area for us, please?
8 A. [Marks]
9 Q. Thank you, as number 2. Thank you. And finally, the Igman road,
10 can you draw a line on the Igman Road, where it was within your area of
12 A. I apologise. The Igman Road goes up Mount Igman
13 interesting portion of the road was the one close to Hrasnica, so I will
14 only mark that portion.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 A. [Marks]
17 Q. If you could mark that number 3.
18 A. [Marks]
19 Q. Thank you. And if could you just explain to Their Honours why
20 this was the most -- sorry, interesting or important was the word you
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Interesting.
23 MR. THOMAS: Interesting. Thank you, Your Honour.
24 Q. Why was this the most interesting part of the road?
25 A. Because that's where most incidents occurred because it was under
1 direct fire from the Army of Republika Srpska from two sides, so most
2 incidents occurred there. Humanitarian convoys were frequently hit and
3 similar incidents. The other hand, on the other side of this part there
4 was no incident, there was no -- there was a fire, I believe, and that's
5 why I said this portion at the foothills is more interesting.
6 MR. THOMAS: Thank you, sir. Thank you, Your Honours. If that
7 could please be tendered as a Prosecution exhibit.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: It is admitted. May it please be given an exhibit
10 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit P504.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
12 MR. THOMAS: And Mr. Usher, thank you. That completes the
13 assistance that we need from you at this point.
14 Q. And finally, Mr. Turkovic, was this the first air-bomb incident
15 that you had been involved in?
16 A. It was not the only one, but whether it was the first one, to be
17 frank, I can't recall the date. I don't know if it was the first one,
18 but it wasn't the only one.
19 Q. How many air-bomb incidents, air-bombs landing in ABiH-held
21 A. Do you mean how many of them do I know of or how many of them was
22 I directly involved in?
23 Q. Well, either through your direct involvement or otherwise, how
24 many do you personally know about?
25 A. I think about 7 or 8 altogether, approximately.
1 Q. And which forces, to your knowledge, used air-bombs?
2 A. The Republika Srpska army.
3 MR. THOMAS: Mr. Turkovic, thank you. Those are the questions I
4 have for you at this stage. My learned friends will have some questions
5 for you, if you would kindly wait there. Thank you, Your Honours.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Thomas. Yes, Mr.
8 Cross-examination by Guy-Smith:
9 Q. When you received your training in the military police for
10 purposes of becoming a crime scene technician, you studied photography;
12 A. Yes, that was part of the course.
13 Q. Crime scene examination?
14 A. Yes.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, we can't hear.
16 MR. GUY-SMITH:
17 Q. Finger-print examination?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. You learned to draw scene plans and how to locate and save
20 evidence that was found at the scene; true?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And you did do some studies of ballistics and fire-arms; correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. You also studied the handling of blood samples and blood traces;
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. With regard to the studies that you did concerning ballistics,
3 how long did you study ballistics in the 6-month course that you took in
4 which you learned all of the subjects that we just talked about?
5 A. We studied ballistics as one subject where what we studied was
6 mechanical traces in general, and I don't know how long this took because
7 we spent quite a lot of time on this.
8 Q. And how would you define the study of ballistics? What would you
9 be studying precisely?
10 A. Well, I would like to clarify something, if I may. The CSB at
11 the time --
12 Q. Excuse me. The question is a simple one. How would you define
13 ballistics, the study of ballistics, since it's something that you've
14 told us you studied. How would you define it?
15 A. As I said, ballistics was studied as part of a course on
16 mechanical traces in general, and this was just gaining some basic
17 knowledge on ballistics, about ballistics, which was not really quite
18 extensive in view of the time that we had at our disposal. So we didn't
19 really possess a lot of knowledge on ballistics, but what we did was
20 collect traces and analyse them.
21 Q. And with regard to the issue of fire-arms, because you've told us
22 that you did do some studies --
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. -- of ballistics and fire-arms, with regard to your study of
25 fire-arms, what did you study?
1 A. Well, the first thing that comes to mind, for instance, was the
2 penetration of a bullet through a material, for instance, through glass;
3 we would learn how to determine the direction from which the bullet was
4 fired. But the final analysis was performed it at the MUP itself, not at
5 the CSB
6 and the experts in MUP gave their own final analysis and opinions.
7 Q. I apologise. We may have been speaking at cross purposes. It
8 was my understanding that the subjects that you studied you did when you
9 were in the military police; correct?
10 THE INTERPRETER: Would the counsel please speak into the
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, but the training was held by
13 the MUP, the civilian police, for us members of the military police -
14 there were five of us - and then later on we were transferred to the
15 civilian police.
16 MR. GUY-SMITH:
17 Q. I'm just referring for the moment about your military time.
18 We'll speak about your civilian time shortly. But just with regard to
19 your military time, the training that we've been discussing is training
20 you received while you were in the military; true?
21 A. Yes, but it was provided we were trained by the civilian police,
22 and as military policemen we were guests, as it were, there.
23 Q. With regard to your duties after you were trained in the subjects
24 you've outlined here - photography, crime scene examination, finger-print
25 examination, the drawing of scene plans, how to locate and save evidence,
1 and some studies of ballistics and fire-arms, as well as the handling of
2 blood sampling and blood traces - you went back into the military police
3 as an active military police officer; correct?
4 A. While I was in training, yes.
5 Q. And you --
6 THE INTERPRETER: Would the counsel please speak into the
8 MR. GUY-SMITH: I apologise.
9 Q. And you became an investigator, and you were responsible for
10 investigating black-marketing, property crimes, and even drug dealing;
11 correct? You have to speak into the microphone; otherwise you don't have
13 A. [In English] I'm waiting for interpreter.
14 Q. Fine.
15 A. [Interpretation] Yes, crime -- general crime.
16 Q. I noticed that you just responded to me in English. You
17 understand English very well, do you not?
