1 Thursday, 5 March 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.15 p.m.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good afternoon to everybody in and around the
6 courtroom. Mr. Registrar, will you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, Your Honours. Good afternoon, Your
8 Honours. Good afternoon to everyone in and around the courtroom. This
9 is case number IT-04-81-T, the Prosecutor versus Momcilo Perisic. Thank
10 you, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much. Could we have appearances for
12 today starting with the Prosecution.
13 MR. THOMAS: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon
14 everybody in and around the courtroom. Barney Thomas, Salvatore Cannata,
15 and Carmela Javier for the Prosecution.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Thomas. And for the
18 MR. GUY-SMITH: Good afternoon, Your Honours, and all in the
19 courtroom and about the courtroom. Milos Androvic, Daniela Tasic, Chad
20 Mair, Novak Lukic, Gregor Guy-Smith for the Defence.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do I call you, Mr. Thomas, or do I call
22 Mr. Cannata?
23 MR. THOMAS: Your Honours, me. Thank you. Before Dr. Mandilovic
24 returns to continue with his testimony, there is a matter arising out of
25 his testimony yesterday which I would want to raise before Your Honours.
1 First of all, I hope Your Honours don't mind hearing from me instead of
2 Mr. Cannata who led Dr. Mandilovic. I've made --
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm just wondering why.
4 MR. THOMAS: I've made my peace with him about that, sir.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: He's made his peace with you.
6 MR. THOMAS: Well, that's yet to be determined, actually. I hope
7 we will get there.
8 The issue concerns the basis upon which a number of exhibits were
9 tendered. Particularly the distinction, if any, to be drawn between the
10 ability to which or the extent to which Dr. Mandilovic could testify as
11 to the truth of the contents of certain medical records, as against the
12 ability of Your Honours to rely upon the contents of the medical records.
13 The -- Your Honours will recall that there were a number of
14 medical records admitted ultimately without objection and without --
15 without any conditions. And that there then began a process of admitting
16 documents, medical records from medical facilities on certain conditions.
17 The first time that these conditions were alluded to was in response or
18 in the context of an objection made by my learned friend, and I'm
19 referring, Your Honours, to page 4013 of yesterday's transcript at line
20 16. And if Your Honours don't have that available to you, I can read it
21 into the record. Mr. Cannata attempted to tender as an exhibit 65 ter
22 number 8692 and then Mr. Guy-Smith objected, and I'm quoting now from the
24 "With regard to 65 ter 8692, to the extent that the document is
25 being offered through this witness as an accurate reflection of records,
1 there is no objection. To the extent this document is being offered with
2 regard to the truth of the contents that is contained within these
3 records, there is an objection."
4 The response of Mr. Cannata was:
5 "Your Honours. Yes, the Prosecution position is that
6 Dr. Mandilovic is for these documents entitled to speak only to the -- to
7 attest the accuracy and the validity and the fact that the documents, the
8 medical records are authentic copies issued by the clinical centre. He
9 will not give evidence as to the contents of the documents."
10 And then my learned friend responds saying:
11 "Understanding that they are not being offered for that purpose,
12 I have no objection."
13 Now, the critical point of my submission is that the
14 Prosecution's position is that Mr. Mandilovic can't speak truth of the
15 contents of these documents, and of course that's obvious, he wasn't
16 involved in treating the patients concerned. Within that it had a series
17 of documents being produced along largely formulaic lines such as my
18 learned friend suggesting, for example, the next time a document was
19 tendered for admission, and I'm quoting from line 17, page 4014:
20 "If this document is being proposed under the same conditions as
21 last document, there is no objection. Once again, not to speak to the
22 truth of the contents contained in the document itself."
23 The Prosecution agrees, and we have a number of documents being
24 tendered in that way.
25 So it would appear that the basis, the understood basis - at
1 least on the record that these documents are going in - is that they have
2 been authenticated by Dr. Mandilovic, but he himself personally cannot
3 attest to the truth of the contents.
4 The difficulty arises with the admission of the very last
5 document of the session. And I'm quoting, Your Honours, from page 4017,
6 beginning at line 8, and we are dealing with the final document of the
7 day. Mr. Cannata moved for its admission, and my learned friend
8 responded as follows, and this is at line 11 on page 4017:
9 "With the same condition as the previous documents, there would
10 be no objection, which is that he is not," and then he stopped and said
11 "these documents are not being offered for the truth of the contents
12 contained therein."
13 Now, the difficulty, sir, is that that's the first time this
14 formulation of these documents are not being offered for the truth of
15 their contents appears on the record. There is a difference between
16 Dr. Mandilovic not being able to attest to the truth of the contents and
17 the documents themselves being evidence of the truth of their contents,
18 as a record properly admitted for Your Honours to consider. It may be
19 that Your Honours consider that you can rely on these documents for the
20 truth of their contents, for demonstrating, for example, that a
21 particular person was treated at a particular facility on a particular
23 So the reason why I raise this is because there appears to be a
24 conflict on the record in terms of the basis upon which these documents
25 are being tendered. Because if they are being tendered on the basis that
1 Your Honours simply can't consider them at all for the truth of their
2 contents, then we have a difficulty because plainly that's not why they
3 are being admitted.
4 Also, this was not a formulation that appeared prior to the very
5 last exhibit. And I wouldn't want to be in a position where any party is
6 operating on the basis that Your Honours are not entitled to place
7 whatever weight you wish upon the contents of these documents on the
8 bases that they are properly admitted through Dr. Mandilovic.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: What is Mr. Cannata's response to that last
11 MR. THOMAS: Same conditions as before, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are you done?
13 MR. THOMAS: Yes.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Guy-Smith.
15 MR. GUY-SMITH: Well, I believe that Mr. Thomas in his submission
16 both misapprehends and misunderstands what the transcript says.
17 Referring to the first time the objection came up, I say the following at
18 page line [sic].
19 "To the extent this document is being offered with regard to
20 the truth of the contents that is contained within these records, there
21 is an objection."
22 The next time I speak to it, which is at line 19, I say.
23 "Understanding that they are not being offered for that purpose,
24 the purpose being my original objection, the document being offered with
25 regard to the truth of the contents that is contained within these
2 And finally, the last time, I say:
3 "With the same condition as the previous documents, there would
4 be no objection." That is at page 417, which is that he is not, and then
5 I say, as Mr. Thomas correctly points out "these document are not being
6 offered for the truth of the contents contained therein."
7 There is no difference between the meaning of with regard to the
8 truth of the contents that is contained within these records, which is my
9 very first objection, and the statement these documents are not being
10 offered for the truth of the contents contained therein; although, it is
11 not precisely the same language. It's certainly is exact same objection
12 with the exact same intent and the Prosecution, in each and every time
13 this was raised, made their position clear which was they were not
14 offering the documents for the truth of the contents contained therein.
15 So I do not share Mr. Thomas's perception or apprehension with
16 regard to what was the Prosecution position with regard to the proffering
17 of these documents. I recall that the Chamber at one point made it very
18 clear to me, and I don't have the exact line, but that I should not tell
19 the Prosecution how to prosecute its case. And I won't. But it's -- the
20 objection is clear, the intent was clear from the beginning to the end,
21 and the Prosecution agreed and made very clear what they were doing in
22 this regard.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Any reply, Mr. Thomas.
24 MR. THOMAS: Well, my learned friends is right if one looks at
25 his original objection and then the formulation which followed. But he
1 misses a step, and I'm not suggesting for a moment that he wasn't
2 justified or he isn't justified in taking the position that he takes now,
3 but in my submission what I'm trying to alert Your Honours to is that
4 plainly there are two different interpretations now occurring of what --
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: But that's precisely what your learned friend is
6 contesting. He says that it's no different -- there are no different
7 interpretations. Can I just read those two, just the two times that he
8 raised the objections, the first one and the last one.
9 MR. THOMAS: Yes.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can you just read them as they stand in the text?
11 No, not now, there in that transcript that you have in your hands.
12 MR. THOMAS: The first time.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: What did he say?
14 MR. THOMAS: He said:
15 "With regard to 65 ter 8692, to the extent that the document is
16 being offered through this witness as an accurate reflection of records,
17 there is no objection. To the extent this document is being offered with
18 regard to the truth of the contents that is contained within these
19 records, there is an objection."
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
21 MR. THOMAS: That's not where that exchange ends, however, Your
22 Honour, but I will go to the last objection.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: But that's where that objection arises. He says
24 to the extent they are being tendered for the truthfulness of the
25 contents there is an objection.
1 MR. THOMAS: Yes.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: And what does the last one say?
3 MR. THOMAS: The last one says:
4 "With the same condition as the previous documents, there would
5 be no objection, which is that he is not -- these document are not being
6 offered for the truth of the contents contained therein."
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: And what is the difference between that statement
8 and the first statement?
9 MR. THOMAS: The difference between that statement and the first
10 statement is what happens immediately after the first statement, which
11 that the response of the Prosecution to that first objection was this:
12 "Your Honours. Yes, the Prosecution position is that
13 Dr. Mandilovic is for these documents entitled to speak only to the -- to
14 attest the accuracy and the validity and the fact that the documents, the
15 medical records are authentic copies issued by the clinical centre. He
16 will not give evidence as to the contents of the documents."
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Fair enough. Now, Mr. Cannata misaddresses
18 himself to the issue raised by the opposite side. Now, must the opposite
19 side take blame for that? He is addressing what in his understanding
20 Dr. Mandilovic can do. The objection is against the truthfulness of the
21 contents of the documents.
22 MR. THOMAS: I don't disagree with that, sir, but for the next
23 response from Mr. Guy-Smith which was:
24 "Understanding that they are not being offered for that purpose,
25 I have no objection."
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, yeah, now we are getting into semantics.
2 MR. THOMAS: The difficulty, yes.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: The difficulty here is that he is now
4 misunderstanding --
5 MR. THOMAS: Mr. Cannata --
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Cannata misunderstands him --
7 MR. THOMAS: Yes.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- and he misunderstands Mr. Cannata to be
9 agreeing with him.
10 MR. THOMAS: Exactly.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Where do we -- what relief do you ask for?
12 MR. THOMAS: The relief I seek, sir, is that the Prosecution be
13 entitled to tender the documents on the basis that it thought it was
14 tendering them on. And that if my learned friend has an objection to
15 that, that we hear argument on the objection and Your Honours rule.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let me just read. Mr. Guy-Smith, do you hear what
17 the relief sought is, do you have any response to that? On the relief
18 sought, not on the objection?
19 MR. GUY-SMITH: Well, I would argue against the relief sought
20 because I don't share Mr. Thomas's -- what I consider to be Monday
21 morning quarterbacking here.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Monday morning?
23 MR. GUY-SMITH: Monday morning quarterbacking. It's an American
24 phrase dealing with -- there's always football game on Sunday, and on
25 Monday there's an examination of the game, which is what I think is going
1 on here.
2 I believe that the procedure that was followed here, the
3 objection is made, the proffer made by the Prosecution particularly in
4 light of -- now, I'm speaking about what happened in a prior proceeding
5 since he is a 92 ter witness, and this issue had been discussed in the
6 Milosevic matter, and I alerted the Court to the pages of it, that it's
7 inappropriate to be rehashing evidentiary rulings as we go along. There
8 has to be some consistency of approach here.
9 If we want to wipe the slate clean and start over again with the
10 testimony of this particular witness, there are a series of other
11 evidentiary issues that could have arisen --
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm sorry to interrupt. Can you confine yourself
13 to the relief sought.
14 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yeah, I object to it.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: The Chamber has listened to arguments on both
18 sides, and has decided this is a matter that does not require any ruling
19 in the court by the Trial Chamber, and the Trial Chamber will attend to
20 and address the arguments of the parties and interpret the documents in
21 the light of the arguments that have been placed before it when it looks
22 at the papers at the appropriate time.
23 MR. THOMAS: Thank you, Your Honours. In which case, we can have
24 Dr. Mandilovic brought in to continue his testimony.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: May we please call the witness in.
1 [The witness takes the stand]
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good afternoon, Dr. Mandilovic.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may please sit down. Doctor, just to remind
5 you, first of all, let me apologise to you for keeping you waiting until
6 this time. We had said we will start at quarter past, but due to
7 unforeseen circumstances and administrative matters that had to be
8 attended to, we had to ask you to wait a little bit. Thank you very
9 much. I see you are nodding.
10 Just to remind you again that you are still by the declaration
11 that you made at the beginning of your testimony yesterday to tell the
12 truth, the whole truth, and nothing else but the truth. Thank you.
13 Mr. Cannata, is it you or is it? Are we in cross?
14 MR. CANNATA: Yes, Your Honour, it's Mr. Guy-Smith.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, Mr. Guy-Smith, that's you. Thank you very
17 WITNESS: MILAN MANDILOVIC [Resumed]
18 [Witness answered through interpreter]
19 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you, Your Honours. I wasn't sure whether
20 there were any last remarks Mr. Cannata wanted to make before I started
21 based by the way we -- when we ended yesterday, I wasn't sure whether
22 there were any last remarks or questions that Mr. Cannata had, but
23 apparently I'm up.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: You are up.
25 Cross-examination by Mr. Guy-Smith:
1 Q. Good afternoon, Doctor.
2 A. Good afternoon.
3 Q. As I understand your testimony, you are a specialist in a
4 particular type of medicine; correct?
5 A. Yes, you are right.
6 Q. And that is ENT
7 stands for?
8 A. Yes, correct.
9 Q. And what does ENT
10 A. ENT
11 for a long time, specialising in head and neck surgery, and to be more
12 specific, I specialise in the surgery of ear, nose, and throat.
13 Q. Before the war started, that was also your specialty; correct?
14 A. Yes, correct.
15 Q. And before the war started, did you work at the State Hospital
16 I'm sorry, you seem to have jumped to the microphone, so did I miss
18 A. No, I'm okay. I'm perfectly okay. And I am all ears. I'm
19 listening to your question.
20 Q. And before the war started, did you work at the state hospital?
21 A. Yes, I did.
22 Q. Before the war started, was the State Hospital
23 hospital or a military hospital?
24 A. Before the war started, it was a military hospital.
25 Q. And whilst you were working at the hospital before the war
1 started, while it was a military hospital, were you working at the
2 hospital as a civilian doctor or as a military doctor?
3 A. I was a military doctor.
4 Q. And was that a military doctor with the JNA or with some other
5 military service?
6 A. I was with the JNA.
7 Q. Did there come a point in time when you left the JNA before the
8 war started?
9 A. Yes. I left the JNA.
10 Q. And when did you leave the JNA?
11 A. On the 2nd of May, 1992.
12 Q. And when you left the JNA on the 2nd of May, 1992, did you have a
13 particular rank at that time?
14 A. Before that time I had a rank -- I apologise. I don't think you
15 have phrased your question very well.
16 Q. Well, then my apologies to you, let me rephrase my question. And
17 I thank you for the correction.
18 On the 2nd of May, 1992, when you left the JNA, what rank did you
19 have in the JNA, if any?
20 A. I was a major.
21 Q. And when you left the JNA on the 2nd of May, 1992, as a major,
22 did you have any difficulties in leaving the JNA? And by that I mean,
23 did your commanding officer attempt to bar you from doing so?
24 A. No. I had no problem, none whatsoever.
25 Q. Did there come a point this time when the military hospital
1 became a civilian hospital in May of 1992?
2 A. The military hospital was transformed into a civilian hospital on
3 the 10th of May, 1992.
4 Q. At the time that the military hospital was transformed into a
5 civilian hospital on the 10th of May, 1992, were the supplies that were
6 at the hospital taken from the hospital by the JNA? I'm sorry, that's
7 assuming something that I perhaps should not assume.
8 On the 10th of May, 1992, when the hospital transformed into a
9 civilian hospital, did the JNA militarily leave the hospital?
10 A. The JNA did leave the hospital but they did not take any medical
11 supplies, equipment, or prescription drugs.
12 Q. I take it by that it would be fair to assume that when the
13 hospital metamorphised from a military hospital into a state hospital, it
14 was in such a state as to continue engaging in medical work; correct?
15 A. It's a fairly complex question. There was equipment, certain
16 material because equipment, supplies in the medical sense, replenished
17 periodically. We can't claim that when the JNA left the hospital that it
18 didn't take anything with it, that's correct, but we didn't have many
19 supplies. There were supplies only for a certain period of time, so we
20 could conditionally say that the newly transformed hospital continued
21 with its work, but it couldn't work with the existing supplies for a
22 lengthy period of time.
23 Q. Understood. When the JNA left the hospital and the hospital
24 transformed into a civilian hospital, did you remain in essentially the
25 same position that you had been in while the hospital had been a military
1 hospital? And by that I mean the head of the department of the ENT?
2 A. In professional terms I maintained the position that I had.
3 However, not in medical terms --
4 THE INTERPRETER: If the interpreter heard the witness correctly.
5 Q. Would it be fair to say that in medical terms what occurred is --
6 would it be fair to say what occurred in medical terms is that your
7 duties were expanded?
8 A. My duties, I'm talking about my professional duties, were
9 expanded. With time the war escalated, there were more wounded and sick
10 people, and therefore my medical duties were expanded. That's the case
11 in every war. I was no longer just a specialist, surgical specialist for
13 just an ear, nose, and throat specialist.
14 Q. Did your duties include maintaining hospital records? And by
15 that I mean, did you personally maintain hospital records for the entire
16 State Hospital
17 A. No, no. I had absolutely nothing to do with the records
19 Q. Did you continue to be the head of a department which maintained
20 records within the hospital administration?
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Was he ever the head of a department which
22 maintained records?
23 MR. GUY-SMITH: Well, perhaps I got ahead of myself. I'll ask
24 the question, Your Honour.
25 Q. Were you ever the head of a department which maintained records,
1 and I perhaps in that regard --
2 A. Never. I'm an ear, nose, and throat surgeon. I was the head of
3 the ward that was involved exclusively in treating ear, nose, and throat
5 Q. Did you maintain as the head of the department for ear, nose --
6 as an ear, nose, and throat surgeon particular protocols with regard to
7 the activities that you performed at the State Hospital
8 A. Absolutely. Absolutely.
9 Q. Were you the custodian of those records, sir?
10 A. Yes, for one year. Later, these records were handed over to the
12 Q. Okay. Now, with regard to the records that you have testified
13 about here, are those records that you brought with you when you
14 testified in the very first case that you came to testify to, and by that
15 I mean did you bring those records physically with you?
16 A. Sir, I didn't have any --
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, sorry, sorry, Doctor. Yes, Mr. Cannata.
18 MR. CANNATA: Yes, can I have a qualification. Those records --
19 well, Dr. Mandilovic testified about documents which were tendered in the
20 Dragan Milosevic case, and I take that my learned friend referred to that
21 -- his testimony in the Galic case, when he says at page 16, line 5 when
22 he says, "You testified in the very first case." Now, can I have
23 clarification --
24 MR. GUY-SMITH: I'm more than happy to clarify.
25 Q. With regards to the records that you testify to concerning the
1 Milosevic case, are those records that you brought with you when you came
2 to testify in the Milosevic case?
3 A. No, absolutely not, I didn't bring any documents with me. It
4 wasn't even possible for me to obtain those medical documents.
5 Q. The documents that you testified to in the Milosevic case, and
6 the documents that you have testified to in this case came from, as I
7 understand it, two separate hospital entities; is that correct?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. One hospital entity was the State Hospital
11 A. Absolutely.
12 Q. And the other hospital entity is a hospital where you did not
13 work; correct?
14 A. That's right.
15 Q. Now, with regard to the issue of records, am I correct in my
16 understanding that records are contained in what could be called a
17 hospital book?
18 A. Yes, hospital protocol, that's what we call it.
19 Q. And am I correct also that the -- one of the hospital that you
20 mentioned in your testimony yesterday went by another name and that is
21 the name Kosevo Hospital
22 A. Yes, the Kosevo Clinical Centre.
23 Q. Okay. And with regard to the medical records from the Kosevo
24 Hospital, you testified in a prior proceeding in the Milosevic case, I
25 refer the Court and counsel to page 577, lines 1 through 4 as follows to
1 the following question asked by you -- asked of you by the Prosecution:
2 "Q. And with respect to hospital medical records from the Kosevo
3 Hospital, did you ever have occasion to see such records?"
4 And your answer was:
5 "Of course, very often. I don't mean their actual hospital books
6 and records, but I did see on many occasions their medical reports and
7 findings by their physicians."
8 Do you maintain that testimony as you sit here today?
9 A. I stand by that testimony.
10 Q. Okay.
11 MR. GUY-SMITH: If we could have -- if we could have I think it's
12 65 ter 09244 up on the screen, please.
13 Q. And while that's coming up, during the period of time that you
14 were working as a doctor in Sarajevo
15 there was a tunnel that existed by which people could leave the city?
16 A. That tunnel, if you have the tunnel beneath the airstrip in mind,
17 that tunnel was constructed in the course of the war. You say that
18 people were able to leave the town, but the tunnel was under strict
19 control. It wasn't easy to pass through the tunnel. It was used for the
20 army, the Bosnian army. They could pass through the tunnel and supplies
21 could be taken through the tunnel, but private individuals couldn't use
22 the tunnel.
23 Q. I see. My apologies, I understand. The tunnel that existed when
24 you say it was under the control of the army, is -- did you ever -- first
25 of all, did you ever go to this tunnel?
1 A. Never.
2 Q. Did you, in your position at the hospital, receive any medical
3 supplies from the army that came through the tunnel, to your knowledge?
4 A. I'm not aware of that. I don't know how the hospital found
5 medical supplies, how it obtained those supplies. I can't be certain,
6 but I think that to a large extent the French Battalion, the French
7 forces under UNPROFOR that were in Bosnia-Herzegovina at the time
8 provided them with supplies. As for the tunnel, well, I really don't
9 know. I'm not familiar with those details, I wasn't involved in that.
10 Q. Would it be fair to say that during your tenure at the hospital,
11 during the war years - and I'm referring to the war years - that you did
12 receive supplies from UNPROFOR from -- no matter whether they be French
13 or other parts of UNPROFOR, and by that I mean other nationalities who
14 are part of UNPROFOR?
15 A. I understand your question, but although I have all the goodwill
16 that is needed, I can't answer your question. I didn't involve myself in
17 that field. I didn't have such authority and I wasn't involved in that.
18 I was only involved in professional matters.
19 Q. Very well. If we can't take it any further, we shan't take it
20 any further.
21 If you could take a look at the map here, and I know it's kind of
22 small and if we need to make it bigger, I'm happy to do that. Looking at
23 this map can you, first of all, recognise this as being a map of, what I
24 would say is Sarajevo
25 A. Yes, this is a map of Sarajevo
1 Q. Looking at the map in its present condition, can you identify on
2 the map where the State Hospital
3 better if it was enlarged, because we can enlarge the map?
4 A. I'd be grateful if you could enlarge it.
5 Q. Okay. Without enlarging it in gross, is there some specific
6 portion of the map that would be helpful to be enlarged? And you'll
7 notice there are a number of longitudinal and latitudinal lines on the
8 map also which create boxes. So starting on the left-hand side of the
9 map, if we count the number of box, would it be helpful to enlarge some
10 particular part of it for you, sir?