18 A. [In English] Yes, I do.
19 Q. And as a matter of fact, you were not only an interpreter for an
20 American company, but you were an interpreter for the United Nations
21 during the war in Sarajevo
23 A. [Interpretation] After the war.
24 Q. Were you engaged in simultaneous interpretation?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Okay. Now, with regard to the issue of black-marketing, you say
2 you investigated black-marketing, could you tell you Chamber what kinds
3 of material you investigated with regard to black-marketing in the
4 military police?
5 A. It was -- they were so-called crimes. Perhaps you find that
6 funny, but that's how it was. For instance, people were arrested because
7 of trading with UNPROFOR even if only an egg was exchanged or some
8 chocolates. So those were the cases, minor or of a greater scope or
10 MR. GUY-SMITH: Well, after we return from the break, we can
11 discuss those crimes of a greater scale.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: We'll take a break and come back at 4.00. Court
14 --- Recess taken at 3.29 p.m.
15 --- On resuming at 4.00 p.m.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
17 Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith.
18 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you, Your Honour.
19 Q. With regard to those crimes concerning black-marketing that were
20 of a greater scope or scale, did you have occasion to be involved in any
21 investigation of crimes - black-marketing, that is - with regard to the
22 movement of ammunition or guns?
23 A. Not that I can remember, no.
24 Q. Fuel?
25 A. There were probably cases of trading fuel with UNPROFOR, but to
1 be honest, I can't really recall. There was a lot of that.
2 Q. There was a lot of what, trading fuel with UNPROFOR?
3 A. Yes, yes, fuel. Not only with the UNPROFOR, but there were also
4 a lot of thefts of fuel and generally in this whole area of trading fuel.
5 Q. When you are referring to thefts of fuel, those are thefts of
6 fuel by military soldiers stealing fuel from the army, or are you talking
7 about something else? Because as I understood your jurisdiction, it was
8 a jurisdiction dealing with the military.
9 A. Yes. Yes, but frequently, perpetrators were soldiers so that
10 many of those cases were such that they were under our jurisdiction.
11 Q. With regard to the issue of --
12 THE INTERPRETER: Would the counsel please speak into the
14 MR. GUY-SMITH:
15 Q. With regard to the issue of black-marketing of ammunition, were
16 you involved in any investigations of black-marketing concerning
17 ammunition with the ABiH?
18 A. I think that you've already asked this, and my answer is no, not
19 that I can recall.
20 Q. Okay. Would it refresh your recollection if I were to tell you
21 that you left the military police in December of 1993 to join the
22 civilian police force? Does that sound right to you?
23 A. Yes, but it doesn't help jog my memory as to ammunition commerce
24 or trading, if that's what you meant.
25 Q. Understood. I've moved on.
1 When you left -- when you left the military police and you moved
2 on to the civilian police force, you were, as I understand it, for
3 approximately a year, what I call a street cop. You worked on -- right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. So that would take us to about December of 1994, which is when
6 you joined the centre for public security, the CSB; right?
7 A. Yes, that's true.
8 Q. And that is the same CSB
9 were in the military; correct?
10 A. The federal ministry organised the training, but it was in the
11 same institution. In other words, the CSB today is cantonal, and the
12 federal ministry was providing training.
13 Q. And your function when you joined the CSB was that of a crime
14 technician which is similar to the function that you were trained for in
15 that 6-month training period; correct?
16 A. That's precisely what I was trained to do.
17 Q. With regard to the issue of locating and saving evidence that was
18 found at the scene, what were you taught in that regard?
19 A. The protection of traces, their transport, and, of course,
20 recovery and study on the spot itself. Nothing specific.
21 Q. Okay.
22 MR. GUY-SMITH: Could we -- I'm going to move to another subject.
23 Could we please have P503 up on the screen. We're all waiting now.
24 Q. Looking at the area that you've circled and marked with a number
25 1, which I understand is the area of Hrasnica?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Could you please tell us how -- what the distance is that area
3 that you've marked covers?
4 A. Do you mean the circumference that I drew here or the distance of
5 point 2 to something else?
6 Q. I mean the distance that is contained within the circle that
7 you've marked as number 1, and it would be, I think, probably diametre,
8 not the circumference.
9 A. All right. I think it's about 1 kilometre, a bit less, maybe.
10 I'm not absolutely certain.
11 Q. Okay. We're going to have to take this off the screen because
12 each exhibit has its own specialness.
13 MR. GUY-SMITH: Could we please have P439, the map, up. And if
14 we could enlarge that area, I'd appreciate it. Great, thank you. And if
15 we could enlarge the general area around -- yes, the bottom left-hand
16 side where the gentleman has identified the area of Hrasnica. If you
17 could make that a bit bigger, please, and maybe a titch bigger if you
18 could do it one more time. I'd appreciate it.
19 Q. Now, with regard to -- I'm going to need the help of the usher.
20 Do you have in your mind's eye the area that you circled.
21 A. Mm-hmm.
22 Q. Okay.
23 A. Could you just scroll it down a bit, please. Thank you.
24 Q. Looking at that area, there seem to be a fair number of black
25 markings, and looking at the -- about in the middle of the screen,
1 there's some markings that are relatively large that are in black. Do
2 you see those? Are you with me?
3 A. I don't know what you are referring to. I'm sorry.
4 Q. If you were to go to the very top of the map, and if you were to
5 go over 1, 2, 3 squares where it says -- 1, 2, 3, 4 squares, the square
6 past the one that says Butmir, and you come directly down 1, 2, 3, 4
7 squares, there's an area where there are a number of black markings. No,
8 down further and to your right. Yes.
9 MR. GUY-SMITH: I'm going to ask the usher if he could erase
10 those other marks at the moment. Thank you, much.
11 Q. With regard to the area that you've just circled there, could you
12 identify what those buildings were, during the time that you were engaged
13 in your investigation in July of 1995?
14 A. I wouldn't know. I think these were some factories, some plants,
15 but I'm not sure.
16 Q. When you say factories, plants, but you are not sure, do you
17 recall whether they were operating factories or not?
18 A. I think they weren't, but I'm not sure. I think that this is
19 approximately where the line of defence was, but I'm really not sure.
20 Q. And when you say line of defence, would you be referring to the
21 line of defence between the two armies, that being the ABiH and the VRS?