11 A. It would be useful if we could zoom in and enlarge the central
12 part where there is a lot of black, a little further to the left, just
13 the central part of the town. A little lower down. No, no, no.
14 Q. Would you like to go the other way?
15 A. Yes. About here. No, here. I think you've gone too far aware.
16 Try and enlarge this part. Stop there. Could you scroll a bit to the
17 right, this is not the area. No, to the other side. Stop there.
18 Q. Looking at this part of the map, is -- are you able to identify
19 using this map where the State Hospital
20 A. Here it is.
21 MR. GUY-SMITH: Can we get assistance from the usher now, then.
22 I'm going to have the usher --
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's here. It's about here.
24 MR. GUY-SMITH:
25 Q. If you could mark the area where the hospital is with an H for
1 hospital. Great, you circle and if you mark, make it an SH for State
2 Hospital. Good. H will work.
3 A. SH, SH.
4 Q. State Hospital
5 A. [In English] State Hospital, yes.
6 Q. Perfect. Now, with regard to the position of the State Hospital
7 between September of 1992 and spring of 1993 using this particular map,
8 can you -- can you help us with where the confrontation lines were to the
9 east of the hospital, assuming that I'm accurate with regard to there
10 being confrontation line east of the hospital?
11 A. [Interpretation] I don't think you are right, sir. The main
12 problem for the State Hospital
13 Trebevic mountains, the Jewish cemetery, Grbavica, from that direction.
14 That was the main problem, the limits, the borders to the east, the lines
15 to the east were quite far away.
16 Q. Okay. Thank you.
17 A. If I may add something?
18 Q. Sure.
19 A. In the context of what I have said, you could also make use of --
20 some photographs of the hospital would show that the destruction was
21 greatest south of the hospital, and the destruction was not that
22 significant on the other sides, in the other directions from the
24 Q. Let me ask --
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Cannata.
1 MR. CANNATA: I am sorry to interrupt. Can I have a correction
2 on the transcript, maybe we can re-ask the same question to the witness.
3 Page 21, line 2, I understood from the translation that it was Mount
4 Trebevic page 21, line 2. And that it not accurately reported in the
5 transcript, can we have it clarified, please.
6 MR. GUY-SMITH: We'll have to go back to the audio, because I'm
7 not positive that Mr. Cannata is accurate.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Line 2, as I read it says:
9 "I don't think you are right, sir --"
10 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: I beg your pardon.
12 "I don't think you are right, sir. The main problem for the
13 state," that's line 2.
14 Then line 3 continues:
15 "Hospital came from the south, that's interest the Trebevic," and
16 then something is missed, and then "... mountains, the Jewish cemetery,"
17 and then something is missed, "... that was the problem."
18 MR. CANNATA: Your Honours, I have page 21, line 2, and my point
19 is that the mountains, Trebevic, is not the correct interpretation. At
20 this stage if it cannot be clarified, I would ask the audiotape to be
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: No, it can be clarified. The question can be put
23 back to the witness and he can answer.
24 MR. GUY-SMITH: If it's a point of a need of clarification, I'm
25 happy to do it.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: I believe you can just ask the question again, let
2 the witness answer.
3 MR. GUY-SMITH:
4 Q. Doctor, there seems to be some confusion with regard to the issue
5 of the mountain. Could you kindly tell us which mountain it is?
6 A. Naturally, of course. The Trebevic mountain, the slopes of the
7 Trebevic mountain.
8 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you, if we could have this map as the
9 defendant's next in order.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: The map is admitted into evidence. May it please
11 be given an exhibit number.
12 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours. That document shall be given
13 Exhibit number D59.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith.
15 MR. GUY-SMITH: Okay. I'm done with that map at this time. We
16 can take it off the screen.
17 Q. I'd like to see whether or not the following is correct because
18 perhaps I'm misunderstanding your testimony, sir. And I'm referring the
19 Court and counsel to page 1014 and 1015 of the Galic trial. Starting at
20 line 19 --
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do we have the Galic trial transcript?
22 MR. GUY-SMITH: I trust that you do. I'm going to read it
23 verbatim. You don't? Great.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, was it distributed? Was it disclosed to us?
25 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes. It was and it is P632. It's P632.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: P632. P632, are you calling that exhibit?
2 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yeah, that's right, because you asked whether you
3 had it or not, and I'm noting it's P632.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, okay.
5 MR. GUY-SMITH: Page 1014, which I believe is page 8 of 26 in the
6 electronic version.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: So that's the exhibit you are calling, P632?
8 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes, yes.
9 Q. You were asked the following question and gave the following
10 answer, and that's with regard to issue of the confrontation to the east,
11 which is:
12 "Q. Were there any other confrontation lines in that -- well,
13 close to the hospital, say on the east, the west, or the north?
14 "A. Yes, of course there were. Yes, because the city of Sarajevo
15 is not a large city in terms of space, and these were mostly in the old
16 part of town, the centre of town, and parts closer to the old part of
17 town so that in practical terms, towards the east is the end of town
18 which is encircled by the mountains. And so quite certainly towards the
19 east of the hospital there were military conflicts going on."
20 First of all, just with regard to the directional issue: Is the
21 statement that you made in the Galic trial in response to a question by
22 the Prosecutor concerning conflicts accurate, that there were military
23 conflicts east of the hospital?
24 A. Well, look, there's something I would like to explain to you,
1 Q. Excuse me, sir, you are more than welcome to explain any answer
2 that you wish to give, but I have a specific question with regard to your
3 prior testimony in a proceeding before the Tribunal when the issue of the
4 direction and the confrontation lines came up. So my first question is,
5 is this testimony accurate, the answer that you gave in the Galic case an
6 accurate answer?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Okay. Now, I understand that you wish to explain something. Is
9 what you wish to explain with regard to the issue of direction, by that I
10 mean north, south, east, or west?
11 A. That's right, with your leave, of course.
12 Q. Absolutely, I have no desire to inhibit your testimony.
13 A. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Sir, in one of your
14 previous questions you asked me where the most frequent --
15 THE INTERPRETER: The witness didn't end the sentence.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have already said that Sarajevo
17 is fairly small town surrounded by mountains. It was fully encircled and
18 there was fighting ongoing on all sides. There's no dilemma about.
19 However, if you ask me where the most frequent attacks on the hospital
20 came from, then the answer is from the south. If you have photographs
21 from prior -- previous periods from other trials that you can see those
22 photographs that show the destruction, terrible destruction on that side.
23 The building is a 12-floor building, and naturally it was hit by shells
24 from other directions since it was totally encircled, but the southern
25 side was the most exposed side. That's what I wanted to say.
1 I didn't participate in the fighting, you know. I didn't plan
2 the fights either. There was ongoing fighting on all sides. There was
3 fighting when we tried to overcome the enemy and so on and so forth. So
4 there was the hospital devastation that shouldn't be confounded or mixed
5 up with the fighting that was ongoing to the east, to the west, to the
6 south, in relation to the hospital.
7 Q. My question -- and I appreciate your answer, thank you for that.
8 My question is, with regard to confrontation lines, was there a
9 confrontation line east of the hospital, and if I understand your
10 testimony, the answer to that question is, Yes, there was.
11 I'll follow that up with the following question, which is: Could
12 you tell the Chamber -- excuse me, could you tell the Chamber about how
13 far in distance from the hospital that confrontation line was to the east
14 in the time-period of 1992 through 1993? Can you give us that
15 information, sir?
16 A. I can't be really very precise, but I can put it this way, sir.
17 The eastern confrontation line was relatively far from the hospital. I'm
18 talking about the eastern confrontation line.
19 Q. And when you say "relatively far," could you give us an estimate
20 in metres? Was it 200 metre, 300, 400 metres?
21 A. No, no, no, no, no, sir. It was much further. What we are
22 talking about, what I testified about earlier was the frontline in the
23 south direction which was some 3- or 400 metres as the crow flies, and as
24 for the eastern frontline, it was several kilometres away from the
1 Q. Very good.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Doctor. Are you able to
3 estimate how many kilometres to the east the frontline was? If you are
4 not able to, you are not able to. But if you say it's in kilometres,
5 it's got to be sort of in kilometres rather than metres, then we also
6 understand that.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, no, not in metre. It was
8 certainly several kilometres in the direction east.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Would you say 10 kilometres?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, less, less.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Would you say 7?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 3 to 4.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But that's just what I think.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just what you think.
16 MR. GUY-SMITH:
17 Q. With regard to --
18 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: You are welcome.
20 MR. GUY-SMITH:
21 Q. With regard to the confrontation line that was south of the
22 hospital, that confrontation line, if I understand your testimony
23 correctly, was some 3- to 400 metres from the hospital; correct?
24 A. As the crow flies, yes, and that would be my free estimate.
25 Q. Okay.
1 MR. GUY-SMITH: Could we have 65 ter 09244 back up on the screen.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated]
3 MR. GUY-SMITH: I'm always concerned when you put up the map when
4 it's been drawn on. I never know which way to go.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: I made the mistake.
6 MR. GUY-SMITH: Okay.
7 Q. Once again looking at this map here, can you draw, with the
8 assistance of the usher, where the confrontation line was south of the
9 hospital that you indicated was some 3- to 400 metres south of the
11 A. Yes, I can, providing you blow up that section of the map.
12 Q. Okay. I'll see what we can do for you in that regard, sir.
13 A. It's the same zone that I was supposed to mark just a couple of
14 minutes ago. [In English] Can I?
15 Q. And is the area that you have marked with a circle, the area that
16 you were telling us was where the confrontation line was? Or is that
17 where the hospital was? I think the circle is where the hospital is?
18 A. [Interpretation] No, no, no, no. No, you're mistaken. The
19 hospital is more to the north from that. I can also draw the place or
20 mark the place where the hospital was. May I do that?
21 Q. Great. Could you mark the top circle with an SH for State
23 A. [Marks]
24 Q. And could you mark that, the bottom circle, with a CL for
25 confrontation line, please.
1 A. [Marks]
2 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you. Could we have that admitted as
3 Defence next in order.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: The exhibit is admitted into evidence. May it
5 please be given an exhibit number.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours, this document shall be given
7 Exhibit number D60.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
9 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you very much for your time, sir.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you. Thank you as well.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, did I ask that it be marked? D60.
12 Are you done, Mr. Guy-Smith?
13 MR. GUY-SMITH: I am, I am.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm so sorry --
15 MR. GUY-SMITH: I apologise, I said, "Thank you very much for
16 your time, sir." I should have said, I'm completed. I do apologise.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: No, you did say but I was talking to the Judge on
18 this side. Any re-examination, Mr. Cannata?
19 MR. CANNATA: No, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Judge?
21 Questioned by the Court:
22 JUDGE PICARD: [Interpretation] I have a question, Doctor. It
23 seems to me that you said in your testimony that the shots came from the
24 Jewish cemetery of Sarajevo
25 regard to the hospital. And now on the map that you have just marked and
1 showed the confrontation line, you put the confrontation line on the same
2 side as the hospital, so I'm a bit lost with regard to that. I may be
3 mistaken, I don't know. Could you please clarify?
4 A. I believe I didn't. I made sure to do everything properly.
5 There is another confrontation line, and where I marked was the place
6 where the Jewish cemetery was, and the river is still between the two.
7 And if the cross does not denote the Jewish cemetery, then I'm mistaken,
8 but I thought that the cross on the map denotes the Jewish cemetery and
9 that's what I went by. I must tell you that the distances on the map are
10 really very very small. It's a small place.
11 JUDGE PICARD: [Interpretation] So if I understand you properly,
12 the confrontation line was on the other side of the river vis-a-vis to
13 the hospital?
14 A. Yes, yes. If I can follow up on your question and the statement
15 by the lawyer, I'm not happy with the "confrontation line," with that
16 term. It's actually the position of the troops of the Army Republika
17 Srpska from which one part of the city was controlled. I believe that
18 this would be a better definition. I'm sorry if I have offended somebody
19 with proffering my definition, but I think that the term is much better
20 and much clearer.
21 JUDGE PICARD: [Interpretation] I am sorry, now I don't
22 understand what you are saying. I apologise. I just wanted to clarify
23 things, I was a bit confused. So according to you, the confrontation
24 line was on the other bank of the river which is [indiscernible] by the
1 A. Yes.
2 JUDGE PICARD: [Interpretation] Because on the map, the way you
3 marked you put the confrontation line on the same bank as the hospital,
4 so I suppose that you just made a little mistakes. And I agree with you
5 that the plan is very small, that the map is small.
6 A. If I made a mistake, I apologise. The map is indeed small, but
7 as I've already tried to explain, I was governed by the mark of the cross
8 which represented the Jewish cemetery and that is on the southern bank --
9 bank of the river. There is no dilemma about that at all.
10 JUDGE PICARD: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. I believe
11 that now the matters are absolutely clear.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Any questions arising from the Judge's questions,
13 Mr. Cannata?
14 MR. CANNATA: No, Your Honours.
15 MR. GUY-SMITH: I only, for purposes of clarification, I perhaps
16 am a bit confused. I don't know if it's of any help to the Chamber to
17 have the map redrawn or not. I am happy to do that if that's something
18 that the Chamber believes would be of assistance, but if the Chamber is
19 satisfied with the testimony as it stands, then I'll just leave it.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: We don't decide for you when you ask questions
22 MR. GUY-SMITH: Well, then I have no further questions, then.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Guy-Smith.
24 MR. GUY-SMITH: You can -- every once in awhile you can help me
25 out a little.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, I can, but not how to conduct your trial. I
2 beg your pardon, Doctor, thank you so much for taking the time from your
3 very busy schedule to come and testify at the Tribunal. This brings us
4 now to the conclusion of your testimony. You are now excused. You may
5 stand down, and please travel well back home.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
7 [The witness withdrew]
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Cannata, you think you can finish the next
9 witness in the next three minutes?
10 MR. CANNATA: I will because I'm not leading the next witness,
11 Your Honours. Mr. Thomas will call the next witness.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Thomas, would that be an appropriate time?
13 MR. THOMAS: I would say, yes.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: We'll take a break and come back at 4.00. Court
16 --- Recess taken at 3.28 p.m.
17 --- On resuming at 4.00 p.m.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Thomas.
19 MR. THOMAS: Thank you, Your Honours. I call Mr. Vejzagic,
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mister?
22 MR. THOMAS: Vejzagic.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is it a mister?
24 MR. THOMAS: Mister, sir, yes. Who is also a 92 ter witness,
25 Your Honour.
1 [The witness entered court]
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good afternoon, sir. Will you please make the
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours. I
5 solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and
6 nothing but the truth.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. You may be seated.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Thomas.
10 MR. THOMAS: Thank you, sir.
11 WITNESS: NEDZAD VEJZAGIC
12 [Witness answered through interpreter]
13 Examination by Mr. Thomas:
14 Q. Good afternoon, sir. Are you comfortably settled there?
15 A. Good afternoon. Thank you, yes, I am quite comfortable.
16 Q. Could you begin, sir, by telling us your full name and date of
18 A. My name is Nedzad Vejzagic, I was born on the 2nd of July, 1948
19 in Sarajevo
20 Q. And what is your current occupation?
21 A. I am a currently a retired former employee of the Ministry of
22 Interior Bosnia-Herzegovina.
23 Q. And are you a forensic scientist investigator by trade?
24 A. I spent my whole career as a forensic expert in the laboratories
25 of the Ministry of Interior of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
1 Q. Sir, do you recall giving an interview to myself and other
2 members of the Office of the Prosecutor in April of last year?
3 A. I remember that very well.
4 MR. THOMAS: Your Honours, could we please have 65 ter 09400 on
5 the screen, please.
6 Q. Do you recognise, sir, the -- that is the statement that you gave
7 to us at that time?
8 A. Yes, I recognise the document that I signed on the 25th of April,
10 Q. And is that your signature which we see on the bottom of the
12 A. Yes, that is indeed my signature.
13 Q. Have you had the opportunity over the last few days to review
14 that statement?
15 A. Yes, I've had the opportunity to do that.
16 Q. Are the contents of the statement true and correct?
17 A. It's the statement that I signed on the 25th of April, 2008
18 Q. Are the assertions you've made in that statement true and
20 A. The assertions that I made at the time, I believe, are true and
22 Q. And if I asked you the same questions today that you were asked
23 during that interview, would your answers be the same?
24 A. I would adhere by the same words.
25 MR. THOMAS: Thank you, Your Honours. If the statement could
1 please be admitted as an exhibit.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: It is so admitted. May it please be given an
3 exhibit number.
4 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P645, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
6 MR. THOMAS: Thank you, Your Honours, Madam Registrar.
7 Q. Sir --
8 MR. THOMAS: Your Honours, the statement includes a schedule of
9 around 50 documents which were reviewed for the purposes of the statement
10 which have also comprised the 92 ter -- or the exhibits to be tendered as
11 part of the 92 ter package. No comment is required in respect of those
12 exhibits other than one or two matters of clarification which I can deal
13 with generally following the tendering of those exhibits.
14 I've discussed both with the madam case officer and my learned
15 friends whether there is a way we can do this without calling up each
16 exhibit individually in court, and I'm told that if I signal -- that one
17 option, depending on how Your Honours wish to proceed, is that we can
18 simply instruct Madam Registrar to assign P number to the exhibits listed
19 in the 92 ter package, except in the case of two or three where some
20 further comment is required. If Your Honours are prepared to proceed on
21 that basis, we avoid the process of having to assign P numbers to all 50
22 of those Exhibits during the sitting of the Court. But I'm in Your
23 Honours hands as to that.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Their Honours are in your colleague's hands on the
25 opposite side.
1 MR. GUY-SMITH: That is the agreement that Mr. Thomas and I
2 worked out with regard to this specific witness and these particular
3 exhibits, all of which I believe Mr. Thomas would acknowledge are
4 unscheduled incidents in terms of -- one of the meanings that we have for
5 unscheduled incidents in terms of this case. And by that I mean they are
6 not found in the indictment. I may be incorrect, there may be one that
7 is found in the indictment, but apart from that -- apart from that
8 issue --
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Without characterising the nature of the exhibits,
10 what is the position of the Defence with regard to the admissibility as a
12 MR. GUY-SMITH: Apart from that issue that I just mentioned, I
13 have made an agreement with Mr. Thomas with regard to these documents,
14 and they can all be assigned a P number as suggested by Mr. Thomas. If
15 the Chamber wishes to proceed along those lines as opposed to -- as
16 opposed to -- excuse me, you know what, I just understood in a different
17 fashion precisely what your question is, and I'm going to answer
18 precisely what your question is.
19 I agree with Mr. Thomas, and I would suggest to the Court what we
20 do in this instance is we assign P number to each and every one of the
21 documents at the convenience of the Registrar without further adieu.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. You may proceed.
23 MR. THOMAS: Thank you, Your Honours. In which case the record
24 should probably reflect that P numbers be assigned as per the 92 ter
25 package except for 65 ter 08320.01, which is in the package but which the
1 Prosecution does not seek to tender. Also a P number does not need to be
2 assigned to 07200. That has already been assigned an exhibit number of
3 P468. And in respect of 65 ter 08320.13, the Prosecution wishes to
4 tender only pages 19 and 20 of the B/C/S version, and the attached three
5 page English translation.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Registrar, at the convenience of the
7 Registrar outside court hours, can you please assign Exhibit numbers to
8 all those documents according to the suggestion of Mr. Thomas as
9 mentioned in that paragraph.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Will do, Your Honours. Internal memoranda will
11 be distributed to the parties.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
13 MR. THOMAS: Thank you, Your Honours, Madam Registrar, and thank
14 you to my learned friends.
15 Sir if I may be permitted at this strategic read a very brief
16 summary of Mr. Vejzagic's statement.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may.
18 MR. THOMAS: Your Honours, Mr. Vejzagic is forensic scientist,
19 now retired. From 1974 until 2006, he worked in that capacity for the
20 Federal Ministry of the Interior for Bosnia and Herzegovina and Sarajevo
21 which was responsible for investigating serious crimes including shelling
22 incidents. He was head of the forensic department from 1999 until 2001,
23 and was engaged in that capacity in Sarajevo throughout the war.
24 Mr. Vejzagic describes the method of investigation and the manner
25 of preparation of investigation reports. He reviewed a number of reports
1 related to shelling incidents where 120 millimetre mortar shells landed
2 and exploded in ABiH held parts of the city. The reports detail, inter
3 alia, the recovery of shell fragments from the impacts sites. These
4 fragments bear the markings of the manufacturer and the dates of
5 production. The manufacturer was the Krusik factory in Valjevo, Serbia
6 and the period during which the components concerned were manufactured
7 was 1993 to 1995. Mr. Vejzagic also comments upon periods of every day
8 shelling and incessant sniping of civilians by forces of the Bosnian Serb
9 army positioned on high ground surrounding the city.
10 And finally, Your Honour, there are some matters of clarification
11 arising from his statement and the exhibits referred to which I would
12 like to go through briefly with Mr. Vejzagic.
13 Q. Sir, many of the reports you reviewed related to components of a
14 120-millimetre mortar shell. Do you recall that?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And you also refer in your statement to a manual which depicts,
17 among other things, a 120-millimetre mortar shell and its various
18 components, do you recall that?
19 A. I remember that, yes.
20 Q. I'd like to ask to you just describe in general terms what a
21 120-millimetre mortar shell is and what it is comprised of. And if it
22 assists you, I'd like to provide you with the corresponding page from the
23 manual --
24 MR. THOMAS: -- which, if we could have on the screens, Your
25 Honour, is 65 ter number 08747. Page 2 of the original B/C/S version,
1 please, and page 3 of the English.
2 Q. Sir, you should have on the screen there a diagram of an
3 artillery shelf some description. Do you see that?
4 A. Yes, I do.
5 Q. Either with reference to that diagram, if it assists you, or
6 otherwise, could you please describe to Their Honours the various
7 components of a 120-millimetre mortar shell?
8 A. I wouldn't be able to call myself an expert for this type of
9 shells; however, I am familiar with certain things because during my
10 service in the JNA I became familiar with such tools. For in general
11 terms here, I can see that this shell consists of a body. There is a
12 detonator, and then the bottom part is also known as the shell tail with
13 some openings and wings, which stabilise the shell during its trajectory.
14 And as far as I can remember, within the body of the mine, there
15 is the explosive charge, and on its top is a detonator which is impact
16 prone, and when the shell falls on a hard service, it is detonated and
17 shell explodes, i.e., the charge that is within the body of the shell
19 The bottom part of the shell is also known as the shell tail.
20 There are stabilising wings, and something which you don't see on the
21 image, there is another charge that detonates the gunpowder that propels
22 the shell through the barrel.
23 The shell is detonated when the -- when a member of the crew puts
24 the shell in the barrel. It travels through the barrel, it hits the
25 detonator, and then the gunpowder is ignited and jets the shell out of
1 the barrel.
2 The range of these shells depends on the angle of the barrel from
3 which the shell is propelled. The bigger the angle, the shorter the
4 range. The smaller the angle, the further the range, and it also depends
5 on the quantity of the gun part charge. This is as much as I can see on
6 the image, helped with what I can remember.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Thomas, just before you proceed and just for
8 the record, can we just clarify the capacity in which the witness is
9 coming. He described himself as not an expert in these things. I see
10 according to the witness list that he is a crime base witness, but we
11 have been given his CV, which suggested to me he is coming as an expert.