22 A. Yes, but I would like to stress that I'm really not certain, but
23 I think it was in that area somewhere.
24 Q. Can you tell us as you are looking at this map and in this
25 general area approximately where the line of defence was? I understand
1 you're really not certain, but can you give us a rough idea of where it
3 A. All I can say is that it was approximately in the area of these
4 factories, but I really can't be more specific. I'm sorry.
5 Q. All right. Could you then perhaps -- then what would be helpful
6 is if you could -- if we could erase this or if you could just draw a
7 circle about the general area of approximation of where the line of
8 defence was, I'd appreciate it, since it will cover both the issue of the
9 factories as well as the line of defence.
10 A. I really cannot indicate the line of defence because I really
11 don't know. I think the factory was mentioned when people talked about
12 this thing, where the line of defence was; people discussed this, but I
13 think I really couldn't give you any more specific description.
14 Q. Very well, then. Just put a circle around the factories.
15 A. [Marks]
16 Q. And mark that with an "F" for factories.
17 A. [Marks]
18 Q. Thank you. Now, once again looking at this same map, do you know
19 whether or not in the area that you've marked as an "F" there were any
20 buildings that were inhabited by the ABiH?
21 A. I don't know. I really don't.
22 Q. Moving over one square to your left, you'll notice that there is
23 in that particular square, among other things, an area that is marked
24 with an oval. Do you know whether or not there were any buildings
25 located in that area that were inhabited or used by the ABiH?
1 A. I think that these are residential buildings here.
2 Q. So your answer would be that you don't know whether or not any
3 buildings in that area were inhabited by the ABiH; correct?
4 A. I don't know. I really don't.
5 Q. Once again, could you do me one more favour, which is, do you see
6 that part of the Igman Road that you testified to earlier as being
7 interesting on this particular map? Could you mark that for us, please?
8 A. [Marks]
9 Q. And with regard to -- could you put an -- I'm sorry, could you
10 put an "IG" there for Igman Road?
11 A. [Marks]
12 Q. Thank you. And with regard to the area that you've marked with
13 an "IG" for Igman Road, do you know whether or not there were any
14 positions, military positions of the Bosnian army along that area of the
15 Igman Road that you've marked as being interesting?
16 A. I passed through that area a couple of times, and I don't think
17 that there were any significant positions or any buildings or anything of
18 the sort belonging to the army.
19 Q. You've used the term "significant." How do you define that term,
21 A. I was just placing it in the context of your question. I meant
22 to say relevant. That was the context that I placed it in. So one
23 couldn't see any soldiers; one couldn't see any buildings, facilities, or
24 anything of the sort. I would more often come across UNPROFOR in that
25 area than across soldiers of the Bosnian army.
1 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you. Could we have this admitted as the
2 defendant's next in order, and could we have --
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated] May it please be given
4 an exhibit number.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D37.
6 MR. GUY-SMITH: And could we have the same fresh map P439 back up
7 on the screen again, and if we could at this point make it a bit smaller
8 so that we can get more of Sarajevo
9 bigger. Great. Thank you so much.
10 Q. Now, looking at this particular map, while you were in the
11 military police, could you put an "X" on the map as to where your
12 military police headquarters were?
13 A. Could you please zoom into the area that I show so that I can
14 draw in the location with more precision. It will be easier for me.
15 Q. Absolutely. Could we -- what's going to happen is your circle is
16 going to go away, and we're going to have to do it again because every
17 time we move the map, it goes away, but I'm happy to do that. If we
18 could zoom in, then, I'd appreciate it. Is that better, or do you need
19 it larger? You want it a little larger?
20 A. Depends on how accurate do you need the "X" to be.
21 Q. I'd like it to be accurate. I think the Chamber needs accuracy
23 A. Could you please zoom into this area, this here.
24 Q. Absolutely. Is that of help?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Could you mark now just with an "X" where the military police
2 headquarters were.
3 A. Could you please give me a bit more time. Thank you.
4 Q. Absolutely. Take all the time you need.
5 A. If I recognise the bridges accurately, then I think it was here.
6 Q. Could you put by that "X" the letters "MP" for military police?
7 A. [Marks]
8 Q. Okay. With the map in this condition, looking at the balance of
9 the area that's on that map, can you identify for us -- well, let me ask
10 you another question before that.
11 In terms of being in the military police, was your area of
12 responsibility the city of Sarajevo
13 A. Theoretically speaking, no. Practically speaking, yes.
14 Q. And with regard to your area of responsibility, practically
15 speaking being yes, considering that you were in the military police, did
16 you have among other facts available to you the location of units of your
17 army that were stationed in Sarajevo
18 A. No, not as a member of the military police. Those things were
19 common knowledge. People within the city knew them. Practically
20 everybody knew everything.
21 Q. Okay. That probably made your job easier in a certain sense.
22 Looking at this part of the map that we have up there, can you
23 identify for us any areas on this part of the map that were areas where
24 your army had units stationed?
25 A. I could draw in the lines approximately, but as for barracks or
1 any other military facilities, not really. Perhaps I could remember one
2 or two of them, but not more, especially not in this part of the city.
3 Perhaps more to the west I could remember about two barracks, but not
4 more than that.
5 Q. With regard to this area, are there lines that you could draw in
6 approximately, understanding that, of course, it is an approximation as
7 to where units were?
8 A. Let's say that this would roughly be the southern line.
9 Q. And could you mark that with an "ABiH"?
10 A. [Marks]
11 Q. And going north -- north of where the military police
12 headquarters were -- are indicated, were there any units of the ABiH
13 stationed in that area?
14 A. That's the part I'm least familiar with in the entire town. I
15 know the least about that particular part of the town.
16 Q. And so I take it, then, you would not be comfortable in drawing
17 any lines north of your military police headquarters?
18 A. No, truly not.
19 Q. That's absolutely fair.
20 With regard to the area north of your military police
21 headquarters, were you aware, without knowing precisely where they were,
22 that there were units of the ABiH in that area.
23 A. You'd have to be more specific as to "that area." What does that
24 mean? To the north, yes, but how far?