12 I'm also confused. I would like to know exactly what his status is.
13 MR. THOMAS: His status, Your Honour, is this something you'd you
14 want to hear from me answer or get some clarification --
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: I don't know what witness you called in him. Did
16 you call an expert witness or did you call a crime base witness.
17 MR. THOMAS: No. I called an investigator to tender
18 investigation reports, Your Honour. So I'm simply because the reports
19 refer to certain components, I simply wish to provide some assistance
20 through him of --
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: I just wanted -- indeed. I just wanted to know
22 now that he put a caveat at the beginning, he said that he doesn't call
23 himself an expert in these things.
24 MR. THOMAS: I understand, sir. It wasn't an intention to lead
25 that as expert testimony. More as background information for Your
2 Q. Sir, there are just a couple of things I would like to ask you
3 about what you've just told us. You mentioned the tail-fin of the shell,
4 and you also later on mentioned the stabilising fin. Are these the same
5 thing or different things?
6 A. At the tail of the shell, the cylindrical part with the holes,
7 you have these fins and that's called a stabiliser, you know -- stabilise
8 the shell stabiliser.
9 Q. All right. Thank you. There is reference in the reports to the
10 stabiliser, and there's also reference in the reports to what is known as
11 the basic charge or primary charge. Where we see those references, what
12 would that refer to?
13 A. To the gunpowder charge in the shell. If you want a greater
14 range, you add gunpowder and that thereby increases the shell's range.
15 MR. THOMAS: Can we please have Exhibit 65 ter number 47 -- 87 --
16 I'll start again. 08746 on the screen, please.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: I take it 08747, page 3, has therefore already
18 been tendered --
19 MR. THOMAS: It has.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- in that batch?
21 MR. THOMAS: It has, sir.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
23 MR. THOMAS:
24 Q. Now, sir, you will recognise this as a photograph attached to one
25 of the reports that you reviewed for the purposes of your statement?
1 A. Yes, yes.
2 Q. Can you identify for us the two items that we see on the
3 left-hand side of the image?
4 A. We can see the shell tail and the stabilising fins and below we
5 can see -- well, we can see an opening on the tail. And this part should
6 have been there, that is the detonator cap. You can see that a pin was
7 used to fire this. The parts to the right, metal pieces from the shell,
8 and there are other parts that should have filled in the tail of the
9 shell and should have plugged it in.
10 MR. THOMAS: I wonder if I can ask for the assistance of
11 Mr. Usher, please.
12 Q. With the assistance of this pen, sir, can you please draw a
13 circle around the item that you describe as the detonator cap.
14 A. So this part is placed here. So this is the cap. It's at the
15 bottom of the shell. When the shell is put into the barrel, this cap is
16 then ignited here. This is where it is ignited by the pin at the bottom
17 of the barrel. These parts here are the felt plugs that are inside the
18 shell, and inside that cartridge you also have the charge, the gunpowder
19 charge, which is covered by these felt plugs.
20 Q. All right. Just pause for a moment. You mentioned that the
21 charge is inside the cartridge. Where is the cartridge? Do we see it or
22 any part of it in the photograph?
23 A. This cap has a lower part that is missing. It's similar to the
24 cartridge used for a hunting rifle. So it's between 7 and 10 centimetres
25 long usually, then you have a gunpowder charge inside the felt plugs in
1 at the top, and they prevent the gunpowder charge from spilling out.
2 Here you have the cap, you have the cap, when it's hit by the firing pin,
3 a flame is created and this sets fire to the gunpowder charge through the
4 hole that we saw awhile ago, or from that hole the gunpowder gas can come
5 out, and they in fact discharge the shell from the barrel and fire it
6 over a certain range.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith.
8 MR. GUY-SMITH: It seems that the witness is being called to
9 testify at this point as an expert, not as a fact witness with regard to
10 investigation reports, and I would object on those grounds at this time.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Why do you say he is being called as an expert?
12 MR. GUY-SMITH: Because he is explaining to us a series of
13 matters that certainly are beyond the ken of someone who is a forensic
14 investigator but are dealing now specifically with the specific
15 discipline of artillery and firing.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Thomas.
17 MR. THOMAS: Well, first of all, sir, he is not giving any sort
18 of opinion. So that's point number one. The second point, sir, is that
19 the weight to be attached to the testimony that is he now giving is a
20 matter for Your Honours. This is evidence that's within his experience.
21 It's -- it should be taken for what it is. The observations of an
22 investigator whose experience is limited to investigating in the manner
23 described in the statement. Of course he can't testify as to how shells
24 are fired in the same way that an artillery expert could testify, but he
25 is trained in the collection of evidence, and all I'm attempt tempting to
1 do, for Your Honours, is to give names to the fragments that are found
2 and referred to in the reports. And that is the reason for this evidence
3 and that is the only extents to which the evidence can reasonably be
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: And I reiterate what the witness said right at the
6 beginning, that he doesn't regard himself as an expert in this and,
7 indeed, that's how I was viewing his testimony. However, my concern,
8 which is slightly different from Mr. Guy-Smith's concern, is that the
9 witness is now drawing new parts instead of describing the parts that are
10 photographed. That's my concern. And I was just wondering whether the
11 part he is drawing, don't you have it in subsequent pictures where he can
12 talk about that there. And I would have expected you to stop him from
13 drawing but rather just to tell us what these things are because that was
14 your question.
15 MR. THOMAS: Yes, I understand, sir. I thought --
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: That was my concern.
17 MR. THOMAS: That's fine, sir. And in fact I propose that he
18 redraw. I thought that the evidence would still be of some assistance to
19 Your Honours, but I can limit it to what's on the screen. And we'll
20 start again which I was --
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: I would imagine or I would expect that what he
22 draws you do have in picture for him in some other exhibit, and you'll
23 get to that exhibit and he can tell us that instead of drawing it here.
24 And if you don't have it, then so be it.
25 MR. THOMAS: Yes, sir. All right. Madam Registrar, can we
1 please have a clean version of that exhibit up on the screen, please.
2 Q. Mr. Vejzagic, can you please just draw a circle around the item
3 that you have identified as the detonator for the charge, please?
4 A. That's the detonator.
5 Q. Can you draw a line from there straight down towards the bottom
6 of the picture and mark a D next to that line, please.
7 A. [Marks]
8 Q. Can you draw a circle around the remnants of the charge that you
9 have described, please.
10 A. This should be a, what's it called, the cartridge, the cardboard
11 cartridge, and the length should be about 10 centimetres. It's similar
12 to the cartridge used for a hunting rifle.
13 Q. Sir, just pause. We understand that. Please just draw the
14 circle around the remnants of the charge. And if you've completed that,
15 just say so.
16 A. That's it.
17 Q. Thank you. Could you draw a C next to that marking, please.
18 A. [Marks]
19 Q. Could you then draw an arrow pointing to that part of the
20 stabiliser which the charge is inserted into?
21 A. [Marks]
22 Q. And finally, sir, the reports mention markings that are found on
23 the charge or on the stabiliser throughout the reports that you reviewed,
24 can you just draw a line or indicate in some way where you would see
25 those markings in this photograph?
1 A. [Marks]
2 Q. And could you please put an arrow head at the end of the line
3 where you see the markings?
4 A. [Marks]
5 MR. THOMAS: Thank you, Mr. Usher. Your Honours, can we please
6 tender that as an exhibit.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: The picture is it admitted into evidence. May it
8 please be given an exhibit number.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P646.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
11 MR. THOMAS: Thank you, Your Honour, Madam Registrar. Thank you,
12 Mr. Usher.
13 Q. Sir, now, I just want to clarify some language that is used in
14 some of the reports. The reports refer to the aggressor or the
15 aggressor's positions. Which force is denoted by the term "aggressor,"
16 or whose positions are denoted by the terms "aggressor's positions"?
17 A. The term "aggressor" or "aggressor positions" refer to the
18 positions of the VRS. The Army of Republika Srpska.
19 Q. Thank you, sir. And finally there are a number of locations
20 referred throughout the reports that I'd just like you to identify for
22 MR. THOMAS: And, Your Honours, if we could please have Exhibit
23 P370 on the screen.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: P?
25 MR. THOMAS: 370. Well, we don't want the marked map, Your
1 Honour, and my apologies if that's a marked map. Then, can we please
2 have 65 ter number 09244 on the screen. Thank you.
3 Q. First of all, sir, do you recognise that as a map of Sarajevo
4 its surrounds?
5 A. I can see that this is Sarajevo
6 MR. THOMAS: Your Honours, if we could please tender the blank
7 map as an exhibit.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: The map is admitted. May it please be given an
9 exhibit number.
10 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P647, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
12 MR. THOMAS: Thank you, Your Honours, Madam Registrar.
13 Q. Sir, I'm going to ask you to just identify some locations on this
15 MR. THOMAS: And it might assist if we zoomed in a little bit,
16 please, Madam Registrar, on the more populated part of the map. And
17 perhaps scrolled a little bit to the left. Sorry, other way. Thank you.
18 Q. Sir, the first location I want to you indicate for us is the area
19 described in some reports as Sarajevo Centar or centre?
20 A. Sarajevo Centar refers to the municipality of Sarajevo
21 central part of town.
22 Q. Again with Mr. Usher's assistance, I'm going to ask you to mark
23 that part of the map, please.
24 A. Roughly speaking, this would be the surface covered by the Centar
25 municipality of Sarajevo
1 Q. Thank you, sir. If you could draw or write, please, an SC next
2 to that circle?
3 A. [Marks]
4 Q. The next location I want you to identify for us, please, is
5 Bolnicka Street
6 A. That's the street that leads to the Sarajevo hospital. It's in
7 the Kosevo area, and it would be approximately in this area.
8 Q. Could you just draw a B next to that line, please?
9 A. [Marks]
10 Q. Some of the reports refer to just the town centre, where would
11 that be, and is it -- well, is it any different from Sarajevo Centar?
12 A. What I have just delimited is the area covered by the Centar
13 municipality in Sarajevo
14 town, that includes the buildings and the features that are actually in
15 the central part of town. The central part of town, strictly speaking,
16 this would be this area here.
17 Q. Just below the circle you've drawn, could you please put the
18 letters TC?
19 A. [Marks]
20 Q. Thank you. The next location I'm interested in is Nikola Tesla
22 A. I can't remember where that street is located. I think it's in
23 the territory of the Novi Grad area or Novi Sarajevo, but I don't know
24 where it is exactly.
25 Q. Could you mark for us, please, the area of Novi Grad.
1 A. [Marks]
2 Q. Thank you. Could you mark for us the area of Novo Sarajevo.
3 A. [Marks]
4 Q. Thank you. Could you also mark for us the Bulevar Mese
5 Selimovica Street
6 A. Bulevar Mese Selimovica is the central street that leads from
8 Q. Can you mark that please with BMS.
9 A. [Marks]
10 Q. Thank you. Could you mark, please, for us, the area of Stari
12 A. [Marks]
13 Q. With an SG. Thank you. Can you just indicate for us now,
14 please, the areas of -- or the streets Kosevo and Tin Ujevic streets?
15 A. This is the part called Kosevo, and there's a street called
16 Kosevo that runs to the central part of town from here. There's a
17 street, Tin Ujevic Street, that runs to the Kosevo Hospital
19 Q. Okay. The circle that you've just drawn, could you draw a line
20 away from that circle up to a -- a blank part of the map up near the top,
21 and could you please mark that with TU?
22 A. [Marks]
23 Q. Thank you. The next area, please, is Sokolovici?
24 A. Sokolovici is here. The map should be shifted a bit.
25 Q. We'll pause there for a moment. I won't move the map just yet,
1 sir. We'll come back to Sokolovici. And finally, for this map, Jajacka
3 A. I don't know where that street is exactly.
4 Q. Okay. Finally, sir, just in relation to this map and the areas
5 that you've marked on it, which force or forces held these parts of the
7 A. The central part of town inside all of these circles. It would
8 look like this more or less. So this part of town was, roughly speaking,
9 under the ABiH. These marginal areas were covered by the units of the
11 Q. Can you draw a line from that inner circle that you've drawn up
12 to the top of the map and put ABiH, please?
13 A. [Marks]
14 Q. Now, you will recognise the locations I have described as
15 municipalities relating to impact sites contained in the various reports
16 that you reviewed; is that right?
17 A. That's right.
18 Q. Were the impact sites and the reports that you reviewed in the --
19 in that part of Sarajevo
20 A. On site investigations could only be carried out in territory
21 under the control of the ABiH.
22 Q. All right.
23 MR. THOMAS: Thank you. Your Honours, could this marked map
24 please be tendered as a Prosecution exhibit.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: This marked map is admitted into evidence. May it
1 please be given an exhibit number.
2 THE REGISTRAR: That would be Exhibit P648, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
4 MR. THOMAS: Thank you, Your Honours, Madam Registrar. And when
5 that's done, could we please have P647 back up on the screen again. And
6 if we could zoom out so that we have -- I am sorry. I'm sorry, Your
7 Honours, if we could please have P439 on the screen. Thank you.
8 Q. Sir, do you recognise that map as an area of Sarajevo
10 A. Well, you can recognise the silhouette of the surface covered by
11 the town of Sarajevo
12 Q. I'm going to ask you to note some more locations. If you find
13 that we need to go zoom in closer to the map to do that, please let us
15 MR. THOMAS: In fact, I wonder if we could begin just by zooming
16 in maybe to about 80 per cent of the coverage of the map, please, Madam
17 Registrar. That's fine. Thank you.
18 Q. The first location I want you to mark, sir, is -- and please
19 excuse my pronunciation, is Grdonj?
20 A. Grdonj. Grdonj is a hill above Sarajevo approximately here.
21 However, it seems to me that the previous map depicted the names of the
22 hills and other features much better than this one, it seems to me.
23 MR. THOMAS: All right. Well, Your Honours, could we please go
24 to P647. And if we could enlarge, please, the top right-hand third of
25 the map. Thank you.
1 Q. Sir, do you see the area of Grdonj on there? If you could mark
2 that for us, please.
3 A. [Marks]
4 Q. Which forces held that hill?
5 A. Facing the town it was the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Facing
6 the northern side of the hill, it was the Army of Republika Srpska.
7 Q. Thank you. If you could just mark a G inside that circle,
9 A. [Marks]
10 Q. The next location, please, is Mrkovici.
11 A. Mrkovici.
12 Q. And you could mark an M within a circle, please.
13 A. [Marks]
14 Q. And which forces held that area?
15 A. That area was held by the forces of the Army of Republika Srpska.
16 Q. Thank you. The next location, please, is Mount Trebevic
17 A. [Marks]
18 Q. And if you could mark that with a T.
19 A. [Marks]
20 Q. And which forces held that area?
21 A. Again, the slopes towards the town were held by the army of
22 Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, almost the entire area of Trebevic
23 mountain was held bit forces of the Army of Republika Srpska.
24 Q. Thank you, the next location please is Vojkovici?
25 A. We have to scroll up a little.
1 Q. All right. Before we do that, sir, because we will lose your
2 markings if we do that, let me go through some other locations in case
3 they can be marked on this map.
4 Gavric Brdo.
5 A. Yes, Gavric Brdo is here. Approximately here in the direction of
6 the airport.
7 Q. And which forces held that area?
8 A. Gavrica Brdo was held by the forces of the Army Republika Srpska.
9 Q. Biosko?
10 A. Biosko, yes.
11 Q. Thank you. And which forces held that area?
12 A. Again the forces of the Army of Republika Srpska.
13 Q. Thank you. Doglodi?
14 A. This is Doglodi.
15 Q. Thank you. And which forces held that area?
16 A. The Army of Republika Srpska.
17 Q. The next location is Vraca.
18 A. [Marks]
19 Q. Marked with a V, thank you. And which forces held that area?
20 A. That area facing the town, that's where the line was and closer
21 to the town was the area held by the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina. And
22 the hill slopes again were held by the Army of Republika Srpska.
23 Q. Ilidza.
24 A. [Marks]
25 Q. Thank you, if you could mark that with an I.
1 A. [Marks]
2 Q. Which forces held that area?
3 A. The Army of Republika Srpska.
4 Q. The next location, please, is Vidikovac.
5 A. [Marks]
6 Q. Perhaps with a VK.
7 A. This is Vidikovac.
8 Q. Thank you. And which forces held that area?
9 A. That area was actually one of the peaks of Mountain Trebevic
10 directly overlooking the town and that's the area that was also held by
11 the Army Republika Srpska.
12 Q. And finally on this map, please, Lukavica.
13 A. [Marks]
14 Q. If you could mark that with an L. Thank you. And which forces
15 held that area?
16 A. The Army of Republika Srpska.
17 MR. THOMAS: That you have. Your Honours, if that map could
18 please be admit as an exhibit.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: It is. May it please be given an exhibit number.
20 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P649, Your Honours.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
22 MR. THOMAS: Thank you, Your Honour. Madam Registrar. And could
23 we please have one more time P647 on the screen, please.
24 Q. There was one location which we weren't able to -- or you weren't
25 able to identify, sir, on the zoomed in version of the map that we've
1 just had on the screen, that was Nedzarici can you see it here.
2 MR. THOMAS: Mr. Usher -- thank you, I'm sorry.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Thomas, it looks like the usher is trying to
4 get your attention.
5 MR. THOMAS: I'm sorry, Mr. Usher. We need to zoom in? Maybe on
6 the top left-hand third of the screen. Thank you, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: You are welcome.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Again, I think that we should
9 scroll up a little. No, no, scroll down rather. Go on. Go on. Well,
10 that's it.
11 MR. THOMAS:
12 Q. Thank you, sir. And which forces held that area?
13 A. That area was held by the Army of Republika Srpska.
14 MR. THOMAS: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Usher. Your Honours, if
15 that could please be tendered as an exhibit.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: It is admitted. May it please be given an exhibit
18 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P650, Your Honours.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
20 MR. THOMAS: Thank you, Your Honours, Madam Registrar. Your
21 Honours, that concludes the matters I wish to raise with this witness.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
23 Mr. Guy-Smith.
24 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you.
25 If I could ask Madam Registrar a quick question, if I bring up an
1 exhibit that has been previously marked on and wish to put new markings
2 on that exhibit and give it a new Exhibit number, will that offend the
3 original exhibit? Great.
4 Cross-examination by Mr. Guy-Smith:
5 Q. Good afternoon, sir.
6 A. Good afternoon.
7 Q. I'd like to start off by asking a -- one very brief question with
8 regard to your statement in the interview process that you went through
9 with Mr. Thomas in giving that statement. When you gave the statement to
10 Mr. Thomas, did you engage in a series of questions and answers at that
11 time? Did he ask you a specific question to which you gave him a
12 specific answer which was written down?
13 A. I had been given a number of documents which I reviewed, and then
14 I provided explanations about the documents, what they contain, how they
15 were produced, and what were the usual and customary procedures to be
16 used in the drafting of such documents.
17 I also knew some people who had been involved in the drafting of
18 those documents and I put that in my statement. And there were no other
19 questions with this regard.
20 Q. The reason I ask you is because Mr. Thomas asked you if you were
21 asked the same questions today, would you give the same answers, and in
22 going through your statement, I don't see there to be any questions --
23 or, rather, it is -- I suppose it's answers. So I just wanted to make
24 sure that I understood the process that you'd gone through when you had
25 the interview with Mr. Thomas, which I now understand better. And it
1 would be fair to say -- it would be fair to say that reviewing your
2 statement, as you look at your statement, you view your statement to be
3 correct with regard to the informations contained therein?
4 A. I had been given a series of documents. I asked what my task
5 was, and then I was told that I would be asked to provide explanations
6 about each of the documents. In any case, what you can read in my
7 statement is what I wrote at the time when the statement was issued and
8 that is that.
9 Q. And the statement that you made during the interview process, I
10 note that you speak, it says here, Languages used during -- in the
11 interview, both English and Bosnian. Am I to understand that you are
12 fluent in both of those languages, sir?
13 A. I don't know whether this could be described as fluent but, yes,
14 I can express myself in English. I can understand English. If I am not
15 familiar with a particular word, I ask for explanation. Providing the
16 explanation is given, then I can understand everything.
17 Q. Excellent. That could be of some help to me in future depending
18 on the way that we go.
19 In your statement, you draw a distinction, as I understand it,
20 between the forensic, what I'm going to call department, and the KDZ
21 department; correct.
22 A. [No interpretation]
23 Q. And your function was in the forensic aspects of the
24 investigation true?
25 A. That's true.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: I guess we can get an explanation of what KDZ is.
2 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes.
3 Q. With regard to the forensic --
4 A. KDZ is the anti-bomb squad.
5 Q. Thank you. With regard to the forensic department, your duties,
6 your department's duties were to collect evidence from a scene of an
7 incident, true? You were not engaged in analysis at that time? Let me
8 back up, because I've actually asked you two questions in one and I don't
9 mean to do that.
10 It was your function to collect evidence from the scene; correct?
11 A. I was the chief of that department. In my department I had
12 experts for various jobs, and there are also people who were looking for
13 traces of explosives and explosive devices. What I'm saying is that
14 there were people in my department who were experts and could be called
15 experts for certain things. I was the one who would assign those men to
16 particular crime scenes, and I, myself, was not the one who would go to
17 the crime scene to collect evidence.
18 Q. Understood. Understood. Now, apart from your team, there was
19 also the KDZ team; correct?
20 A. When we were dealing with explosions, we always sent a KDZ team.
21 My people would rarely go to such crime scenes. It would mostly be the
22 KDZ men who would be sent to such places.
23 Q. And I think you've explained to the Chamber, but since we are now
24 dealing with the KDZ men, what was the KDZ team's function? What were
25 they to do? Are they particular with regard to dealing with explosions?
1 A. In the first part of my written statement you will find a
2 description of the function of the Ministry of Interior and its
3 organisational units. And there, I explain that within the police
4 administration there was an independent department for KDZ, and there was
5 another independent department for forensics. I was the chief of that
6 department for forensics, and our task - according to rules of service of
7 the public security - we had to investigate grave crimes which involved
8 the killing of more than one person, and we also were involved in the
9 investigation of crime scenes where major material damage was inflicted
10 or where the perpetrator was an unknown person.
11 That was the forensics department. Whereas the KDZ department
12 functioned in the following way: They had to find and deactivate or
13 remove any explosive devices or mines. In the course of the war when
14 there were a large number of explosions happening in Sarajevo, the KDZ
15 took over the role that they could -- they were only ones to perform and
16 that was to investigate such explosions. Based on the information on the
17 collected particles of the explosives, they were charged with identifying
18 the types of explosives. And based on the traces on the crime scene,
19 they were tasked with determining the direction from which the explosive
20 had been fired.
21 Q. Okay. You state in your statement at paragraph 14 the following,
22 "At the local level (CSB
23 A. This is the security services centre, a service that was at a
24 lower level than the Ministry of the Interior, and it covered the city of
1 its own police service. The republican Ministry of Interior was in
2 charge of the entire territory of the former republic of Bosnia
4 whereas, the security services centre was involved in investigating only
5 minor crimes.