25 Q. I'm referring to the north and only to what is contained on the
1 map that you see before you right now, nothing further than that. I'm
2 not asking you to go outside the four corners of this particular map
3 because that wouldn't, among other things, be fair.
4 A. Well, if you're asking me about the military facilities, I really
5 don't know anything about this. I'm not familiar with that area. There
6 was no need for me to come there, to work there. I know roughly where
7 the line could have been, but I don't know anything about the facilities
9 Q. Okay. And when you say you know "roughly where the line could
10 have been," does this -- could you draw roughly where the line could have
11 been on the map as it's presently constituted?
12 A. From the north, that line was further from the centre of the
13 city, so I will draw it in somewhat further, but to say that I remember
14 this with any accuracy, no. Roughly something like this.
15 Q. Understood. That's understood. And just for purposes of the
16 record, you have continued the line that was previously put forth with
17 "ABiH" on it.
18 MR. GUY-SMITH: And could we have this marked as Defendant's next
19 in order.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted. May it please be given
21 an exhibit number.
22 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D38.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
24 MR. GUY-SMITH: Could we have P439 up on the screen again, and
25 I'm sorry for having taken that off.
1 Q. One final question with regard to the areas that you had drawn
2 that were -- and I understood once again that it's not definite, but
3 areas where approximations of the ABiH were. Did that change after you
4 left the military police in 1993? Is that a fair representation of the
5 area for 1994 and 1995 when you were involved in the civilian police?
6 A. Are you referring to the lines?
7 Q. Yes, I am.
8 A. Yes, roughly, that's what it was.
9 Q. We are back at the master map again, and we've dealt with one
10 area. Looking at the master map now, are there other areas where you are
11 aware there were ABiH units stationed or location -- stationed or
12 located? And I'm leaving the map small for the moment because I don't
13 know whether or not you're going to want to enlarge any particular areas
14 or not.
15 A. So the troops were everywhere where the lines were. You know
16 about all my reservations about how accurate I can be about -- how
17 accurate I can be about all of that, and there were some facilities
18 within the lines, not right next to the lines, but more towards the city,
19 but, yes, there were some that were close to the lines that occur to me
20 right now.
21 Q. Okay. Should we leave the map in this particular iteration, or
22 should we change the size of it, make it bigger or smaller? Whatever
23 works for you for the purposes of including those areas.
24 A. Yes. Could we increase the useful area, so we don't need to see
25 the corners that are of not much use.
1 Q. Okay. Would you like it bigger again?
2 A. No, this is perfect.
3 Q. Okay. And if you could engage in the same exercise that you'd
4 engaged in with the last exhibit in terms of the other areas where there
5 were ABiH units - to your best approximation, understood - I would
6 appreciate it.
7 A. I can't be specific about this part here. I can't be specific
8 about any part, but this would roughly be how it was.
9 Q. And could you mark the line that's on the top with "ABiH 2"?
10 A. I apologise. Let me just say something. I see something that's
11 quite inaccurate; that's this line here. It was more to the west. In
12 case if it's important, I can redraw it.
13 Q. You mean the line you just drew?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Oh, well, let's do that. Please, let's do that.
16 A. [In English] Just this part, please. Thank you.
17 [Interpretation] This is a bit more accurate.
18 Q. If we could have that marked with "ABiH," and just put the number
19 "2" after that, and for the bottom line, "ABiH 3."
20 A. [Marks]
21 MR. GUY-SMITH: And could we have this marked as Defendant's next
22 in order.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: May it please be marked, as it is admitted.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D39.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
1 MR. GUY-SMITH:
2 Q. The report -- I'm moving to another subject now.
3 The report that was made in this particular case, did you sign
4 that report?
5 A. Yes. When it comes to the report of the crime technician, then,
6 yes, I signed that one. There were two normally -- two reports normally,
7 and I signed the report of the crime technician examining the scene.
8 Q. And by that, I take it you are referring to -- that would be --
9 MR. GUY-SMITH: If we could have up on the screen P500. You know
10 what, I lied. I don't want that. I want P501.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's the report.
12 MR. GUY-SMITH:
13 Q. Now, with regard to this report, you indicated that the offence
14 was committed -- and I'm referring to paragraph 4 in the English, the
15 first paragraph, you state:
16 "The missile first hit the wall of a house owned by Alija Kustura
17 ..." and you give an address number. "Then the ground and the yard of
18 this house ricochetted and exploded at Bunicki Potok Street hitting the
19 next house." Right?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Now, with regard to the issue of the trajectory of this
22 particular missile, were you able to determine what was the angle of
23 deflection after it hit the first house? Because you mentioned there was
24 a ricochet, so there's some angle.
25 A. Now, you are really asking me a lot. I wouldn't be able to say
1 exactly what the angle was. I couldn't even say what it was roughly.
2 Q. And since it ricochetted -- as I understand it, it ricochetted
3 twice from what I understand, that would mean that after it ricochetted
4 the first time and there was some angle of deflection, whatever it may
5 be, when it hit the second time and ricochetted, then there would be a
6 second angle of deflection, correct, of some nature?
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, where do we have it that it ricochetted
9 MR. GUY-SMITH: In his testimony. Page 46. Thank you. Line 22
10 -- I'm sorry, page 22, line 25.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Page?
12 MR. GUY-SMITH: 22, line 25. In response to a question asked by
13 Mr. Thomas at page 22, line 18:
14 "In your report, you were able to identify the source of fire.
15 From what are you able to identify as a source of fire?"
16 "A. Based on two ricochets -- we assumed those were ricochets,
17 based on those two ricochets, we..." something, "... the trajectory of
18 the bomb, and it indicated the source at which it was launched and the
19 final location where it exploded."
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: You said page 22, line?
21 MR. GUY-SMITH: Question is at page 22, line 18 and 19, and the
22 answer begins on page 22, line 25.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
24 MR. GUY-SMITH: And continues to page 23, lines 1 through 3.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Guy-Smith.
1 MR. GUY-SMITH: You're welcome, Your Honour.
2 Q. Now, with regard to, once again, the issue of ricochet, what you
3 were able to determine was that there was a ricochet, but the angle of
4 deflection was something that you were not able to determine?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Okay. When you were taking the courses that you were taking in
7 your military police training as a crime technician, did you take any
8 courses or receive any information with regard to the issue of deflection
9 angles and ricochets with regard to the -- with regard to ballistics in
10 general and with regard to missiles in specific?
11 A. I don't remember that they talked to us about that. Maybe they
12 did, but I don't remember.
13 Q. Did you receive any on-the-job training with regard to the
14 physics of ricochet, deflection, and trajectory?
15 A. If I can say that this is a simple conclusion here, a simple
16 finding between the two points of ricochet, what we assumed was ricochet,
17 using basic human knowledge without any expertise, it is possible to
18 establish the direction from which the shell arrived. So it's not an
19 expert type of a finding or anything of the sort.
20 Q. And to the extent that your finding is based upon your knowledge
21 of where you believed there to be an aggressor position, as you've
22 defined it, that is one of the matters that weighed heavy in your
23 determination of this conclusion; is it not?
24 A. Could you please repeat your question.
25 Q. Sure. And to the extent that your finding is based upon your
1 knowledge of where you believed there to be an aggressor position, as
2 you've defined it, that is one of the matters that weighed heavy in your
3 determination of this conclusion; is it not?
4 A. The direction from which the bomb or the shell arrived, whatever
5 you want to call it, roughly determined the direction was clear, and it
6 had nothing to do, nothing to do with where the aggressor's positions
7 were. Such type of weapons simply had to be located in the aggressor's
8 territory because people in Sarajevo
9 was in the hands of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and this type of
10 machinery, if I can call it that, would have definitely been observed
11 within the territory. When it comes to this particular shell, the
12 finding was rather clear. One could rather clearly determine from which
13 direction the shell had arrived, not its exact trajectory, but the
14 direction, yes.
15 Q. When you were taking the classes that you were taking on
16 ballistics, were you trained that what people generally knew or believed
17 to be was a basis upon which to make a determination with regard to a
18 crime scene?
19 A. Either allow me to read the question one more time or repeat it,
20 whatever you prefer.
21 Q. Whatever works for you, sir.
22 A. Then please let me read it one more time. No, of course not.
23 Q. Okay. One final matter.
24 When you -- well, let me preface that, and I ask you this
25 question: You seem like a gentleman with a good memory. Is that fair?
1 A. Well, I wouldn't really think so, especially where we are talking
2 about things that happened 15 years ago.
3 Q. And would you take the position that your memory was better 15
4 years ago, obviously, than it is today, then?
5 A. Do you mean about this particular incident?
6 Q. Absolutely.
7 A. But of course it would be fresher then.
8 Q. And with regard to the issue of the correction that you made in
9 your testimony concerning what you'd said previously in your statement
10 concerning seeing an air-bomb, your statement was made in 1997; correct?
11 A. That I had seen the bomb? I think my statement was given much
12 later, when I came here in the year 2000.
13 Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I told you that your first
14 statement was given on the 10th of March, 1997, and at that time you were
15 interviewed by Stephen R. Upton with the interpreter of Umihana Prguda?
16 A. I don't remember the names, but I do remember giving a statement
17 in regard to this.
18 Q. And then you gave a second statement, correct, and that was a
19 statement that you gave in 2006, I believe, the 25th of April, 2006
20 A. I thought it was 2007, but it's possible.
21 Q. Okay. What I'm trying to get at is this so I have an
22 understanding of something. When you gave your statement in 1997, after
23 you gave your statement, did you have a chance to read that statement?
24 A. Probably, but I don't really remember.
25 Q. Okay, and did you have a chance when you gave that statement to
1 see whether or not there were any corrections that needed to be made to
2 the statement at that time?
3 A. Well, since that is standard procedure, I assume that that's how
4 it transpired, but I can't remember really.
5 Q. And when you say it's "standard procedure," I take it you have
6 some familiarity in the taking of witness statements by the Office of the
8 A. Generally speaking of statements, yes.
9 Q. Just so we're clear, did you ever operate as an interpreter when
10 you were working with the United Nations as an interpreter for the Office
11 of the Prosecutor while they were taking statements of witnesses?
12 A. No. I mainly worked for the police, the international police.
13 Q. And what organisation would that have been?
14 A. The IP, IPTF as part of the UN.
15 Q. And how long -- for how long a period did you do that?
16 A. I think for three and a half years, but I'm not absolutely
18 Q. That obviously shows why you are familiar with the methodologies
19 of taking statements.
20 With regard to your statement when you gave it in 1997, you think
21 you probably had a chance to review it but you have no specific memory of
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And had you had a chance to review it and you'd seen something as
25 glaring as an error of seeing something as opposed to hearing something,
1 that's something that you certainly would have corrected at that time; is
2 it not?
3 A. Well, if you allow me to give an answer that would not be
4 strictly yes or no, I would like that.
5 Q. Well, can you give me an answer yes or no and then explain
7 A. Yes. Yes, certainly. All I wanted to say is when I was here the
8 last time when I gave the statement, I was not sure that I had seen the
9 bomb. In other words, 12 to 13 years had already passed and I really
10 can't remember, but I do remember the incident. I remember the friend I
11 was with near the airport. He was standing guard at the military police
12 somewhere, and I remember that we followed that bomb, but I really don't
13 remember whether I've seen it or not. So that is why I changed my
14 statement, but I'm sure that we heard it. But whether I saw it or not, I
15 really can't tell. I'm not sure.
16 Q. Okay. And with regard to the issue of the last time that you
17 were here, are you referring to the last time you were here when you
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Because in 2006, you once again confirmed that you had seen this
21 air-bomb being launched? Do you recall that? So you said it in 1997,
22 and then you said it again in 2006.
23 A. I remember that I said that we followed the flight of this bomb,
24 but whether I ever stated that I saw it being launched, I really can't
25 remember that I ever said anything like that. Maybe I did. But I think
1 if that is so important, maybe it would be a good idea to call the friend
2 who was with me then. Maybe his memory is better of this incident.