6 Q. I think it would behoove you as well as the questioning process
7 if you would pay attention to the question asked, answer that question,
8 if you need to expanded that answer, that's fine with me, but I'd asked
9 you a specific question about the CSB. There are a number of other
10 things you say here, so just so we can get an understanding of what each
11 one of these acronyms mean it can be of some help. The next you say is.
12 "... and SJB." What does SJB stand for?
13 A. Public security station. Or a police station.
14 Q. Thank you. There were also forensic and KDZ technicians, and I
15 believe that you described to us and explained to us what the letters KDZ
16 mean. Now, you say the following:
17 "... who were trained to carry out some easy forensic
19 And I'd like to focus on that to understand what you mean by easy
20 forensic investigations.
21 A. CSB
22 that consisted of 15 municipalities. Under the law, they were tasked
23 with investigating any security incidents that take place in their
24 territory. If such an incident involved more than one dead, if there was
25 a killing perpetrated by an unknown perpetrator, or if the incident
1 involved a major damage or if the incident involved a foreigner, then
2 they would inform the Ministry of Interior, which would be my forensics,
3 and then my people would be sent to the crime scene.
4 Q. Excuse me --
5 A. If the situation was different --
6 Q. I appreciate your answer, but your answer is really
7 non-responsive to the question that I've asked.
8 The question that I asked you was what you mean by "easy forensic
9 investigations," since you say in your statement they were trained to
10 carry out some easy forensic investigations. That's all I'm asking you
11 at the moment. What do you mean by that statement? What is the
12 distinction between easy forensic investigations and hard forensic
13 investigations. I guess. I'm guessing because I obviously don't know,
14 that's why I'm asking the question.
15 A. For example, if we are talking about a burglary, or if two
16 persons were involved in a physical fight, if the perpetrators were known
17 and the consequences of the events minor, then we would call this minor
18 or easy incidents. In any case, the perpetrators have to be known for an
19 incident to be qualified as "easy," as it were, incidents, and as a rule
20 they were under the jurisdiction of the CSB.
21 Q. Okay. With regard to KDZ technicians, KDZ technicians as you've
22 explained it to us were technicians who were involved in what I would
23 call explosive incidents; correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. That is not a simple burglary, now, is it, that is something a
1 bit more complex; correct?
2 A. Yes, you are right.
3 Q. So with regard to the KDZ technicians that are contained in your
4 explanation at paragraph 14, I take it that what you had, and correct me
5 if I'm wrong, what you had was you had a merging of your forensic
6 technicians to work with the KDZ technicians with regard to what I will
7 term "explosive incidents"? The two departments worked together for
8 those purposes?
9 A. In the ministry, there were two independent departments. The
10 first one was the forensic department and the other one the KDZ
11 department. However, in a CSB
12 the two, both the forensic department and department for KDZ. That was
13 just one department.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Guy-Smith. We'll take a break and
15 come back at quarter to 6.00. Court adjourned.
16 --- Recess taken at 5.16 p.m.
17 --- On resuming at 5.45 p.m.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith.
19 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you, Your Honour.
20 Q. Mr. Vejzagic, I'd like to give you a gentle thought. Court
21 concludes today at 7.00, and I would like to do my best to be able to
22 finish my examination of you today so that you are not inconvenienced.
23 So if you will listen to my questions and answer the question that I've,
24 asked I'd appreciate. I think it might go a bit quicker, also, of
25 course, if you need to explain any of your answers, please feel free to
1 do so. Okay?
2 You've indicated to us that you are not an expert when it comes
3 to issues concerning artillery shells; is that a fair statement?
4 A. Yes, it is.
5 Q. Can you tell us by any chance, how many charges there are in a
6 120-millimetre mine before its fired, if you know?
7 A. I really wouldn't know.
8 Q. And when I said "mine" I was referring to the mortar shell.
9 A. A mine, okay.
10 Q. I want to make sure that we are using the same language. Have
11 you personally learned the science of azimuth in terms of the arc and
12 range of mortar shells?
13 A. I served in the JNA. I went to the school of reserve officers,
14 and part of our training dealt with that. I don't remember that I had
15 some specific training in ranges and arcs and things like that.
16 Q. So we are clear, you'd indicated that with regard to the range of
17 an artillery shell, you've indicated, I believe it's page 38, lines 23 to
18 25, that the smaller the angle the farther the range; is that correct?
19 A. Well, I know that from physics.
20 Q. Okay.
21 A. That the range is very much influenced by the quantity of the
22 charge, and the angle of the barrel.
23 Q. And with regard to the answer that you gave to Mr. Thomas
24 concerning the angle, I take it that as far as you understand, that's an
25 accurate statement, which is the smaller the angle, the farther the range
1 in terms of its trajectory?
2 A. The smaller the angle, no, the range is not shorter. No.
3 Q. Okay. I take it it would be the larger the angle, the farther
4 the range?
5 A. The smaller the range, no, no, no. If your angle is anything
6 from 0 to 90 degrees, then the biggest range should be at the angle of 45
7 degrees, and if the angle is even wider, then the range is smaller. But
8 that will also depend on the force of the charge, how many -- how much
9 gases will develop when the shell is fired, and things like that.
10 Q. And with regard to the information that you have about the
11 reports that you looked at which show what I'd say are fragments of a
12 mortar shell, you can't tell us as you sit here today what the force of
13 any of those charges was, can you?
14 A. I am not an expert in the area. Really, I'm not.
15 Q. Okay. In your statement at paragraph 55, you discuss markings on
16 shells, and you state:
17 "Approval for production was issued by the Federal Secretariat
18 for National Defence."
19 Now, my question to you is, is do you know when you are
20 discussing the Federal Secretariat for National Defence, would that have
21 been the Ministry of Defence, or would have that have been some other
22 organ of the government?
23 A. I claim this based on what I remember from 1972 when I served in
24 the JNA. At that time, we were told about the procedures applied to the
25 designing and obtaining technical data, and then the -- we were also told
1 that the Federal Secretariat for National Defence would eventually grant
2 approval for production.
3 Q. And the Federal Secretariat for National Defence was an organ of
4 the government in the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia;
6 A. I believe so.
7 Q. Once that particular state ceased to exist, do you know who was
8 responsible for approval of production of these particular items?
9 A. I don't know.
10 Q. Okay. With regard to the Krusik factory, which is the factory
11 that you have indicated in paragraph 56 of your statement, you indicate
12 that you believe that they still produce military equipment for Serbia
13 And you refer the reader to a website in your statement. Do you recall
15 A. Yes. I remember that, yes.
16 Q. Okay. First of all, are you aware of the fact that the website
17 that you referred us -- that you refer the reader to is a website for a
18 private company that presently produces springs, and by that I mean metal
20 A. No, when I remember that it was Krusik Valjevo, I searched the
21 internet, and it seems to me that when I found the web page I saw that
22 mines and explosives were still on their product range.
23 Q. Now, during the period of the war, do you know whether or not the
24 factory, the Krusik factory, was a government factory or a private
1 A. I don't know.
2 Q. Well, we can't take that any further.
3 MR. GUY-SMITH: Now, could we please have P649 up on the screen.
4 Q. Now, what I'd like to do, first of all, if we could, is with the
5 help of the usher and using a different colour, you mentioned on a number
6 of occasions where the ABiH was in terms of what side of the slope they
7 were on. I think the first place you mentioned that was in the area that
8 you've designated as G, in which you indicated that the ABiH was on one
9 side of the slope and that the VRS was on the other side; is that
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. And could you -- I hope we are using a different colour, I hope
13 we are using red now. Could you mark in red on which side of the circle
14 in which there's a letter G the ABiH was stationed?
15 A. [Marks]
16 Q. And could you put an ABiH underneath that, please.
17 A. [Marks]
18 Q. Thank you. I believe that you indicated there were -- there was
19 another place where, once again, the ABiH was stationed. Do you see any
20 other places on the map as it presently exists where there were ABiH
22 A. The BiH Army forces were deployed along the whole length of the
23 narrow stretch of the town of Sarajevo
24 forces of the Army Republika Srpska were on the hill slopes around
1 city. For example, they were on -- at the foot of Vidikovac, those were
2 actually the slopes, and this is facing the town, and this is the top of
3 this mountain called Trebevic.
4 From Vidikovac a view extends of the whole city of Sarajevo
5 have it like in the palm of your hand. And at the foot of that,
6 Vidikovac, there was the Army of Bosnia
7 which is a hilltop very close to Sarajevo. That's also where the BiH
8 Army forces were stationed.
9 Q. Moving towards your left on this particular document, could you
10 indicate to the Chamber where else the you would find the forces of the
11 ABiH stationed?
12 A. I must say that I was never on a single frontline during the war.
13 I never inspected the forces of any of the army. However, in view of the
14 stories and while I resided in Sarajevo
15 coming from because you could see fire. When bullets were fired, you
16 could see the tracing bullets as if it was a guided missile. You could
17 see that, you could see smoke after a missile was fired, and based on
18 that information I'm providing my information. I know that you could not
19 pass through a certain areas of town because you would be targeted by the
20 fire mines of the Army Republika Srpska.
21 So in rough outlines, I would say that this was the central part
22 of the town, and maybe we could also say that fighting was taking place
23 on a hilltop called Zuc. Zuc was eventually taken. So this was the
24 area, roughly speaking. And the rest was all under the control of the
25 Army of Republika Srpska. This is a very rough sketch because I'm not
1 really very familiar with the lines. I suppose that your military
2 experts would provide you with better information. I'm providing my
3 information as a common citizen who lived in the town who was targeted,
4 who was observing the smoke to see where the fire came from, who was
5 listening to the stories about the sniper fires for which you could not
6 pass through certain parts of the city and so on and so forth.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Could you please slow down, Mr. Vejzagic. If I
8 may just ask, if you don't mind --
9 MR. GUY-SMITH: Absolutely not, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: You seem to be saying, sir, that you are
11 determining the lines occupied by the ABiH by the smoke of the fire that
12 you used to see. My question to you is how did you know that particular
13 smoke from fire came from an ABiH and not from a VRS gun or whatever
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, a citizen who lived
16 in Sarajevo
17 hills or could see shooting from the surrounding his. If there were
18 tracer bullets, then you have a light signal, you can see where the
19 bullets is coming from. When you fire, you can also hear the sound. You
20 can see a flame. You can see smoke, and you can see where a shell
21 impacts. So it's very clear, you can see which locations are being used
22 to fire on Sarajevo
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: I understand that. I understand that. My
24 question is slightly different from that. My question is, when you see
25 that fire, when you see that smoke, how do you determine that that smoke
1 comes from a VRS army shell and not from an ABiH army shell? You just
2 see fire. And the reason I'm asking you this question is because in your
3 answer to Mr. Guy-Smith's question, you said you determined the lines
4 occupied by the ABiH by the fire that came out. Now, when fire comes --
5 if that is the only criterion you are using, my question then is: How do
6 you know that this smoke that I see is from a VRS machine-gun and not an
7 ABiH machine-gun?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, the smoke is identical
9 regardless of the weapon that it comes from. This would just be a
10 conclusion on the basis of logics. The flame that you can see faces
12 those weapons and the flashes from those weapons. If there was -- if
13 there were trace of bullets that were used, then you could see that these
14 bullets were coming from Vidikovac from the hill and not from the
15 positions of the ABiH which were hundred metres -- or several hundred
16 metres below that position.
17 MR. GUY-SMITH:
18 Q. Looking at the map, can you see the area that says Kobilja Glava,
19 which is?
20 A. Yes, I see it.
21 Q. Is that a -- first of all, is that an area that has some
22 elevation above the town of Sarajevo
23 A. Yes, that's the area above Sarajevo
24 Q. And was that hill controlled by the ABiH during the war period?
25 A. To be quite frank, I don't know. But I think that the lines were
1 somewhere around here in the vicinity of Kobilja Glava, but I never
2 passed through that.
3 MR. GUY-SMITH: Can we have this marked as Defence next in order.
4 I'm sorry, could we have this moved into evidence as Defendant's next in
5 order, not marked.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. Can we mark -- this map is admitted
7 into evidence. May it please be given an exhibit number.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D61, Your
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
11 MR. GUY-SMITH:
12 Q. Now, I'd like to understand something if I could, and perhaps you
13 could be of some assistance to us. You have identified your
14 investigations as areas where there were crime scenes; correct?
15 A. The documents I reviewed, well, I've confirmed that these were
16 documents that would be drafted if you went to carry out an onsite
18 Q. My question to you is, considering the fact that you have shown
19 us now on two separate maps where the ABiH army was, did you have an
20 agreement with the army with regard to what would be considered to be a
21 zone of warfare as opposed to what would be considered to be a crime
22 scene where your jurisdiction began and their jurisdiction ended, or
24 A. I don't know whether there was such an agreement. But I know
25 that the rule was as follows: If there were any incidents in the area of
1 the frontlines, then the military police would be responsible for that.
2 The regular police was never present at those first -- at those
3 frontlines. This was something for the military police to deal with. As
4 to whether there were any agreement, I don't know.
5 Q. And when you say "frontlines," was that an area that was defined
6 in terms of distance as to what a frontline would be? How was that
7 defined, the frontline? And by that I'm referring really to the depth in
8 terms of metres or kilometres that defined the frontline.
9 A. I don't know. I couldn't say.
10 Q. The incidents, the reports that you reviewed, in large measure
11 cover a period in the summer -- I should put it this way, the late spring
12 and early -- in summer of 1995; correct?
13 A. That's probably correct.
14 Q. During that period of time, during the late spring and early
15 summer months of 1995, that was a time when there was relatively active
16 fighting between the VRS and the ABiH; correct? It was one of the more
17 intense periods?
18 A. I don't know how I would assess it. We were under fire every
19 day, so I don't know whether it was more or less intense at the time.
20 There was ongoing fighting at all times.
21 Q. There was a point in time when the ABiH actually gained territory
22 in 1995, true?
23 A. I don't know. I remember that the lines in 1992 and 1995 didn't
24 change until the very end of the war. In 1992 in the town, well, the
25 places that were dangerous to pass through in 1992 and 1993 were also
1 dangerous to pass through in 1995.
2 Q. Okay. With regard to those times that there were victories
3 obtained by the ABiH, did you hear of those through the news media?
4 A. As far as I can remember, there were victories outside of
6 were moved in those areas, but as for Sarajevo itself, I don't remember
7 the lines being moved at all. I don't remember any such victories. On
8 the whole, this is information I obtained from the media.
9 Q. Okay. With regard to the investigation of any explosive site,
10 using the same term, I think I said explosive incident, I apologise,
11 explosive incident site, the teams that would arrive to investigate were
12 both civilian teams, that you've mentioned before, and by that I'm
13 talking about your forensic team as well as the KDZ; correct?
14 A. I've already provided you a detailed explanation of the procedure
16 Q. Sure. To your knowledge, were on occasion international teams
17 also present at the explosive incident sites?
18 A. I know that an international team was involved when there was an
19 explosion in which over 60 people were killed on one occasion. The next
20 event or incident concerned 68 individuals more or less who were killed
21 in Markale 2. I know about this for sure because I participated, and
22 another team cooperated with this international team, but from colleagues
23 who were on the site I heard that sometimes international monitors also
24 became involved in onsite investigations, onsite investigations that
25 concerned incidents in which fewer people were killed.
1 Q. With regard to the Markale incident that you referred to, did you
2 hear in the media that there was some, initially, confusion with regard
3 to who was considered to be responsible for the Markale incident?
4 A. I heard about that, I saw the news on television. I was shocked
5 by the fact that such news was relayed. They said that Bosnian soldiers
6 had brought in dead, that they had used puppets or dolls, that the
7 explosion had been staged and so on and so forth.
8 Q. I'm sure you were shocked by that. Did you ever hear any
9 criticism of the conclusions that were raised concerning Markale 2 in
10 terms of who was responsible for Markale 2 in the media? And
11 specifically by any international individual or entity that had engaged
12 in an investigation of Markale 2?
13 A. In that case, it was said that ABiH forces had deliberately
14 shelled Markale as a result of which a number of people were killed, but
15 with the assistance of international monitors who were active at the
16 time, and they actively observed the artillery positions of both sides.
17 With their assistance, it was established that there was no shelling by
18 the ABiH at the time. It was established that there was shelling by the
19 VRS, and with their assistance it was established that the shelling was
20 from their side and that was relayed by the media, too.
21 Q. I see. So with regard to information that was relayed by the
22 media, there were in fact conflicting reports concerning who was
23 responsible for this shelling that were relayed by the media?
24 A. The Republika Srpska media stated that the Muslims were firing on
25 themselves, were shelling themselves. That's how it was.
1 Q. Now, do you know whether with regard to those incidents in which
2 international teams were invited to investigate, whether or not any teams
3 were invited to investigate from Serbia
4 A. I don't remember anyone from Serbia or from the VRS participating
5 in the onsite investigations into such incidents.
6 Q. And with regard to -- independent of Serbia, with regard to the
7 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia do you recall any invitations being made
8 to them to come to investigate issues concerning explosive incidents?
9 A. When onsite investigations were carried out, well, I know that no
10 one from that side was invited to participate in the investigation. The
11 judge who carried out the onsite investigation decided on who would
12 participate in the incidents. Whether anything was subsequently done,
13 whether any other subsequent procedure was followed by others, I don't
15 Q. And when you say that the Judge made the determination who would
16 investigate or who was invited to investigate the onsite, that judge was
17 a judge who was a part of the ABiH entity; correct? The political
19 A. I don't know what you mean by a political entity. But at the
20 time the judiciary was functioning and the court had territorial
21 jurisdiction, and they carried out onsite investigations as they did in
22 other areas.
23 Q. And the territorial jurisdiction, what I was referring to -- what
24 I meant -- when I said "political entity," I was referring to -- to what
25 I would call that part of what was considered to be Bosnia as a political
1 state at that time. That was the functioning court system; correct? I
2 mean, admittedly there was a war going on, but there was a functioning
3 court system within the state of Bosnia; right?
4 A. The state was called the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the
5 court functioned within that state.
6 Q. Okay. To your knowledge during the period of the war, were any
7 invitations made at any time to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to
8 come investigate those matters that were being investigated by a judge
9 from the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
10 A. I never heard anything about such things.
11 MR. GUY-SMITH: If I could have a moment.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may.
13 [Defence counsel confer]
14 MR. GUY-SMITH: As always, thank goodness for Mr. Mair.
15 Q. One last area which is, with regard to the markings that are
16 found on the shells, the fragments, you had mentioned in your statement
17 that there were a series, one of the markings may have indicated a series
18 from which they came. And I take it when you said that you meant a
19 production series? Are you following me?
20 A. I said that I'm not an expert on that field. I was the head of
21 the department in which there were experts on that field. They used
22 information obtained from the books and documents that they had. These
23 were documents that were also from the former JNA, and then on the basis
24 of those document, they made certain claims. I would sign the relevant
25 documents to state that competent individuals had carried out the work.
1 They were educated individuals, they knew what they were doing, and they
2 were authorised to act in this way.
3 Q. And I take it when you say they were competent and they were
4 educated, those individuals would be in a position to inform us with
5 regard to what role the Ministry of Defence had, if any, in the
6 production of these particular items?
7 A. I don't.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ...
9 MR. GUY-SMITH:
10 Q. The Ministry of Defence of Serbia.
11 A. I don't think anyone mentioned the Ministry of Defence of Serbia
12 then, they just mentioned the markings that were interpreted on the basis
13 of the information obtained from documents issued by the Ministry of
14 Defence of Yugoslavia
15 Q. I see. So the situation is is that the markings established the
16 situs of the production of the item and nothing more? I'm sorry, I don't
17 mean to be that limiting because there was more than that, there was also
18 a year on it. I don't want to be limiting here.
19 A. Yes, and the production series too.
20 Q. With regard to the production series, my question is, did the
21 individuals that you were dealing with who were experienced in this
22 regard have any further information concerning what the significance was
23 of any particular production series, whether it be a 3 or a 9 or a 7?
24 A. Well, I don't know what that would mean exactly in the case of
25 shells, but if something is produced in a series, then the series has
1 been authorised on the base of the technical documents that are created
2 for the given series. The type of material is specified, and this
3 determines the product, gives it a certain -- certain individual
4 characteristics, a certain amount of material is used to create certain
5 equipment. That's a series. When you have new material, then you have a
6 different series of products. I don't know what the exact meaning of
7 these series is, but that is how one acted. That is how this was done in
8 technological terms.
9 Q. And you can't tell us, as you sit here today, if there's any
10 relationship between a series run - and by that I mean a production of a
11 particular series - and the entity that approved that particular series
12 run, can you?
13 A. The information concerns information from documents that date
14 back to 1971. They are copies of those documents that were used. So no
15 one said which entity authorised the production of a given series.
16 MR. GUY-SMITH: Okay. I thank you for your time.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Guy-Smith.
18 Any re-examination, Mr. Thomas?
19 MR. THOMAS: No, Your Honours, thank you.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
21 Mr. Vejzagic, we've come to the conclusion of your testimony now.
22 I thank you very much for taking the time to come and testify. You are
23 now excused, you may stand down, and please travel well back home.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honours.
25 [The witness withdrew]
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Thomas.
2 MR. THOMAS: That concludes the evidence for today, Your Honours.
3 There is one minor administrative matter which I would like to raise and
4 deal with regarding the allocation of an exhibit number relating to some
5 previous testimony, but other than that, Your Honours, I have no other
6 matters to raise today.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes. You may deal with that administrative
8 matter, sir.
9 MR. THOMAS: Thank you, sir. During the course of MP-014's
10 testimony, there was one exhibit that was comprised of four separate
11 photographs. There was no objection to the admission of two of those
12 photographs, and the remaining two were MFI'd. The -- we understand that
13 the position is that the two photographs which were admitted were given
14 an exhibit number of P599 and that we had to effectively reload the two
16 attributed a different exhibit number.
17 So I'm in a position, Your Honours, simply to identify that the
18 pages 3 and 4 of P599, which were marked for identification only, have
19 been uploaded again as 65 ter Exhibit number 08234.02. And in respect of
20 that exhibit, I seek that they be admitted and marked for identification
21 and given an exhibit number as one exhibit number.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do you still want them marked for identification?
23 MR. THOMAS: Yes. Yes, sir. I think the reason why they had to
24 be separately uploaded was because we effectively had to split an exhibit
25 into the part that was entered into evidence without objection, and the
1 part of the exhibit which was objected to. They couldn't both go --
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Under one number.
3 MR. THOMAS: Under one number.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Registrar, I believe you followed that. The
5 last two pages of Exhibit 599 had been marked for identification together
6 with the first two pages. Now, the request is to split the two, the
7 admitted part and the marked for identification part. Can we mark the
8 last two pages which are marked for identification, give them an exhibit
9 number, and still mark them for identification under 65 ter 08234.02.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, those two photographs will be
11 Exhibit P651 marked for identification.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. Was that all, Mr. Thomas?
13 MR. THOMAS: Yes, sir. I've just received confirmation that
14 that's all. Thank you.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: In that event, that brings us to the conclusion of
16 today's session and we stand adjourned to Monday, the 9th of March, at
17 9.00 in the morning in Courtroom I.
18 Court adjourned.
19 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.29 p.m.
20 to be reconvened on Monday, the 9th day of March
21 2009, at 9.00 a.m.