3 Q. Well, I'm just trying to understand that which you remember and
4 that which you don't and that which you've told people on previous
5 occasions because when you made this first statement in 1997, at that
6 point you were attempting to be as truthful and accurate as you possibly
7 could be; right?
8 A. But of course.
9 Q. Sure. And when you made the statement again in 2006, once again,
10 you didn't all of a sudden deviate from that position and decide that you
11 weren't going to be truthful and accurate; correct? Once again, you were
12 trying to be truthful and accurate; right?
13 A. That I was speaking the truth both times, that is for sure, and I
14 never tried to lie in any of these cases. If I could not remember
15 something in 2006, I could not really claim that I could remember because
16 I wasn't sure, and I assumed that my memory in 1997 of this event was
17 fresher than later on, and I really can't claim that I saw something if I
18 can't remember it, so that's honestly how it is.
19 Q. I understand. Just so you're clear in 2006, and I'll refresh
20 your recollection. See whether this refreshes your recollection as to
21 what you said.
22 THE INTERPRETER: Would the counsel please speak into the
24 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes.
25 Q. "I would like to state here that sometime at the latter part of
1 June 1995 when I was travelling with a friend from Dobrinja to Hrasnica
2 through the tunnel, we stopped at the entrance to the tunnel at Dobrinja.
3 Suddenly, I saw something being launched into the air from the direction
4 of Ilidza, and there was a terrible screaming sound as this object shot
5 through the air."
6 Now, that is the statement that you ultimately corrected in your
7 testimony; right?
8 A. All right, yes.
9 Q. Okay. Can you tell us as you sit here today with regard to
10 memory, to your memory, what happened?
11 A. In respect of what you've just read, I can say several things,
12 one of those being that I was with a friend who was standing guard near
13 the tunnel. We never went through the tunnel. I remember that. I also
14 remember that I jumped into a ditch that was near the house because we
15 heard the screaming sound of this bomb, and it was really scary, and
16 that's about everything that I can remember as I sit here. I assume that
17 my memory was better in 1997 because only a couple of years had elapsed
18 and maybe it was more precise then, but I really cannot claim it today
19 because I can't remember it.
20 Q. Well, the way that you corrected your testimony when you
21 testified was as follows. What you said was:
22 "We followed the sound of the bomb, but we didn't actually see
23 it. Similarly, you can follow an aeroplane judging by its sound,
24 although you can't see it."
25 MR. GUY-SMITH: And for the Court and counsel, that's page 5177,
1 lines 21 through 23.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I remember this very well.
3 MR. GUY-SMITH:
4 Q. So clearly, you made a determination that the information that
5 you had given on two occasions previously was inaccurate. I'm not saying
6 that you were trying to mislead anybody, but it was inaccurate; right?
7 A. I'm not saying that it was inaccurate. I'm just saying that I
8 cannot remember it now as I sit here, nor could I remember it when I gave
9 the last statement in 2007 or 2006. I thought that it would be sort of
10 bold to claim this at that time because at that moment I really could not
11 remember. I could not bring it up in my memory, that image. In that
12 sense, that's what I mean. I could not claim something that I wasn't
13 absolutely sure was correct. I don't know; maybe in 1997 when I gave my
14 statement I did remember it, but I cannot claim that today. This is my
15 impression today, and this is why I made this statement and why I'm
16 changing it now because that is the thing that I'm pretty certain of. As
17 for the rest, I really am not.
18 Q. Do you have any idea as you sit here today what accounts for the
19 marked difference in your memory from seeing something to not seeing
21 MR. THOMAS: Well, with respect, Your Honours, that's a question
22 that's been asked in different ways on several occasions, and the answer
23 has been given as best as it can be given on several occasions, and with
24 respect --
25 MR. GUY-SMITH: Point taken. Point taken. Point taken. I
1 always find memory to be fascinating, so perhaps I'm a bit off point.
2 If I could have but a moment.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: You have it.
4 [Defence counsel confer]
5 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you very much for your time.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Guy-Smith.
7 Mr. Thomas.
8 MR. THOMAS: No re-examination, Your Honours. Thank you.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Judge?
10 Questioned by the Court:
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: I have a few questions just to clear my own mind,
12 and I think Exhibit P500 might help. I'm not quite sure. I hope that's
13 the correct one. Can we bring it up, please. Can you scroll down a
14 little bit. I want to see the second paragraph.
15 Mr. Turkovic, I just want to confirm with you that when you make
16 the statement you made at page 22 today, lines 9 and 10, I thought it was
17 with respect to this report. I don't know how -- are we able to help the
18 witness to see page 22, line 10? Can you see page 22, sir?
19 A. I can't see the page number. I see the beginning of the official
20 report, the first page.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. I think you should be able to see it now.
22 Can you see it? At line 10 -- well, let's start at line 7. You say:
23 "To tell you the truth, there was very little that was different
24 except that there was no crater."
25 And can you correct me? If you look at the whole answer that you
1 gave there, were you then speaking about the report that was just shown
2 on the screen?
3 A. I apologise. This was a report compiled by an investigator. It
4 wasn't my report.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: What do you see on your screen? Do you see a
6 report, or do you see the transcript of today's proceedings?
7 A. I see the report.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: You see the report. That's funny. I'm on
9 e-court, and I'm seeing the transcript. Okay. On the other screen, do
10 you see page 22?
11 A. Yes.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do you see line 9, starting from line 9?
13 A. Yes.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, when you gave that answer, were you speaking
15 about this report that you are seeing on the other screen?
16 A. It was about -- yes, I spoke about the same incident.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, the thing is, in the transcript you say:
18 "... except that there was no crater." Do you see that at line 10?
19 A. Yes, I remember saying that.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: But on the report, it looks like you are saying
21 that there was a crater. Can you see the report?
22 A. I can see the report. This was the report submitted by an
23 investigator. It wasn't my report. That's one. Secondly, I don't know
24 what I referred -- what was referred to as "crater" here. Maybe it was
25 the crater where the second ricochet occurred. So we could say that
1 there was a crater there, and that's the spot where we dug later on, and
2 the final place where the bomb landed was the house, which is where the
3 bomb impacted and exploded, and I think there was no crater there at the
4 final destination.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: I thought the report that deals with two ricochets
6 is P501, not P500. Can I get help here? This incident, does it also
7 have two ricochets? Because the two ricochets you referred to were
8 clearly relating to what has been marked as P501, the report that was
9 brought by that counsel when he was asking you questions.
10 A. All right. But there were two reports: There was my report as
11 the crime technician onsite and the investigator's report. That's the
12 report we see on the screens.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: I see.
14 A. This was the report prepared by the inspector who actually
15 conducted the investigation, the onsite investigation.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: You didn't do any onsite investigation?
17 A. Yes, but I did not take part in the writing of this particular
18 report. My report was in the crime scene technician's report from the
19 site, and this is the inspector's report.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: I see. So this report and the other report are
21 talking about the same incident?
22 A. Yes.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: And your testimony is that there was no crater
24 like you told us today?
25 A. As far as I can remember, as I sit here, I think there was no
1 crater at the point of impact.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Thank you so much. Let me move to the next
3 point. The next point where you talked about the two ricochets. I want
4 to find out from you how -- I know you've told us about the methodology
5 for finding out directions, the direction from where the shell may have
6 come. My question to you is: Where there is a ricochet, and in
7 particular when the ricochets are two, how do you determine the direction
8 of the source of the shell?
9 A. In this case, based on the points that we assumed to have been
10 the ricochet points. As I said in my earlier evidence when I was here in
11 another case -- testifying in another case, we assumed originally that
12 there were two bombs, and that's how we started our onsite investigation.
13 However, as we did not find two bombs, we came to the conclusion that
14 there were probably two ricochets, which seemed improbable even then to
15 us, but that was the only thing that it was pointing to. So based on
16 these points, we estimated the direction from which the bomb had come
17 without any precise or any accuracy when this issue is concerned.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: But my question is what methodology do you use
19 under those circumstances? Surely you don't just come there like I would
20 come, a person without training and look and say, oh, it ricochetted, it
21 ricochetted, therefore it must have come from this direction. You must
22 base it on some, I don't know, your training or experience that you
23 already have, and I just want to get an explanation if you do have a
24 methodology that you use under those circumstances.
25 A. First of all, I need to say that this was a unique case of this
1 type that we found an air-bomb that ricochetted. This is a bomb that is
2 at least 100 kilograms heavy, so that we did not have any earlier
3 experience with ricochets in this particular type of situation.
4 Secondly, there were four to five policeman who were present during the
5 onsite investigation, one of them being the anti-sabotage chief and an
6 investigator, and then as we examined the scene together, we came to this
7 conclusion. We concluded that it must have ricochetted because there
8 were no traces of bursts of explosion at the first two points of impact.
9 We only found some damage on a house, and on another spot we found these
10 rocket motors that were dug into the ground, and we did not find the bomb
11 itself there. So only on the basis of this did we assume that it
12 ricochetted again.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Would it be fair to say the short answer to my
14 question is you personally -forget about the other people that were with
15 you - you personally had no methodology for determining the origin of the
16 bomb? Is that your short answer?
17 A. I apologise. I have to answer no because of these two
18 ricochets, and that is why my answer was so lengthy, and that -- in
19 explaining how we came to the conclusion that there were two ricochets.
20 Based on these two spots, it could be determined where the bomb had come
21 from, so I can't say that it was based on nothing, our opinion as to
22 where the bomb had come, but as for my opinion being an expert opinion
23 based on some earlier experience, well, I can't really claim that.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: But I hear you, Mr. Turkovic, and you say your
25 opinion as to where the bomb had come was not based on nothing, and
1 that's what I'm asking you. What was it based on? You. Don't speak for
2 the other people. If you say they knew better and they made the
3 determination, you don't know how, I'll accept that, but I want to know
4 whether you had any methodology.
5 A. [No interpretation]
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: You didn't have? Okay.
7 A. [Interpretation] I apologise, if I may just add something.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, please.
9 A. The assessment as to the direction of where the bomb came from
10 -- had come from was based on the two ricochet points because that points
11 to the trajectory from point A to point B, and this also is an indication
12 as to where it had come from. That is my opinion, and this was the
13 generally accepted opinion. We all agreed on that, the ones who were
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. You then asked -- you gave an acronym IPTF.
16 What does it stand for?
17 A. [In English] International Police Task Force.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. And today at page 54, lines 9 to 12,
19 you say:
20 "I don't know. Maybe 1997 when I gave my statement I did
21 remember it, but I cannot claim that today. This is my impression today,
22 and this is why I made this statement and why I am changing it now
23 because that is the thing that I am pretty certain of."
24 My simple question to you is, what actually is your impression
1 A. Do you mean in respect of this bomb?
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mm-hmm.
3 A. As I said a few moments ago, I remember the sound produced by
4 this bomb. I remember that I first jumped seeking shelter. My friend
5 remained above because he allegedly -- I think he said that he had
6 already heard the sound and he knew what it was. I remember that after
7 this, I got out of the ditch and that we sort of observed or followed the
8 movement of this bomb. I can't remember now. I think that this bomb
9 that we followed did not even explode. I know that we found several
10 unexploded bombs. I remember one particularly clearly.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
13 JUDGE DAVID: I would like to ask you one question in relation to
14 your answer to the Defence. It is at page 48, point 3 to 10, and in line
15 10, you said:
16 "When it comes to this particular shell, the finding was rather
17 clear. One could rather clearly determine from which direction the shell
18 had arrived, not the exact trajectory, but the direction, yes."
19 And then in other parts of your testimony, you were saying that
20 your methodology doesn't come from refined knowledge of ballistics or
21 complicated trajectory points but, rather, from practical know-how, that
22 you make inferences, very simple inferences as to from the factual
23 situation to extract some empirical generalisations that are not of a
24 logical complex nature but are instrumentalist to orient your
25 conclusions. Am I correctly assessing what you do? Is that what -- did
1 I interpret well what you wanted to say?
2 MR. GUY-SMITH: Excuse me, Your Honour. I do hate to interrupt,
3 but I'm not particularly clear about what you are saying right now except
4 that from what I understand you're leading the witness to a particular
5 answer, which is a bit problematic to me based upon the evidence that the
6 witness has given thus far. I do hate to interrupt, but I'm not
7 particularly clear with regard to the question that you're asking.
8 JUDGE DAVID: Mr. Counsel, my question is very simple. I am
9 trying to distinguish between two levels of knowledge in order to
10 understand well the position of the witness. One is a level of
11 theoretical generalisations of complex nature, and the other are the
12 practical conclusions of somebody who has been taught elementary systems
13 for knowing the direction of a trajectory, and I am not leading the
14 question, and as Judge I could ask all the questions I need to in order
15 to clarify the situation of the witness. It's not for the counsel to
16 lead the Judge, but the Judge could ask all the questions without any
17 limitations in order to ascertain the truth in the knowledge of what is
18 saying. So I do not accept, Mr. Counsel, what you said.
19 MR. GUY-SMITH: With all due respect, Your Honour, I think that
20 you and I both wish to obtain the same result. The fact that --
21 JUDGE DAVID: Then you cannot say that I'm leading the witness.
22 I am just asking a simple question. I want you to retract those words.
23 MR. GUY-SMITH: The fact of the matter is that based upon the
24 evidence that this witness has given, Your Honour, this witness has not
25 indicated that he has been taught elementary systems for knowing a
1 trajection -- for knowing a direction of a trajectory; and with regard to
2 the fact that that is part and parcel of what you have included in the
3 question that you have asked this witness, to the extent that -- and
4 which is why I said in the first instance that I was a bit confused, to
5 the extent that we are attempting to get a clear and concise
6 understanding of what the witness has said, it is for that reason that I
7 was concerned with regard to the question being asked because I found it
8 personally -- and I mean no offence to you whatsoever, Your Honour, and I
9 really don't. I hope --
10 JUDGE DAVID: We disagree completely. My questions were oriented
11 to distinguish two levels of knowledge, because he has asserted during
12 his position continuously that he has no refined training, that he was
13 just instructed in how to ascertain the direction of a projectile based
14 on simple inference as to crater and other orientations, so this I wanted
15 for my own knowledge to ask. I was not leading the question for your
16 benefit. It was the benefit of me and of the Bench. So I want you to
17 accept those points that you ask the Judge that why I was leading the
18 question. And second, please learn that the Judge has no limitation in
19 asking these questions, and it's done only for the fairness of the trial,
20 beyond any interest on your position or the position of the Prosecutor,
21 and please learn not to interrupt me with nonsense questions.
22 MR. GUY-SMITH: Excuse me, Your Honour. Once again, with all due
23 respect, did I not mean any disrespect whatsoever, but for purposes of
24 representing my client and for purposes of making sure that we get to the
25 very issue that we all are concerned about here, which is, in fact, the
1 truth, there are times when it is necessary for counsel to rise. I come
2 from a tradition where that is allowed --
3 JUDGE DAVID: I know about tradition.
4 MR. GUY-SMITH: I come from a tradition where that --
5 JUDGE DAVID: I've been a professor at a law school for many
6 years in the United States.
7 MR. GUY-SMITH: I'm well aware of that, Your Honour. I come from
8 a tradition where that is allowed. Once again, I say to you most
9 sincerely, I meant no disrespect whatsoever, but I in seeing the question
10 that you asked was confused by it and was concerned. I, too, although I
11 am an advocate for General Perisic, I, too, am interested in obtaining
12 the truth. That is my function among others in these proceedings, and
13 let there be no misunderstanding about that.
14 JUDGE DAVID: There is a misunderstanding on your part. It has
15 been a misunderstanding on your part. My question was not but to assert
16 the clearness and my own understanding of the situation, you know.
17 MR. GUY-SMITH: Well, to the extent that I misapprehended your
18 question, I do apologise.
19 JUDGE DAVID: I accept your apologies.
20 MR. GUY-SMITH: To the extent that I was concerned about it, I
21 will, if I find it necessary to rise, I will rise, but at no point in
22 time that I ever rise do I mean any disrespect to any member of the
23 Bench. I never have in the entire 30 years that I've been practicing
24 law, and I never will. I hold you all in great respect, and it is not my
25 intention at all to insult you or to upset you. However, where I find
1 that there needs be rising for purposes of dealing with my client's
2 interests, I will do so.
3 JUDGE DAVID: The Judge in this instance acted only in the
4 benefit of a fair trial because the Bench had to understand completely
5 and fully the situation of every moment of this process.
6 MR. GUY-SMITH: I appreciate, Your Honour, and so did I. I was
7 trying to do the same thing. I was not -- certainly not trying to do
8 anything but that, and to the extent you've taken umbrage, once again, I
9 say I do apologise.
10 JUDGE DAVID: I accept your apologies.
11 MR. GUY-SMITH: No insult or disrespect was intended, but the
12 concern was there.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let's take a break and come back at quarter to.
14 --- Recess taken at 5.24 p.m.
15 --- On resuming at 5.48 p.m.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are there any questions arising from the questions
17 by the Bench, starting with the Prosecution.
18 MR. THOMAS: No, sir, thank you.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Defence?
20 MR. GUY-SMITH: None, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
22 Mr. Turkovic, that brings us to the conclusion of your testimony.
23 Thank you very much for taking the time off to come and testify at the
24 Tribunal. You are now excused, and you may stand down. Please travel
25 well going back home.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
3 [The witness withdrew]
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Saxon, I see you standing up.
5 MR. SAXON: Thank you, Your Honour. The Prosecution does not
6 have another witness ready to commence today. We are prepared to
7 commence with Mr. Bell tomorrow.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr.?
9 MR. SAXON: Bell
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Bell
11 adjourned to tomorrow afternoon, courtroom III, quarter past 2.00. Court
13 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 5.50 p.m.
14 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 4th day of
15 February, 2009, at 2.15 p.m.